瓦解公司差别的司法方法

Peter B. Oh
{"title":"瓦解公司差别的司法方法","authors":"Peter B. Oh","doi":"10.2139/SSRN.328923","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This article challenges our persistent path dependence on defunct distinctions between corporations and certain limited unincorporated associations. Recent federal tax regulations have inspired proposals for consolidated treatment of all limited business organizations through uniformly based or universally applicable statutes. I contend these proposals are preoccupied with how hybrid organizations such as the limited liability company and the limited liability partnership amalgamate, and thus implicitly preserve, traditional dichotomies between corporations and partnership categorizations as well as entities and aggregate theories. The continued use of these schemes compromises the legal basis for such proposals. By critically examining certain jurisdictional principles, this article reveals inconsistencies that can serve as an entry point for effecting collapse of distinctions between corporations and certain limited unincorporated associations. Specifically, United States citizens domiciled abroad are \"stateless\" and so cannot sue or be sued in federal courts under the alienage jurisdiction statute. Under the prevailing jurisdictional test, unincorporated associations with stateless members inherit this incapacity to access federal courts for alienage purposes while corporations do not. These radically different outcomes are the product of outmoded and untenable common law and statutory schemes. As a solution, I propose implementing a citizenship test based on domicile for both stateless individuals and unincorporated associations. Such a test would rectify these schemes and provide a framework that can support uniform treatment of all limited business organizations.","PeriodicalId":82623,"journal":{"name":"Rutgers law review","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2011-05-24","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"3","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"A Jurisdictional Approach to Collapsing Corporate Distinctions\",\"authors\":\"Peter B. Oh\",\"doi\":\"10.2139/SSRN.328923\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"This article challenges our persistent path dependence on defunct distinctions between corporations and certain limited unincorporated associations. Recent federal tax regulations have inspired proposals for consolidated treatment of all limited business organizations through uniformly based or universally applicable statutes. I contend these proposals are preoccupied with how hybrid organizations such as the limited liability company and the limited liability partnership amalgamate, and thus implicitly preserve, traditional dichotomies between corporations and partnership categorizations as well as entities and aggregate theories. The continued use of these schemes compromises the legal basis for such proposals. By critically examining certain jurisdictional principles, this article reveals inconsistencies that can serve as an entry point for effecting collapse of distinctions between corporations and certain limited unincorporated associations. Specifically, United States citizens domiciled abroad are \\\"stateless\\\" and so cannot sue or be sued in federal courts under the alienage jurisdiction statute. Under the prevailing jurisdictional test, unincorporated associations with stateless members inherit this incapacity to access federal courts for alienage purposes while corporations do not. These radically different outcomes are the product of outmoded and untenable common law and statutory schemes. As a solution, I propose implementing a citizenship test based on domicile for both stateless individuals and unincorporated associations. Such a test would rectify these schemes and provide a framework that can support uniform treatment of all limited business organizations.\",\"PeriodicalId\":82623,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Rutgers law review\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2011-05-24\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"3\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Rutgers law review\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.2139/SSRN.328923\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Rutgers law review","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2139/SSRN.328923","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 3

摘要

本文挑战了我们对公司和某些有限的非法人协会之间已不存在的区别的持续路径依赖。最近的联邦税收法规激发了通过统一基础或普遍适用的法规对所有有限商业组织进行统一处理的建议。我认为这些建议专注于混合组织,如有限责任公司和有限责任合伙企业如何合并,从而隐含地保留公司和合伙企业分类之间的传统二分法以及实体和总体理论。继续使用这些办法损害了这些建议的法律基础。通过对某些管辖原则的严格审查,本文揭示了不一致之处,这些不一致之处可以作为影响公司和某些有限非法人协会之间区别瓦解的切入点。具体来说,居住在国外的美国公民是“无国籍”的,因此不能根据《外国人管辖权规约》在联邦法院起诉或被起诉。在现行的司法标准下,拥有无国籍成员的非法人协会继承了因离境而诉诸联邦法院的权利,而公司则没有。这些截然不同的结果是过时和站不住脚的普通法和成文法计划的产物。作为解决方案,我建议对无国籍个人和非法人组织实施基于住所的公民身份测试。这种测试将纠正这些方案,并提供一个框架,支持对所有有限的商业组织进行统一处理。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
A Jurisdictional Approach to Collapsing Corporate Distinctions
This article challenges our persistent path dependence on defunct distinctions between corporations and certain limited unincorporated associations. Recent federal tax regulations have inspired proposals for consolidated treatment of all limited business organizations through uniformly based or universally applicable statutes. I contend these proposals are preoccupied with how hybrid organizations such as the limited liability company and the limited liability partnership amalgamate, and thus implicitly preserve, traditional dichotomies between corporations and partnership categorizations as well as entities and aggregate theories. The continued use of these schemes compromises the legal basis for such proposals. By critically examining certain jurisdictional principles, this article reveals inconsistencies that can serve as an entry point for effecting collapse of distinctions between corporations and certain limited unincorporated associations. Specifically, United States citizens domiciled abroad are "stateless" and so cannot sue or be sued in federal courts under the alienage jurisdiction statute. Under the prevailing jurisdictional test, unincorporated associations with stateless members inherit this incapacity to access federal courts for alienage purposes while corporations do not. These radically different outcomes are the product of outmoded and untenable common law and statutory schemes. As a solution, I propose implementing a citizenship test based on domicile for both stateless individuals and unincorporated associations. Such a test would rectify these schemes and provide a framework that can support uniform treatment of all limited business organizations.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
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×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
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