Lavigne & VanRybroek on Language, Communication and Access to Justice

This recently posted article by Michele Lavigne and Gregory VanRybroek, entitled 'He Got in My Face so I Shot Him': How Defendants' Language Impairments Impair Attorney-Client Relationships, while not directly tax-related, presents a very interesting take on what it means to have meaningful access to justice, which is a major aspect of thinking about what it means to say we are governed by the rule of law. I am still more optimistic than PJ about this concept, but I have grave fears for the future of law in the face of the many severe procedural impairments we have been seeing of late. This paper outlines in a deep and rich way some of the fundamental components necessary to a just legal system, but it also just a very well written and fascinating account of the role of language and communication in expressing and implementing law. Abstract:

Language impairments -- deficits in language and the ability to use it -- occur at starkly elevated rates among adolescents and adults charged with and convicted of crimes. These impairments have serious ramifications for the quality of justice. In this article, we focus specifically on the effects of a client's language impairment on the attorney-client relationship, the constitutional realm that suffers most when a client lacks essential communication skills. The effects of language impairment can be seen in a client's ability to work with a lawyer in the first place, tell a story, comprehend legal information, and make a rational and informed decision. This article shows how these effects play themselves out within the attorney-client relationship, and the impact on the lawyer's ability to meet her constitutional and ethical obligations. We also propose concrete steps for improving the quality of communication within the attorney-client relationship. While attorneys will obviously shoulder much of the responsibility, judges and prosecutors are not exempt. A client's poor communication skills are not simply be "the lawyer's problem," but a matter of great concern for all stakeholders in the justice system.

Apple's simple design interface most certainly does not extend to its tax department.

Lee Sheppard has an article today on Apple's tax tricks [gated] where she works through Apple's multinational structure & planning detailes as outlined in the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations (PSI) report. You should read the whole article, but here are some of its key concepts:

We're ... not easily shocked by transfer pricing practices that the U.S. government accepts, for better or worse. ...But Apple's planning ... is a special case . We're talking gross worldwide revenues the size of the California state budget, and no tax being paid anywhere on a huge chunk of profits. What is truly surprising about the Apple case is its brazenness. PSI concluded that Apple's self-serving intercompany contracts had no effect on its business practices.

...Nearly two-thirds of Apple's revenue comes from foreign sales. According to the PSI report, this foreign income is routed through Ireland and may be taxed nowhere, not even in Ireland. ... 

Apple Operations International (AOI), Apple's Irish-registered holding company, acts as an internal finance company. ... AOI claims tax residence nowhere.

Apple Sales International (ASI), an Irish principal company that manages Apple's supply chain and sales to Europe and Asia, is a subsidiary of Apple Operations Europe (AOE), which is a subsidiary of AOI and has employees and operations. ASI has 250 employees and deals with Apple's third-party Chinese manufacturers. 

ASI claims no tax residence anywhere ... [emphases added].

When I heard these statements--more than once--in the hearings, I wondered why on earth the Senator who was asking at the questions at the time didn't stop right there and say hold on, are you telling us that these companies exist, we are supposed to treat each as a separate taxpayer and respect its independence from the parent company for tax purposes, and accept at the same time that each resides for tax purposes in no country anywhere?

Let's be clear: humans never get away with these kinds of arguments. You might be resident in many places but I think it is very hard to claim that you are resident nowhere--governments always seem to find some reason and some way to claim you. But somehow the Senator didn't challenge this troubling statement.

If the challenge had come, we might have heard a not-so-simple design explanation from Apple, such as that the subsidiaries are incorporated in Ireland, which would make them Irish residents for US tax purposes, but for Irish tax purposes each is resident in Bermuda, while for Bermuda purposes each is resident in Ireland or at least not resident in Bermuda; either way, certainly neither is resident in the United States even though both are clearly controlled from California.

