Search the archive.

While regulatory nukes do not have fallout in the same way actual nuclear weapons do, they do present risk of political fallout. In using a regulatory nuke, an agency might have to worry about interest groups, hostile state legislators, media coverage, grassroots movements, just to name a few. In fact, one of the reasons that a regulatory tool can become a regulatory nuke is because of the political consequences of using it.

For example, in the 1970s when the EPA attempted to enforce the Clean Air Act in Los Angeles by mandating gas rationing, the EPA faced wide spread opposition. The then-Administrator of the EPA explained that he did not like the idea of the extreme measures; however, because the EPA was acting under a court order to comply with the Clean Air Act and because failing to do might lead the court to hold him in contempt of the court’s order, he faced down the political opposition explaining that if forced to choose between Los Angeles mobility and his freedom, he would choose his freedom.

However, in some instances a regulated entity has its own sort of nuclear option. It may be that the target does not have the ability to strike back but that it has politically powerful friends with this sort of power. I discuss each of these options in a bit more detail below. Of course, introducing retaliation introduces an entirely new wrinkle in the game. In addition to discussing different types of retaliation, I also discuss how this changes the nature of the game. While I go into detail what this sort of change may mean below, at this point I provide Figure 3 below how the existence retaliation impacts the game agencies play when given a regulatory nuke.

<<FIGURE 3 OMITTED>>

Tax and intellectual property have different goals, causing an inherent tension between these two groups of lawyers. Although these tensions cannot be eliminated, they can be minimized, and the starting point is to make each group aware of the differences.

For example, tax lawyers seek to minimize taxes by migrating assets to a low tax jurisdiction in a manner acceptable to taxing authorities. They also prefer to minimize the value of those intellectual property assets to minimize taxes on the actual transfer. Intellectual property lawyers, on the other hand, seek to make intellectual property asset maintenance and enforcement as easy as possible and to maximize the value of the asset. A low valuation may be benefi cial for tax reasons, but may be less than helpful when trying to establish a high reasonable royalty rate in an infringement litigation. As such, it may be important to be able to distinguish the tax valuation from any arrangements with outside parties based on the timing, rights, geography or the terms of arrangement.

The words “outward, open, actual, visible, substantial, and exclusive,” in connection with a change of possession, mean substantially the same thing. They mean not concealed; not hidden; exposed to view; free from concealment, dissimulation, reserve, or disguise; in full existence; denoting that which not merely can be, but is opposed to potential, apparent, constructive, and imaginary; veritable; genuine; certain; absolute; real at present time, as a matter of fact, not merely nominal; opposed to form; actually existing; true; not including admitting, or pertaining to any others; undivided; sole; opposed to inclusive. Bass v. Pease, 79 Ill. App. 308, 318.

To resolve something is to come to a definite or earnest decision about it. How is it different from decide and determine? Find out on Thesaurus.com.

The specifications in the drawings for the mini-piles stated that the capacity for the mini-piles was "to be" 6,000 or 8,000 pounds and that the length of the mini-piles was "to be" adequate to get into undisturbed soil to a depth adequate for obtaining the required capacity. The specifications in the project manual stated that the mini-piles "should" have a capacity of 4 tons and 3 tons, that the mini-piles "should" be driven to minimum depth of 25 feet, and that a grout bulb "should" be formed at the base of a mini-pile. Kenneth Winters, an expert in structural engineering, and Richard Anderson, an expert in geotechnical engineering, agreed with Steve Maranowski, plaintiff's president, that the specifications in the project manual, because those specifications used the word "should," were permissive and suggestions of what plaintiff could do to achieve the required capacity. However, the trial court, when it instructed the jury on how to interpret the contract, instructed the jury that it was to interpret the words of the contract by giving them their ordinary and common meaning. An ordinary and common meaning of the word "should" is that it denotes a mandatory obligation. See People v Fosnaugh, 248 Mich App 444, 455; 639 NW2d 587 (2001) (stating that "the word 'should' can, in certain contexts, connote an obligatory effect"); Merriam-Webster's College Dictionary (11th ed) (defining "should," in pertinent part, as "used in auxiliary function to express obligation, propriety, or expediency"). Accordingly, viewing the evidence in a light most favorable to defendant, reasonable jurors could have honestly reached different conclusions on whether the specifications in the project manual were mandatory and, because Maranowski admitted that plaintiff did not use grout bulbs and did not drive all the mini-piles at least 25 feet into the ground, whether plaintiff breached the contract. Morinelli, 242 Mich App at 260-261.

