target="_blank" rel="nofollow" href="#ulink_d0317ade-66bb-538e-8d7d-89d0f479677d">46 Henle, “The Survival of Not-for-Profit, Private Institutions,” America, Oct. 23, 1976, at 252.47 47 O'Connell, America's Voluntary Spirit (New York: The Foundation Center, 1983).
48 48 Id. at xi.
49 49 Id. at xv.
50 50 Id. at 81.
51 51 Id. at 131.
52 52 Id. at 162.
53 53 Id. at 256.
54 54 Id. at 278.
55 55 Id. at 356.
56 56 Id. at 368.
57 57 Id. at 371.
58 58 Id. at 408.
59 59 The congressional budget and tax committees and the Department of the Treasury measure the economic value (revenue “losses”) of various tax preferences, such as tax deductions, credits, and exclusions (termed tax expenditures). The federal income tax charitable contribution deduction tends to be the sixth- or seventh-largest tax expenditure.
60 60 In general, Pappas, “The Independent Sector and the Tax Law: Defining Charity in an Ideal Democracy,” 64 S. Cal. L. Rev. 461 (Jan. 1991).There is another rationale for tax exemption, known as the inherent tax rationale. See Tax-Exempt Organizations § 1.5. The essence of this rationale is that the receipt of what otherwise might be deemed income by a tax-exempt organization is not a taxable event, in that the organization is merely a convenience or means to an end, a vehicle whereby those participating in the enterprise may receive and expend money collectively in much the same way as they would if the money were expended by them individually. Although this rationale is not followed in the charitable organizations setting, it chiefly underlies the tax exemption for organizations such as social clubs, homeowners' associations, and political organizations.
61 61 See Tax-Exempt Organizations ch. 14.
62 62 Id. § 16.1.
63 63 U.S. Department of the Treasury, Report to the Congress on Fraternal Benefit Societies, Jan. 15, 1993.
64 64 See supra note 60.
65 65 See text accompanied by infra notes 76–79.
66 66 See Tax-Exempt Organizations § 19.11(a).
67 67 Id. § 24.10, text accompanied by note 947.
68 68 Id. § 19.14.
69 69 Id. § 11.5.
70 70 Id. § 11.4.
71 71 Id. § 11.6.
72 72 Id. § 8.8.
73 73 Id. § 11.3.
74 74 Id. § 19.17.
75 75 Hansmann, “The Role of Nonprofit Enterprise,” 89 Yale L.J. 835, 896 (1980).
76 76 Id. at 844.
77 77 Id. at 847.
78 78 Id. at 845.
79 79 Id. at 843.
80 80 Pierce v. Society of Sisters, 268 U.S. 510 (1925); Meyer v. Nebraska, 262 U.S. 390 (1923).
81 81 Zablocki v. Redhail, 434 U.S. 374 (1978); Quilloin v. Walcott, 434 U.S. 246 (1978); Smith v. Organization of Foster Families, 431 U.S. 816 (1977); Carey v. Population Serv. Int'l., 431 U.S. 678 (1977); Moore v. East Cleveland, 431 U.S. 494 (1977); Cleveland Bd. of Educ. v. LaFleur, 414 U.S. 632 (1974); Wisconsin v. Yoder, 406 U.S. 205 (1973); Stanley v. Illinois, 405 U.S. 645 (1972); Stanley v. Georgia, 394 U.S. 557 (1969); Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479 (1965); Olmstead v. United States, 277 U.S. 438 (1928).
82 82 Runyon v. McCrary, 427 U.S. 160 (1976).
83 83 Roberts v. United States Jaycees, 468 U.S. 609 (1984).
84 84 Rent Control Coalition for Fair Housing. v. Berkeley, 454 U.S. 290 (1981).
85 85 Boy Scouts of America et al. v. Dale, 530 U.S. 640 (2000); NAACP v. Claiborne Hardware Co., 458 U.S. 886 (1982); Larson v. Valente, 456 U.S. 228 (1982); In re Primus, 436 U.S. 412 (1978).
86 86 Brown v. Socialist Workers '74 Campaign Committee, 459 U.S. 87 (1982); Democratic Party v. Wisconsin, 450 U.S. 107 (1981); Buckley v. Valeo, 424 U.S. 1 (1976); Cousins v. Wigoda, 419 U.S. 477 (1975); American Party v. White, 415