Simple, clean, one button design interface Apple's corporate structure is not.  Funny how Steve Jobs' vision was, and now Tim Cook's vision is, so different for the tax department. Yet this basic structure is, I must hasten to repeat, perfectly, unequivocally legal, understood and accepted and in many ways even facilitated by governments all over the world including and perhaps especially the United States with its deferral regime.  But that doesn't mean the whole structure is similarly straightforward from a legal compliance perspective. More from Lee:

Apple conducts all of its research and development in the United States. Apple Inc., the U.S. parent, has a cost-sharing agreement with AOE and ASI, which pay 60 percent of the cost of this research. Apple's intellectual property is in the United States with the U.S. parent, Apple Inc. Apple told PSI that it divides R&D costs according to worldwide sales revenues.

This arrangement, Lee tells us, dates back to a more permissive time in cost sharing regulatory history and would probably be protected from today's more stringent requirements. Lee observes:

...AOI has no employees; its American board members, who are Apple executives, hold their meetings in California, often without the participation of the lone Irish director. Apple's tax director told PSI that he believed AOI is not managed and controlled in Ireland. Apple told PSI that AOI has not paid income tax to any government for the past five years.

...Ireland takes the position that it is a legitimate low-tax country that only permits the 12.5 percent rate for income from trade, an ancient English concept that appears to require a ruling. Yet Apple told PSI that Ireland permitted an income calculation that enabled Apple subsidiaries to pay Irish corporate income tax at a rate of 2 percent or less. 

Lee wonders if this puts Ireland in a troublesome place vis a vis EU law which prohibits burying state aid within generally applicable tax laws, especially since Ireland is already getting some heat for changing its laws "to accommodate the numerous U.S. multinationals that use it to shelter European sales income." She then works through US domestic tax law and the US-Ireland treaty to show that AOI could very well be viewed as being taxable in the US, yet its income probably wouldn't be subject to tax in any event given the rather complex, internally inconsistent, but overall taxpayer friendly rules of subpart F and its ancillaries.

All in all Lee runs through of some of the more arcane complexities of the US international tax rules in this article, and makes a pretty persuasive case for viewing the system as hopelessly absurd in the extreme.  Tim Cook says he wants to change that, that he's all for a simpler, cleaner interface for the tax code. But remember that very often when someone says they want simplicity, what they really just want is to be able to pay (even) less tax.

Economist: It would be terrible if people stopped depending on their employers for their health care.

Casey Mulligan says if the law actually applies to Congress, look for it to be far too bountiful, in a Speenhamland kind of way (see also Polanyi). The state, it seems, must do all it can to avoid producing healthy shirkers amongst the general populace, even if that requires dispensing a certain amount of injustice. A sad commentary on both human flourishing and the rule of law, is it not?  Excerpts:

To promote economic efficiency and the goal of universal health coverage, perhaps members of Congress should not be required to enroll in the new insurance exchanges.

...Because members of Congress are accustomed to high-quality medical care provided to them through federal employee benefit programs, one might expect that they would push for top quality care to be delivered through the exchanges too.

...If the exchange plans were good enough, people who are rushing to find a job, and people considering leaving their job, would no longer have to see employment as their only means of obtaining top quality, subsidized coverage. As a result, some of those would work less (see the Congressional Budget Office on some of health reform’s work incentives, and a 1994 explanation from Alan Krueger and Uwe E. Reinhardt). 

...Although politically incorrect and perhaps unfair, allowing members of Congress to keep their federal employee coverage might be the best thing for universal coverage and reducing the impact of the Affordable Care Act on the federal budget. 

Are multinational companies a public good? If not, why are taxpayers subsidizing their global marketing strategies?

The story is that the Canadian government recently set up food trucks in Mexico in order to promote "Canadian cuisine," which the National Post pictures as follows:

Above: poutine. Below: tourtière, both from Quebec.
(the article says only QC has any sort of cultural food identity. Sorry BC!)  

These national icons are being served from this truck:

Don't judge this book by its cover.

