Feminist Judgments: Rewritten Tax Opinions Rewritten Tax Opinions

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.

Bridget J. Crawford is a Professor of Law in the Elisabeth Haub School of Law at Pace University, New York.
Anthony C. Infanti is a Professor of Law at the University of Pittsburgh School of Law.