A large component to the 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (“TCJA”) was the adoption of the Base Erosion and Anti-Abuse Tax (“BEAT”).[1] The purpose of BEAT was to prevent corporations operating in the United States from avoiding domestic tax liability by shifting profits out of the United States.[2] Under Internal Revenue Code Section 59A (“Section 59A”), BEAT will experience two major changes following December 31, 2026: (1) the current tax rate of 10 percent will increase to 12.5 percent and (2) the company must reduce its regular tax liability by the total amount of credits it is allowed to…
Author: nkhilwani1
[1]There is a growing movement among college athletes to expand their financial opportunities. The central issue is the inequitable distribution of revenue – schools generate significant income, while athletes receive little or no compensation.”[2] Athletes have pursued three primary legal strategies to pursue their rights. The first is to use antitrust law to challenge NCAA laws that restrict athletes’ economic opportunities.[3] The second strategy is looking at employment law and unionization.[4] The third is through the name, image and likeness (“NIL”) movement.[5] The modern era of college sports antitrust litigation began with NCAA v. Board of Regents.[6] In Board of…
The 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (“TCJA”) remains one of the most defining legislative achievements of President Trump’s administration, fundamentally reshaping the tax landscape in the United States. By slashing corporate tax rates from 35% to 21% and altering individual income tax brackets, the TCJA aimed to stimulate economic growth and bolster corporate investment.[1] However, while the TCJA succeeded in boosting corporate profits and stock buybacks, its impact on long-term economic growth and wage increases has been debated, making its impending expiration a critical issue for policymakers assessing whether to extend key provisions.[2] The provisions of the TCJA are…
Prosecuting cartel behavior is the most crucial priority for the U.S. Department of Justice’s Antitrust Division (“the Division”) according to Makan Delrahim, Assistant Attorney General for the Division.[1] To deter cartel activity, the U.S. and numerous international competition authorities offer cartel participants (“cartelists”) an opportunity to apply for leniency in exchange for material information that can be used in an investigation against the cartel.[2] Courtesy of these leniency programs, the Division and its global counterparts have worked to dismantle some of the most sophisticated international cartels and recover billions of dollars in criminal fines.[3] Nevertheless, leniency applications across the globe…
On October 24, Judge Rochon of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York blocked an $8.5 billion dollar acquisition between Tapestry, Inc. (“Tapestry”) and Capri Holdings Limited (“Capri).[1] Tapestry’s acquisition of Capri sought to unite the top two U.S. handbag makers; namely, Tapestry’s Coach, Kate Spade, and Stuart Weitzman with Capri’s Versace, Jimmy Choo, and Michael Kors.[2] However, the Federal Trade Commission (“FTC”) believed the acquisition would undermine competition and sued to block the deal last April.[3] The FTC stated the proposed merger could reduce wages, diminish employee benefits, and threatened millions of American consumers.[4] The…
[1] In corporate law, self-dealing by fiduciaries is a fundamental concern, and there is significant debate over how to regulate it [2] Self-dealing—the expropriation of corporate wealth from fiduciaries presents a conflict-of-interest question, and scholars have disagreed on which of two rules is more effective at addressing the issue.[3] Some advocate for a “strict” no conflict rule which outright bans self-dealing, while others prefer a more flexible “fairness” rule which allows self-dealing if it is fair to beneficiaries .[4] This article surveys the differences in self-dealing law between the U.S. and the E.U. Delaware Self-Dealing Law In the U.S., directors…
The Inflation Reduction Act of 2022 (the “IRA”) encompassed multiple policy pushes from the current Biden administration but specifically addressed climate change.[1] Included within the IRA is a broadening of the applicability of renewable energy tax credits by offering developers the opportunity to monetize the credits at a discounted price to corporations.[2] Effective January 1, 2023, the IRA permitted developers and corporations to commence one-time transfers of clean energy credits.[3] For the opportunity to occur, Section 6418 was created and, on April 30, 2024, final regulations (the “Final Regulations”) were released by the Treasury Department and IRS.[4] As stated within…
In recent years, the U.S. Department of Justice (“DOJ”) has intensified its focus on Big Tech, aiming to curtail the unprecedented power that companies like Google, Amazon, Apple, and Meta have accumulated.[1] The regulatory crackdown comes as part of a broader global movement where governments, particularly in Europe and the U.S., are enacting laws and bringing lawsuits to rein in tech giants.[2] The overarching concern is that these “handful of tech companies” hinder free and fair competition through their control of vast sectors of the digital economy, including online search, social media, digital advertising, and e-commerce.[3] Amidst this regulatory wave,…
2024 was a pivotal year for all of real estate’s major players: – landlords and tenants, buyers and sellers, owners and developers. Whether you’re looking to purchase a new home, rent out your vacation condo, or impress your realtor friends with your knowledge of the industry’s latest trends, you’ll want to know what these changes mean for you. The legal implications of three new actions, the NAR settlement, Local Law 97, and Good Cause Eviction laws, are highlighted below. NAR Settlement Some of this year’s most profound industry changes have emerged from a $418 million settlement agreement brought by the…
Corporations face growing demands for transparency and accountability in various aspects of governance and social responsibility.[1] Recent cases in the Fifth and Eighth Circuit Courts delve into the complexities of compelled speech[2], ideological expression[3], and constitutional scrutiny within the framework of securities law.[4] These decisions could have profound implications for regulatory practices, corporate disclosures, and the protection of corporate speech. Resolving these questions is crucial for stakeholders across the corporate and legal landscapes, and these decisions could reshape the boundaries of regulatory authority and redefine the parameters of corporate governance in the United States. Alliance for Fair Board Recruitment v.…