Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
Articles 1 - 2 of 2
Full-Text Articles in Law
Admit Or Deny: A Call For Reform Of The Sec's "Neither-Admit-Nor-Deny" Policy, Priyah Kaul
Admit Or Deny: A Call For Reform Of The Sec's "Neither-Admit-Nor-Deny" Policy, Priyah Kaul
University of Michigan Journal of Law Reform
For four decades, the SEC’s often-invoked policy of settling cases without requiring admissions of wrongdoing, referred to as the “neither-admit-nor-deny” policy, went unchallenged by the courts, the legislature, and the public. Then in 2011, a harshly critical opinion from Judge Jed Rakoff in SEC v. Citigroup incited demands for reform of this policy. In response to Judge Rakoff’s opinion, the SEC announced a modified approach to settlements. Under the modified approach, the Commission may require an admission of wrongdoing if a defendant’s misconduct was egregious or if the public markets would benefit from an admission. Many supporters of the neither-admit-nor-deny …
Undoing Undue Favors: Providing Competitors With Standing To Challenge Favorable Irs Actions, Sunil Shenoi
Undoing Undue Favors: Providing Competitors With Standing To Challenge Favorable Irs Actions, Sunil Shenoi
University of Michigan Journal of Law Reform
The Internal Revenue Service occasionally creates rules, notices, or regulations that allow taxpayers to pay less than they would under a strict reading of the law. Sometimes, however, these IRS actions are directly contrary to federal law and have significant economic impact. Challenging favorable IRS actions through litigation will likely be unsuccessful because no plaintiff can satisfy the requirements for standing. To address this situation, this Note proposes a statutory reform to provide competitors with standing to challenge favorable IRS actions in court.