Search

I. Introduction On May 7, 2024, the Treasury and Internal Revenue Service (IRS) released proposed regulations that would provide guidance regarding information reporting on transactions with foreign trusts, receipt of [...]

I. Introduction Taxpayers with international reach understand that U.S. international tax compliance can be complicated. Each aspect has its own challenges and peculiarities, but issues related to foreign gifts and [...]

President Joseph R. Biden, Jr. has issued an executive order that will restrict outbound investment in national security technologies and products. The order directs the Treasury Department to prohibit U.S. [...]

Estates, Trusts & Gifts IRS signals it will challenge IDGT basis step-up at death The IRS recently published Rev. Rul. 2023-2, which publicly announced that the Service will be challenging [...]

Too often in an effort to save Mother Nature, we forget about human nature. Solving problems with rolling out clean renewable energy is less a matter of the physical sciences [...]

I INTRODUCTION: GAMESTOP AND THE GULF BETWEEN PEOPLE AND REGULATORS In the so-called "meme stock" phenomenon of early 2021, retail investors acting en masse temporarily ran up stocks, including video [...]

I. INTRODUCTION The popularity of virtual currency and crypto assets has increased tremendously in the recent years. In fact, "[t]he U.S. is among the countries that host the highest concentration [...]

INTRODUCTION I. THE DEMINIMIS PROCESS A. Current Process B. The Apparel Sector's Use of De Minimis II. HISTORY OF SECTION 321 OF THE TARIFF ACT OF 1930 A. The Passage [...]

February 1, 2024 The foreign tax credit (FTC) rules stand out as one of the most dynamic and fluctuating areas in the evolution of international taxation in the last few [...]

January 1, 2024 Cost recovery of specified research or experimental (SRE) expenditures is governed by Sec. 174. Subsection (d), added by the law known as the Tax Cuts and Jobs [...]

January 1, 2024 Proposed regulations (REG-134420-10) for corporations that file U.S. federal consolidated income tax returns would update guidance under Sec. 1502 for statutory changes made over the last 50 [...]

January 1, 2024 The IRS's Large Business and International (LB&I) Division announced updates to the Compliance Assurance Process (CAP) program for tax year 2024 and beyond (News Release IR-2023-164). Program [...]

January 1, 2024 A swap for pizza started a need Today's cryptocurrency launched in 2008 with the release of a whitepaper, "Bitcoin: A Peer-to-Peer Electronic Cash System," under the pseudonym [...]

INTRODUCTION I. ADMINISTRATIVE FRAMEWORK A. The NLRA and the Bog of Logomachy B. The Make-Whole Remedy C. Thryv, Inc. and the Board's Power Moving Forward II. EXISTING GAPS IN PROTECTION [...]

INTRODUCTION I. THE GOOD CAUSE EXCEPTION CONUNDRUM A. Current Bounds of the Good Cause Exception B. The Good Cause Exception Conundrum 1. The Costs of Invoking the Good Cause Exception [...], The Administrative Procedure Act (APA) created notice-and-comment rulemaking as the paradigm for informal rulemaking. Scholars have recognized the benefits of this process for generating rules that reflect more inclusive public preferences and values and that are more carefully drafted to better serve the public interest. But the APA also permits an agency to adopt a rule without notice-and-comment when the agency shows good cause for why those procedures are impractical, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest. Traditionally, the first and third ground for the good cause exception to notice-and-comment procedures were understood to be narrow, applying only when there is an unforeseen emergency and when advance notice of the rule would undermine the effectiveness of it. But the notice-and-comment rulemaking process has become protracted since the enactment of the APA in 1946, resulting in long lag times between when a rule is proposed and when it is finally adopted. Thus, this process imposes a cost of delay before the benefits of a new or amended rule are realized. This translates into a conundrum for use of the good cause exception because such use can alleviate the costs of delay but at the expense of the likely extent to which the rule serves the public interest. Recently, agencies have used a mechanism called interim final rulemaking to adopt rules. Under this mechanism, the agency issues an interim final rule (IFR)--a rule that becomes effective before the agency receives public comments on it but on which the agency invites comments after the rule takes effect. The agency essentially commits to considering whether to amend the IFR in response to the postpromulgation comments that the IFR generates. Issuance of an IFR can solve the good cause exception conundrum because it both allows the IFR to go into effect quickly but does not preclude ultimately delivering the benefits of notice-and-comment procedures when the agency considers the post-promulgation comments and issues a final final rule. But IFRs can themselves alter the rulemaking process so that the final final rule might not be as good as the rule that would have resulted from prepromulgation notice-and-comment proceedings. In light of the potential for IFRs to solve the good cause exception conundrum, this Article advocates that agencies more broadly invoke the exception by issuing IFRs, and that courts become more tolerant of that practice. At the same time, the Article reviews how use of IFRs might result in harm to the public interest and suggests some restrictions on the broadened use of IFRs to avoid their use resulting in less benefit to the public interest than would derive from the traditional notice-and-comment rulemaking paradigm.

