Berkeley Business Law Journal最新文献

英文中文

The Case Against Dodd-Frank Act’s Living Wills: Contingency Planning Following the Financial Crisis 反对多德-弗兰克法案生前遗嘱的案例:金融危机后的应急计划

Berkeley Business Law Journal

Pub Date : 1900-01-01 DOI: 10.15779/Z38RC5V

Nizan Pakin

引用次数: 1

Playing the Audit Lottery: The Role of Penalties in the U.S. Tax Law in the Aftermath of Long Term Capital Holdings v. United States 玩弄审计彩票:长期资本控股诉美国案后罚金在美国税法中的作用

Berkeley Business Law Journal

Pub Date : 1900-01-01 DOI: 10.15779/Z38M86R

Yoram Keinan

TABLE OF CONTENTS I. Introdu ction .................................................................................................. 383 II. The Econom ics of Penalties ........................................................................ 388 A . Introduction ..................................................................................... 388 B. The Utilitarian-Economic Theory .................................................... 390 C . Sanctions as Prices ........................................................................... 390 1. The Strict A pproach .................................................................. 392 2. The Interm ediate Theory ........................................................... 392 3. The Moral/Ethical Approach .................................................... 393 D . C onclusions ..................................................................................... 394 Il. Tax Penalty and D eterrence ....................................................................... 394 A . Cost-B enefit Equation ..................................................................... 394 B. The Tax Department as a Profit-Maximization Unit ....................... 396 C. Avoiding Overdeterrence ................................................................. 397 IV . Tax Accuracy-Related Penalties ................................................................ 398 A . O verview ......................................................................................... 398

桌子写成工具的口齿Introdu ction ..................................................................................................383二世。《Econom ics Penalties译本史》(英语) ........................................................................388 A。Introduction .....................................................................................388 b。The Utilitarian-Economic博弈论 ....................................................390摄氏度。Sanctions as (Prices ...........................................................................390个。《A Strict pproach ..................................................................392 2。《Interm ediate博弈论 ...........................................................392三。The Moral / Ethical的方法。 ....................................................393 D。C onclusions .....................................................................................394艾。Tax Penalty, and D eterrence .......................................................................394 A。Cost-B enefit Equation .....................................................................394 b。The Tax开as a Profit-Maximization minutes .......................396 c·Avoiding Overdeterrence .................................................................397 IV。Tax Accuracy-Related Penalties ................................................................是的。O verview .........................................................................................398

{"title":"Playing the Audit Lottery: The Role of Penalties in the U.S. Tax Law in the Aftermath of Long Term Capital Holdings v. United States","authors":"Yoram Keinan","doi":"10.15779/Z38M86R","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.15779/Z38M86R","url":null,"abstract":"TABLE OF CONTENTS I. Introdu ction .................................................................................................. 383 II. The Econom ics of Penalties ........................................................................ 388 A . Introduction ..................................................................................... 388 B. The Utilitarian-Economic Theory .................................................... 390 C . Sanctions as Prices ........................................................................... 390 1. The Strict A pproach .................................................................. 392 2. The Interm ediate Theory ........................................................... 392 3. The Moral/Ethical Approach .................................................... 393 D . C onclusions ..................................................................................... 394 Il. Tax Penalty and D eterrence ....................................................................... 394 A . Cost-B enefit Equation ..................................................................... 394 B. The Tax Department as a Profit-Maximization Unit ....................... 396 C. Avoiding Overdeterrence ................................................................. 397 IV . Tax Accuracy-Related Penalties ................................................................ 398 A . O verview ......................................................................................... 398","PeriodicalId":326069,"journal":{"name":"Berkeley Business Law Journal","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"1900-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"116541740","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 1

The Klein Criteria Project 克莱因标准项目

Berkeley Business Law Journal

Pub Date : 1900-01-01 DOI: 10.15779/Z387G5T

P. Edwards, G. Gulati

引用次数: 0

Corporate Law Criteria: Law's Relation to Private Ordering 公司法准则:法律与私人秩序的关系

Berkeley Business Law Journal

Pub Date : 1900-01-01 DOI: 10.15779/Z386C5B

R. Thompson

I. Criteria Concerned with the Relative Role of Law and Private Ordering ...... 97 1. Constraining Human Behavior: Private Ordering as the First Mover ....... 98 2. Recognizing Law 's Hum ility ............................................................... 98 3. Preventing Externalization of Behavior .............................................. 99 4. Filling Gaps in Bounded Rationality .................................................. 99 5. Reducing Transaction Costs/Creating Wealth ........................................ 100 6. Getting the Preferred Balance in Our Federal System ............................ 100 II. How the Criteria Concerning the Relative Role of Law and Private Ordering Might Shift an Analysis of Good Corporate Law .................. 101 III. C onclusion ................................................................................................. 104

一、关于法律与民间秩序相对作用的标准......97 1．约束人类行为:作为先行者的私人秩序.......98 2。认识到法律的嗡嗡声的能力 ...............................................................98 3。防止外化的行为 ..............................................99 4。在有限理性填补缺口 ..................................................99 5。降低交易成本/创造财富 ........................................100 6。在我们联邦制度得到更好的平衡 ............................100二世。法律与私人秩序的相对作用标准如何转变——对优秀公司法的分析..................101 III。C onclusion .................................................................................................104

