Harvard University -- and that includes you, Harvard Law School -- watch out. The Commonwealth of Massachusetts is out to get you. From TaxProf Blog (citing the Boston Globe):

Massachusetts lawmakers desperate for additional revenue are eyeing the endowments of deep-pocketed private colleges to bolster the state's coffers by more than $1 billion a year, asserting that the schools' rising fortunes undercut their nonprofit status.

Legislators have asked state finance officials to study a plan that would impose a 2.5% annual assessment on colleges with endowments over $1 billion, an amount now exceeded by nine Massachusetts institutions. The proposal, which higher education specialists believe is the first of its kind across the country, drew surprising support at a debate on the State House budget last week and is attracting attention in higher education circles nationally.

The idea has prompted a range of questions, including whether it is legal to infringe upon private colleges' tax-exempt status or single them out based on their wealth. It also faces significant opposition from the colleges and some skeptical lawmakers.

And it's not just the Crimson whose blood would run under this plan:

In addition to Harvard, the legislation would affect Amherst College, Boston College, Boston University, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Smith College, Tufts University, Wellesley College, and Williams College.

Two of these institutions, BC and BU, have law schools. This tax would be bad news for them, but perhaps good news -- in a schadenfreude-ish sort of way -- for Bay State competitors with more modest endowments, like Northeastern and Suffolk. Deans of poorer law schools frequently complain about having to go toe-to-toe in the U.S. News rankings against institutions with vast accumulated wealth (which keeps on accumulating, tax free).

The Boston Globe editorial board thinks this tax plan stinks, calling it "economic suicide" and "an ill-conceived money grab that ignores how vital higher education is to the local economy." What's your view?

Mass. Considers 2.5% Excise Tax on College Endowments > $1 Billion [TaxProf Blog]
Lawmakers Target $1b Endowments; Exempt Status of Schools Debated [Boston Globe]
How to strangle an economy [Boston Globe]

We're talking about his taxes. From Professor Paul Caron:

Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama yesterday released his 2007 tax return [PDF]. For the first time (perhaps after reading Why Didn't Obama Save for Retirement?), the Obamas contributed the maximum $45,000 to a SEP-IRA to shelter some of their book royalties.

For a chart showing more details -- including the Obamas' hefty adjusted gross income over the past few years, as well as how much they gave to charity (hint: way less than the Clintons) -- see here.

Obama Releases 2007 Tax Return [TaxProf Blog]

Now, tax law is not really our bailiwick. We usually cede that territory to tax lawyers, like taxgirl, and tax law professors, like Paul Caron of TaxProf Blog. [FN1]

But since today is the day that your tax returns are due -- and since nobody has posted on taxes yet in our Community section, meaning that the topic is still ripe for discussion on ATL -- here is an open thread about taxes, tax law, and tax policy. Feel free to pose last-minute questions about your return, debate the tax plans of the different presidential candidates, or share your funny filing stories, in the comments. [FN2]

P.S. Remember that you can still comment anonymously (since we fixed the technical glitch from yesterday). Just click on the "Comment as a guest" link, and have at it.

[FN1] There are some exceptions; occasionally we will discuss tax-related issues around here. Recall Ted Frank's provocative analysis of Barack Obama's tax plan.

[FN2] We hereby adopt the disclaimer of taxgirl: "Unfortunately, it is impossible to give comprehensive tax advice over the internet, no matter how well researched or written. Before relying on any information given on this site, contact a tax professional to discuss your particular situation."

Debevoise & Plimpton has long been among New York's most prestigious law firms. It's also widely viewed as an excellent place to work.

In the past, Debevoise's prestige has arguably outpaced its profits. It's often ranked more highly on the Vault 100 than on the Am Law 100 (when ranked by profits per partner). In the most recent rankings, Debevoise was #13 on the Vault 100 and #20 on the Am Law 100 by PPP.

Perhaps that's about to change. From Legal Week (via Law.com):

Debevoise & Plimpton has unveiled stellar financial results for 2007, with the New York law firm seeing both partner profits and fees climb by more than 20 percent over the last 12 months.

