Feminist Judgments: Rewritten Tax Opinions

Feminist scholars rewrite major tax decisions in order to illustrate the key role of viewpoint in statutory interpretation.

Bridget J. Crawford (Edited by), Anthony C. Infanti (Edited by)

9781316649596, Cambridge University Press

Paperback / softback, published 28 December 2017

354 pages
22.8 x 15.3 x 2 cm, 0.5 kg

'… the book is a beautiful gift, not only to tax scholars and professionals, but also to women's rights advocates and political actors who aim at fostering substantive gender equality, including as regards taxation.' Alice Pirlot, Literature review

Could a feminist perspective change the shape of tax laws? Feminist reasoning and analysis are recognized as having tremendous potential to affect employment discrimination, sexual harassment, and reproductive rights laws - but they can likewise transform tax law (as well as other statutory or code-based areas of the law). By highlighting the importance of perspective, background, and preconceptions on reading and interpreting statutes, this volume shows what a difference feminist analysis can make to statutory interpretation. Feminist Judgments: Rewritten Tax Opinions brings together a group of scholars and lawyers to rewrite tax decisions in which a feminist emphasis would have changed the outcome, the court's reasoning, or the future direction of the law. Featuring cases including medical expense deductions for fertility treatment, gender confirmation surgery, tax benefits for married individuals, the tax treatment of tribal lands, and business expense deductions, this volume opens the way for a discussion of how viewpoint is a key factor in statutory interpretation.

Part I. Introduction and Overview: 1. Introduction to the Feminist Judgments: Rewritten Tax Opinions Project Bridget J. Crawford and Anthony C. Infanti
2. Feminist judging for substantive gender equality in tax law: changing international and comparative constitutional contexts Kathleen A. Lahey
Part II. The Feminist Judgments: 3. United States v. Rickert, 188 US 432 (1903) Chloe Thompson and Grant Christensen
4. Lucas v. Earl, 281 U.S. 111 (1930) Francine J. Lipman and Ann Murphy
5. Welch v. Helvering, 290 US 111 (1933) Nicole Appleberry and Mary Louise Fellows
6. United States v. Davis, 370 US 65 (1962) Linda M. Beale and Patricia A. Cain
7. Bob Jones University v. United States, 461 US 574 (1983) Elaine Waterhouse Wilson and David A. Brennen
8. Manufacturers Hanover Trust Co. v. United States, 75 F.2d 459 (2d Cir. 1985) Mildred Wigfall Robinson and Mary L. Heen
9. Estate of Clack, 106 T.C. 131 (1996) Goldburn P. Maynard, Jr and Wendy C. Gerzog
10. Cheshire v. Commissioner, 115 T.C. 183 (2000), aff'd, 282 F.3d 326 (5th Cir. 2002) Michelle L. Drumbl and Danshera Cords
11. Magdalin v. Commissioner, 96 T.C.M. (CCH) 491 (2008), aff'd, 2010–1 US Tax Cas. (CCH) 50,150 (1st Cir. 2009) Katherine Pratt and Jennifer Bird-Pollan
12. O'Donnabhain v. Commissioner, 134 T.C. 34 (2010), acq., 2011-47 I.R.B. 789 (Nov. 21, 2011) Nancy J. Knauer and David B. Cruz
13. United States v. Windsor, 133 S. Ct. 2675 (2013) Allison Anna Tait and Ruthann Robson.

Subject Areas: Taxation & duties law [LNU], Constitutional & administrative law [LND], Gender & the law [LAQG], Law [L]