So, the Canadian government has gone to Mexico with a van decorated with fresh fruits...to sell gravy-and-cheese-slathered french fries and meat pie.

To be sure I'm not against either of these foods in principle (so long as the latter is served with maple syrup) and I'm not against Canadians...whether individual or corporate... setting up shop in Mexico to sell the hapless public yet more creative combinations of salt-sugar-fat. (Neither would I be opposed to Mexico imposing Pigouvian taxes on this activity, to compensate for the costly externalities visited upon the public health.)

But I very much object to taxpayers subsidizing the venture. I get that all countries try to promote their culture and in the process increase exports of their goods & services (or is it really the other way around). But as industrial policy goes, this has to be the bottom of the barrel.  If McCain Foods Inc cannot get the word out about its wonderful french fries, I simply cannot see how it becomes the  public's responsibility to provide it with free advertising. 

Last week we learned that corporate tax expenditures more or less equal corporate tax revenues raised in the US.  I haven't seen similar number crunching for Canada (working on it), but I expect for multinationals at least the story is very similar. If you then add these straight up subsidies, are we getting to a place where multinationals constitute a net drag on the fisc? If yes then we should be asking ourselves: when did we decide that multinational corporations are a public good that must be financially supported by other taxpayers? 

Is there anyone out there still clinging to the sense that a free market economy must mean something other than government subsidies for favored industries?

Corruption laid bare by Global Witness: A Manual for Stealing Your State's Resources for Personal Gain

Global Witness issued this must-watch video this week, which demonstrates how leaders steal from their own people with the help of lawyers and bankers. The crime itself is bad enough, but the blasé demeanour of these perpetrators is truly offensive. They must have done this a lot in order to view the proposed transactions in such a banal and relaxed way. Though one woman clutches a pillow quite closely as she calmly explains how to take care of the details. Is she nervous about her illicit behaviour, or just eager to close the deal?

This exposes a number of rotten practices, few of which I would guess are unique to Malaysia. Instead, what I think we are seeing here is a manual:

How to steal your state's resources for personal gain, in 8 easy steps.

Step 1: get control over state land allocation and resource extraction licensing by becoming a state authority.
Step 2: open a series of accounts in trust or corporate form, in places will hide your identity and assets from other state authorities, for example, in "the new Switzerland."
Step 3: have the state sell land at nominal prices to your family members and/or companies you control.
Step 4: when buyers inquire at your state offices about making land leases or purchases, direct them to your family members.
Step 5: have your family members and lawyers explain to the buyer that the purchase will require two purchase contracts plus a side arrangement for licensing rights.
Step 6: write the first purchase contract for a nominal price to legally transfer the property locally but generate minimal (or no) profit.
Step 7: write the second purchase contract to direct the remaining purchase price to be paid directly to one of the offshore accounts.
Step 8: have the buyer write the side arrangement fee directly to one of the offshore accounts.

Query: how do you make sure your buyer actually pays you the second purchase price? That is, if the first contract documents the sale, what stops the buyer exercising ownership rights if he double crosses you on the offshore bank contract? The woman in the video says no problem, this has "been done." How has it been done? Are we talking about hiring thugs to break kneecaps? I've heard of similar triangular contractual arrangements in other equally criminal schemes, and I always wonder about how that aspect works out. Honor among thieves?

Eisinger: the madness of revolving door politics, American-style

Jesse Eisinger of ProPublica has a dealbook entry today, A Revolving Door in Washington With Spin, but Less Visibility, with insightful comments about governance. It would be a provocative and shocking article were it not for the utter familiarity of the story it tells about lobbying and lawmaking in America:

Obsess all you’d like about President Obama’s nomination of Mary Jo White to head the Securities and Exchange Commission. Who heads the agency is vital, but important fights in Washington are happening in quiet rooms, away from the media gaze. 

...For lobbyists, the real targets are regulators and staff members for lawmakers.

