Legislation & Statutory Interpretation最新文献

筛选
英文 中文
The Supreme Court's Misconstruction of a Procedural Statute - A Critique of the Court's Decision in Badaracco 最高法院对程序法的误读——对巴达拉科一案判决的评析
Legislation & Statutory Interpretation Pub Date : 1983-12-01 DOI: 10.2307/1288643
Douglas A. Kahn
{"title":"The Supreme Court's Misconstruction of a Procedural Statute - A Critique of the Court's Decision in Badaracco","authors":"Douglas A. Kahn","doi":"10.2307/1288643","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2307/1288643","url":null,"abstract":"The Supreme Court held that a taxpayer who initially files a fraudulent income tax return cannot invoke a period of limitations by filing an honest amended return correcting the fraudulent aspects of the original return. The Supreme Court held in Badaracco v. Commissioner that once a fraudulent return has been filed, there is no limitation on the time available to the Government to assess a tax deficiency and penalties for that year regardless of corrective action taken by the taxpayer or by anyone else. Prior to the Supreme Court's decision in Badaracco, the Tax Court and two circuit courts of appeals had applied a limitations period once an honest amended return was filed, but two other circuit courts of appeals had held that no period of limitations is applicable in such cases. The Supreme Court's eight-to-one decision in Badaracco was not merely poorly reasoned and erroneous; it was an egregious misapplication of the principles of statutory construction. The issue resolved by the Court is not one of great moment, and the Court's mishandling of that issue is not in itself of much consequence. What is interesting is how eight justices of the Court could err in such a seemingly easy case and what that error suggests as to the importance of continuing to provide for Supreme Court review of tax litigation. The case also serves as a useful exemplar of the do's and don'ts of statutory construction.","PeriodicalId":297504,"journal":{"name":"Legislation & Statutory Interpretation","volume":"32 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"1983-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"122623663","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: 0
Policing for Profit: The Drug War's Hidden Economic Agenda 为利润而执法:毒品战争隐藏的经济议程
Legislation & Statutory Interpretation Pub Date : 1900-01-01 DOI: 10.2307/1600184
Eric D. Blumenson, Eva S. Nilsen
{"title":"Policing for Profit: The Drug War's Hidden Economic Agenda","authors":"Eric D. Blumenson, Eva S. Nilsen","doi":"10.2307/1600184","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2307/1600184","url":null,"abstract":"During the 25 years of its existence, the War on Drugs has transformed the criminal justice system, to the point where the imperatives of drug law enforcement now drive law enforcement and corrections policies in counterproductive ways. One significant impetus for this transformation has been the enactment of forfeiture laws which allow law enforcement agencies to keep the lion's share of the drug-related assets they seize. This financial incentive has left many law enforcement agencies dependent on drug law enforcement to meet their budgetary requirements. In this article we present a legal and empirical analysis of these laws and their consequences. The empirical data show that the corruption of law enforcement priorities and wholesale miscarriages of justice can be attributed to the operation of these incentives, and also help explain why the drug war continues with such heavy emphasis on law enforcement and incarceration. The legal analysis questions the constitutionality of the forfeiture funding scheme under the due process clause, the appropriations clause, and the separation of powers.","PeriodicalId":297504,"journal":{"name":"Legislation & Statutory Interpretation","volume":"6 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":"115541667","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: 109
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
相关产品
×
本文献相关产品
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信