Recent short explainers

 I have recently posted a couple of sort “explainer” pieces on websites that cover ongoing issues.

First, on the Just Security website run by my NYU colleague Ryan Goodman, I posted this piece on the Weisselberg indictment, aiming to correct misperceptions in the press that this was merely a technical or politically motivated “fringe benefits” case, rather than an assertion of rampant fraud that no responsible prosecutor could reasonably decline to file. This one got much broader coverage than reflections I post on this blog, so it probably isn’t news to most of my readers here.

Second, last night Econofact.org posted a short solicited piece of mine entitled “Taxing Multinational Corporations.” Here the question of interest is as follows:

“In debates regarding higher versus lower corporate income taxes, an important issue is the impact that changes in either direction would have on the level of domestic investment, and consequently on economic growth, the strength of the labor market, and government revenues…. What do economic reasoning and recent experience teach us about the effects of corporate tax rates on investment and economic growth in a global environment?”

This one dovetails nicely with an article in progress, entitled “The Economics, Law, and Politics of Increased Taxation of Multinationals” that I presented this past Friday at the Indiana-Leeds Summer Zoom Tax Workshop Series. I will probably post a draft of this on SSRN soon, but thought that I would advance it closer to a final draft first. That is the piece I will most likely be workshopping this fall at places such as the National Tax Association (although it might conceivably be superseded in some settings by other stuff that I’m working on now). It’s fairly crisp, short, and I hope readable, and I might aim to publish it in Tax Notes, although it’s not impossible that I might aim instead for a tax law review, especially one with decently quick turnaround.

Remote attendance at the 2021 NYU Tax Policy Colloquium

This coming fall, I will be doing the NYU Tax Policy Colloquium solo, and hence cutting it back from a 4-credit to a 2-credit course. This means that, rather than meeting twice each week – first with the students, and then in a public session with the author(s), I’ll meet with the students one week to discuss the upcoming paper, and then in public the next week. Hence, the public sessions will only be biweekly, or if you prefer fortnightly. However, since we’re having a 13-week semester, I’ve decided to have the extra session be a public one.

The public sessions will be hybrid, meaning that they are both live and on Zoom. I already knew that the authors can attend remotely via Zoom if they wish, although I am hoping to see them live. But now it’s been confirmed that, for the public sessions, I can offer remote Zoom attendance to any and all who are interested, apart from the enrolled students, who – like me – are required to be there in person. Hence, I am hoping that, without too much cannibalizing of our live audience, we will get remote attendees from different places, time zones, and indeed continents.

So mark your virtual calendar if you are potentially interested. The live sessions, all meeting from 2:15 to 4:15 pm EST, will feature the following speakers and their papers:

1) Tuesday, September 14 – Jake Brooks and David Gamage

2) Tuesday, September 28 – Daniel Hemel

3) Tuesday, October 12 – Jennifer Blouin

4) Tuesday, October 26 – Manoj Viswanathan

5) Tuesday, November 9 – Ruth Mason and Michael Knoll

6) Tuesday, November 23 – Mindy Herzfeld

7) Tuesday, November 30 – Alan Auerbach.

There might also be small group dinners after the sessions – only for live attendees! (although I suppose one could attend via Zoom and then join the live dinner). But obviously that depends on pandemic developments, including both NYU’s rules as they evolve or not over the course of  the year, and my own (along with potential attendees’) degrees of comfort with doing this by the fall. Also, I would think we won’t do a dinner in any week when the author is Zooming in.

New Jotwell post on Isabel Wilkerson’s CASTE

 At Jotwell (aka “The Journal of Things We Like Lots”), I have posted here a short review of Isabel Wilkerson’s recent book Caste.  It also mentions Dorothy Brown’s recent book, The Whiteness of Wealth, although I don’t review that book as such, as another Jotwell contributor had already stepped up to do that.

My piece also discusses broader issues of race and class in tax scholarship, albeit briefly as these are very short pieces.