Eisinger correctly states that while White herself will be subject to public scrutiny, her staff will mostly work in "untroubled anonymity." Cue the revolving door: on Jan. 25, Senate majority leader Harry Reid hired Cathy Koch to be his chief adviser on tax and economic policy. Eisinger points out an oddity:

The news release lists Ms. Koch’s admirable and formidable experience in the public sector. “Prior to joining Senator Reid’s office,” the release says, “Koch served as tax chief at the Senate Finance Committee.”

...[but in fact] immediately before joining Mr. Reid’s office, Ms. Koch wasn’t in government. She was working for a large corporation.

Namely, GE--yes that one, that hugely profitable multinational that just doesn't seem pay tax anywhere, anytime. And the one that can't even get it's own story straight on the issue.  More from Eisinger:

Just as the tax reform debate is heating up, Mr. Reid has put in place a person who is extraordinarily positioned to torpedo any tax reform that might draw a dollar out of G.E. — and, by extension, any big corporation. 

...no rules prevent Ms. Koch from meeting with G.E. or working on issues that would affect the company. 

...In a statement, the senator’s spokesman said, “The impulse in some quarters to reflexively cast suspicion on private sector experience is part of what makes qualified individuals reluctant to enter public service.”

But that's a silly thing to say because of course Ms. Koch just did enter public service, so either the spokesman is saying we couldn't get anyone qualified so we had to go with her, or we must imagine that the reluctance has been overcome by some expected reward. We don't have to think too hard to come up with some ideas about what that reward must be.

Eisinger moves on to a particularly fluid relationship between the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency and the Promontory Financial Group, which Eisinger calls "a classic Washington creature that is a private sector mirror image of a regulatory body." Julie Williams, who was chief counsel for the OCC last year, is now at Promontory, while her replacement, Amy Friend, is coming to the OCC from Promontory. Eisinger suggests that maybe they can swap back next year; that would at least save the taxpayers all the moving expenses back and forth between these two offices. Hey, we've got money problems here and it's not looking like they are going to be fixed--every litte bit helps. Eisinger concludes:

Washington today resembles something like the end of “Animal Farm.” People move from one side of the table to the other and up and down the Acela corridor with ease. An outsider looking at a negotiating table would glance from lobbyist to staff member, from colleague to former colleague, from pig to man and from man to pig and find it impossible to say which is which.

What can we expect when this passes for democratic governance? Nothing but more of the same, I think.

Growth for the sake of growth, plus ignorance and expertise in complex situations: two depictions

Edward Abbey said “growth for growth’s sake is the ideology of the cancer cell":

From a series called Illuminating Quotes, Visualised by Maggie Appleton. I like this drawing because it shows that there is plenty of room in the concept of capitalism that isn't infected by this destructive ideology. That's where we ought to concentrate our energies.

Appleton also nicely visualized Edward R. Murrow's statement that "Anyone who isn't confused doesn't really understand the situation," which seems particularly apt when it comes to tax law, especially international:

Should you (virtually) go to Antigua to gamble or download?

What an odd story from Above the Law last week:

Antigua & Barbuda can now legally offer downloads of copyrighted U.S. works, and there's not a damn thing the U.S. can do about it. The decision marks the latest chapter in the long-running trade dispute between the U.S. and the tiny Caribbean nation over Antigua's internet gambling industry. The U.S. banned Antigua's internet casinos, Antigua took the U.S. to court through the WTO, and Antigua won — and has continued to win — consistently throughout the appeal process.

ATL describes WTO dispute resolution thusly:

"Because you pulled Sally's hair, she gets a free shot to kick your friend from school in the nuts. Justice!!!"

But what Antigua really wants is a deal:

"The economy of Antigua and Barbuda has been devastated by the United States government's long campaign to prevent American consumers from gambling online with offshore gaming operators," Harold Lovell, Antigua's finance minister, said in a statement. "We once again ask our fellow sovereign nation and WTO member, the United States of America, to act in accordance with the WTO's decisions in this matter, before we move forward with the implementation of the sanctions authorized this day by the WTO."