INTRODUCTION I. BACKGROUND ON INTERPRETING THE APA VIA RULEMAKING II. THE NARROW BASIS BY WHICH THE ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURE ACT COULD BE INTERPRETED WITH NONLEGISLATIVE RULEMAKING A. The Background of 5 [...], The Administrative Procedure Act (APA) is a broadly worded statute that has benefitted from case law to fill many of its gaps, ambiguities, and inconsistencies. But the case method directs judicial attention to slivers of APA inquiry that are required to resolve cases in as-applied challenges to rules and adjudications. There is another method of APA interpretation that has never been deployed in the statute's seventy-seven year life--that of intentional collaboration between the Executive Branch and the Judiciary. Acting on their litigation and case management authorities as well as their unique power to persuade the Judiciary on questions of administrative procedure, the Attorney General can utilize APA rulemaking procedures to promulgate interpretations of key discrete provisions of the APA. The Attorney General does not need to do this through notice-and-comment rulemaking because the APA is not organic to the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ). Nonlegislative rulemaking will suffice. Such guidance would facilitate judicial review of pure interpretive distillations of the statute. Through the iterative application of the simple remand rule, the goals of the APA would be advanced through interbranch dialogue with the Judiciary either upholding Attorney General interpretations of law or remanding them to DOJ for revision or abandonment. Certain provisions in the APA's Judicial Review Chapter are most amenable to this process because they pertain to Executive Branch litigation conduct that is in the near-exclusive statutory domain of DOJ. Offering interpretations of key APA provisions through guidance would benefit society by increasing certainty by agency operators, promoting judicially consistent standards, accelerating the settled understanding of the statute, and increasing the political accountability of the Executive Branch.

INTRODUCTION I. THE AIR PROGRAM AND LEADERS OF A BEAUTIFUL STRUGGLE II. THE SUBSTANTIVE RULES OF PROGRAMMATIC POLICING ILL. CURRENT REGULATION OF PROGRAMMATIC POLICING IV. THE MANDATORY ROLE OF ADMINISTRATIVE [...], In Leaders of a Beautiful Struggle v. Baltimore Police Department, the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals held that Aerial Investigation Research (AIR), Baltimore's aerial surveillance program, violated the Fourth Amendment because it was not authorized by a warrant. AIR was constitutionally problematic, but not for the reason given by the Fourth Circuit. AIR, like many other technologically-enhanced policing programs that rely on closed-circuit television (CCTV), automated license plate readers and the like, involves the collection and retention of information about huge numbers of people. Because individualized suspicion does not exist with respect to any of these people's information, an individual-specific warrant requirement can never be met by such a program. When police engage in suspicionless searches and seizures of the type exemplified by AIR, a different regulatory approach is needed, one that provides the protection against arbitrariness that the warrant process affords but does not require findings that specific people have violated the law. This Article argues that this regulatory alternative can be derived from administrative law principles. The logic of administrative law dictates that legislatures and agency rulemaking must be involved any time a policing agency wants to establish a program that will intentionally affect sizeable numbers of concededly innocent people. If administrative law principles applied, programs like AIR would not be permitted unless a legislature has delegated appropriate authority to the relevant police agency, implemented regulations have survived notice-and-comment and hard look judicial review, and the agency carried out the program in an even-handed fashion that minimizes discretion. At the same time, contrary to the holding in Leaders of a Beautiful Stuggle, if these requirements are met, the Fourth Amendment--at least the part of it requiring warrants and probable cause--would be irrelevant.

