In his newly posted piece on Forbes.com, "Law Professor Argues New Pass-Through Rules (199A) Are Horrible," Peter J. Reilly in Forbes reads my article on the pass-through rules, supplemented by a phone interview. He notes that I published the piece in the British Tax Journal, rather than in the U.S., because (however justifiably) its tone was less temperate than is usual for me.
He notes that I credit section 199A with having "achieved a rare and unenviable trifecta, by making the tax system less efficient, less fair, and more complicated," and that I compare the 2017 proceedings to Gilded Age politics.
It's a fun response by Reilly, and insofar as he disagrees with me it's because my noting that the provision will require business people to "pay large sums to tax lawyers and accountants to figure out how best to structure their arrangements with an eye to minimizing federal tax liability" is good news for accountants such as him. "So a small portion of those large sums is coming my way."
Reilly also quotes my noting, in the article, that the motivation for the pass-through rules appears to be sociological - aimed at rewarding members of the business elite while excluding member of the more educated professional and academic elites, simply because these are self-consciously distinct groups and the former were driving the bus in 2017.
He responds that this mistakenly classifies accountants as part of the educated classes and the intellectual elite. That may well be right, if one looks just as accountants from a sociological standpoint. But in the 199A list of professions banned from getting the 20% tax cut (other than below income phase-out), accountants were unlucky enough to get grouped, based on prior statutory precedents, with the likes of lawyers, doctors, and artists.
BTW, on a related note, I recently heard through the grapevine an explanation of why, at the last moment in the 2017 enactment process, architects and engineers were taken out of the professional classes' exclusion from full pass-through benefits. The word is that Bechtel told their Congressional patrons (or servants?) to take out engineers, and architects got pulled too because the two groups were listed right next to each other, and a second deletion was thought useful in obscuring the political deal.
Gives you a nice sense of the sheer thoughtfulness behind contemporary Congressional Republican industrial policy.
Thursday, December 06, 2018
Tuesday, December 04, 2018
Talks in Tel Aviv
This Thursday night, on the day after my last class of the semester, I'm heading to Tel Aviv, where I'll be participating in two events next week at the Bar Ilan Law School. First, on Tuesday, December 12, I'll discuss my recent article on international tax policy after the 2017 U.S. tax act (see part 1 here and part 2 here). This may be the last time I discuss this piece at a seminar, but as I'm in effect expanding it (plus other stuff) into a short book, it remains reasonably fresh to me.
Second, on Thursday, December 14, I'll be among those discussing Tsilly Dagan's excellent recent book, International Tax Policy: Between Competition and Cooperation. We international tax policy book authors need to stick together. Her book is complementary to mine, as I'm mainly interested in the unilateral angle (what a given country might want to do absent strategic interactions between countries) and she is more interested in the strategic aspect. In the time allotted to me, I'll discuss underlying dilemmas in the field, the book's main contributions, and follow-up qustions or issues.
Second, on Thursday, December 14, I'll be among those discussing Tsilly Dagan's excellent recent book, International Tax Policy: Between Competition and Cooperation. We international tax policy book authors need to stick together. Her book is complementary to mine, as I'm mainly interested in the unilateral angle (what a given country might want to do absent strategic interactions between countries) and she is more interested in the strategic aspect. In the time allotted to me, I'll discuss underlying dilemmas in the field, the book's main contributions, and follow-up qustions or issues.
Friday, November 16, 2018
Comments at NTA plenary session on fiscal policy after the 2017 act and the 2018 midterm elections
Today at 10:15
am, the National Tax Association's 111th annual meeting had a
"plenary session" on the topic of Fiscal Policy After the Midterm
Elections. The law prof on the panel was originally scheduled to be
Michael Graetz, but he got trapped in NYC by the freak November snowstorm, so
yesterday afternoon they decided to call for the left-hander, and asked me
if I would be able to sub in as a panelist. I said yes, and here is
approximately what I said in my 5-minute opening statement on the panel:
I have 5
points to make today about fiscal policy in the aftermath of the 2017 tax act
and last week's midterm elections:
1) I
don’t call what happened last year “tax reform.” Not because it was
bad legislation – although I think that in the main it was, despite some good
features – but because the term has become completely empty, and now just means
“legislation that the proponents like.”