I have two multi-part questions and two asides.

1. just as a factual matter, can people currently download US-copyrighted works from Antigua with impunity? That is, would that not be a breach of copyright on the part of the downloader, even if it is not for the download-facilitator? Obviously i have no understanding of copyright law.
2. can a nation state, as a matter of power/capacity, prevent its people (however it defines them) from gambling offshore via the internet?  And if it can, why shouldn't it?  This is a loaded question.

Galt's Gulch Chile, Randian Utopia?

I've called charter cities "the ultimate gated community," and it turns out that characterization wroks well as a marketing strategy designed to appeal to Randians with visions of state-free utopias dancing in their heads:

With the oppression of the over regulated, over taxed, war riddled and welfare riddled society consuming the world, Ayn Rand's famous protagonist character, John Galt, came to conclude that he would not use his talents to support such a society any longer...driving him to create a community where scientists, inventors, entrepreneurs and many others would come together to escape from the confines of their daily lives to not only be free...but to thrive.  

In today's world, it is becoming more and more difficult to find true freedom from very much the same oppressive forces Ayn Rand wrote of...which drove John Galt and others to a place where they found their freedom, success and peace of mind. 

But you can find yourself in just such a utopia for a modest investment:

Residential lots at Galt's Gulch Chile will be offered at much more affordable price points than one would expect for a community of this caliber. In the initial phase of the project, which is over 4,200 acres, lot sizes will range from 1.25 acres up to over 10 acres, within the separate neighborhoods of the master planned community, which is projected to have well over 1,000 lots on over 10,000 acres at build out. 

I have no idea what price point to expect from a community of that caliber.  Doesn't it depend on the height of the retaining wall built to keep the bands of roaming marauders out of my libertarian paradise?

Pictured: libertarian paradise

See that? No walls.  Also: no pesky roads, schools, hospitals, police stations, firehouses, courts, legislative bodies, telecommunications equipment, etc. But wait, here's another image:

These walls appear inadequate to protect paradise.

Galt's Gulch does have a facebook page...good thing facebook is still "free"!  But ...what is this?

The lots, roads, lakes and community amenities of Galt's Gulch Chile are currently being laid out by the architecture and engineering team. The on-site sales office is being retrofitted with solar panels and upgraded a bit inside and out, with a proposed opening sometime in March. Our Santiago office should be open sometime in the next two weeks as well. We look forward to getting in contact with everyone and meeting you down in Chile!

and, from their website:

Galt's Gulch Chile is slated to have all of the world-class amenities ...including a championship-caliber golf course, community clubhouses, tennis facilities, spa and fitness centers, hiking trails, horse facilities and trails, vineyards, underground storage facilities, downtown main street shopping, farmer's market, 24-hour guard-gated security and many others.  

Since there will be no imposing of onerous regulations or taxes here in Galt's Gulch, these items will obviously have to be priced into those "much more affordable price points than one would expect for a community of this caliber." But at least you won't have to use your talents to support a society. Your benevolent dictator GALT'S GULCH TRUSTEE LIMITED in Menlo Park, CA will contract you right out of all that messiness. Right? ....or, perhaps not.

Will this be like Independence, USA, "an entire city, developed around patterns?"

The Daily Show with Jon Stewart
Get More: Daily Show Full Episodes,Political Humor & Satire Blog,The Daily Show on Facebook

Actually, it does sound a little alike:

Galt's Gulch Chile is being designed to be a fully self-sustaining community, affording those who live there an abundant and unending supply of fresh drinking water from the natural springs located throughout the mountains and valleys of the community, clean and renewable energy from hydroelectric and solar power generation, organic fish from the scenic manmade lakes...and a plethora of organic fruits, vegetables and nuts, born from the fertile soil and the ideal year round climate of the region. 