Another issue, one that is perhaps more relevant, is what we should do with the tax code if we gave the same test to the “person of average intelligence,” who probably never even took an accounting course, much less a tax course? What if the average person who does not have a tax background misapplied the law in 15 or 18 of the 20 cases in this theoretical tax return? Could we then conclude that the tax code is void for vagueness? Or would we have to look at each particular provision in the code to determine which provisions could be understood and correctly applied by someone who does not have a tax background? If 40 percent of the people of common intelligence made a mistake involving a particular tax issue, would that percentage be sufficiently high to warrant voiding that provision of the tax Code? Or would more than 50 percent be required?

Perhaps it is time we looked more closely at the Void for Vagueness Doctrine to see whether it should be applied to the Internal Revenue Code, and under what circumstances it should be applied.18 Certainly, if a law is so complex that even professionals who specialize in that area of the law cannot apply the law correctly, there should be a presumption that, at the very least, the Code sections that they cannot apply correctly should be classified as void.

There are at least two ways of distinguishing between "privileges" and "rights" in the context of American constitutional law and history, and careful analysis does not confound the two. The text of the Constitution refers to both privileges and rights, and uses "privileges" as a term of art denoting a class of rights that may be invoked defensively, to excuse one from a legal restraint or obligation. In another usage, privileges have both an inferior status to and a less permanent existence than rights, being subject to revocation by the government or to the imposition of conditions on their exercise. There is no foundation in the Constitution for the latter distinction.

In the Constitution, a privilege is one kind of right. The word privilege appears four times. The first appearance is in the privilege from arrest in civil cases enjoyed by members of Congress during congressional sessions. The second appearance is the guarantee of the "privilege of the writ of habeas corpus, " yet that "privilege" has at least as great a degree of status and permanence as any right in the Constitution. The other appearances are in the privileges and immunities clauses of Article IV and of the fourteenth amendment : the citizens of each state are entitled to the privileges and immunities of citizens in the several states; and no state may abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States.

On 10 July 2020, an initiative was launched by the European Commission, to effectively protect and manage intellectual property EU‑wide. The initiative, a proposed action plan, aims to (i) upgrade the EU’s intellectual property system; (ii) promote a smart use of intellectual property; (iii) ensure a more effective enforcement of intellectual property and (iv) promote a global level playing field. The Commission is seeking feedback from all stakeholders and those who would like to provide comments. The feedback period ends on 14 August 2020.

The note accompanying the proposed action plan points out that the market value of leading companies is increasingly determined by intangible assets such as brands, designs, inventions, artistic or literary works, know‑how and data. The proportion of intangible assets in companies’ overall value is said to have risen from a mere 17% in 1975 to 84% in 2015. Intellectual property rights (IPRs), namely, patents, trademarks, designs, geographical indications and copyright, are felt to promote the deployment and diffusion of inventions and creations, adding value to the EU economy. A robust IP policy should aid economic recovery from the crisis following the Covid‑19 outbreak and, by stimulating technological developments, IP can also play an important role in promoting a greener and digital economy.