引用次数: 1

Certified Professional Employer Organizations and Tax Liability Shifting: Assessing the First Two Years of the IRS Certification Program 认证专业雇主组织和纳税义务转移:评估前两年的国税局认证计划

Berkeley Business Law Journal

Pub Date : 1900-01-01 DOI: 10.15779/Z38QB9V61D

Katherine Goodner Sanford, Ursula Ramsey

引用次数: 0

Omnicare v. NCS Healthcare: A Critical Appraisal Omnicare诉NCS医疗保健:一个关键的评估

Berkeley Business Law Journal

Pub Date : 1900-01-01 DOI: 10.15779/Z38TK4D

Daniel C. Davis

引用次数: 0

Ignorance Is Bliss: Should Lack of Personal Benefit Knowledge Immunize Insider Trading? 无知是福:个人利益知识的缺乏应该使内幕交易免疫吗?

Berkeley Business Law Journal

Pub Date : 1900-01-01 DOI: 10.15779/Z389S2P

L. Palk

引用次数: 1

Why Courts Pierce: An Empirical Study of Piercing the Corporate Veil 法院为什么要穿破:揭开公司面纱的实证研究

Berkeley Business Law Journal

Pub Date : 1900-01-01 DOI: 10.15779/Z380587

J. Matheson

Limited liability of business owners for the contracts, torts and other liabilities of their companies has been commonplace for over one hundred and fifty years. This concept of limited liability means that a business owner's potential personal loss is a fixed amount, namely, the amount invested in the business, usually in the form of stock ownership. Consequently, if the business succeeds, the owner obtains the profits, but if the business fails, all of the losses beyond the owner's fixed investment are absorbed by others, that is, voluntary or involuntary creditors, or society at large. Although initially applicable primarily to corporations, new forms of business organizations have appeared, such as limited liability partnerships and limited liability companies, which also offer limited liability to their owners. Although limited liability for business owners is common, it is not uncontroverted. From the very beginning, relieving business owners of liability for the operations of the business has had proponents and detractors. In the 1800s, Thomas Cooper described corporate limited liability as a "mode of swindling, quite common and honourable in these United States" and "a fraud on the honest and confiding part of the public." In rhetorical counterpoint, President Nicholas Butler of Columbia University proclaimed limited liability as "the greatest single discovery of modern times," and that "even steam and electricity are far less important than the limited liability corporation, and they would be reduced to comparative impotence without it." The academic debate over the propriety of limited liability continues unabated. This ambivalence over the propriety of limited business liability is reflected in the courts in the form of veil piercing. Piercing the corporate veil is a common law legal doctrine used to break rules of traditional limited liability for owners, and to hold shareholders accountable as though the corporation's action was the shareholders' own. In deciding whether to pierce the veil, courts look to sometimes disparate factors and often use unhelpful, conclusory characterizations such as "alter ego" and "instrumentality" to describe the relationship between the shareholders and the corporation. While "piercing the corporate veil is the most litigated issue in corporate law," common law piercing is complex, inconsistently applied and often poorly understood. The empirical project presented by this Article is unique. This study is the first to empirically examine the distinct question of substantive common law piercing of the corporate veil. As a matter of pure hypothesis, one would expect that any common law doctrine should be applied by the courts in a neutral manner, that is, evenhandedly except for variations in factors explicitly and specifically identified as part of the applicable test. Given that presumption, the empirical results of this study, even on a descriptive level, are startling. Among the statistically significa

虽然只有3%的案例被讨论，但风险的承担对穿透公司面纱的发生率有很大影响。这是唯一适用于原告的因素，当法院发现它存在时，穿孔的可能性就大大降低了。

{"title":"Why Courts Pierce: An Empirical Study of Piercing the Corporate Veil","authors":"J. Matheson","doi":"10.15779/Z380587","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.15779/Z380587","url":null,"abstract":"Limited liability of business owners for the contracts, torts and other liabilities of their companies has been commonplace for over one hundred and fifty years. This concept of limited liability means that a business owner's potential personal loss is a fixed amount, namely, the amount invested in the business, usually in the form of stock ownership. Consequently, if the business succeeds, the owner obtains the profits, but if the business fails, all of the losses beyond the owner's fixed investment are absorbed by others, that is, voluntary or involuntary creditors, or society at large. Although initially applicable primarily to corporations, new forms of business organizations have appeared, such as limited liability partnerships and limited liability companies, which also offer limited liability to their owners. Although limited liability for business owners is common, it is not uncontroverted. From the very beginning, relieving business owners of liability for the operations of the business has had proponents and detractors. In the 1800s, Thomas Cooper described corporate limited liability as a \"mode of swindling, quite common and honourable in these United States\" and \"a fraud on the honest and confiding part of the public.\" In rhetorical counterpoint, President Nicholas Butler of Columbia University proclaimed limited liability as \"the greatest single discovery of modern times,\" and that \"even steam and electricity are far less important than the limited liability corporation, and they would be reduced to comparative impotence without it.\" The academic debate over the propriety of limited liability continues unabated. This ambivalence over the propriety of limited business liability is reflected in the courts in the form of veil piercing. Piercing the corporate veil is a common law legal doctrine used to break rules of traditional limited liability for owners, and to hold shareholders accountable as though the corporation's action was the shareholders' own. In deciding whether to pierce the veil, courts look to sometimes disparate factors and often use unhelpful, conclusory characterizations such as \"alter ego\" and \"instrumentality\" to describe the relationship between the shareholders and the corporation. While \"piercing the corporate veil is the most litigated issue in corporate law,\" common law piercing is complex, inconsistently applied and often poorly understood. The empirical project presented by this Article is unique. This study is the first to empirically examine the distinct question of substantive common law piercing of the corporate veil. As a matter of pure hypothesis, one would expect that any common law doctrine should be applied by the courts in a neutral manner, that is, evenhandedly except for variations in factors explicitly and specifically identified as part of the applicable test. Given that presumption, the empirical results of this study, even on a descriptive level, are startling. Among the statistically significa","PeriodicalId":326069,"journal":{"name":"Berkeley Business Law Journal","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"1900-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"127035451","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 7