Well then! Oh, how I yearn to sign up for more information on Galt's Gulch, if only it wouldn't mean being inundated with advertising from some trustee company in California trying to prey on my basic mistrust of government.

A handy guide to Davos-speak

From Ryan McCarthy at Reuters:

...What Davos folks mean when they constantly call for a “growth plan” or “restoring growth” is that no one can see any particular industry that’s going to increase the pace at which they get rich. And, as a result, the rest of us will have fewer jobs.

...[Bridgewater hedge fund CEO Ray] Dalio expanded a bit: the big conversation in politics and economics, he said, will be about how to get more out of workers – growth won’t come  from the next Internet, the next real estate boom or any new asset, in other words. This means, he said, hard choices about questions like “How long is a vacation?” or “What is a good life?” 

...what Dalio is saying is particularly dire for the rest of us. When the world’s most successful investors tells you economic growth is going to depend on whether or not you take a vacation, it’s time to worry. 

Emphasis mine. Make no mistake: whenever CEOs call for policies to increase growth, they mean in their own pockets.

Starbucks to UK: Kneel before Zod!

When it comes to tax, we know by now that Starbucks only giveth when it wants. That means of course that Starbucks can taketh away.  After David Cameron made some remarks about companies smelling the coffee, Starbucks feels bullied and makes noises about maybe not being quite so generous.

Aw, poor Starbucks! Oh, but don't worry, because when you're Starbucks, you just demand a meeting to set things straight:

Kris Engskov, the multinational’s UK managing director, demanded talks at Downing Street after the Prime Minister said tax-avoiding companies had to “wake up and smell the coffee”.

...“The PM is singling the business out for cheap shots, a company that, it should not be forgotten, has pledged to pay tax now and into the future,” said a source close to the firm.

Can we possibly descend into anything more absurd than this ridiculous status quo?  Well sure, of course we can!

The warning on investment comes amid concern among businesses that Government rhetoric on tax avoidance is hurting their image while their creation of jobs and wealth is not highlighted. 

You see, it is the government's job to produce the proper kind of propaganda on these things.  In sum, what we are now being told by multinationals is:

1. We will pay tribute when and where and in the amount we wish to, according to the will of our PR department and no one else.
2. Those upon whom we graciously bestow tribute must grovel in thankfulness and describe us favorably, or we will soon regret our generosity.

Davos: cocktail party, soft law generator

Davos is about as lucrative as it gets in terms of international networking, hence FT's headline: Davos is no conspiracy – it is infotainment. The assessment:

The fact that the World Economic Forum has been going since 1971 and can pull 2,600 professionals away from their desks without knowing precisely why they come is quite an achievement. Any event that can charge SFr22,000 ($23,600) per seat – and up to SFr500,000 for membership – has things to teach rivals.

 But here is the part of interest for those listening for signs of soft law in global governance:

...“It allows bankers or people in business to meet and make deals they couldn’t legally do in their offices,” says Richard Saul Wurman, founder of the Ted conferences.

Not stated: this includes with politicians, policymakers, people who might be closely scrutinized if they meet you in their offices at home, but whose ear you can command at a cocktail party without public scrutiny.  I talked about this phenomenon in this paper, and noted the problems for democracy and accountability in governance when epistemic communities take their deliberations off-line, that is, out of the observable paths of governance and into international networks. In these networks, what these private and public elites are doing doesn't look like lawmaking--they are having cocktails, they are listening to speeches--yet ultimately translates into just that. That is the power and the puzzle of soft law, and we can see hints of it in the FT article:

...Davos is serious – its participants discuss weighty topics and review the state of the world. They hear from policy makers and economists what is going on, and what they think will happen (rightly or wrongly). “Davos is a factory where the conventional wisdom is manufactured,” says David Rothkopf, the author of Power Inc. 

...Third, it is a club. Entrance is tightly restricted and it plays to people’s vanity to be invited, or even permitted to join. ... people pay to be with other people they want to become peers with, or whom they admire. The currency of a club is its members. 

