In this piece, prepared for a symposium on the empirical study of taxation, we consider the intriguing possibility that taxes generate disutility for taxpayers in excess of the dollar amounts involved. While most people dislike paying taxes, the extent to which a phenomenon of "tax aversion" exists is empirically unknown, as are the causes and constituent elements of any such aversion. Investigation of these questions could provide important lessons for tax policy. If people are averse to taxes above and beyond the financial losses the taxes represent, they would tend to spend more time and money on tax avoidance than economic analysis would predict, creating additional deadweight losses for society. Even where avoidance is not pursued at elevated levels, tax aversion would increase the disutility associated with the payment of the tax, generating psychic costs and potentially impacting compliance levels. Hence, a better understanding of the magnitude and components of tax aversion could advance comprehension of taxpayer behavior and spur useful innovation in tax design. Towards those ends, we survey and mine existing bodies of empirical work for the light they might shed on tax aversion, and identify avenues for further study. We give particular attention to the growing body of experimental games used to model the provision of public goods. Anthropological studies of public goods provision and the effective use of norms of reciprocity in group contexts can help to parse and import richer meaning into the findings obtained in these controlled experimental settings. We close by discussing some possible ways of importing greater transparency and voice into the taxpaying interface, to test the hypothesis that these features can serve as proxies for some of the components present in successful reciprocal interactions.
{"title":"Fear and Greed in Tax Policy: A Qualitative Research Agenda","authors":"Christopher C. Fennell, L. Fennell","doi":"10.2139/SSRN.474360","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2139/SSRN.474360","url":null,"abstract":"In this piece, prepared for a symposium on the empirical study of taxation, we consider the intriguing possibility that taxes generate disutility for taxpayers in excess of the dollar amounts involved. While most people dislike paying taxes, the extent to which a phenomenon of \"tax aversion\" exists is empirically unknown, as are the causes and constituent elements of any such aversion. Investigation of these questions could provide important lessons for tax policy. If people are averse to taxes above and beyond the financial losses the taxes represent, they would tend to spend more time and money on tax avoidance than economic analysis would predict, creating additional deadweight losses for society. Even where avoidance is not pursued at elevated levels, tax aversion would increase the disutility associated with the payment of the tax, generating psychic costs and potentially impacting compliance levels. Hence, a better understanding of the magnitude and components of tax aversion could advance comprehension of taxpayer behavior and spur useful innovation in tax design. Towards those ends, we survey and mine existing bodies of empirical work for the light they might shed on tax aversion, and identify avenues for further study. We give particular attention to the growing body of experimental games used to model the provision of public goods. Anthropological studies of public goods provision and the effective use of norms of reciprocity in group contexts can help to parse and import richer meaning into the findings obtained in these controlled experimental settings. We close by discussing some possible ways of importing greater transparency and voice into the taxpaying interface, to test the hypothesis that these features can serve as proxies for some of the components present in successful reciprocal interactions.","PeriodicalId":438020,"journal":{"name":"Washington University Journal of Law and Policy","volume":"4 4 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2003-12-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"133218182","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}
In the past few years, we have witnessed a proliferation of patents in the two industries that are central to our information economy - computer software and biotechnology. Many commentators fear that the rush to patent in these economically vital industries will lead to restricted information flow and retarded innovation and development. The proliferation of high-technology patents directly implicates the two institutions that are primarily responsible for administering the patent system - the Patent and Trademark Office ("PTO"), which grants patents, and the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ("CAFC"), which hears all patent appeals. Moreover, given that the CAFC's reversal of PTO decisions denying patent protection to certain biotechnology and computer program inventions has been a major reason for the recent proliferation of patents, it is important to reassess the relationship between the CAFC and the PTO. This paper argues that, from the standpoint of institutional competence, the CAFC should not independently review the PTO's decisions denying patentability. Rather, it should apply traditional administrative principles of deference to the PTO's patentability denials.
