9873 research outputs found
Sort by
A Tale of Two Subject-to-Tax Rules
Get PDFIn this article, we analyze and compare two proposals for a new subject-to-tax rule (STTR) provision to be included in tax treaties, one from the U.N. Tax Committee and the other from the G20/OECD inclusive framework on base erosion and profit shifting. The U.N. proposal is broad, and would clarify that restrictions in tax treaties on taxation of income at the source where it is derived are conditional on that income being taxed at an agreed-upon minimum rate in the country where it is received. The inclusive framework version is much more limited, being confined to payments between connected entities and specific categories of income; it is also subject to markup and materiality thresholds, as well as a capped total tax rate (taking account of the tax in both the source and recipient countries) of 9 percent. These restrictions and conditions not only make the inclusive framework version complex and hard for under-resourced tax administrations to administer, but they also create a considerable scope for differing interpretations. However, the inclusive framework version is complete and ready for implementation (on a take-it-or-leave-it basis) while the U.N.’s will require negotiation over the applicable rate and other details, but provides more comprehensive protection for source taxation. In our view, all countries would benefit from and should strongly support the U.N.’s STTR, which should be regarded as a minimum standard, especially once it is included in the Fast Track Instrument also being developed by the U.N. Tax Committee
Amicus Brief of Native Nations in Montana, Kathryn Shanley, and Denise Juneau, Held v. State of Montana, Montana Supreme Court Docket No. DA 23-0575
Get PDFMontana’s Constitution specifically recognizes and protects the right of Native Nations and Indigenous individuals to preserve and sustain their cultural traditions through the education of future generations. These rights are inherently tied to the right to a clean and healthful environment
Dual-Systems and Fuzzy-Trace Theory Predictions of COVID-19 Risk Taking in Young Adults
Get PDFRisk-reduction behaviors are the first line of defense in viral epidemics. Choosing to not engage in risk-reduction behaviors produced millions of preventable deaths from COVID-19. Understanding why this happens and how to predict it is important for theory development and public policy. We took four approaches to this problem: experimentally varying theory-driven predictors (social rewards, transmission risk, and mandatory/voluntary regulations) in choice scenarios, further probing choices in specific scenarios predicted to elicit risk taking, conducting hierarchical regressions with demographic and theory-driven predictors for both scenario types, and conducting corresponding regressions for self-reported protective behaviors. The sample consisted of 247 young adults to test highly publicized predictions about how the virus would spread and who would take risks. Results showed that risky choices for scenarios correlated with self-reported behavior and varied with transmission risk and whether regulations were mandatory. Experimentally varying social reward did not elicit greater risk taking as expected by dual-systems theory but risk taking in specific social scenarios was predicted by individual differences in sensation seeking as predicted by dual-systems theory. Sensation seeking predicted social distancing and impulsivity predicted mask wearing. Fuzzy-trace theory’s predictors of categorical thinking about risk and endorsement of simple gist principles of social responsibility (to not hurt other people) consistently predicted choices and behaviors, accounting for significant variance beyond dual-systems predictors. Both controlled experiments and real-world self-reported behaviors converged on similar conclusions, identifying a major gap in influential theories (the omission of gist-based thinking) and challenging pessimistic predictions about motivations and mandates in public health
From Lightbulbs to #Sheinhauls: Considerations for Planned Obsolescence Regulation in the Modern Era
Get PDF“Planned obsolescence,” broadly defined as conduct by manufacturers to shorten product lifespans and spur consumption, is characteristic of the American economy. Such conduct largely manifests in widely accepted competitive strategies that require consumer participation: The periodic release of products or emergence of a trend, for example. In some instances, planned obsolescence conduct reaches beyond the accepted competitive practices, desired by consumers, to conduct that clearly harms consumers with no countervailing rationale. Such practices effectively cease product function prematurely, either through product failure or poor performance and inefficient repair costs. While this conduct largely evades legal capture, it intersects with many existing legal frameworks. Recognizing both the unlikeliness of a statutory proscription and the conduct’s position in our market economy, this Comment explains how existing consumer law infrastructure could limit harmful planned obsolescence. Encompassing both antitrust and consumer protection, consumer law advances consumer welfare by promoting the competitive process and ameliorating consumer harm. The Federal Trade Commission, consumer law’s dual enforcer, is uniquely situated to protect consumers from planned obsolescence that goes too far. However, greater research and careful application are necessary
The Penal Judgment Exception to Full Faith and Credit: How to Bind the Bounty Laws
Get PDFIn the current moment of interstate friction over abortion, the penal judgment exception poses a barrier against interstate enforcement of bounty laws. A doctor who prescribes a medicated abortion to a Texas patient may be exposed to civil liability—even in faraway Washington State. A Washington court asked to enforce a Texas judgment against the doctor is subject to the Full Faith and Credit Clause. Article IV, Section 1 of the United States Constitution mandates that each state give full faith and credit to judgments rendered in sister states. Under Texas Senate Bill 8 (S.B. 8), any member of the public may obtain a civil judgment in state court against anyone who performs, aids, or abets an abortion. This Comment argues that, despite the exacting requirements of the Full Faith and Credit Clause, courts in other states are not obliged to enforce such judgments. Bounty laws like S.B. 8 impose civil liability that may be recovered by any member of the public, rather than a person with a private right. The law punishes an offense against the state. S.B. 8 is therefore a penal law that, under what is called the penal judgment exception, is not due full faith and credit under the Constitution. The penal judgment exception applies when the judgment does not satisfy a private right and punishes an offense against the state. It is narrow but has been established by the Supreme Court during past moments of interstate friction. This Comment surveys that history and illustrates how the exception preserves the evidentiary, res judicata, and comity goals of full faith and credit within the federal system. Bounty laws threaten the federal balance, but they can and should be bound by the penal judgment exception
Math for Lawyers: The Importance of Counting to Five
No full textYou don’t need to know much math as a lawyer. But you do need to know how to count to five. As U.S. Supreme Court Justice William Brennan Jr. used to say, “Five votes can do anything around here.” The same is true of our Washington Supreme Court. Five votes will create a precedent that binds all the courts in our state—and may even bind future iterations of the Washington Supreme Court itself