Introduction The infamous killing of Cecil the Lion in Zimbabwe in 2015 ignited an international firestorm and debate about the ethics of trophy hunting endangered species. (1) Proponents of the [...]

I. INTRODUCTION II. BACKGROUND: PATENTS, ITS DISCLOSURE, MARKING, AND DATABASES A. PATENT DISCLOSURE B. PATENT MARKING C. PATENT SEARCHING III. THE PROBLEM WITH THE CURRENT NOTICE SYSTEM A. PATENT DISCLOSURE [...], The U.S. patent system is deficient in giving the public proper notice of what technologies are under patent protection. The current system relies on patent marking, which involves imprinting products with patent information that cover the product, to give constructive notice to the public. Recent data indicates that marking products with a website--called virtual marking--is not widely used. The problem lies with the overall costs, risks, and impracticability of marking certain products. Given the already dubious nature of constructive notice, the lack of virtual marking is a sign that patent law should improve its notice system. The lack of notice contributes to innocent infringement and an overall high societal cost that cuts against innovation. This Note argues that a unified patent-product database would improve notice to inventors to prevent infringement and generally encourage innovation. The database could borrow ideas from an effective database like the Food and Drug Administration's "Orange Book," a well-established drug database for the pharmaceutical industry. This Note also looks into how other components of the Patent Notice System would be improved, including the current U.S. patent database and the patent disclosure system.

INTRODUCTION I. THE GENEALOGY OF SOCIAL SANCTIONS PROGRAMS A. The National Security Origins of Sanctions B. The Office of Financial Asset Control (OFAC) C. Criticism of OFAC' Procedures 1. OFA [...], Federal agencies are increasingly interpreting international labor rights and imposing a wide array of economic and financial penalties, or "rights-based sanctions," under various laws and regulations. Congress recently vested the Office of the United States Trade Representative (USTR) with authority to impose targeted rights-based sanctions on foreign factories. USTR has begun administering its new authority with vigor. Policymakers and rights advocates hope that USTR's enforcement activities will strengthen the protection of workers abroad. Hidden from view, and thus largely overlooked, are the exclusory procedures that agencies follow when they administer rights-based sanctions. The Treasury Department's Office of Financial Asset Control (OFAC) has investigated and enforced rights-based sanctions against governments andforeign targets under national security legislation for decades. Its programs show how exclusory procedures harm vulnerable communities and undermine rights protections. Yet, like OFAC, USTR investigates and decides enforcement actions behind closed doors and without always consulting regulated communities. Under its newfound authority, USTR also imposes financial penalties on foreign entities without offering advanced notice, a public hearing, or meaningful judicial review. The Biden Administration has launched a "worker-centered" trade policy to protect workers abroad. If it hopes to achieve those cosmopolitan objectives, USTR's procedures must draw lessons from OFAC's harmful model. By reframing labor rights as participatory processes, this Article advances a frameworkfor rights-based sanctions procedures capable of achieving the Administration's rights-based objectives.

Contents INTRODUCTION I. THE FEDERAL FALSE CLAIMS ACT A. A Brief Background of the FCA B. Factual Falsity C. Legal Falsity as Grounds for FCA Liability II. UNIVERSAL HEALTH CARE [...]

INTRODUCTION I. GETTING TO INCLUSION: THE IDEA, ITS HISTORY, AND THE SPECIAL EDUCATION PROCESS A. The History of Excluding Students with Disabilities B. Alphabet Soup: From EAHCA to IDEA C. [...]

THE Environmental Protection Agency has, once again, rolled out an ambitious plan to reduce carbon emissions from power plants under Section 111 of the Clean Air Act. This new proposal [...]

THE Environmental Protection Agency and the Federal Trade Commission are collecting public comments on proposals for voluntary efforts to cut waste in the environment from single-use bags, wraps, bottles, and [...]

Introduction I. The FCC's Statutory Authority, the Public Interest Standard, and the FCC Getting Political A. The License Transfer Process, De Facto Merger Authority, and Shared Antitrust Responsibility B. The [...]

The title of this article very well could have been Teddy Roosevelt's other favorite slogan. That is, had he been equipped with the Administrative Procedure Act and the modern federal [...]