43674 research outputs found
Sort by
Information Matters in Tax Enforcement
Most scholars recognize both that the government needs information about taxpayers’ transactions to determine whether their reporting is honest, and that third third-party reporting helps the government obtain that information. Given governments’ reliance on tax collections, it would be risky to think that information or third third-party reporting is not needed by tax agencies. However, a recent article by Professor Wei Cui asserts that “modern governments can practice ‘taxation without information.’” Professor Cui’s argument rests on two claims: (1) “giving governments effective access to taxpayer information through third parties does not explain the success of modern tax administration” because, he argues, some important taxes taxes—such as the value added tax (VAT) VAT)—do not involve information reporting; and (2) modern tax administration succeeds because “business firms” are “sites of social cooperation under the rule of law,” fostering compliance. Both arguments are mistaken. As this Article demonstrates, third third-party information reporting is highly effective, third third-party reporting is used to enforce VATs, and firms are not inherently compliant. In fact, where individuals report on firms, firms’ compliance increases. This supports the intuitive notion that third third-party reporting increases tax compliance and that information matters in tax enforcement
Fan Films and Fanworks in the Age of Social Media: How Copyright Owners Are Relying on Private Ordering to Avoid Angering Fans
Fandoms active in creating “fanworks” are increasingly able to leverage social media to coordinate and respond to owners of large media franchises who attempt to limit the creation and distribution of fan films. The resulting friction between these groups can be more efficiently addressed through private ordering rather than through formal legal reform
THE STATE OF UTAH, Plaintiff/ Appellee v. ALBERTO HERRERA, Defendant/ Appellant : Brief of Appellant
An appeal from a judgment of conviction of Driving with a Measurable Controlled Substance and Causing Death or Serious Bodily Injury, a second degree felony, in violation of Utah Code § 58-37-8(2)(g), (2)(h)(i); in violation of Utah Code § 76-8-507(2), in the Third District Court, Salt Lake County, Utah, the Honorable Elizabeth Hruby-Mills presiding.
SEAN D. REYES (7969), Utah Attorney General, Attorneys for Appellee
NATHALIE S. SKIBINE (14320), ELISE LOCKWOOD (12214), NICK FALCONE (10931), Salt Lake Legal Defender Assoc., Attorneys for Appellan
BENJAMIN EMPEY, Plaintiff/ Appellant v. UTAH INLAND PORT AUTHORITY, Defendants/ Appellees : Brief of Appellant
Appeal from the Third Judicial District Court, Salt Lake County, Honorable Richard E. Mrazik presiding, District Court Case No. 190903509
STEVEN J. JOFFEE (#13258), EVANS. STRASSBERG (#8279), Michael Best & Friedrich, LLP, Attorneys for Appellees
BENJAMIN EMPEY, Attorney Pro Se for Appellan
MARGIE STEVENS and RON STEVENS, Appellants v. SEVEN PEAKS WATERPARK SLC, INC., d.b.a. SEVEN PEAKS PLACE, SALT LAKE CITY, L.C., including its employees and agents; and DOES I-IX, Appellees
On appeal from the Third Judicial District Court, Salt Lake Division, Honorable William K. Kendall, District Court No. 1700904217
Joann Shields (4664), SHIELDS LAW FIRM, P .C., Attorneys for Defendant/Appellee Seven Peaks Waterpark SLC, Inc.
Sara Pfrommer (9366), LAW OFFICES OF SARA PFROMMER, Ron D. Wilkinson (5558), HERITAGE LAW OFFICES, Attorneys for Plaintiffs/Appellants Margie and Ron Steven
WEST VALLEY CITY, Appellee/Plaintiff, v. CARL BEGNAUD, Appellant/Defendant.
APPEAL FROM CONVICTION AND JUDGMENT IN THE THIRD DISTRICT COURT, SALT LAKE COUNTY
Staci Visser, Bar No. 14358, Intermountain Legal, Counsel for Carl Begnaud
Corey D. Sherwin, Bar No 14316, West Valley City Prosecutor\u27s Office, Counsel for West Valley Cit
KELLY LAWS, an individual, Petitioner below and Appellant and Cross Appellee on appeal, vs. WILLIE GRAYEYES, an individual, Respondent below and Appellee and cross-Appellant on appeal. : REPLY BRIEF OF APPELLEE/CROSS-APPELLANT, WILLIE GRAYEYES
On appeal from the Seventh Judicial District CourtThe Honorable Don M. TorgersonNo. 18070001
Stakeholder Collaboration as an Alternative to Cost-Benefit Analysis
This Article compares and contrasts cost-benefit analysis with “collaborative analysis” in agency decision-making. While mathematical models drive cost-benefit analysis, ongoing stakeholder negotiations drive collaborative analysis. Cost-benefit analysis relies on economists inputting numerical values into a model, whereas collaborative analysis relies on the diverse perspectives of groups and individuals affected by an agency’s decision. Administrative law scholars have exhaustively researched cost-benefit analysis while overlooking widespread agency reliance on collaborative analysis. This Article advances the novel observation that legislatures and courts sometimes treat collaborative analysis and cost-benefit analysis as interchangeable.
Administrative law scholars might find it unorthodox, even irresponsible, to equate the deliberative process of average citizens with numerical calculations performed by economists. Yet, collaborative analysis works well in several contexts when numerical analysis does not: where data are scarce, burdens are unevenly distributed, normative values are at stake, and conditions are changing. Under such circumstances, agency officials report that collaborative analysis creates better outcomes, secures ex ante social approval of policies, provides adaptive decisionmaking, and reduces conflict and litigation risk relative to alternative tools. Despite the benefits of collaborative analysis and its surprisingly widespread use, its potential remains largely untapped. In identifying and defining collaborative analysis for the first time, this Article provides agencies, stakeholders, and courts the tools necessary to understand collaborative analysis and tap into its benefits