If a government strengthens laws or measures or if they strengthen, they are made more severe.

to make something stronger or more effective, or to become stronger or more effective:

The grand term ‘intellectual property’ covers a lot of ground: the software that runs our lives, the movies we watch, the songs we listen to. But also the credit-scoring algorithms that determine the contours of our futures, the chemical structure and manufacturing processes for life-saving pharmaceutical drugs, even the golden arches of McDonald’s and terms such as ‘Google’. All are supposedly ‘intellectual property’. We are urged, whether by stern warnings on the packaging of our Blu-ray discs or by sonorous pronouncements from media company CEOs, to cease and desist from making unwanted, illegal or improper uses of such ‘property’, not to be ‘pirates’, to show the proper respect for the rights of those who own these things. But what kind of property is this? And why do we refer to such a menagerie with one inclusive term?

The phrase ‘intellectual property’ was first used in a legal decision in 1845 and acquired formal heft in 1967 with the establishment of the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO), a specialised agency of the United Nations that represents and protects the commercial interests of holders of copyrights, patents, trademarks and trade secrets. The ubiquitous use of ‘intellectual property’ began in the digital era of production, reproduction and distribution of cultural and technical artifacts. As a new political economy appeared, so did a new commercial and legal rhetoric. ‘Intellectual property’, a central term in that new discourse, is a culturally damaging and easily weaponised notion. Its use should be resisted.

Federal IP law is codified and located in the U.S. Code, and includes specific sections that cover patents, copyrights, and trademarks.

Title 35 of the U.S. Code contains federal law for patents. Included among the 37 chapters of this title are law concerning the makeup and powers of the USPTO, requirements for patentability of an invention, and technical requirements of a patent application.

A 'strengthening' of a law, like a 'correction' of an order, replaces the law and fixes it. A 'reinforcement' of a law, like a 'corrective (measure)' on an order would lie beside it, leaving the original in force, and filling gaps or shaping its interpretation.

Before evaluating the intellectual property tax scheme, it is useful to examine the nature of intellectual property rights. In American law, "intellectual property rights often cover . . . patents, copyrights, and trademarks."" In contrast to tangible property, which is visible and has physical existence, intellectual property is intangible and has no physical existence." Intangible intellectual property rights are separate from the physical objects containing the intellectual property. Ownership of a book, for example, does not mean ownership of the copyright of the book.

Patents and copyrights are substantively similar in many respects. Patents and copyrights are both intangible personal property." While neither has a physical form, both are generally dependent on physical forms for their creative existence.32 In addition, both confer similar exclusivity rights. Just as patent owners can exclude others from using, making, selling, or exporting their patented products," copyright owners enjoy the exclusive right to make copies, prepare derivative works, distribute the copyrighted work, and publicly perform and display the work.' The same clause of the U.S. Constitution empowers Congress to promote the progress of both science and the useful arts." In response, Congress has granted significant protections for both patents and copyrights.36

The Internal Revenue Code (IRC) is the domestic portion of federal statutory tax law in the United States, and is under Title 26 of the United States Code (USC). The IRC has 11 subtitles, including income taxes, employment taxes, coal industry health benefits, and group health plan requirements. The implementing agency of IRC is the Internal Revenue Service (IRS).

IRC is the governing law of federal tax administration and collection. State law creates legal interests and rights, but IRC designates what interests and rights shall be taxed. Like criminal laws, IRC cannot be applied retroactively.

Conclusions and prospects for the development. As we have shown, tax policy has its own meaning, it is organically linked to tax law, which by implementing the regulatory function implements the vectors indicated by the policy. Given the profound transformation of public relations that has taken place in our country in recent years, tax policy should be given a special role as a strong foundation for ensuring the effectiveness of tax and legal regulation.

