MENU

Tax Law

Federalism and Religious Liberties - Event Audio/Video

2016 Annual Florida Chapters Conference
Carl H. Esbeck, William P. Marshall, Michael P. Moreland, Timothy Osterhaus, Nathan A. Adams February 03, 2016

This panel will address the religious rights of persons and corporate entities in the context of the same sex marriage rulings, threats to not-for-profit status, cake baking, and other current areas of uncertainty. The panel will also discuss appropriate Federal/Florida roles and possible distinctions between protection under the law and civil disobedience in the context of religious liberty.

This panel was part of the 2016 Annual Florida Chapters Conference at Disney's Boardwalk Inn in Lake Buena Vista, FL on January 22-23, 2016.

Federalism and Religious Liberties

  • Prof. Carl H. Esbeck, R.B. Price Professor Emeritus of Law/Isabelle Wade & Paul C. Lyda Emeritus of Law, University of Missouri School of Law
  • Prof. William P. Marshall, William Rand Kenan, Jr. Distinguished Professor of Law, University of North Carolina School of Law
  • Prof. Michael P. Moreland, Mary Ann Remick Senior Visiting Fellow and Concurrent Professor of Law at University of Notre Dame
  • Moderator: Hon. Timothy Osterhaus, Florida First District Court of Appeal
  • Introduction: Dr. Nathan Adams, Holland & Knight LLP

Disney's Boardwalk Inn
Lake Buena Vista, FL

Corporate Inversions: Tax Dodge, or Symptom of the Tax Code? - Podcast

Administrative Law & Regulation Practice Group Podcast
Mihir A. Desai, Stephen E. Shay January 29, 2016

Corporate inversions are transactions, such as mergers or acquisitions, that involve a U.S. and foreign headquartered firm and result in the newly formed firm being headquartered outside the U.S. As a result, it can legally lower its U.S. taxes and enjoy parity with its foreign based competitors. Noting the resulting erosion to the U.S. tax base, critics argue that absent Congressional action the U.S. Treasury has a responsibility to fully utilize its existing authorities to combat this practice. But others are concerned that attempting to do so without addressing the underlying problems with the U.S. tax code will create even greater harm to the U.S. economy. Stephen Shay, Senior Lecturer on Law at the Harvard Law School and until recently the Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Treasury for International Tax Affairs and Mihir Desai, who holds appointments at both the Harvard Business School and Law School, provided perspectives from legal and economic vantage points.

Featuring:

  • Prof. Mihir A. Desai, Mizuho Financial Group Professor of Finance, Harvard Business School and Professor of Law, Harvard Law School
  • Prof. Stephen E. Shay, Senior Lecturer on Law, Harvard Law School

King v. Burwell: What are the consequences?

Short video debate with Michael Cannon and Robert Weiner
Michael Cannon, Robert N. Weiner June 22, 2015

Michael Cannon, Director of Health Policy Studies at the Cato Institute, and Robert N. Weiner, Partner at Arnold & Porter debate the potential consequences of the Court’s ruling concerning whether the Internal Revenue Service may permissibly promulgate regulations to extend tax-credit subsidies to coverage purchased through exchanges established by the federal government under Section 1321 of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act.

As always, the Federalist Society takes no position on particular legal or public policy issues; all expressions of opinion are those of the speaker.

King v. Burwell: What is in dispute?

Short video debate with Michael Cannon and Robert Weiner
Michael Cannon, Robert N. Weiner June 22, 2015

Michael Cannon, Director of Health Policy Studies at the Cato Institute, and Robert N. Weiner, Partner at Arnold & Porter debate whether the Internal Revenue Service may permissibly promulgate regulations to extend tax-credit subsidies to coverage purchased through exchanges established by the federal government under Section 1321 of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act.

As always, the Federalist Society takes no position on particular legal or public policy issues; all expressions of opinion are those of the speaker.

Direct Marketing v. Brohl - Post-Decision SCOTUScast

SCOTUScast 4-14-15 featuring Kristin Gutting
Kristin Gutting April 14, 2015

On March 3, 2015, the Supreme Court decided Direct Marketing Association v. Brohl.  This case involves a Colorado law requiring retailers who do not collect Colorado sales or use tax to notify Colorado customers of their use-tax liability and to report tax-related information to customers and the Colorado Department of Revenue.  A trade association of online retailers filed suit in federal district court to challenge the law, and obtained an injunction against its enforcement.  On appeal, however, the Tenth Circuit reversed that judgment, holding that the Tax Injunction Act deprived the district court of jurisdiction over the case.  The question before the Supreme Court is whether the Act did indeed bar the online retailers’ suit.

In a unanimous opinion delivered by Justice Thomas, the Court held that the Tax Injunction Act did not bar the trade association's lawsuit.  The judgment of the Tenth Circuit was therefore reversed and the case remanded.  Justice Kennedy filed a concurring opinion.  Justice Ginsburg filed a concurring opinion, which Justice Breyer joined, and which Justice Sotomayor joined in part. 

To discuss the case, we have Kristin Gutting, an associate professor of law at the Charleston School of Law.