...Corporate membership, star guests, personal contact, intellectual stimulation and parties make a potent combination. The network effect is hard to break, even with reverses such as the anti-globalisation protests of the 1990s. Once a quorum of the elite signed up, Davos grew until everyone complained it was too big.

So, a network of elite normmakers and the elites who want to influence them. If you care about the rule of law and how legal principles and institutions develop through power and influence, you will pay close attention to Davos. However you must concentrate not on what you see but what you don't see.

Legalize it, and Tax it

"The true effect of marijuana use ... could be zero.”

So this is not your brain on weed. But this might be.

Legalize it, and tax it, already; why not an earmarked tax in support of the arts. Bonus: increased consumption tax revenues.

Corporations are people my friend, carpool lane edition

California man says he can drive in carpool lane with corporation papers

He waved his corporation papers at the officer, he told NBCBayArea.com, saying that corporations are people under California law. 

Frieman doesn't actually support this notion. For more than 10 years, Frieman says he had been trying to get pulled over to get ticketed and to take his argument to court -- to challenge a judge to determine that corporations and people are not the same.

But the first question for the judge will not be whether corporations are people, but whether incorporation documents are corporations.

Did he in fact have a corporation in the car with him? Corporations are ethereal creatures, to be sure. You cannot pin them down with a seat belt. So I'll predict he loses on that technicality. Oh, the irony.

But even if he managed to win (by losing on the grounds he has proposed), I am not sure what that would give him by way of victory--I imagine he's thinking about the symbolic value of the public rejection of the notion of personhood. I imagine that would have been much more satisfying to him if he could have got the citation prior to November 6. But corporations and their propensity to shenanigans are certainly under increased scrutiny in civil society, so I'm not surprised to see this story gaining traction.

AIG PR Blitz “Thanks” Taxpayers For Bailouts

Something went horribly wrong in AIG's public relations department:

what is the message here from AIG?
“I needed money so I stole your car, robbed a liquor store, and now I am giving you your car back and I left a portion of the liquor store loot…”

And I'm proud of that. Thank you, America!

The PR dept didn't completely fail though: they were smart enough to disable the comments section:

New Paper: What is Freedom For?

Leslie Green asks What is Freedom for? Answer:

Two conceptions of the value of political freedom are popular. According to one, freedom serves autonomy, creating one's own path through life. According to the other, freedom serves authenticity, keeping faith with an identity one did not choose. This paper bridges the gap between these views in several ways. It shows that autonomy embraces some of the unchosen aspects of life that authenticity stresses, and that authenticity is consistent with scope for choice within an unchosen identity. It is also shows that both views share a stake in a neglected value, self-knowledge. Partisans of authenticity cannot keep faith with their identity if they do not know what it truly is. Partisans of autonomy cannot choose a path in life without knowing what the options are for them, and these options can be affected instrumentally and constitutively by their identity, which they therefore have a stake in knowing. Of course, there can be more than one sound argument in favor of freedom. But contrary to what many suppose, autonomy and authenticity are complementary, not competing, in making that case. The differences between them are matters of nuance and degree.

Interesting. We see the term freedom used fairly frequently in tax policy debate--certainly, freedom is a concept that animates the anti-tax crowd. Murphy & Nagel did the best work, I think, in showing the unstated assumptions and flawed thinking that goes in to seeing taxation as an affront to freedom; this paper seems to complement that work.

International Law and Language Policy

Here is an interesting new book, by Jacqueline Mowbray: Linguistic Justice: International Law and Language Policy (Oxford 2012).  From the abstract:

Globalization and migration are producing societies of increasing linguistic diversity. At the same time, English is achieving unprecedented global dominance, smaller languages are becoming 'extinct' at an alarming rate, and ethnic tensions in countries from Belgium to Tibet continue to centre on questions of language. Against this background, the issue of how to ensure justice between speakers of different languages becomes a pressing social concern. Matters of 'linguistic justice' are therefore drawing increasing scholarly attention across a range of disciplines. 