The 1986 Act
was called “tax reform” because it related to a particular conceptual model
that had captured the term’s then-agreed meaning, and that involved cutting
rates and broadening the base while being at least short-term revenue and
distribution neutral.
The 2017 act
was unfunded, seems fiscally unsustainable, and in some ways narrowed the base,
even from a consumption tax perspective (which I consider an entirely valid one
for assessing “base-broadening”). For example, a broad-based consumption tax
wouldn’t have industrial policy in it like that from the pass through rules.
2) The
2017 act’s proponents undermined its long-term prospects by allowing it to look
unprincipled – For example, it doesn’t look like good faith to cut the
corporate rate to 21% without either funding it or attempting to limit the use
of corporations as tax shelters by high-earning owner employees. The
passthrough rule look like sociological discrimination in favor of business
types over professional types and employees, for no discernible reason other
than the pass-throughs telling Congress “the C corporations got theirs, so we
want ours.” Meanwhile, employees not only pay higher rates than non-employees
who are doing the same jobs, but lose all business expense
deductions. This is not a defensible policy, even though it’s true
that, in practice, actual employee business expense deduction claims may tend
to include a lot of junk.
The new
restrictions on state and local income tax deductibility might have been viewed
less hostilely in the blue states if the overall bill hadn’t looked to so many
people as something that was politically targeted and designed in bad faith.
3) It’s
hard to see a sustainable budgetary path forward – Democrats are
unlikely to play the fools a third time with regard to addressing the fiscal
gap, after Clinton was followed by Bush II and Obama was followed by this tax
bill. This is dangerous for our country, and reflects a broader breakdown of
cooperative political norms that are really vital to our national welfare.
4) The
broader destruction of American social capital in recent years has further bad
implications for the tax system – If no one believes in a fair,
cooperative policy process any more, and the IRS has next to no auditing
capacity and an inadequate budget, could we be risking a serious tax compliance
breakdown, from changed behavioral norms? It’s not impossible.
5) On
a brighter note, thank goodness the unhelpful “worldwide vs. territorial”
distinction in international tax policy discussion has been put to bed. By
repealing deferral, we replaced “now or maybe later” taxation of foreign source
income with “now or never” taxation, but the “now” has been significantly
expanded. The new international provisions have serious flaws, but could in
principle be cleaned up a lot if we still had a functioning bipartisan
legislative process. And they do mostly focus on issues of
genuine concern that tend to lack clear answers from a policy standpoint.
It’s also
interesting to note that other countries are starting to copy aspects of the
BEAT and GILTI. This might be good or bad for the U.S. and for the world, and
doesn’t prove that the provisions are good ones, but it is an interesting trend
to keep in mind.
It could
conceivably betoken a future era of greater global cooperation than we observe
right now. And why don’t I close now on that relatively optimistic note.
Monday, November 12, 2018
There are two types of people in the world: one kind, and the other kind ...
... Or alternatively, there are two types of people of people in the world, those who believe there are two types of people in the world, and ...
Death to cliched overstatement and all that, but still bimodal division can sometimes help to sharpen a point, brought to mind most recently by the portion of the weekend just past that I spent reading the booklet and/or playing the bonus material from the 50th anniversity super deluxe reissue edition of a famous double album called The Beatles, aka the White Album.
By the time I was in my teens, it was no longer quite so true, in terms of the "two types of people" trope, that one was either a Beatles fan or a Stones fan. Even leaving aside that most people were both, hence it was a matter of relative preference rather than exclusivity (i.e., more like "Jets or Giants" than "Mets or Yankees"), by this time the Beatles were a few years in the past, and hence it was more like "Stones or Grateful Dead." I was more in the former camp, though decently appreciative of the latter. There also was perhaps a bit of "Springsteen or punk / new wave" - although Springsteen had some new wave cred, e.g., Patti Smith had covered "Because the Night" - and here I was definitely in the latter camp. Springsteen felt a bit too earnest, un-ironic, and reverently retro to me - again, with all due respect for his virtues.
