Deduction of Traveling Expenses by the Two-Worker Family -- An Inquiry into the Role of the Courts in Interpreting the Federal Tax Law

Professor Popkin urges that courts interpret section 162 of the Internal Revenue Code, which permits a deduction for business expenses, also to permit a two-worker family to deduct that part of their transportation costs and living expenses attributable to a second job. After tracing the current state of the law, he contends that the implicit assumption of the Code-that married taxpayers live together and constitute a single consumption unit-should allow deduction of some commuting costs and living expenses, much as a single taxpayer is allowed a deduction for transportation to and living expenses at a secondary place of business. Last, Professor Popkin argues that courts need not defer to the legislature before allowing the deduction

The Deep Structure of Capital Gains

The capital gains preference has been viewed as a means by which taxpayers are spared being taxed fully in a single year for income earned over a number of previous years. This Article argues that the tax preference for capital gains was intended to provide economic incentives by encouraging transferability, risk, and investment, not to achieve equity by a crude form of income averaging. This Article critically evaluates judicial doctrine in light of these economic policies and concludes that courts have not effectively bridged the gap between policy and the statutory language and structure. The author explains how the tax treatment of capital gains could be improved and examines the obstacles to improvement