What is Corporate Law's Place in Promoting Societal Welfare?: An Essay in Honor of Professor William Klein 公司法在促进社会福利中的地位是什么?一篇纪念威廉·克莱因教授的文章

Berkeley Business Law Journal

Pub Date : 1900-01-01 DOI: 10.15779/Z38SS2H

Randall S. Thomas

引用次数: 2

Protecting Employee Rights and Prosecuting Corporate Crime: A Proposal for Criminal Cumis Counsel 保护雇员权利与打击法人犯罪:刑事法律顾问的建议

Berkeley Business Law Journal

Pub Date : 1900-01-01 DOI: 10.15779/Z381C61

J. Nelson, R. Parry

引用次数: 0

首页上一页

下一页尾页

类型

全部化学•材料生命科学医学物理工程技术环境•农林材料科学地球科学法学管理学化学环境科学与生态学计算机科学教育学经济学农林科学人文科学生物学数学物理与天体物理心理学综合性期刊其他工业工程理学历史学农学文学信息工程

数据库

全部 ACS Publications Elsevier ieeexplore Springer The Royal Society of Chemistry Wiley

期刊

Berkeley Business Law Journal

全部 Acc. Chem. Res. ACS Applied Bio Materials ACS Appl. Electron. Mater. ACS Appl. Energy Mater. ACS Appl. Mater. Interfaces ACS Appl. Nano Mater. ACS Appl. Polym. Mater. ACS BIOMATER-SCI ENG ACS Catal. ACS Cent. Sci. ACS Chem. Biol. ACS Chemical Health & Safety ACS Chem. Neurosci. ACS Comb. Sci. ACS Earth Space Chem. ACS Energy Lett. ACS Infect. Dis. ACS Macro Lett. ACS Mater. Lett. ACS Med. Chem. Lett. ACS Nano ACS Omega ACS Photonics ACS Sens. ACS Sustainable Chem. Eng. ACS Synth. Biol. Anal. Chem. BIOCHEMISTRY-US Bioconjugate Chem. BIOMACROMOLECULES Chem. Res. Toxicol. Chem. Rev. Chem. Mater. CRYST GROWTH DES ENERG FUEL Environ. Sci. Technol. Environ. Sci. Technol. Lett. Eur. J. Inorg. Chem. IND ENG CHEM RES Inorg. Chem. J. Agric. Food. Chem. J. Chem. Eng. Data J. Chem. Educ. J. Chem. Inf. Model. J. Chem. Theory Comput. J. Med. Chem. J. Nat. Prod. J PROTEOME RES J. Am. Chem. Soc. LANGMUIR MACROMOLECULES Mol. Pharmaceutics Nano Lett. Org. Lett. ORG PROCESS RES DEV ORGANOMETALLICS J. Org. Chem. J. Phys. Chem. J. Phys. Chem. A J. Phys. Chem. B J. Phys. Chem. C J. Phys. Chem. Lett. Analyst Anal. Methods Biomater. Sci. Catal. Sci. Technol. Chem. Commun. Chem. Soc. Rev. CHEM EDUC RES PRACT CRYSTENGCOMM Dalton Trans. Energy Environ. Sci. ENVIRON SCI-NANO ENVIRON SCI-PROC IMP ENVIRON SCI-WAT RES Faraday Discuss. Food Funct. Green Chem. Inorg. Chem. Front. Integr. Biol. J. Anal. At. Spectrom. J. Mater. Chem. A J. Mater. Chem. B J. Mater. Chem. C Lab Chip Mater. Chem. Front. Mater. Horiz. MEDCHEMCOMM Metallomics Mol. Biosyst. Mol. Syst. Des. Eng. Nanoscale Nanoscale Horiz. Nat. Prod. Rep. New J. Chem. Org. Biomol. Chem. Org. Chem. Front. PHOTOCH PHOTOBIO SCI PCCP Polym. Chem.

﹀