[EL] Treatment of independent political expenditures on a company's financial books

[Volokh, Eugene]

	I'm not arguing that a nondeductibility rule can be constitutionally challenged -- I'm just saying that the question of deductibility, or the listing on one's books, is not a new one, and likely already has an answer.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu [mailto:law-election-
> bounces at department-lists.uci.edu] On Behalf Of Trevor Potter
> Sent: Wednesday, September 28, 2011 2:53 PM
> To: Volokh, Eugene; law-election at uci.edu
> Subject: Re: [EL] Treatment of independent political expenditures on a
> company's financial books
> 
> Just because a corporation may constitutionally make particular
> expenditures, it does not follow that they are deductible as business
> expenses. I do not see why the Code can be challenged for making them non-
> deductible--just like as lobbying expenses, yachting expenses, and certain
> other expenses corporations may chose to incur.
> Trevor Potter
> 
> ________________________________
> 
> From: law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu on behalf of Volokh,
> Eugene
> Sent: Wed 9/28/2011 5:43 PM
> To: law-election at uci.edu
> Subject: [EL] Treatment of independent political expenditures on a
> company's financial books
> 
> 
> 
>                That may well be so, though I'm not sure that I would treat the
> deductibility of business expenses as a "subsidy."  My point, though, was just
> to suggest that there is already likely a longstanding practice with regard to
> this, given that corporations have long been able to speak out about ballot
> measures.  It seems to me the rule with regard to corporate speech about
> candidates ought to be the same.
> 
> 
> 
> Of course, now that I think of it, since in half the states corporations had
> been able to speak out about candidates even before Citizens United, there
> may have been a well-settled practice with regard to deductibility of those
> expenses as well.
> 
> 
> 
> Eugene
> 
> 
> 
> From: Fredric Woocher [mailto:fwoocher at strumwooch.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, September 28, 2011 2:30 PM
> To: Volokh, Eugene; law-election at uci.edu
> Subject: RE: [EL] Treatment of political contributions on a company's financial
> books
> 
> 
> 
> Constitutionally protected "speech," yes.  But wouldn't taking a tax deduction
> for these expenditures as a "business expense" make them taxpayer-
> subsidized?  I don't think the Constitution requires that.
> 
> 
> 
> Fredric D. Woocher
> 
> Strumwasser & Woocher LLP
> 
> 10940 Wilshire Blvd., Ste. 2000
> 
> Los Angeles, CA 90024
> 
> fwoocher at strumwooch.com
> 
> (310) 576-1233
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ________________________________
> 
> From: law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu [mailto:law-election-
> bounces at department-lists.uci.edu] On Behalf Of Volokh, Eugene
> Sent: Wednesday, September 28, 2011 10:07 AM
> To: law-election at uci.edu
> Subject: Re: [EL] Treatment of political contributions on a company's financial
> books
> 
>                I take it this refers largely to independent political expenditures, or
> to contributions to independent organizations that make such expenditures,
> since Citizens United did not strike down the ban on direct contributions to
> candidates.  And I would think such an independent expenditure supporting
> or opposing a candidate would be treated the same way as independent
> expenditures supporting or opposing ballot measures, which have long been
> seen as constitutionally protected, no?
> 
> 
> 
>                Eugene
> 
> 
> 
> From: law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu [mailto:law-election-
> bounces at department-lists.uci.edu] On Behalf Of Ellen Aprill
> Sent: Wednesday, September 28, 2011 10:04 AM
> To: law-election at uci.edu
> Subject: [EL] Treatment of political contributions on a company's financial
> books
> 
> 
> 
> As has been discussed on this list, Section 162(e) makes these amounts
> nondeductible for tax purposes.  Especially now that Citizens United has held
> that corporations can make political contributions and in light of the Super-
> Pacs, I was hoping that someone on the list knows how auditors treat these
> amounts for purposes of financial reporting.
> 
> 
> Thanks.
> 
> 
> 
>    Ellen
> --
> 
> Ellen P. Aprill
> 
> John E. Anderson Professor of Tax Law
> 
> Loyola Law School
> 
> 919 Albany Street
> 
> Los Angeles, CA 90015
> 
> 213-736-1157
> 
> 
> 
> 
> <- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ->
> To ensure compliance with requirements imposed by the IRS,
> we inform you that, unless specifically indicated otherwise,
> any tax advice contained in this communication (including any
> attachments) was not intended or written to be used, and
> cannot be used, for the purpose of (i) avoiding tax-related
> penalties under the Internal Revenue Code, or (ii)  promoting,
> marketing, or recommending to another party any tax-related
> matter addressed herein.
> 
> This message is for the use of the intended recipient only.  It is
> from a law firm and may contain information that is privileged and
> confidential.  If you are not the intended recipient any disclosure,
> copying, future distribution, or use of this communication is
> prohibited.  If you have received this communication in error, please
> advise us by return e-mail, or if you have received this communication
> by fax advise us by telephone and delete/destroy the document.
> _______________________________________________
> Law-election mailing list
> Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu
> http://department-lists.uci.edu/mailman/listinfo/law-election