ABSTRACT The college sports industry is in the middle of a dramatic transformation. On June 6, 2025, U.S. District Court Judge Wilken officially approved the historic settlement between the National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA), schools, and players, ushering in a new era of revenue-sharing for Division I athletes. Commonly referred to as the House v. NCAA settlement, this settlement expressly allows Division I schools to directly compensate student athletes, effectively recharacterizing these athletes from amateurs to professionals. This paper explores these changes, including the history of college athletics, the recent rulings and NCAA pronouncements that have motivated this transformation, and the potential tax implications moving forward, focusing on the tax implications for college athletic programs. JEL Classifications: J3; K39; Z22; Z28.

ABSTRACT IRC §6033(j), passed in 2006, requires the automatic revocation of tax-exempt organizations that fail to file annual information returns or notices for three consecutive years. Upon reviewing the relevant legal and commentary sources, this paper argues that the statute did not anticipate the impact of COVID-19 on small tax-exempt organizations’ ability to file; as such, the statute caused significant hardship to many tax-exempt organizations whose filing ability was interrupted by COVID-19. The paper further argues that the IRS could have done more to help tax-exempt organizations but instead compounded the revocation problem by inexplicably excusing itself from a statutory requirement to warn tax-exempt organizations that were about to lose their tax-exempt status. The paper recommends solutions to these problems, including postponing the statute’s effect during the COVID-19 years, and a reversal of the IRS position regarding providing notice of imminent automatic revocation. JEL Classifications: K34; L38; M48.

The membership dues of $345.00 include Accounting Education News and the online selection of all three Association-wide journals: The Accounting Review, Accounting Horizons, and Issues in Accounting Education. (This does not include Section journals.) Full members may also opt to receive hard copies of AAA journals for an additional cost:

Views Icon Views Article contents Figures & tables Video Audio Supplementary Data Peer Review Share Icon Share Facebook Twitter LinkedIn Email Tools Icon Tools Get Permissions Search Site Cite View This Citation Add to Citation Manager Citation Hughlene A. Burton; Annual Editor Report. The ATA Journal of Legal Tax Research 1 September 2022; 20 (1): 1–7. https://doi.org/10.2308/JLTR-2023-008 Download citation file: Ris (Zotero) Reference Manager EasyBib Bookends Mendeley Papers EndNote RefWorks BibTex toolbar search Search Dropdown Menu toolbar search search input Search input auto suggest filter your search All ContentThe ATA Journal of Legal Tax Research Search Advanced Search

ABSTRACT An incentive exists for closely held C corporations to pay owner-employees higher salaries and lower dividends to avoid the double tax on corporate income. For this reason, the Internal Revenue Code and Treasury Regulations limit corporate compensation deductions to “reasonable compensation”; however, primary tax authorities do not provide a standard definition, leaving the courts to determine what is reasonable and what is not. The courts have generally followed two approaches: a multi-factor test and an independent investor test. We provide an in-depth exploration of reasonable compensation case law with a focus on disparity within and across court circuits. We supplement this exploration with an analysis of whether multi-factor determined court outcomes would have changed under the independent investor test. Overall, our findings show disparity in reasonable compensation court determinations within and across circuits and highlight the need for a consistent standard to create tax equity in employee-shareholder compensation practices.

ABSTRACT This paper studies recent changes to innocent spouse law instituted by Rev. Proc. 2013-34. This rule change explicitly addresses issues with innocent spouse rulings, while also making innocent spouse law more flexible. I use legal and empirical methodologies to study 81 innocent spouse cases, and find that the recent rule changes have significantly modified the impact of various factors. Changes to some factors were stated objectives of the rule change; for example, abuse now has an increased impact on innocent spouse rulings. However, some changes appear to be side effects of the revised law's increased flexibility. Specifically, the health factor was unchanged by Rev. Proc. 2013-34, but appears to have gained prominence due to greater flexibility in innocent spouse law. Overall, my findings show that judges can now decide a case based on various criteria, rather than being bound primarily by taxpayer knowledge—as was the case pre-Rev. Proc. 2013-34.

ABSTRACT The growth of e-commerce has changed the way people shop. The changing business environment is a strain on state governments due to their inability to collect sales and use tax on most internet-based transactions. While the U.S. Supreme Court, for the first time in almost 30 years, is reviewing a state's ability to collect sales and use tax from out-of-state sellers in South Dakota v. Wayfair, Inc., a potential solution to increase sales and use tax collection may already exist. In 2016, the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld a Colorado notification law that could provide a blueprint for states to capture tax revenue from online companies and out-of-state retailers. In this paper, we review the constitutional complexities of the taxation of online sales. We also analyze state requirements for informational reporting of sales and use tax and recommend policy to increase potential sales and use tax collection.

Views Icon Views Article contents Figures & tables Video Audio Supplementary Data Peer Review Share Icon Share Facebook Twitter LinkedIn MailTo Tools Icon Tools Get Permissions Search Site Cite View This Citation Add to Citation Manager Citation Roby B. Sawyers; Annual Editor Report. The ATA Journal of Legal Tax Research 1 September 2017; 15 (1): 1–3. https://doi.org/10.2308/jltr-10614 Download citation file: Ris (Zotero) Reference Manager EasyBib Bookends Mendeley Papers EndNote RefWorks BibTex toolbar search Search Dropdown Menu toolbar search search input Search input auto suggest filter your search All ContentThe ATA Journal of Legal Tax Research Search Advanced Search

ABSTRACT Tax returns, including corporate returns, are generally confidential and not disclosed to the public. However, in certain circumstances, Internal Revenue Code (IRC) Section 6103(e)(1)(D)(iii) provides that corporate shareholders who meet a 1 percent ownership criterion can request from the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) a copy of the corporate tax return. In this paper, we discuss the legislative history of IRC Section 6103 as it relates to tax return disclosure in general (for individual and corporate returns) and its precursors that provide for disclosure of corporate tax returns to shareholders who own more than 1 percent of the capital stock. We then provide examples of the valuable proprietary information that is included in corporate tax returns. Next, we provide a history and discussion of the insider trading laws and argue that the information content of a corporate tax return is such that it provides material nonpublic information that is not readily available in annual reports or other public documents filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC). While 1 percent shareholders do not meet the classical definition of an “insider,” we argue that they are similar to other “outsiders” who have been found liable for violating insider trading rules. We conclude by arguing that the actions of a 1 percent shareholder who requests and receives the corporate return and who subsequently makes purchases and/or sales of corporate stock should constitute illegal insider trading.

ABSTRACT The Internal Revenue Service issued guidance related to automatic changes in accounting methods for taxpayers taking a §179D deduction for Energy Efficient Commercial Building Property. However, while the accounting treatment of §179D may trigger a change in accounting method for some taxpayers, this is not uniform for all taxpayers. In this paper, we argue that with this guidance, the Treasury Department (and Congress, by initial approval of the tax law) has inadvertently broadened unequal tax treatment between different segments of qualified taxpayers attracted to this important energy efficient building incentive. Further, we suggest that the §179D deduction be modified to achieve taxpayer parity to further incentivize energy efficiency.