Hastings Law Journal最新文献_第8页

Love, Money, and the IRS: Family, Income Sharing, and the Joint Income Tax Return 爱情、金钱和美国国税局:家庭、收入分享和联合所得税申报表

IF 0.5 4区社会学

Hastings Law Journal Pub Date : 1993-11-01 DOI: 10.1017/cbo9780511609800.039

M. Kornhauser

{"title":"Love, Money, and the IRS: Family, Income Sharing, and the Joint Income Tax Return","authors":"M. Kornhauser","doi":"10.1017/cbo9780511609800.039","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1017/cbo9780511609800.039","url":null,"abstract":"This Article explores the premise that married couples share or pool their income. It surveys the changing concept and reality of 'family' and examines several empirical studies, including the author’s, that address the issue of the allocation of financial resources between members of a couple living together. This focus on 'pooling' sheds new light on the more commonly asked questions about the joint return: Does it promote family values? Should it (and the tax system generally) promote family values? Is it justified by other concerns such as economic ones? Part I of this Article briefly describes the social and legal realities of family living arrangements that contrast with the one-earner, heterosexual married couple model upon which the joint return is based. Part II probes the concept of pooling from a practical standpoint by examining several empirical studies that address the allocation of financial resources by a couple. Part III summarizes the theory and history of the taxable unit and the taxable unit as it exists today. Part IV concludes that the income tax system ought to use the individual rather than the married couple as the taxable unit. Separate taxation is not the perfect solution to the taxable unit issue, but no perfect solution exists. It is, however, the better solution because taxation based on the individual comports better with reality, social policies promoting families, tax theory, and economic considerations than the joint return.","PeriodicalId":46736,"journal":{"name":"Hastings Law Journal","volume":"45 1","pages":"63"},"PeriodicalIF":0.5,"publicationDate":"1993-11-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1017/cbo9780511609800.039","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"57078755","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 12

Trouble on Track Two: Incidental Regulations of Speech and Free Speech Theory 议题二的问题:言论的附带规则和言论自由理论

IF 0.5 4区社会学

Hastings Law Journal Pub Date : 1993-01-01 DOI: 10.4324/9781315181981-12

L. Alexander

引用次数: 9

Discovery of the Nontestifying Expert Witness' Identity under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure: You Can't Tell the Players without a Program 联邦民事诉讼规则下不作证专家证人身份的发现:没有程序你不能告诉玩家

IF 0.5 4区社会学

Hastings Law Journal Pub Date : 1985-01-01 DOI: 10.1109/c-m.1981.220423

D. Emerick

引用次数: 0

Wealth Transfers as the Original and Primary Concern of Antitrust: The Efficiency Interpretation Challenged 财富转移是反垄断的原始和主要关注点:对效率解释的挑战

IF 0.5 4区社会学

Hastings Law Journal Pub Date : 1982-09-01 DOI: 10.2139/SSRN.2065413

R. Lande

{"title":"Wealth Transfers as the Original and Primary Concern of Antitrust: The Efficiency Interpretation Challenged","authors":"R. Lande","doi":"10.2139/SSRN.2065413","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2139/SSRN.2065413","url":null,"abstract":"Chicago School antitrust policy rests upon the premise that the sole purpose of antitrust is to promote economic efficiency. This article shows that this foundation is flawed. The fundamental purpose of antitrust is to protect consumers. To protect purchasers from paying supracompetitive prices when they buy goods or services. This is the \"wealth transfer,\" \"theft\", \"consumer welfare\" or \"purchaser protection\" explanation for antitrust. The article shows that the efficiency view originated in a detailed analysis of the legislative history of the Sherman Act undertaken by Robert Bork. Bork purported to show that Congress only cared about enhancing economic efficiency.To analyze Bork's arguments, this article first explains the underlying economic concepts, including Bork's misleading definition of the term, \"consumer surplus\" when he should have used the term \"total surplus\". This article then analyzes the legislative histories of the Sherman Act, Clayton Act, Celler-Kefauver Act, and FTC Act. This analysis demonstrates that Congress's overriding concern when it enacted each law was with protecting consumers from paying supracompetitive prices. Congress did this because it believed that illegally acquired supracompetitive pricing constituted an \"unfair\" transfer of purchasers' property to firms with market power. Economic efficiency was only a secondary concern.The only exception is the law's goal of protecting small sellers from anticompetitive behavior by buyers with illegally gained monopsony power. This limited concern, however, is just the mirror image of Congress' desire to protect purchasers from exploitation. In both buy-side and sell-side cases, the overarching goal is the same - preventing firms that have unfairly acquired power from imposing noncompetitive prices or non-price terms on those they do business with. In both cases these firms \"unfairly\" acquire wealth. When conduct presents a conflict between the welfare of consumers and total welfare (e.g., a merger that raises prices but reduces costs), courts should choose purchaser protection over economic efficiency. This conclusion supports a more aggressive approach to many areas of antitrust.","PeriodicalId":46736,"journal":{"name":"Hastings Law Journal","volume":"72 1","pages":"871"},"PeriodicalIF":0.5,"publicationDate":"1982-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.2139/SSRN.2065413","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"67896563","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 141

Americans United for Separation of Church and State, Inc. v. HEW: Standing to Sue under the Establishment Clause 美国政教分离联合会诉HEW:根据政教分离条款提起诉讼

IF 0.5 4区社会学

Hastings Law Journal Pub Date : 1981-01-01 DOI: 10.4324/9781315699868-28

Laury M. Frieber

{"title":"Americans United for Separation of Church and State, Inc. v. HEW: Standing to Sue under the Establishment Clause","authors":"Laury M. Frieber","doi":"10.4324/9781315699868-28","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315699868-28","url":null,"abstract":"injury is that its members are particularly concerned about the injury suffered by all citizens when the government fails to act within the confines of the establishment clause. Like the court in Americans United, the Supreme Court in Flast was moved to find a way to grant standing to plaintiffs interested only in preserving the principle of the establishment clause. The Court in Flast created the nexus test in order to carve out an establishment clause exception to the rule against allowing a plaintiff to pursue a generalized grievance. The court in Americans United viewed the decision in Flast as limited by the plaintiffs' allegation in the pleadings of their status as taxpayers. According to the circuit court, this allegation constrained the Supreme Court in Flast from finding a personal right in the establishment clause sufficient to support standing.130 The dissent in Americans United refuted this argument, noting that citizen standing in establishment clause cases was expressly urged in the Flast briefs and the lower court dissent. s 127. 619 F.2d at 265. 128. 405 U.S. 727, 739-40 (1972). 129. 392 U.S. at 118 (Harlan, J., dissenting). 130. 619 F.2d at 261. 131. Id. at 270 (Weis, J., dissenting). See Flast v. Gardner, 271 F. Supp. 1, 11-13 (S.D.N.Y. 1967) (Frankel, J., dissenting). March 1981]","PeriodicalId":46736,"journal":{"name":"Hastings Law Journal","volume":"32 1","pages":"975"},"PeriodicalIF":0.5,"publicationDate":"1981-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"70434694","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 15

Or of the Press 或者是媒体

IF 0.5 4区社会学

Hastings Law Journal Pub Date : 1975-01-01 DOI: 10.4135/9781452204994.n13

Potter Stewart

引用次数: 34

Retroactive Application of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 1969年国家环境政策法的追溯适用

IF 0.5 4区社会学

Hastings Law Journal Pub Date : 1971-01-01 DOI: 10.2307/1287529

S. S. Mims

引用次数: 0

Immigration and Naturalization 移民及入籍