G7 Finance Ministers Communique re. international tax policy

The G7 Finance Ministers’ Communique from this past weekend included the following discussion of international tax policy:

“We strongly support the efforts underway through the G20/OECD Inclusive Framework to address the tax challenges arising from globalisation and the digitalisation of the economy and to adopt a global minimum tax. We commit to reaching an equitable solution on the allocation of taxing rights, with market countries awarded taxing rights on at least 20% of profit exceeding a 10% margin for the largest and most profitable multinational enterprises. We will provide for appropriate coordination between the application of the new international tax rules and the removal of all Digital Services Taxes, and other relevant similar measures, on all companies. We also commit to a global minimum tax of at least 15% on a country by country basis. We agree on the importance of progressing agreement in parallel on both Pillars and look forward to reaching an agreement at the July meeting of G20 Finance Ministers and Central Bank Governors.”

Here are a few comments on this paragraph:

1) The proposed allocation to market countries raises a few questions. For one, what is the relevant “profit”? By definition, this term requires comparing specified gross revenues to specified expenses and other deductible outlays. Are these to be determined by using standard income tax source rules? I would think not, as this would make the proposed allocation wildly ineffective. For example, the UK may consider itself the market country with respect to the revenues that Facebook earns from the use of its digital platform by UK residents. This probably has more in common with how gross revenues are defined in its digital services tax (DST) than with anything in its income tax. 

2) Note also that this rule will ostensibly apply to all of the “largest and most profitable multinational enterprises,” without apparent limitation to those that are subject to DSTs. And it is also supposed to apply in countries that don’t have DSTs. Moreover, even those that do have DSTs may define relevant revenues (as well as companies subject to the DST) quite distinctively.

3) Next and relatedly, what about the outlay/deduction side? This is needed not only to define profit, but also to determine the profit that exceeds a 10% margin.

4) To identify the “largest and most profitable multinational enterprises,” one needs a measure of global income. How is this to be computed?

5) What if a country wants to retain its DST? The G7 statement says only that it will “provide for appropriate coordination between the application of the new international tax rules and the removal of all Digital Services Taxes, and other relevant similar measures, on all companies.”

6) Obviously, the 15% global minimum tax has lots of design work ahead (to put it mildly). It is presumably to be applied by the multinationals’ residence countries – requiring a uniform definition of corporate residence? – and presumably with (100%?) foreign tax credits for source-based taxes. While the foreign tax credits would make it a residual tax, applying only insofar as the source-based taxes don’t get there, this might leave plenty of scope for it, if source countries restrict themselves to 20% of profits above the 10% level (especially given the likelihood that there will be plenty of flex in how those profits are being defined).

7) How are countries are likely to respond in practice? While there is certainly room for pessimism, I don’t think the standard view of how countries pursue their self-interest (like profit-seeking individuals in a simple neoclassical model) necessarily applies very strongly. Countries are collective entities that make political choices based on multiple actors who themselves may have narrow, not national, goals in mind. These may also be symbolic goals reflecting internal political dynamics. Consider the “self-interest” of the United States. Even in academic debate among knowledgeable people who are debating things in good faith, there is absolutely no consensus as to what is in the national self-interest in the international tax policy realm. Indeed, even only counting people whom I consider good personal friends, there is extreme dissensus.

8) When we start thinking in terms of a Biden Administration versus a Trump Administration, things get even less determinate, insofar as predicting the settings of the national policymaking compass is concerned. Even if we accept both administrations as trying to act in what they deem to be the national interest (which I don’t think accurately describes the corrupt and treasonous Trump White House), they evidently define it radically differently. Suppose that all of the G7 countries had either (a) center-left to progressive regimes, or alternatively (b) right-wing “nationalist,” plutocratic, pseudo-populist regimes. These two scenarios would lead to very different sets of policies being followed.

Upcoming summer Zoom talks

 Can you be in two places at once? With Zoom, the answer is yes. Thus, towards the end of this week I will be attending and participating in two conferences during the same stretch of days, although if not for the pandemic they would have been held live in distinct locations. I will also be an active participant in one session of each.

This Friday (May 28), at the Fifth Annual Public Finance Consortium at Indiana University (normally held in Bloomington, IN), from 10 to 10:40 am EST, I will be the discussant when David Gamage and Jake Brooks present their work-in-progress, “Tax Now or Tax Never: Political Optionality and the Case for Current-Assessment Reform.”