Profits per equity partner (PEP) at Debevoise rose by 26.5 percent from $1.81 million last year to a new high of $2.29 million. Global revenue, meanwhile, was up by 23.4 percent from $575 million in 2006 to $709.54 million.

A source who passed along this news added: "Although not mentioned in the article, several large investigations are the driving force behind these numbers."

Of course, that's not surprising. Thanks in large part to former U.S. Attorney Mary Jo White, internal investigations have long been a mainstay of Debevoise's practice. They're long-running and lucrative, since no company in deep doo-doo wants to look like it's skimping on self-scrutiny. See, e.g., Siemens (aka Debevoise cash cow).

But how much cash will they get to keep? Discussion of a new tax proposal that will disproportionately affect partners at large law firms, after the jump.

* Linda Greenhouse to $300K! [New York Observer via ABA Journal]

* Duties of a law school dean: attend parties, appear at conferences, talk to alums. And don't forget the herding of cats -- aka law professors. [TJ's Double Play]

* Even law review editors screw up sometimes. "Constructive acceptance"? [Concurring Opinions]

* Who'd have thunk it? Sometimes blogging can help people. And stuff. [Legal Blog Watch]

* Ethan Leib dresses up as a giant chicken to teach Contracts, thereby guaranteeing ABA accreditation. [PrawfsBlawg]

* Orin Kerr points out online interviews "with eight of the nine current Supreme Court Justices (all but Souter) about legal writing, advocacy, and the process of deciding cases and writing opinions." [Volokh Conspiracy]

* Ann Althouse on John McCain and being a "natural-born citizen." [Althouse]

* Hillary to Russert: You can't handle the truth! About my tax returns. [TaxProf Blog]

Ed. note: Yesterday's guest post about how Barack Obama's tax plan might affect Biglaw associates, authored by Ted Frank, generated a record number of comments on ATL: 564 (and counting). It also generated lots of reaction throughout the blogosphere (links collected below). So we thought we'd invite Ted to do a follow-up.

Here it is. Ted wrote it in response to the following reader email, which makes many of the arguments that surfaced in the 564+ comments. From an Obama defender:

I'm sorry, but you are losing your credibility by posting this false propaganda on Obama. Look at Obama's website. It clearly states, "Asked About Raising the Cap, Obama said, 'You Might Have the Equivalent of a Doughnut Hole'--NOT That He Would Completely Remove the Cap." Obama "has stated in various venues that ‘his inclination... has been for a 'donut' where the uncapping would take place above some threshold income level -- probably around $200,000 or $250,000' his economic adviser Austan Goolsbee said in an email. A donut would protect a certain portion of income (e.g., between $100,000 and $200,000) from the payroll tax and could be phased in over decades."

In addition, that "$34,000 paycut" in the post title is misleading. Even if all your assumptions were correct (which they weren't), the after tax pay cut under Obama is < $20,000. I love your site, but please correct this ridiculous false article before you lose all credibility.

And now, without further ado, Ted Frank.

* * * * * * * * * *
First, as I show in the spreadsheet, a $20,000 tax increase is the equivalent of a $34,000 before-tax paycut for a New York City resident, which would have the same after-tax effect. The $34,000 figure is accurate: that's just math. The Obama tax plan would have the same effect on a NYC fifth-year associate being paid market as a $34,000 paycut.

Obama has never said he will have a doughnut-hole, only that his SS tax could include a doughnut-hole. When Hillary Clinton attacked Obama at the November 15 Nevada debate for wanting to eliminate the cap, Obama didn't say that the attack was incorrect; he defended the policy because eliminating the cap would only affect what he called the "upper class." The press has accurately reported that Obama has also proposed eliminating the cap; even Obama's own website links to a thinktank's analysis of the benefits of a cap elimination.

It would be really easy for Obama to promise to include a "doughnut-hole" or to not eliminate the SS-tax cap. He certainly hasn't been afraid to promise drastically expensive programs of new spending or even tax giveaways to large swaths of the population who aren't paying much tax now.