How does international law contribute to linguistic justice? This book explores that question by conducting a comprehensive, interdisciplinary examination of international law on language ... the book explores the conceptual framework which underpins international law on language, unearthing underlying assumptions and ideas about what constitutes a 'just' language policy from a legal perspective. ..

This explores an interesting aspect of international society and culture.  More at the link.  

Recent scholarship of interest

Here are some recent papers of interest:

On the power and role of the state:

• Bernard Schneider, The End of Taxation without End: A New Tax Regime for U.S. Expatriates, arguing that the US should settle for residence based taxation like everyone else in the world. Has a nice section on the history of the practice.
• Claudia Williamson, Contracting Institutions, asking what constrains the state from plundering its people, if the state has monopoly power, and concluding that cultural norms do.
• Martha Fineman, Beyond Identities: The Limits of an Antidiscrimination Approach to Equality, comparing legal cultures of equality and concluding that in the US, human need is seen as a matter of individual responsibility alone while other constitutional democracies also see it as a state responsibility. 

On the inequitable impact of tax treaties:

• Fabian Barthel & Eric Neumayer, Competing for Scarce Foreign Capital: Spatial Dependence in the Diffusion of Double Taxation Treaties, when bilateral FDI positions are asymmetric (as between rich and poor countries), capital importers (poorer countries, usually) lose by entering into a tax treaty; they sign anyway because of competition. Studies DTTs between 1969–2005.

On subsidies & industrial policy:

• Stephanie Rickard, A Non-Tariff Protectionist Bias in Majoritarian Politics: Government Subsidies and Electoral Institutions. Examines how different governments use trade protection via tariffs and subsidies, and finds that majoritarian systems are biased toward both.

And on methodology in legal scholarship:

• Tom Ginsburg, Pitfalls of Measuring the Rule of Law, pointing out methodological challenges for rule-of-law scholarship, calling for caution in policymaking (same argument as I made about using "case studies" to advance international tax principles, you can find that here)

Scholarship on Global Citizenship

International Law Reports posts the latest issue of Global Society, a special issue on the topic of Cosmopolitanism and Global Citizenship--of interest especially to anyone thinking about citizenship-based taxation (perhaps especially in a post-FATCA world--you can see what's occupying my thoughts these days).  Contents at the link.  Good vacation reading, especially if you're travelling across a border to visit family.

To sell weed legally, you're going to need a shell company

NPR had a story not too long ago that is of interest, not (or not only) because it is always fun to think about how the world would be a better place if states would legalize & tax it, but also because it highlights the central role of US shell companies in facilitating crime. Since the US won't legalize weed but some states have effectively decriminalized it, it falls to shell companies to ease the federalist rift.

NPR talked to an owner of a "legal" (under state law) medical marijuana business in Washington state:

He described one of the big hurdles of starting a legal marijuana business: It's really hard to get a bank account. His story reveals not only the gray area the marijuana business still inhabits (it's still illegal under federal law), but also just how hard it is to run a small business without a bank. 

Here are four key steps Davis recommends, based on his own experience: 

...4. Create a shell company. Banks don't want to do business with weed shops. But they don't mind opening accounts for legal corporations whose business dealings are vague. "I had to be colorful with the way that I opened my account," Davis said. "I don't feel great about having to toy with the truth, but it's essential for me to have banking. I'm a business."

This might sound like an apology for shell companies. But it is absolutely not.

Rather, the shady area between federal criminal law and state law has opened up an opportunity to find honest people who are willing to talk about shell companies and how they work. They are sympathetic souls who seem to be acting in good faith, so we will listen to them when they tell us the quasi-criminal or criminal-feeling, anyway, path they must travel in order to do something, the essentially criminal nature of which is itself in question.

That presents a fascinating confluence of actors, institutions, lawmaking, and compliance issues, worthy of much further study. Field research anyone?