Publication Date
12-1998
Journal
Harvard Law Review
Abstract
In this Article, Professor Zelinsky discusses whether tax "benefits" are constitutionally equivalent to direct expenditures. He argues that, in constitutional contexts, the generic categories "tax" and "direct expenditure" are unhelpful and often misleading, in light of the diverse and overlapping nature of different tax laws and direct spending programs, the disparate perspectives from which equivalence can be assessed, and the variety of constitutional contexts in which the equivalence issue must be addressed.
Professor Zelinsky thus calls for case-by-case determinations of equivalence considering particular constitutional contexts, the appropriate perspective in each of those contexts, and the specific tax and direct spending programs at issue. A pattern of case-by-case determinations is not as neat or simple as that emerging from broad generalizations about tax benefits and direct spending programs as generic categories. Ultimately, however, such a pattern is more persuasive than one based on erroneous generalizations about tax benefits and direct expenditures.
Volume
112
Issue
2
First Page
379
Last Page
433
Publisher
Harvard Law School
Keywords
Constitutional Law, Courts, Commerce, Commerce Clause
Disciplines
Constitutional Law | Courts | Law
Recommended Citation
Edward A. Zelinsky,
Are Tax "Benefits" Constitutionally Equivalent to Direct Expenditures?,
112
Harv. L. Rev.
379
(1998).
https://larc.cardozo.yu.edu/faculty-articles/913