Then this Sunday (May 30) at the Law and Society Association’s 2021 Annual Meeting, which in the ordinary course would have been held in Chicago, from 10 to 11:45 am EST, I will participate in an “Author Meets Readers” session regarding my book Literature and Inequality. Tracey Roberts will be the session’s moderator, and I very much look forward to the comments that will be offered by Diane Klein, Shu-Yi Oei, and Luisa Scarcella (plus members of the virtual audience).

Somewhat further down the road, on July 9, from 11:30 am to 1 pm EST, I will present my work-in-progress, “The Economics, Law, and National Politics of Seeking Increased Taxation of Multinationals” at the Indiana/Leeds Summer Tax Workshop Series, hosted by Leandra Lederman and Leopoldo Parada. I will also be presenting this paper later in the year, e.g., most likely at both the National Tax Association’s Annual Meeting and in Vienna, Austria towards the end of the year.

I also anticipate attending a conference in USC Law School on November 5, honoring Ed Kleinbard, at which Joe Bankman and I are planning to present (after we have written it) a paper discussing Ed’s work and contributions to the field.

Meanwhile I will be hosting the Tax Policy Colloquium at NYU this fall, although with what mix between live and Zoom is not yet clear. I am hoping for live public (as well as class) sessions, but it would be better still if the former accommodated remote attendees by Zoom. We will see.

What is the Bone Marrow Transplant?

Bone Marrow Transplant is the bone marrow transfer from the healthy donor to the recipient whose bone marrow is affected by the ailment. A bone marrow transplant can be used to treat sickle cell anemia, several malignant diseases of forming of blood tissues, leukemia, lymphoma, and multiple myeloma or some solid cancers like immune deficiency disease, neuroblastoma, or metabolic disease.

In 1956, USA physician E. Donnall Thomas performed the best syngeneic transplant of bone marrow between the two persons. In 1990, Thomas was co-recipient with Joseph of the Nobel prize for medicine or physiology for his excellent work on transplantation of bone marrow.

What is called Allogeneic and Autologous Transplantation?

Nowadays, the two most commonly used transplantation of bone marrow is called Allogeneic and Autologous transplantation. Both types of bone marrow transplants are examined forms of therapy of stem cells. An autologous bone marrow transplant is utilized in cancer patients ready to undergo high doses of radiation and chemotherapy. After the patient has undergone therapy to diminish cancer cells, the stem cells are injected into the stream of blood to speed the recovery of transplantation of bone marrow.

If a person marrow is an ailment from leukemia, an individual with a matching type of tissue is explored to donate stem cells.  It is called allogeneic transplantation.

The Main Dangers of Transplantations of Bone Marrow 

There are several risks associated with bone marrow transplantation, concluding expended susceptibility to anemia, infection, respiratory distress, and excess fluid, leading to liver and pneumonia dysfunction. When cells of graft attack host cells, the result is a critical condition called graft versus host disease, which can be chronic and acute. You may minimize the risk of graft versus host disease through the matching of careful tissues.

Transplantation of bone marrow was initially not recommended for 50 age-old patients because of the morbidity and mortality resulting. The incidence of graft versus host disease expands in 30 age patients.

Some Collection of Contributor Stem Cells

From the bone marrow donor, hematopoietic stem cells are gathered using apheresis. During this experiment, blood is drawn from the arm and passes through a machine that collects the cell’s stem. The remaining portion of the blood is returned to the contributor through the catheter inserted in the arm. Before undergrowing apheresis, the contributor gets drug injections like filgrastim, which mobilize the stem cells into blood circulation peripherally.

Moreover, in this experiment, the USA’s donor is placed under anesthesia, or aspiration of leukemia bone marrow transplant is performed by taking bone marrow from the breastbone or hip.

Conclusion

It can be concluded that, In the USA, there are the most prominent hospitals which are leading to be the best hospitals which transplant the bone marrow in the best way and provides the best services to save the life of the patient. Hence bone marrow transplantation in the USA in the treatment of medical that replaces the bone marrow with healthier cells and transplantation of bone marrow is also called transplantation of stem cell.