{"title":"Addressing the Patent Gold Rush: The Role of Deference to PTO Patent Denials","authors":"A. Rai","doi":"10.2139/SSRN.223758","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2139/SSRN.223758","url":null,"abstract":"In the past few years, we have witnessed a proliferation of patents in the two industries that are central to our information economy - computer software and biotechnology. Many commentators fear that the rush to patent in these economically vital industries will lead to restricted information flow and retarded innovation and development. The proliferation of high-technology patents directly implicates the two institutions that are primarily responsible for administering the patent system - the Patent and Trademark Office (\"PTO\"), which grants patents, and the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (\"CAFC\"), which hears all patent appeals. Moreover, given that the CAFC's reversal of PTO decisions denying patent protection to certain biotechnology and computer program inventions has been a major reason for the recent proliferation of patents, it is important to reassess the relationship between the CAFC and the PTO. This paper argues that, from the standpoint of institutional competence, the CAFC should not independently review the PTO's decisions denying patentability. Rather, it should apply traditional administrative principles of deference to the PTO's patentability denials.","PeriodicalId":438020,"journal":{"name":"Washington University Journal of Law and Policy","volume":"142 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2000-02-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"122861873","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}
{"title":"Access to Justice and the Global Clinical Movement","authors":"F. Bloch","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.1022685","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.1022685","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":438020,"journal":{"name":"Washington University Journal of Law and Policy","volume":"14 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"1900-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"133658604","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}
Professor Abrams will set the stage for the program, recounting the development of the United States juvenile justice system, with particular emphasis on Missouri. He will outline doctrinal developments from the nation’s first juvenile court, to the Supreme Court’s decision in Gault providing due process protections for youth, to the Court’s recent sentencing decisions in Roper v. Simmons and Graham v. Florida defining youth as categorically less culpable than adults. This session will also provide an update on two cases currently before the Supreme Court, which seek to further prohibit life without parole sentences for youth.
{"title":"Introduction: Evolving Standards in Juvenile Justice from Gault to Graham and Beyond","authors":"Mae C. Quinn","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.3425300","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3425300","url":null,"abstract":"Professor Abrams will set the stage for the program, recounting the development of the United States juvenile justice system, with particular emphasis on Missouri. He will outline doctrinal developments from the nation’s first juvenile court, to the Supreme Court’s decision in Gault providing due process protections for youth, to the Court’s recent sentencing decisions in Roper v. Simmons and Graham v. Florida defining youth as categorically less culpable than adults. This session will also provide an update on two cases currently before the Supreme Court, which seek to further prohibit life without parole sentences for youth.","PeriodicalId":438020,"journal":{"name":"Washington University Journal of Law and Policy","volume":"73 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"1900-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"131703955","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}
Pub Date : 1900-01-01DOI: 10.4324/9781315041636-17
David L. Going
{"title":"What Makes a Good Teacher","authors":"David L. Going","doi":"10.4324/9781315041636-17","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315041636-17","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":438020,"journal":{"name":"Washington University Journal of Law and Policy","volume":"47 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"1900-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"127418333","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}
Pub Date : 1900-01-01DOI: 10.1007/978-981-10-4550-9
A. Martínez
{"title":"Human Rights of Women","authors":"A. Martínez","doi":"10.1007/978-981-10-4550-9","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-10-4550-9","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":438020,"journal":{"name":"Washington University Journal of Law and Policy","volume":"29 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"1900-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"114557245","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}
