Johnny Rex Buckles
“A little learning is a dang’rous thing,” admonished Pope. Judges who pen legal opinions drawing on tax expenditure theory should heed the neoclassical bard. Armed with the modest yet obligatory exposure to the concept of tax expenditures presented in the basic federal income tax course in law school, many judges indeed possess enough learning to be dangerous. The thesis of this Article is that tax expenditure theory must be applied with a skillful, critical, and cautious appreciation for nuance in constitutional cases. This conclusion holds even under the assumption that tax expenditure budgeting is a useful tool of fiscal analysis. For several reasons, features of tax expenditure analysis apply uneasily in constitutional adjudication.
This Article seeks to identify the growing tension between the contemporary physical and digital reality of cities across the world and the formal, often archaic, body of norms that governs city powers and duties vis-à-vis different types of persons and corporations: locals, non-local residents of the same nation-state, and foreigners. The nation-state’s continuing dominance, both in the domestic division of power across various legal systems and in the international arena, often results in a systemic mismatch.
There is an eternal temptation to think that if one recognizes a moral problem and does something about it, then one is blameless even if the action taken does not solve the problem. We usually recognize that it is absurd to credit intent when the disconnect from results is vast—consider the rightfully mocked tendency of people to respond to tragedies by declaring that their “thoughts and prayers” are with the victims rather than taking any meaningful step to ameliorate their suffering. People still engage in such posturing because the behavior benefits them in several ways: (a) others see that the actor is doing something and think the actor is moral, and (b) the actor can assuage her own conscience by having done something. But declared good intent divorced from positive consequences is no virtue, and if it goes on long enough with the full knowledge of the actor, it turns into vice.
John Paul Boyter
In recent years, cryptocurrencies, cryptoassets, electronic coins, tokens, non-fungible tokens, and other various terms for electronic assets have gained prodigious attention in the financial world. From the spike (and subsequent drop) in value of Bitcoin, to people spending millions of dollars on pixelated pictures of punks, the market for these assets has been extremely active despite its ups and downs. However, in addition to potential financial success via crypto markets, the development of crypto technology has allowed for a transformation of how individuals and institutions think of currency, financial security, and access to information Part I of this Comment explains what a cryptoasset is, as well as the current tax regime applicable to them. Part II defines like-kind exchanges and provides the historical context for the nonrecognition event. It also considers the IRS’s recent guidance pertaining to crypto like-kind exchanges. Part III puts forth this Comment’s main arguments for allowing crypto-for-crypto exchanges to qualify as like-kind exchanges.
In 2018, the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) proposed replacing much of the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) with “America’s Harvest Box,” a program that would directly distribute a package of non-perishable food items to low-income families. The proposal was met with intense controversy. Many hunger advocates, grocery retailers, and former government officials spurned the idea, citing logistics challenges, nutrition concerns, and stigmatization associated with a direct distribution system. However, a few Indigenous advocates were quick to point out that a direct commodity distribution system has been in place in the United States for generations, often overlooked due to its singular audience: Native Americans living on reservations. Often colloquially referred to as “commods," the Food Distribution Program on Indian Reservations (FDPIR) is a commodity food program that directly distributes monthly packages of food to low-income Native Americans.