Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
- Institution
- Keyword
-
- Compliance (1)
- Decision-making under risk (1)
- Enforcement (1)
- Foreign Tax Credit; I.R.C. § 7701(o); Economic Substance Doctrine; Structuring; Foreign Tax Credit Regime; Tax Abuse; Circuit Split; Bank of New York Mellon Corp. v. Commissioner (1)
- Legal advice (1)
-
- Legal uncertainty (1)
- Probability (1)
- Second Circuit; Fifth Circuit; Eighth Circuit; Bright Line Rule; I.R.C. §§ 901-909; Sham Transactions; Subjective Non-Tax Business Purpose; Bank of New York (BNY); Structured Trust Advantaged Repackaged Securities (STARS); Internal Revenue Service (IRS); Barclays Bank PLC; Tax Court; Common Law Doctrine; Gregory v. Helvering; Gilbert v. Commissioner; Frank Lyon Co. v. United States; Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act; Fail Presumption; Bifurcation; Tax Benefits as Profit; Compaq Comput. Corp. & Subsidiaries v. Commissioner; IES Industries v. United States; Congressional Intent; (1)
- Securities law; securities exchange act; fraud; disclosure; civil law; litigation; corporations; shareholders; common law (1)
- Yale Journal on Regulation (1)
- Publication
- Publication Type
Articles 1 - 4 of 4
Full-Text Articles in Business Organizations Law
Reviving Reliance, Ann M. Lipton
Reviving Reliance, Ann M. Lipton
Fordham Law Review
This Article explores the misalignment between the disclosure requirements of the federal securities laws and the private causes of action available to investors to enforce those requirements. Historically, federally mandated disclosures were designed to allow investors to set an appropriate price for publicly traded securities. Today’s disclosures, however, also enable stockholders to participate in corporate governance and act as a check on managerial misbehavior. To enforce these requirements, investors’ chief option is a claim under the general antifraud statute, section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. But courts are deeply suspicious of investors’ attempts to use the Act …
The Irrational Actor In The Ceo Suite: Implications For Corporate Governance, Renee M. Jones
The Irrational Actor In The Ceo Suite: Implications For Corporate Governance, Renee M. Jones
Renee Jones
This Article challenges corporate governance theorists’ standard assumptions regarding the rationality of business leaders. It reviews scholarly research that documents the presence of irrational actors among senior corporate managers and considers the impact these executives might have on corporations and society. The Article focuses analysis on psychological literature that explores why risk-related decision-making often goes wrong.
Research shows that many individuals have a dysfunctional approach to risk that leads them to engage in self-destructive conduct. A non-trivial number of individuals with problematic personality traits work at high levels of major corporations where they have the capacity to cause significant harm. …
Putting The Substance Back Into The Economic Substance Doctrine, Nicholas Giordano
Putting The Substance Back Into The Economic Substance Doctrine, Nicholas Giordano
Brooklyn Journal of Corporate, Financial & Commercial Law
The foreign tax credit, which saves U.S. taxpayers from paying both foreign and domestic income taxes on the same income, is critical to facilitating global commerce. However, as savvy taxpayers discover increasingly complicated ways to abuse the foreign tax credit regime through the structuring of business transactions, courts have become increasingly skeptical of the validity of those transactions. Using the economic substance doctrine, a common law doctrine codified in 2010 at I.R.C. § 7701(o), courts will disallow tax benefits stemming from a transaction that is not profitable absent its tax benefits, and which the taxpayer had no incentive to undertake …
Probabilistic Compliance, Alex Raskolnikov
Probabilistic Compliance, Alex Raskolnikov
Faculty Scholarship
Uncertain legal standards are pervasive but understudied. The key theoretical result showing an ambiguous relationship between legal uncertainty and optimal deterrence remains largely undeveloped, and no alternative conceptual approaches to the economic analysis of legal uncertainty have emerged. This Article offers such an alternative by shifting from the well-established and familiar optimal deterrence theory to the new and unfamiliar probabilistic compliance framework. This shift brings the analysis closer to the world of legal practice and yields new theoretical insights. Most importantly, lower uncertainty tends to lead to more compliant positions and greater private gains. In contrast, the market for legal …