This essay, written for a symposium on insider trading in the Washington University Journal of Law and Policy, explores the different paths taken by the United States and the European Union with respect to who is subject to the prohibition on insider trading. After providing an overview of the difference between the U.S. and the E.U. prohibition, the essay explores the different outcomes that would occur under U.S. versus E.U. law in several high profile insider trading cases of recent years. The essay also addresses the jurisdictional reach of each regime’s prohibition and considers the normative lessons of this real world experiment in taking different paths. * Distinguished Professor of Law, University of the Pacific, McGeorge School of Law. 2017 / The Road Not Taken 2 My introduction to the prohibition on insider trading came as a law student in Berkeley in 1976. My notes indicated that the law in the United States—-we did not think much about law outside the United States—-was uncertain regarding whom the prohibition reached. They also pointed out, however, that authority from the Second Circuit, particularly the landmark decision in SEC v. Texas Gulf Sulfur,1 stated that the prohibition reached anyone in possession of material nonpublic information. Four years later, the United States Supreme Court, in Chiarella v. United States,2 held this was wrong. Instead, the Supreme Court redirected the prohibition on insider trading under United States law into a narrower and more complex approach. One wonders what would have happened if the Supreme Court had seen things differently and upheld the Second Circuit’s broad prohibition in Chiarella. A utility of comparative law is that it sometimes allows us to explore the impacts of different choices regarding legal rules without performing a gedanken experiment, searching the multiverse for another Earth on which this particular law is different, or watching the movie Sliding Doors as made by lawyers. The European Union’s adoption of a rule similar to the Second Circuit’s preChiarella approach makes this one of those times. This essay explores the different paths taken by the U.S. and the E.U. with respect to who is subject to the prohibition on insider trading. Part I provides an overview of the different approaches taken by the U.S. and the E.U. law. Part II moves from the general to the specific by exploring the different outcomes that would occur under U.S. versus E.U. law in several high profile cases of recent years. Part III explores a practical implication of this divergence by discussing the jurisdictional reach of each regime’s prohibition. Finally, Part IV considers what normative lessons we can draw from this real world experiment in taking different paths. I. OVERVIEW OF THE U.S. VERSUS E.U. INSIDER TRADING PROHIBITIONS A. The U.S. Prohibition Early in the 1960s, the United States established what appears to be the world’s first prohibition of trading on inside information.3 The Securities
这篇文章是为华盛顿大学法律与政策杂志的内幕交易研讨会而写的，探讨了美国和欧盟在谁应该受到内幕交易禁止方面采取的不同路径。在概述了美国和欧盟禁令之间的差异之后，本文探讨了近年来在几起备受瞩目的内幕交易案件中，美国和欧盟法律可能产生的不同结果。本文还讨论了每个政权的禁令管辖范围，并考虑了采取不同道路的现实世界实验的规范教训。*太平洋大学麦乔治法学院杰出法学教授，2017年/未走的路2 1976年，我在伯克利读法律时，开始接触内幕交易禁令。我的笔记表明，美国的法律——我们没有过多考虑美国以外的法律——不确定禁令适用于谁。然而，他们也指出，第二巡回法院的权威，特别是SEC诉德州海湾硫磺案(SEC v. Texas Gulf硫磺)中具有里程碑意义的判决表明，禁令适用于任何拥有重要非公开信息的人。四年后，在Chiarella诉美国一案中，美国最高法院裁定这是错误的。相反，最高法院将美国法律对内幕交易的禁令转向了一个范围更窄、更复杂的方法。人们不禁要问，如果最高法院从不同的角度看待问题，支持第二巡回上诉法院在基亚雷拉案中的广泛禁令，会发生什么。比较法的一个用处是，它有时允许我们探索不同选择对法律规则的影响，而无需进行“实验”，在多元宇宙中寻找另一个与该特定法律不同的地球，或者观看律师制作的电影“滑动门”。欧盟采用的规则与第二巡回法院的前chiarella方法类似，这使得这一次成为其中之一。本文探讨了美国和欧盟在内幕交易禁止对象方面采取的不同路径。第一部分概述了美国和欧盟法律采取的不同方法。第二部分通过探讨近年来美国与欧盟法律在几个引人注目的案件中可能发生的不同结果，从一般转向具体。第三部分通过讨论每个制度的禁止管辖范围，探讨了这种分歧的实际含义。最后，第四部分考虑了我们可以从这个现实世界的实验中吸取哪些规范的教训，以采取不同的道路。美国的禁令早在20世纪60年代，美国就制定了似乎是世界上第一个关于内幕信息交易的禁令美国证券交易委员会认为，Cady, Roberts经纪公司违反了1934年《证券交易法》第10(b)条和委员会根据该条款颁布的第10b-5条的欺诈行为。f .第833、848段(1968年第2段)。2. 445 U.S. 222, 235(1980)。3.例如，Franklin A. Gevurtz，内幕交易禁令的全球化，15 TRANSNAT 'L LAW。63, 64-5(2002)。4. 15 U.S.C.§78j(2012)。5. 17 C.F.R.§240.10b-5(2010)。
{"title":"The Road not Taken: A Comparison of the E.U. and U.S. Insider Trading Prohibitions","authors":"Franklin A. Gevurtz","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.3062793","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3062793","url":null,"abstract":"This essay, written for a symposium on insider trading in the Washington University Journal of Law and Policy, explores the different paths taken by the United States and the European Union with respect to who is subject to the prohibition on insider trading. After providing an overview of the difference between the U.S. and the E.U. prohibition, the essay explores the different outcomes that would occur under U.S. versus E.U. law in several high profile insider trading cases of recent years. The essay also addresses the jurisdictional reach of each regime’s prohibition and considers the normative lessons of this real world experiment in taking different paths. * Distinguished Professor of Law, University of the Pacific, McGeorge School of Law. 2017 / The Road Not Taken 2 My introduction to the prohibition on insider trading came as a law student in Berkeley in 1976. My notes indicated that the law in the United States—-we did not think much about law outside the United States—-was uncertain regarding whom the prohibition reached. They also pointed out, however, that authority from the Second Circuit, particularly the landmark decision in SEC v. Texas Gulf Sulfur,1 stated that the prohibition reached anyone in possession of material nonpublic information. Four years later, the United States Supreme Court, in Chiarella v. United States,2 held this was wrong. Instead, the Supreme Court redirected the prohibition on insider trading under United States law into a narrower and more complex approach. One wonders what would have