Gift Of Life Marrow Registry Also Offers Following Services :

Stem Cell Donor Registry

Bone Marrow Registry Search

Blood Cancer Donor

Contact US:

Gift of Life Marrow Registry
Address:  800 Yamato Rd suite 101  Boca Raton, FL
Phone: (800) 962-7769

Things to Know About Business Coaching In Oklahoma

Proper coaching is necessary for a person who is already in a business and wants to make it successful. When you will see that your business is growing then you will consider it as a benefit of the business coaching. A business coach in Oklahoma can help you in improving the profitability of your business by growing it gradually.

Benefits of learning the business from a business coach

A business coach in Oklahoma will teach you the ways to increase the profitability of your business, interact with your employees, handle your business more confidently and learn skills to resolve issues. In this way, a business coach can help in growing a business regardless of its size. He will also teach you the strategies and action plans to improve your business. He can also help in increasing the productivity of your business along with expanding it successfully. He will also help you in learning the importance of management of time which can be beneficial for both you and your business. So, if you want to take all the benefits discussed in this write-up then you must enrol with a reputed business coach in this city.

Tips to find the right business coach

After knowing the importance of a business coach in Oklahoma it becomes necessary to find the best coach in this city who can make you a real businessman after developing your skills. While selecting a business coach in this city you must satisfy yourself as you can find a number of them in Oklahoma City.

While searching for the best business coach you must ask your family and friends who have recently taken such coaching to help you. It will help you in getting complete information about the coach. While finding a good coach you must keep in mind that he will guide you on how to execute your business plans and how to modify them properly. He will try his best to improve your business in many ways. You can improve the performance of your business by making a few changes to it according to the guidance and suggestions of your coach.

Online coaching through a virtual platform

Today you can also join an online business coach in Oklahoma if you cannot spare time from your busy schedule to physically attend the classes. While starting the coaching session the coach will tell you all the important things to avoid any confusion later on.

When you opt for online business coaching then you must find a coach with experience in online coaching for 2-3 years at least. For continuous online coaching, you must be well-versed with the techniques, tools, and software required.

 

You should also interact with the previous students of the online business coach in Oklahoma to know your coach a bit more closely.

In this way, you can easily improve your business by finding a good business coach in Oklahoma City. Before joining with an online or offline coach you must satisfy yourself fully with him.

Scholarship update

Now that my teaching for the 2020-21 academic year is actually done – leaving aside an exam next week – I’ve been able to turn back to writing as a fairly full-time activity. I’m sometimes able to write during the semester, but that hadn’t been so this year – what with teaching on Zoom, wanting to rethink things even if I’ve taught them many times before, and having care issues relating to senior family members.

Finding topics, or at least fresh takes that I am interested in writing up, is also more challenging than it used to be. Let’s face it, I’ve written about quite a lot of things since entering academia in 1987. So many things within the general realm of what I might write about are no longer fresh or new to me. And though I will return to a theme if I have reason to do so, I get bored too readily to make a regular practice of it.

On the other hand, if I can find an angle that excites or at least intrigues me, I feel I can bring more to the table in some ways than I could earlier in my career. There are certainly some advantages to my having a broader frame of reference, along with more knowledge and experience, than I did when I was younger.

That being so, I now have a pretty decent agenda of things to write about that will take me quite a while. The current list, leaving aside casebook updates, my annual Jotwell piece, and the like, stands as follows:

1) I’ve just started a piece with the working title The Economics, Law, and Politics of Seeking Increased Taxation of Multinationals. It discusses why and how understandings and main policy goals seem to have changed a bit recently in the international tax field. I previewed some of the thinking that underlies it here.

2) I’ve agreed to write a book chapter on inequality and redistribution in a forthcoming edited volume concerning new directions for tax policy research more generally. Among the main topics will be the state of the play and where to go next, as I see it, with regard to issues not just of class but also of race.

3) I’ve agreed to co-author (with a good friend whom I have co-authored with previously) a piece discussing Ed Kleinbard’s scholarship for a tribute symposium. The aim here is not just to offer well-deserved praise, but also to place his work in context and discuss its relationship to the complementary roles played by different types of scholarship.

4) With Stanley Surrey’s memoirs finally appearing in print shortly, I am planning to write an article about Surrey’s distinct scholarly role and contributions. This, too, will have an element of looking at the underlying enterprise, and the “scientist vs. moralist” choice (as William F. Buckley, of all people, put it while interrogating Surrey) that one may face.