But when it comes to Social Security, Obama is suddenly vague; when he does discuss details, it is to cite examples (e.g., Warren Buffett) that could not be accomplished without eliminating the cap entirely. And the only reason a politician acts that way is because he supports the more drastic, politically unpopular plan, but doesn't want to get tagged with it before the election, and will say after the election "I only said I would 'consider' a doughnut-hole."

How Barack Obama's Tax Plan Will Affect You [Microsoft Excel file]

Additional discussion and links, after the jump.

[Ed. note: Today we bring you some "news you can use": a practical look at how political choices might affect your personal finances. This post is by Ted Frank, who blogs at Overlawyered.com and PointofLaw.com, and who has guest edited ATL in the past. Take it away, Ted.]

BigLaw lawyers love Obama. If one searches by law firm various databases on-line for campaign contributions, one sees an overwhelming sea of blue, and most of it to Obama.

But how will Obama affect BigLaw wallets? On Above the Law, we regularly see commenters threaten to abandon law firms for falling $5,000/year short of market. I therefore thought it worthwhile to examine the effects of Obama’s tax and spending plans on take-home pay.

We all know that Obama wants to end the Bush tax cuts. That is a 3% bump across the board to the bad old days when associates faced a marginal federal tax rate of 36%.

But the real hidden tax is that Obama plans to end the social-security tax cap. Right now, you may notice, sometime during the summer or early fall, your take-home pay suddenly goes up because they stop deducting FICA. Current law caps social security taxes: in 2008, the cap is at $102,000. Obama proposes to abolish this. That mid-summer bump will be no more: add about several thousand dollars to your annual tax bill.

But social-security taxes are not only on employees. The government also charges 6.2% to employers that you never see on your W-2s. But rest assured the partners see this, and will notice that the expense of keeping an associate has risen several thousand dollars a year when FICA taxes double and triple. Will they swallow that additional expense, or take it out of your bonus?

Find out, after the jump (or click here).

* The NYT's official statement on L'Affaire Berenson. [Starkman & Associates]

* A slew of law school hypotheticals about sex with and between minors, triggered by Carl Stanley McGee, our Lawyer of the Day. [PrawfsBlawg]

* Second runner-up for Lawyer of the Day? And a punitive damages award of $33 million. Ouch. [How Appealing]

* Man saves dog; law student saves man. Congratulations to GW's Jason Coates, our Law Student of the Day! [GW Hatchet]

* "Derek Jeter has romanced Mariah Carey, squired Jessica Biel, sweet-talked Scarlett Johansson -- and now he's made it to first base with the state taxman." [TaxProf Blog]

* Wow, this is wild. Has Gary Crossen, a former federal prosecutor and partner at Foley Hoag, read too many John Grisham novels? [WSJ Law Blog]

* Speaking of white-collar criminal defense lawyers, more business may be headed their way, courtesy of Andrew Cuomo. [DealBreaker]

* You've got... male? [Reuters]

* Are you a Disgruntled Republican? Join the club -- or buy a mug. [Zazzle]

* "T.Owes." [ESPN]

* Rebates to $500? [CNN]

* AG Mukasey won't label waterboarding. [MSNBC]

* Sen. McCain wins Florida, Rudy to bow out. [New York Times; Washington Post]

* Federal inquiry into stolen artifacts expands. [New York Times]

* Margaret Truman, only child of President Truman and author of mysteries set at the Supreme Court and the FBI, RIP. [AP]

* Top candidates turn to trial lawyers for support. [Washington Post]

* More recusal requests expected in WV Supreme Court. [WSJ Law Blog]

* Former NFL player's wife files malpractice suit over surgery. [ESPN]

* Suffrage suffers in Mexico. [MSNBC]

* How to count primary delegates (and an explanation of the "superdelegates"). [New York Times; New York Times]

* "It's just not realistic" to present major new initiatives, but the SOTU will still be on every channel tonight. White House speechwriters are not on strike. [CNN]

* Super-litigator Tom Barr of Cravath, RIP. [New York Times (death notice); WSJ Law Blog]

If you're not already a member of Lateral Link, you can sign up through their website. Membership, which is free and confidential, allows you to learn about new legal opportunities as they become available. Successfully placed candidates will receive a $10,000 placement bonus.