One also could say, along I would think with Brian Eno, that the real 1960s choice for older cohorts ought to have been "Beatles or Velvet Underground." (Sorry, Stones.) Except that here, once I caught up with the Velvets' legacy in the late 1970s, my answer was definitely "both."
Returning to Beatles vs. Stones, however - with apologies for returning to a topic that I gather I have addressed here once before, albeit rather a long time ago (in August 2005), I did have a horse in this one despite its being a retro issue by the time I was able to take sides. The Stones spent the 1960s doing one great song after another (albeit, with dross mixed in as album filler). They also had a handful of great albums - in particular, the very good Between the Buttons (1966, with Brian Jones diversifying the sound palette) followed by the immortal Exile on Main Street (1972) and then the crucial comeback album Some Girls (1978). And Jagger in his true glory days could express vulnerability, not just grandiose swaggering, in a way that added to their work's depth. But the Stones had good enough image management - not least by Jagger and Richards themselves - to succeed in creating widespread misapprehension of the true contrast between these two great and artistically overlapping groups.
I refer, of course, to the conceit that the Beatles were mainstream while the Rolling Stones were outrageous rebels. Now, it is true that the Stones sometimes went places where the Beatles, apart from Lennon, didn't entirely want to go. But does anyone today think that "Street Fighting Man," contrasted at the time with "Revolution" as showing that the Stones were more anti-Establishment, was even 10% as cathartic and heartfelt? (BTW, I hold no brief for Lennon's post-Beatles "Imagine," which I find mawkish and unconvincing.)
If the standard Beatles vs. Stones view were more accurate, then we wouldn't see such outcasts and outsiders as Elliott Smith, Kurt Cobain, and Fiona Apple embracing the Beatles so fervently.
I see 2 main distinctions between the Beatles and the Stones. (Other than the Beatles' having the inadvertent wisdom to break up at their peak, hence never have a decline phase other than as individuals.) The first is that the Beatles were outlanders who didn't know the hip London definition of cool; hence they had to make it up for themselves. This aided their being more creative and original. (The Stones were overly in thrall to the idea of simply re-creating the blues as practiced by their heroes - the Beatles' cast of heroes was more diverse and hence more artistically empowering.)
The second was the dynamic nature of the Lennon-McCartney partnership. (But note also that Harrison chafed at being an underling, to the band's artistic benefit, especially at the end.) Jagger once commented that, of every 10 things the Beatles were going to do, both Lennon and McCartney wanted to run 9 of them. He then added, with the benefit of several decades' hindsight, something like: "You can't run a business that way."
No, you can't, which is why the Beatles exploded into a rain and reign of lawsuits and bitter take-down songs about each other, whereas the Stones' corporate enterprise just kept going and going and going, well past the point of tedium. But going back to the very day (back in 1958) when Lennon and McCartney met, there was no clear hierarchy between them, but rather a dynamic tension. Lennon was the older and more forceful one with the cohort of bandmates / followers. But McCartney had more musical chops and had already started songwriting. So it was a continual struggle, friendly and synergistic until it inevitably blew up, that made each of them both better and keener. In a sense, each made the other feel like Scottie Pippen, being strengthened by his daily practice battles with Michael Jordan.
By contrast, Keith Richards has great fun chafing at Jagger in his autobiography, and he notes that he'd write most of a song, then hand it to Jagger to finish up (e.g., the verses in Satisfaction). Plus, he was clearly the main force behind Exile on Main Street. But his chafing reflects that Jagger, as lead singer and group spokesman, was far closer to being the boss than either Lennon or McCartney could ever dream of being in their partnership. This dynamic instability and rivalry (e.g., who gets the next single? Whose material is going to be stronger on the next album? He's written another "masterpiece" - John's very word for "Hey Jude" - how am I going to answer it?), combined with mutual admiration and help, and with their both complementary and overlapping strengths, pushed each of them further than he would ever have gotten by himself (or ever would again).