Formulation of the problem. The social value, role and purpose of tax law are revealed in its functions as the main directions of its impact on public life. At the same time, the value potential of law is revealed by both general social and special legal functions. Scientists in the first group of functions through which law in general, and tax law in particular, influence the public consciousness, forming values, creating a certain dimension of social interaction, in which possible, appropriate and forbidden find their clear delineation in human actions, include the following : humanistic, organizational / organizational-managerial, epistemological / cognitive, informational / communicative, educational, orienting, evaluative / evaluative, security, economic, political, cultural [17, p. 32, 33]. As for the special legal functions of law, they usually include regulatory and protective. However, in their system, the prominent, defining place of these sciences give a regulatory function. So it is no coincidence that OS Emelyanov argues, reflecting on the functions of financial law, as follows: "expressed financial law in the form of regulations or financial planning acts, implemented in absolute or relative legal relations, or seeks to determine the legal status of participants in financial relations - in all these forms social purpose - to regulate public relations in the field of public finance "[1, p. 32]. The scientist sees specific features of this function, first of all, in the establishment of positive rules of conduct, organization of social relations, coordination of social relationships in the process of redistribution of social wealth [1,

The foregoing summary of the standard Law and Economics deterrence/cost-internalization framework will be familiar to most readers.6 What may be surprising, however, is the relative lack of scholarly attention devoted to figuring out how these various alternative, often overlapping, and potentially conflicting systems of regulation are, or should be, coordinated with each other. After all, if an external harm is being internalized or deterred by one regulatory tool, it need not, and often should not, be internalized or deterred again by another regulatory tool.

Take the quintessential example of a negative externality-some activity that spews C02 into the atmosphere thereby contributing to the global problem of climate change. If a fully cost-internalizing Pigovian tax (say, a carbon-based tax of the sort that many commentators have recently proposed) were imposed on domestic companies by the U.S. government, there obviously need not (and, from an efficiency perspective, should not) be a state-level carbon-based tax on the same polluters for the same carbon emissions. Nor should there be any overlapping command-and-control regulations or any other sort of regulation (including tort liability) designed to regulate the same conduct. It-the external harm caused by C02 emission-has, by assumption, already been fully regulated. Redundant regulation represents unnecessary administrative costs and potentially excessive deterrence. The same analysis can be applied to torts. Consider automobile accidents or product-related injuries or medical malpractice harms. All are potentially affected, at least in theory, by the same problem of overlapping, uncoordinated, and thus possibly redundant sanctions; this means either over-deterrence or duplicative and therefore excessive administrative costs, or both. Again, the literature has largely neglected this subject.7

Second, however, there is a danger of double billing for harm that arises if both corrective taxes and liability are imposed (this point is independently made in Logue [2010, p. 2362]). If parties have to pay for more than the harms for which they are responsible, they could be induced to take wasteful precautions or be discouraged from engaging in socially desirable activities. If a firm were subject to a pollution tax for expected harm and were also strictly liable for actual harm, it would in effect be paying for twice the harm it caused.

This problem of excessive payments under a regime with both taxes and liability would be less serious under the negligence rule than under strict liability. Indeed, if the negligence rule functioned flawlessly, parties would always choose to act in a nonnegligent way and would never be found liable. Therefore, the problem of excessive payments would not arise, which would make the joint use of corrective taxation and the negligence rule attractive (taxation would control the level of activity, and the negligence rule would control the level of care). But uncertainties and imperfections in the negligence determination lead to findings of negligence, so parties who cause harm bear positive expected liability under the negligence rule. Hence, the problem of excessive payments would exist under that rule even though it would not be as significant as under strict liability. The problem of excessive payments under a tax and liability regime seemingly could be alleviated by reducing the amount of the tax to below the expected harm and by letting expected liability take up the slack in payments, but attention would have to be paid to how such a policy is implemented.

Biden administration officials say the cuts to the increased budget would not affect the IRS’s investment strategy or improvements in the near term. But the repeated debates over its funding threaten to upend the long-term and expensive task of modernizing the federal tax collection service — and Biden’s bid to use tax fairness as a populist economic plank in his reelection campaign.

“The way to think about it is the fairness argument,” Deputy Treasury Secretary Wally Adeyemo told The Washington Post. “That gets down to the fact that we know millionaires and billionaires don’t pay their taxes like you and I do. There’s no American who likes to be treated unfairly and know the wealthy live by a different system.”