Position Type / Location: Law Firm - Tax Associate (Washington, DC)

Position Description: The Washington D.C. office is seeking a mid-level tax associate to work on project finance transactions. This magic circle law firm makes The American Lawyer's AmLaw 100 rankings. The firm's practice areas include corporate, bankruptcy and restructuring, intellectual property, litigation, project finance, reinsurance and insurance, and tax. The successful candidate must have at least 3-6 years experience in partnerships, foreign tax planning, leveraged leasing, subchapter C and tax-exempt financing.

For more information, see job #7697 on Lateral Link.

Earlier: Prior Job of the Week listings (scroll down)

* Does the Supreme Court's Stoneridge decision give the "getaway drivers" of securities fraud a free pass? [OverHedged]

* Apparently Green Bay fans really like the Packers. [SI.com]

* Miss Loyola 2L? Meet Kirsten Wolf. [WSJ Law Blog]

* Did Barack Obama receive an illegal endorsement? [TaxProf Blog]

* Speaking of Obama, his minister had this to say about Bill Clinton: "He did the same thing to us that he did to Monica Lewinsky." Can someone please remove the cigar from the national vajayjay? [Baltimore Sun]

* Actually, Judge Lamberth, calling a presidential candidate as "a European socialist" constitutes an endorsement -- at least at most American law schools. [AP via WSJ Law Blog]

* News you can use: under the "Free File" program, opening tomorrow, the IRS and its private-sector partners will provide free tax preparation and electronic filing services to qualifying taxpayers (AGI of $54,000 or less -- sorry, Biglaw denizens). [TaxProf Blog]

* The law school essay question: an unrecognized art form? [PrawfsBlawg]

* Practice pointer: don't "recreate" correspondence to use as evidence in your case. Dramatic reenactments belong on television, not in court. [Feminist Law Professors]

* We just got called "the Matt Drudge of the legal world." Our thanks to Neil Squillante for making our day. Now where did we put our animated siren GIF? [TechnoLawyer]

As the old adage goes, "A lawyer who represents himself has a fool for a client." And there is some anecdotal evidence in support of that proposition. See, e.g., Elana Glatt / Elana Elbogen (depending upon how you view the merits of her case against her wedding florist).

Here's another example of what can happen when Biglaw litigators represent themselves. From TaxProf Blog:

The Tax Court today decided Hynes v. Commissioner, T.C. Summ. Op. 2008-1 (1/2/08), a case involving Shawn T. Hynes, a fifth year securities litigation associate in Cleary Gottlieb's New York City office. The taxable year at issue was 2003, when Hynes was a Penn 3L (he tranferred to Penn after completing his first year at Oregon).

More about the facts of Shawn Hynes's case, and how he got benchslapped by the Tax Court, after the jump.

Here's the latest Job of the Week, courtesy of ATL's career partner, Lateral Link. Check out their new, redesigned website by clicking here.

(Since we didn't post a Job of the Week last week, due to the abbreviated holiday publication schedule, we'll give you two this week -- one today, and one near the end of the week.)

Position: Transactional tax associate at international consulting firm

Location: New York

Description: International management consulting firm seeks associate to join its Transaction Tax Services group.

More details, after the jump.

* Pakistan sets parliamentary elections. [CNN]

* What's going on with the AMT? [ABA Journal]

* State Department absolves Blackwater of certain shootings. [MSNBC]

* Initial OJ hearing begins today. [MSNBC]

* Reno businessman pleads guilty during murder trial. [CourtTV]

Nor does he want to raise your taxes, at least if you're a member of the middle class (which many Biglaw lawyers are, at least if "middle class" is broadly defined). He actually wants to bring the middle class tax relief.

Since you all felt so strongly about it, judging from the hundreds of comments, we thought we'd bring you this quick follow-up to last week's post about Rep. Charles Rangel's new tax plan. In our write-up, we highlighted the 4 percent surtax for single earners with incomes over $150,000, or married couples with incomes over $200,000.