But this bring us to one last "two types of people" bit. Among Beatles fans, as one of the reviews of the White Album reissue noted, there are Sgt Pepper fans, and White Album fans. Well-honed pop perfection, or crazy creative explosion that's all over the map, sometimes excessive or silly but almost always (if you can peel back the years and all the over-exposure) fresh and startling? Count me as very firmly on the White Album side (although I also give highest marks to the very cohesive Rubber Soul and Revolver albums). It's an astounding achievement, with multiple stunning peaks, and (for the most part) all the more lovable, and admirably audacious, for its flaws.
The expanded reissue has a crisp sound where you can hear separate instruments more clearly, plus a fantastic 75-minute Unplugged album (aka the Esher demos, which I already had but not with such high-quality sound), plus 3 more disks of often very interesting outtakes and alternative or early versions. These last 3 require prior fandom and knowledge in order to be worth it (and again, some of it had been bootlegged with inferior sound), but if you have that they're very interesting. Plus, they often have a great live band feel. The material on these disks confirms that the Beatles mostly made the right choices in developing the White Album material - leaving aside the regrettable over-orchestration of Good Night - but its release further enriches their legacy. (I didn't buy the Sgt Pepper reissue, knowing that there wouldn't be all that much of fresh interest there.)
Here's hoping that next year they'll do something of a multi-disk character with the Get Back / Let It Be sessions (the Abbey Road sessions were too concise and focused to leave as much interesting material lying around). Or maybe it could all be combined in a "Beatles 1969" package. If they do it right, as they did this time, I'll buy it.
Death to cliched overstatement and all that, but still bimodal division can sometimes help to sharpen a point, brought to mind most recently by the portion of the weekend just past that I spent reading the booklet and/or playing the bonus material from the 50th anniversity super deluxe reissue edition of a famous double album called The Beatles, aka the White Album.
By the time I was in my teens, it was no longer quite so true, in terms of the "two types of people" trope, that one was either a Beatles fan or a Stones fan. Even leaving aside that most people were both, hence it was a matter of relative preference rather than exclusivity (i.e., more like "Jets or Giants" than "Mets or Yankees"), by this time the Beatles were a few years in the past, and hence it was more like "Stones or Grateful Dead." I was more in the former camp, though decently appreciative of the latter. There also was perhaps a bit of "Springsteen or punk / new wave" - although Springsteen had some new wave cred, e.g., Patti Smith had covered "Because the Night" - and here I was definitely in the latter camp. Springsteen felt a bit too earnest, un-ironic, and reverently retro to me - again, with all due respect for his virtues.
One also could say, along I would think with Brian Eno, that the real 1960s choice for older cohorts ought to have been "Beatles or Velvet Underground." (Sorry, Stones.) Except that here, once I caught up with the Velvets' legacy in the late 1970s, my answer was definitely "both."
Returning to Beatles vs. Stones, however - with apologies for returning to a topic that I gather I have addressed here once before, albeit rather a long time ago (in August 2005), I did have a horse in this one despite its being a retro issue by the time I was able to take sides. The Stones spent the 1960s doing one great song after another (albeit, with dross mixed in as album filler). They also had a handful of great albums - in particular, the very good Between the Buttons (1966, with Brian Jones diversifying the sound palette) followed by the immortal Exile on Main Street (1972) and then the crucial comeback album Some Girls (1978). And Jagger in his true glory days could express vulnerability, not just grandiose swaggering, in a way that added to their work's depth. But the Stones had good enough image management - not least by Jagger and Richards themselves - to succeed in creating widespread misapprehension of the true contrast between these two great and artistically overlapping groups.