5) In my literature / inequality / sociology vein, I’ve long wanted to write something about P. G. Wodehouse, whose delightful work is far more interesting than he might have meant it to be with regard to changing early twentieth century notions of class. I had been unable to find an angle that quite worked for me, and “literature and inequality” didn’t seem to be quite the right frame (albeit related to it), but I am hopeful that I may now have found an approach that might yield fruit. Where I’d publish the darned thing is another question – it wouldn’t be either a book or a law review article.

I’m also now engaged in looking to publish my main work of the last year-plus, covering the era of the pandemic (and the first thing I have ever written entirely at home). It’s a completed shortish book manuscript (45,000 words) – I believe quite lively and readable, and with things to say about where we are today as a country – that is currently entitled Bonfires of the American Dream in American Rhetoric, Literature, and Film

Tentative NYU Tax Policy Colloquium Plans for Fall 2021

I have been making plans for the fall 2021 NYU Tax Policy Colloquium, against the backdrop of continued pandemic-related uncertainty. Also, my co-convenor for the last three years, Lily Batchelder, may be moving up to better things for the next couple of years. I also have concluded that inviting another co-convenor is more than a bit tricky, given that said person would need to agree to be in NYC for live teaching if things do indeed proceed sufficiently well, pandemic-wise.

Speakers, by contrast, can be (and have been) invited on the basis that they will be able to participate via Zoom even if we are otherwise meeting live. An institutional commitment by NYU to live appearances by those who are teaching a given class (again, assuming that the pandemic sufficiently ends) apparently would not apply to guest speakers. And “hybrid” technologies for live plus Zoom have been in development for the last year.

However, while speakers can participate by Zoom, I simply don’t know at this stage whether, in the event that we aren’t all-Zoom due to the persistence of the pandemic, we would be able to accommodate Zoom attendees in the audience. In last fall’s sessions, much though I missed having live sessions, I was delighted by our ability to draw participants who were many time zones away from us, and who could not have come in person, even absent the pandemic.

So there are a lot of open questions still. But I have decided that, if I’m going to be teaching the colloquium solo, I need to cut it back a bit. A fresh paper every week, with two hours meeting with the students plus a two-hour public session, is simply too grueling – far more effort, for example, than teaching a four-hour lecture class. So I will be cutting it back to one paper and one meeting a week, generally with each paper having a class meeting one week and a public session the next.

As the 2021 fall semester will be 13 rather than the usual 14 weeks, I decided  to schedule 7 public sessions, vs. 6 private ones. But of course we need to start in week 1 with a class session, so that we can start getting to know each other. Thus, the public sessions will be held in weeks 2, 4, 6, 8, 10, 12, and 13.

Another thing I don’t know yet is when the sessions will take place. I am hoping that the public sessions will be at 4 pm EST or thereabouts. But they were earlier in the afternoon last fall, reflecting both our Zoom-adjusted schedule and the aim of allowing people to attend from European time zones. In any event, I’m pretty sure that all of the sessions will be held on Tuesdays.

Will we have our traditional small-group dinners after live public sessions? I am hoping so, but it is obviously too early to tell.

I have now scheduled all our speakers. Again, I am hoping that all will appear live and in person. But any of them may and will use Zoom instead if needed. Our public sessions will be as follows:

September 14 – Jake Brooks and David Gamage

September 28 – Daniel Hemel

October 12  Jennifer Blouin

October 26 – Manoj Viswanathan

November 9 – Ruth Mason and Michael Knoll

November 23 – Mindy Herzfeld

November 30 – Alan Auerbach

Link to Ed Kleinbard book event at USC

 I recently posted here about a Zoom book event that was held at USC on March 31, concerning the late Ed Kleinbard’s great book, What’s Luck Got To Do With It?

The event is now viewable here. Suzanne Greenberg, Ed McCaffery, and Greg Keating all offer excellent comments, after which there is audience discussion. My question (or rather, more of a comment) can be viewed at around 57:27. For some reason I am rocking back and forth a bit as I speak, which I usually have the sense not to do on Zoom (not sure why it happened this time), but the audio is okay even if I half-wish that bit of video could be (or had been) turned off.