Some topics which we have previously discussed continue to evolve:
– – The New Barnes Museum. After the protracted legal battle which ended in the Supreme Court’s ruling that the Barnes Foundation could move its collection to a new museum to be erected on the Parkway in Philadelphia, not much has been reported. That should change soon as the Youth Study Center on the new site is scheduled to be vacated by the end of 2006, and demolition should occur shortly afterward. As to its replacement the Foundation has played its cards very close to its vest regarding the choice of an architect to design the building. A fairly strong rumor has it, however, that by fall an announcement will be made. Those of us who have an avid interest hold on our breath that the product of all this deliberation, the new building, will be worthy of the remarkable collection it will house.
– – The Federal Estate Tax. In the summer of 2005 we offered an opinion that the strange mess that is the present federal estate tax formula would probably be resolved “shortly.“ Well, a year later Congress is still debating the issues, and it does appear poised to make a “permanent” revision to the Internal Revenue Code. While it may be premature to claim prescience, in 2005 we thought the personal exemption would probably be raised from its present $2,000,000 to $5,000,000 (or $10,000,000 for a married couple) and the tax rate would be reduced from its present 46% to perhaps 15%. The bill that Congress has debated this summer would increase the exemption to $5,000,000, and the rate would be reduced to 15% on the first $25,000,000; beyond $25 million the tax rate would probably be 45%. While this is not the elimination of the tax as sought by the Administration, you can see that it would result in a major reduction of the estate tax burden.
– – Kelo: The Debate Continues. In the Spring/Summer issue of 2006 we reviewed the opinion in Kelo v. New London (CT) which is perhaps the most controversial decision of the Supreme Court in the past decade. The ruling permitted the City of New London to condemn a number of “blighted” privately-owned properties to permit a privately-owned shopping center to be built as part of an urban renewal project. The decision set off firestorm; several states have adopted legislation imposing new limits on public takings for private purposes. The pendulum is quite clearly surging in favor of severely limiting such taking, and in what could be a significant ruling, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court has agreed to hear an appeal involving private property which has been taken by Philadelphia through the exercise of eminent domain to be given to a private, religious organization for redevelopment. (In re 1839 North Eight Street). The lower court had ruled in favor of the City, but the ruling was reversed on appeal to the Commonwealth Court, and that ruling is being reviewed by the Supreme Court. What is particularly interesting is that the case not only raises the issue of public-taking for private purposes, but it also blends in the issue of entanglement of church and state. In the Commonwealth Court’s opinion it was noted that the Hope Partnership, a religious organization, wished to build a school “to provide faith-based educational services . . .”, and the court went on to say, “. . . nothing in the Constitution authorizes a taking of private property for a private use.“ Talk about hot potatoes! We eagerly await the outcome.
– Ken Butera