I refer, of course, to the conceit that the Beatles were mainstream while the Rolling Stones were outrageous rebels. Now, it is true that the Stones sometimes went places where the Beatles, apart from Lennon, didn't entirely want to go. But does anyone today think that "Street Fighting Man," contrasted at the time with "Revolution" as showing that the Stones were more anti-Establishment, was even 10% as cathartic and heartfelt? (BTW, I hold no brief for Lennon's post-Beatles "Imagine," which I find mawkish and unconvincing.)
If the standard Beatles vs. Stones view were more accurate, then we wouldn't see such outcasts and outsiders as Elliott Smith, Kurt Cobain, and Fiona Apple embracing the Beatles so fervently.
I see 2 main distinctions between the Beatles and the Stones. (Other than the Beatles' having the inadvertent wisdom to break up at their peak, hence never have a decline phase other than as individuals.) The first is that the Beatles were outlanders who didn't know the hip London definition of cool; hence they had to make it up for themselves. This aided their being more creative and original. (The Stones were overly in thrall to the idea of simply re-creating the blues as practiced by their heroes - the Beatles' cast of heroes was more diverse and hence more artistically empowering.)
The second was the dynamic nature of the Lennon-McCartney partnership. (But note also that Harrison chafed at being an underling, to the band's artistic benefit, especially at the end.) Jagger once commented that, of every 10 things the Beatles were going to do, both Lennon and McCartney wanted to run 9 of them. He then added, with the benefit of several decades' hindsight, something like: "You can't run a business that way."
No, you can't, which is why the Beatles exploded into a rain and reign of lawsuits and bitter take-down songs about each other, whereas the Stones' corporate enterprise just kept going and going and going, well past the point of tedium. But going back to the very day (back in 1958) when Lennon and McCartney met, there was no clear hierarchy between them, but rather a dynamic tension. Lennon was the older and more forceful one with the cohort of bandmates / followers. But McCartney had more musical chops and had already started songwriting. So it was a continual struggle, friendly and synergistic until it inevitably blew up, that made each of them both better and keener. In a sense, each made the other feel like Scottie Pippen, being strengthened by his daily practice battles with Michael Jordan.
By contrast, Keith Richards has great fun chafing at Jagger in his autobiography, and he notes that he'd write most of a song, then hand it to Jagger to finish up (e.g., the verses in Satisfaction). Plus, he was clearly the main force behind Exile on Main Street. But his chafing reflects that Jagger, as lead singer and group spokesman, was far closer to being the boss than either Lennon or McCartney could ever dream of being in their partnership. This dynamic instability and rivalry (e.g., who gets the next single? Whose material is going to be stronger on the next album? He's written another "masterpiece" - John's very word for "Hey Jude" - how am I going to answer it?), combined with mutual admiration and help, and with their both complementary and overlapping strengths, pushed each of them further than he would ever have gotten by himself (or ever would again).
But this bring us to one last "two types of people" bit. Among Beatles fans, as one of the reviews of the White Album reissue noted, there are Sgt Pepper fans, and White Album fans. Well-honed pop perfection, or crazy creative explosion that's all over the map, sometimes excessive or silly but almost always (if you can peel back the years and all the over-exposure) fresh and startling? Count me as very firmly on the White Album side (although I also give highest marks to the very cohesive Rubber Soul and Revolver albums). It's an astounding achievement, with multiple stunning peaks, and (for the most part) all the more lovable, and admirably audacious, for its flaws.
The expanded reissue has a crisp sound where you can hear separate instruments more clearly, plus a fantastic 75-minute Unplugged album (aka the Esher demos, which I already had but not with such high-quality sound), plus 3 more disks of often very interesting outtakes and alternative or early versions. These last 3 require prior fandom and knowledge in order to be worth it (and again, some of it had been bootlegged with inferior sound), but if you have that they're very interesting. Plus, they often have a great live band feel. The material on these disks confirms that the Beatles mostly made the right choices in developing the White Album material - leaving aside the regrettable over-orchestration of Good Night - but its release further enriches their legacy. (I didn't buy the Sgt Pepper reissue, knowing that there wouldn't be all that much of fresh interest there.)
