18265 research outputs found
Sort by
Fake News and the Tax Law
Get PDFThe public misunderstands many aspects of the tax system. For example, people frequently misunderstand how marginal tax rates work, misperceive their own average tax rates, and believe they benefit from tax deductions for which they are ineligible. Such confusion is understandable given the complexity of our tax laws. Unfortunately, research suggests these misconceptions shape voter preferences about tax policy which, in turn, impact the policies themselves.
That people are easily confused by taxes is nothing new. With the rise of social media platforms, however, the speed at which misinformation campaigns can now move to shape public opinion is far faster. The past five years have seen a dramatic shift in the landscape of false information and scholars in a variety of disciplines, from law to psychology to journalism, have explored the increasing influence of fake news.
Building on this burgeoning literature, this Article is the first to examine the incidence and impact of fake news on tax law. We analyze a unique dataset of tax stories flagged as “false” or “untrue” by reputable, third-party news sources. We use this dataset to explore common themes in fake tax news, as well as the ways tax laws’ complexity contributes to spreading false information. We then offer recommendations for how tax administrators and policymakers can combat these misinformation efforts. Specifically, we argue that insights from the literature on fake news can and should inform how administrators disseminate true tax information to the public. Further, understanding what types of tax laws are easily misunderstood or subject to manipulation should inform substantive tax policy design
The Impact of Government Sponsored Segregation on Health Inequities: Addressing Death Gaps Through Reparations
Get PDFGovernment sponsored segregation of urban neighborhoods has detrimentally impacted the health of Black Americans. Over the last century, federal, state, and local governments have promulgated racist laws and policies that shaped the racial divide of communities in major metropolitan cities. This divide has contributed to poor health outcomes and large discrepancies in life expectancy for Black Americans when compared to their White counterparts. While health is impacted by various factors, segregation has been shown to impose various challenges that make it difficult for Black Americans to attain good health.
Segregated Black communities struggle with economic inequality, environmental racism, and face difficulties accessing healthcare services. All these challenges have been linked to poor health outcomes. This Note argues that the federal government must make amends for its role in shaping the segregated communities of America. The federal government should do this by passing a comprehensive reparations package to address economic inequality, environmental pollution, and barriers to accessing healthcare services that stem from segregation. Although such sweeping legislation is likely to face legal challenges, Congress can rely on its power to eliminate all badges and incidents of slavery under the Thirteenth Amendment to uphold the legislation in the courts
W&L Law Library Newsletter, Vol. 3, Iss. 1 (Dec. 2023)
Get PDFW&L Law Library Newsletter, Volume 3, Issue 1 (December 2023).https://scholarlycommons.law.wlu.edu/llnewsletter/1004/thumbnail.jp
The False Promise of Jurisdiction Stripping
Get PDFJurisdiction stripping is seen as a nuclear option. Its logic is simple: By depriving federal courts of jurisdiction over some set of cases, Congress ensures those courts cannot render bad decisions. To its proponents, it offers the ultimate check on unelected and unaccountable judges. To its critics, it poses a grave threat to the separation of powers. Both sides agree, though, that jurisdiction stripping is a powerful weapon. On this understanding, politicians, activists, and scholars throughout American history have proposed jurisdiction-stripping measures as a way for Congress to reclaim policymaking authority from the courts.
The conventional understanding is wrong. Whatever the scope of Congress’s Article III power to limit the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court and other federal courts, jurisdiction stripping is unlikely to succeed as a practical strategy. At least beyond the very short term, Congress cannot use it to effectuate policy in the face of judicial opposition. Its consequences are chaotic and unpredictable, courts have tools they can use to push back on jurisdiction strips, and the judiciary’s active participation is ultimately necessary for Congress to achieve many of its goals. Jurisdiction stripping will often accomplish nothing and sometimes will even exacerbate the problems it purports to solve.
Jurisdiction stripping can still prove beneficial, but only in subtle and indirect ways. Congress can regulate jurisdiction to tweak the timing of judicial review, even if it cannot prevent review entirely. Jurisdiction stripping also provides Congress a way to signal to the public and the judiciary the importance of an issue—and, possibly, to pressure courts to change course. But these effects are contingent, indeterminate, and unreliable. As a tool to influence policy directly, jurisdiction stripping simply is not the power that its proponents hope or its critics fear
Sheriffs, Shills, or Just Paying the Bills?: Rethinking the Merits of Compelling Merchant Cooperation with Third-Party Policing in the Aftermath of George Floyd’s Death
Get PDFThis Article frames the killing of George Floyd as the result of flawed business regulation. More specifically, it captures the expansion of third-party policing paradigms throughout local nuisance abatement regulations over a period of time that coincided with the militarization of policing culture across the United States. Premised on the notion that law enforcement alone cannot succeed in reducing crime and disorder, such regulations transform grocery stores, pharmacies, bars, and other retail spaces into surveillance hubs by prescribing situations that obligate businesses to contact the police. This regulatory framework, however, sustains the larger historical project of rationalizing enhanced scrutiny of the public and private spaces that Black people occupy; supplies the imprimatur for wider societal involvement in the scrutiny of Black bodies—particularly by constituencies outside the ranks of traditional policing; and complicates psychological relationships Black people have with the settings they enter, while fueling the continued disregard for their bodily dominion
The Symbiosis Between International Law and Corporate Governance, in A Research Agenda for Corporate Law (Christopher Bruner & Marc Moore eds., 2023)
No full textOutlining significant dynamics that may pave the way for future evolution in the field of corporate law, this timely Research Agenda explores provocative and cutting-edge developments to identify new directions for scholarly inquiry. Bringing together a diverse group of scholars, the book evaluates doctrinal and normative issues in corporate law from a range of contextual and interdisciplinary viewpoints.https://scholarlycommons.law.wlu.edu/fac_books/1192/thumbnail.jp
Brief of Law and Business Professors as Amici Curiae in Support of Respondents: \u3cem\u3eMacQuarie Infrastructure Group v. Moab Partners, L.P.\u3c/em\u3e
Get PDFAmici are scholars at American law schools whose research and teaching focus on federal securities regulation and the governance of public corporations. Three of the authors appearing as counsel on this brief have together submitted to this Court briefs on prior occasions as amici in cases arising under the federal securities laws on behalf of law and business faculty.2 All of us have written and/or taught extensively about the SEC’s system of disclosure and our experience includes service in positions that allowed for the participation in the evolution of the system of disclosure developed by the Securities and Exchange Commission.
Amici have a common interest in ensuring a proper interpretation of the statutory framework put in place by Congress. While all participating amici may not agree with every statement in the brief, all amici agree that omissions of disclosure required by Item 303 of Regulation S-K can be the basis for an action under Rule 10b-5. As far as the authors of this brief are aware, amici have no financial stake in the outcome of this litigation