But Rep. Rangel argues that the bill is really all about abolishing the alternative minimum tax (AMT). He makes this argument today in the editorial pages of the Wall Street Journal (not the natural habitat of a Charlie Rangel byline).

More after the jump.

Maybe associates clamoring for yet another pay raise have a point. Maybe $160,000 is not enough.

Because, if certain Democrats get their way, a new surtax will be imposed that will hit even first-year associates at most large law firms. Under a tax plan proposed by House Ways and Means Committee Chairman Charles Rangel (D-NY), a 4 percent surtax will hit single earners with incomes over $150,000, or married couples with incomes over $200,000. For incomes above $500,000, which are increasingly common in Biglaw, the surtax would rise to 4.6 percent.

So, readers, what do you think? Many lawyers harbor progressive political views. Are you willing to put your money where your mouth is, and support politicians who will raise taxes on people like you?

Update: As noted by several commenters, the full plan has several other provisions. For example, it would lower the top corporate tax rate to 30.5% from 35%, and it would scrap the alternative minimum tax (AMT). For more details, see here.

Feel free to vote in our reader poll, after the jump.

* It's hard to believe this car was parked in Brooklyn, of all places. [Althouse]

* The law school hiring process privileges glibness -- and is that a bad thing? Law professors are hired (1) to train lawyers, of all people, and (2) to write articles that sound like they're saying a lot, even when they're not. Glibness would seem to be a BFOQ. [PrawfsBlawg]

* Once our Surgeon General starts getting on our case about drinking, it's time to leave the country. But don't move to the U.K. [Charon QC: The Blawg]

* Speaking of emigration, Tonga says: "Give us your tired, your poor, your disgraced and disbarred lawyers, yearning to breathe free." [Blogonaut]

* Good news, Pennsylvanians. According to Professor Orin Kerr, "you can scream at your overflowing john all you want without violating the state's disorderly conduct offense." [Volokh Conspiracy]

* Martindale-Hubbell ratings: Pay to play? We find them less useful than they might otherwise be because so many lawyers aren't rated. Will charging a fee for inclusion exacerbate the problem? [Real Lawyers Have Blogs; HireTrade Blog]

* Thoughts on the Eighth Circuit fantasy baseball ruling (mentioned in Morning Docket), from Professor Neil Richards. [Concurring Opinions]

* Dionne Warwick is a tax deadbeat? Say it ain't so! [TaxProf Blog]

* Have a favorite New York blawg / blawger? Vote for them here. [Sui Generis]

And we're not talking about CSM partners working young associates to death, riding them hard and putting them away wet. We're speaking more literally.

We mentioned this story briefly at the time of his guilty plea, but his sentencing yesterday gives us the opportunity to revisit it in more depth. From the AP:

A tax lawyer who paid a woman so he could have sex with her two underage daughters was sentenced Thursday and declared a sex offender but wasn't expected to spend much more time behind bars.

James Colliton pleaded guilty this month to second- and third-degree statutory rape and patronizing a prostitute. He received a sentence of one year on each count, to run concurrently.

But because he has already been jailed for 19 months, Colliton, 43, was eligible for immediate release. His lawyer, Howard Greenberg, said he expected the defendant to be released Thursday.

So where's Colliton headed? Due to his felony conviction, he won't be able to return to the practice of law (at least not immediately). But might Cravath give him a non-legal or administrative job, perhaps in Recruiting? He likes working with young people.

(Such a gig, however, probably wouldn't pay Colliton the $500,000 salary that he earned as a senior or permanent associate at Cravath -- more than partners at some firms.)

NYC Lawyer Sentenced for Underage Sex [AP]
'Lolita Lawyer' among worst of sex offenders [New York Daily News]
Former Cravath Associate Pleads Guilty in Underage Sex Scandal [New York Law Journal]
In Plea Deal, Ex-Cravath Lawyer Admits To Sex Crimes [WSJ Law Blog]

Earlier: Tax Lawyers in Jail