Here's hoping that next year they'll do something of a multi-disk character with the Get Back / Let It Be sessions (the Abbey Road sessions were too concise and focused to leave as much interesting material lying around). Or maybe it could all be combined in a "Beatles 1969" package. If they do it right, as they did this time, I'll buy it.
Wednesday, November 07, 2018
Tax conference in Copenhagen, DK
On Monday, I discussed the new U.S. international tax rules, and what they might mean for the future (from both a U.S. and a European Community perspective) at an International Tax Conference that was held at the Copenhagen Business School.
The slides are available here. The paper on which the talk was based is available here (Part 1) and here (Part 2).
Slide 23 was new, reflecting that I was giving the talk to an EC audience. I elaborated a bit in person on the last text box in the slides, from the perspective of: What should tax policy folks in the EC be thinking about the U.S., as an ally/partner/rival/potential dealmaking counterparty, etc.?
It was lovely to be in Copenhagen, which I had not previously visited, although close family members had (rightly) given it rave reviews. I lucked out on the weather, and if, after getting home after 10 pm last night I had to give a two-hour Tax I lecture this morning at 8:50 am, then I have only myself to blame, and/or I chose to do this with my eyes open.
Sometimes these days, when one visits a lovely European city on business, one asks oneself, on the return: Why exactly am I going back? (Leaving aside all my personal and professional connections in the U.S., which needless to say are entirely binding.)
I absentee-voted before leaving on the trip, as I knew the polls would be closed by the time I got back.
Suppose you were to guess: How many times, while I was in transit or away, did I check any U.S. news of any sort on my various screens or otherwise, leaving aside sports and culture?
If the over-under is one time, and you are betting on this, I strongly advise you to take the "under."
In addition to touring Copenhagen a bit during such time as I had (I was there for about 72 hours), I also managed to read 3 books on Kindle, each of which I quite enjoyed: Mick Herron's Slow Horses, Angela Thirkill's High Rising, and Donald Westlake's The Fugitive Pigeon. The common theme was (a) escapism / easy to read while tired and/or stressed, plus (b) good literary quality.
The slides are available here. The paper on which the talk was based is available here (Part 1) and here (Part 2).
Slide 23 was new, reflecting that I was giving the talk to an EC audience. I elaborated a bit in person on the last text box in the slides, from the perspective of: What should tax policy folks in the EC be thinking about the U.S., as an ally/partner/rival/potential dealmaking counterparty, etc.?
It was lovely to be in Copenhagen, which I had not previously visited, although close family members had (rightly) given it rave reviews. I lucked out on the weather, and if, after getting home after 10 pm last night I had to give a two-hour Tax I lecture this morning at 8:50 am, then I have only myself to blame, and/or I chose to do this with my eyes open.
Sometimes these days, when one visits a lovely European city on business, one asks oneself, on the return: Why exactly am I going back? (Leaving aside all my personal and professional connections in the U.S., which needless to say are entirely binding.)
I absentee-voted before leaving on the trip, as I knew the polls would be closed by the time I got back.
Suppose you were to guess: How many times, while I was in transit or away, did I check any U.S. news of any sort on my various screens or otherwise, leaving aside sports and culture?
If the over-under is one time, and you are betting on this, I strongly advise you to take the "under."
In addition to touring Copenhagen a bit during such time as I had (I was there for about 72 hours), I also managed to read 3 books on Kindle, each of which I quite enjoyed: Mick Herron's Slow Horses, Angela Thirkill's High Rising, and Donald Westlake's The Fugitive Pigeon. The common theme was (a) escapism / easy to read while tired and/or stressed, plus (b) good literary quality.
Thursday, November 01, 2018
It's time for more cat pandering
Gary can be irresistible, unless you are a small prey object or play item.