happened if the Supreme Court had seen things differently and upheld the Second Circuit’s broad prohibition in Chiarella. A utility of comparative law is that it sometimes allows us to explore the impacts of different choices regarding legal rules without performing a gedanken experiment, searching the multiverse for another Earth on which this particular law is different, or watching the movie Sliding Doors as made by lawyers. The European Union’s adoption of a rule similar to the Second Circuit’s preChiarella approach makes this one of those times. This essay explores the different paths taken by the U.S. and the E.U. with respect to who is subject to the prohibition on insider trading. Part I provides an overview of the different approaches taken by the U.S. and the E.U. law. Part II moves from the general to the specific by exploring the different outcomes that would occur under U.S. versus E.U. law in several high profile cases of recent years. Part III explores a practical implication of this divergence by discussing the jurisdictional reach of each regime’s prohibition. Finally, Part IV considers what normative lessons we can draw from this real world experiment in taking different paths. I. OVERVIEW OF THE U.S. VERSUS E.U. INSIDER TRADING PROHIBITIONS A. The U.S. Prohibition Early in the 1960s, the United States established what appears to be the world’s first prohibition of trading on inside information.3 The Securities","PeriodicalId":438020,"journal":{"name":"Washington University Journal of Law and Policy","volume":"26 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"1900-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"130737847","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}
Pub Date : 1900-01-01DOI: 10.1215/9780822389002-008
C. Kelty
Openness is an unruly concept. While free tends toward ambiguity (free as in speech, or free as in beer?), open tends toward obfuscation. Everyone claims to be open, everyone has something to share, everyone agrees that being open is the obvious thing to do-after all, but for all its nt of Free Software. It is never quite clear whether being open is a means or an end. Worse, the opposite of open in this case
{"title":"Conceiving Open Systems","authors":"C. Kelty","doi":"10.1215/9780822389002-008","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1215/9780822389002-008","url":null,"abstract":"Openness is an unruly concept. While free tends toward ambiguity (free as in speech, or free as in beer?), open tends toward obfuscation. Everyone claims to be open, everyone has something to share, everyone agrees that being open is the obvious thing to do-after all, but for all its nt of Free Software. It is never quite clear whether being open is a means or an end. Worse, the opposite of open in this case","PeriodicalId":438020,"journal":{"name":"Washington University Journal of Law and Policy","volume":"18 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"1900-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"134095570","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}
Pub Date : 1900-01-01DOI: 10.4324/9781315257600-26
Carrie Menkel-Meadow
British social philosopher Stuart Hampshire recently articulated the fundamental and foundational principles of the modern conflict resolution movement (and I do call it a movement). He asserted that, “there will always be a plurality of different and incompatible conceptions of the good and there cannot be a single comprehensive and consistent theory of human virtue.” Correspondingly, “our political enmities in the city or state will never come to an end while we have diverse life stories and diverse imaginations.” Hampshire, a socially progressive, socialist philosopher hoped to articulate
{"title":"When litigation is not the only way: consensus building and mediation as public interest lawyering","authors":"Carrie Menkel-Meadow","doi":"10.4324/9781315257600-26","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315257600-26","url":null,"abstract":"British social philosopher Stuart Hampshire recently articulated the fundamental and foundational principles of the modern conflict resolution movement (and I do call it a movement). He asserted that, “there will always be a plurality of different and incompatible conceptions of the good and there cannot be a single comprehensive and consistent theory of human virtue.” Correspondingly, “our political enmities in the city or state will never come to an end while we have diverse life stories and diverse imaginations.” Hampshire, a socially progressive, socialist philosopher hoped to articulate","PeriodicalId":438020,"journal":{"name":"Washington University Journal of Law and Policy","volume":"23 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"1900-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"124922142","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}
{"title":"Revolutionary Lawyering: Addressing the Root Causes of Poverty and Wealth","authors":"William P. Quigley","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.3362062","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3362062","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":438020,"journal":{"name":"Washington University Journal of Law and Policy","volume":"1 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"1900-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"133123691","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}
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：