Tuesday, October 23, 2018
International tax talk tomorrow
Tomorrow morning, I'm flying to Detroit, thence by wheels to Ann Arbor where I will give a talk at the University of Michigan Law School. It will be in re.my recent Tax Notes article, "Tne New Non-Territorial U.S. International Tax System," part 1 of which is available here, and part 2 here.
This is actually the first of 5 occasions on which I'll be discussing the paper, and/or issues within its purview, within the next couple of months. The other 4 occasions are as follows:
1) this Friday, October 26, at a Fordham Law School conference entitled The Future of the New International Tax Regime, registration & other info available here.
2) Monday, November 5, Copenhagen Business School, International Tax Conference: Recent Developments in International Tax Law, registratrion and other info available here.
3) Friday, November 16, National Tax Association Annual Meeting, in New Orleans, 1:45 pm session on a panel entitled Legal Perspectives on the TJCA.
4) Tuesday, December 11, faculty seminar at Bar-Ilan Law School, Tel Aviv.
I'll also be back in New Orleans on January 5, participating in an American Association of Law Schools annual meeting panel entitled "The 2017 Tax Changes, One Year Later." But here I suspect the paper would be somewhat misdirected in terms of what I anticipate being asked to discuss.
It's always good for business if you can standardize your talks and keep giving the same thing. (At the cost of its being boring for you, and for any repeat audience members.) But in this set of instances I'll be speaking to some rather distinct audiences, besides which my speaking times will vary from 13 minutes to 50. So I will certainly have to do a lot of customizing.
As it happens, the topic remains of current interest to me, as I have in mind the plan of writing a short book updating my 2014 publication, Fixing U.S. International Taxation. I see what's happened since then as affirming and even vindicating the analysis in that book, which I feel in retrospect substantially anticipated what policymakers and scholars would increasingly realize are the real topics of interest in international taxation. (And the book is far less about saying "This is the answer" than "These are the questions.") But there's a need for an update - and I'm doing a fresh (although much shorter) book, rather than a new edition - because the law has changed, the debate has moved forward, and there are lots of new developments to discuss.
So I will have the new enterprise in mind as I discuss the by now months-old article with these various audiences.
This is actually the first of 5 occasions on which I'll be discussing the paper, and/or issues within its purview, within the next couple of months. The other 4 occasions are as follows:
1) this Friday, October 26, at a Fordham Law School conference entitled The Future of the New International Tax Regime, registration & other info available here.
2) Monday, November 5, Copenhagen Business School, International Tax Conference: Recent Developments in International Tax Law, registratrion and other info available here.
3) Friday, November 16, National Tax Association Annual Meeting, in New Orleans, 1:45 pm session on a panel entitled Legal Perspectives on the TJCA.
4) Tuesday, December 11, faculty seminar at Bar-Ilan Law School, Tel Aviv.
I'll also be back in New Orleans on January 5, participating in an American Association of Law Schools annual meeting panel entitled "The 2017 Tax Changes, One Year Later." But here I suspect the paper would be somewhat misdirected in terms of what I anticipate being asked to discuss.
It's always good for business if you can standardize your talks and keep giving the same thing. (At the cost of its being boring for you, and for any repeat audience members.) But in this set of instances I'll be speaking to some rather distinct audiences, besides which my speaking times will vary from 13 minutes to 50. So I will certainly have to do a lot of customizing.
As it happens, the topic remains of current interest to me, as I have in mind the plan of writing a short book updating my 2014 publication, Fixing U.S. International Taxation. I see what's happened since then as affirming and even vindicating the analysis in that book, which I feel in retrospect substantially anticipated what policymakers and scholars would increasingly realize are the real topics of interest in international taxation. (And the book is far less about saying "This is the answer" than "These are the questions.") But there's a need for an update - and I'm doing a fresh (although much shorter) book, rather than a new edition - because the law has changed, the debate has moved forward, and there are lots of new developments to discuss.
So I will have the new enterprise in mind as I discuss the by now months-old article with these various audiences.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
