Court Says No to Uber Class Action Settlement: What does that mean for worker classification?

By: Diane Ring

A major question in the sharing economy is the status of workers – are they employees or independent contractors? Of course, no single answer would apply across the entire sector but the debate has been most prominent in ridesharing. At the center of this debate are two litigations against Uber in California and Massachusetts (in January 2015 the Massachusetts case was transferred to the Northern District of California). The suits, brought on behalf of Uber drivers in the two states, “alleged [among other claims] that Uber misclassified its drivers as independent contractors rather than employees.” Reclassification as an employee would entitle drivers to various protections and potential compensation under state labor law. Three years into the litigation, the plaintiffs agreed on a settlement with Uber, which would provide for monetary relief of $84 million (plus an additional $16 million contingent on an initial public offering). The bulk of this payment would be split into two funds, with approximately $5-6 million for Massachusetts drivers, and approximately $56-66.9 million for California drivers. Payouts to drivers would be based on miles driven under a formula. Continue reading “Court Says No to Uber Class Action Settlement: What does that mean for worker classification?” →

Tax Evasion and Risk Perceptions among Lawyers in China

Shu-Yi Oei

I recently read an interesting article by Prof. Benjamin van Rooij (UC Irvine), Weak Enforcement, Strong Deterrence: Dialogues with Chinese Lawyers about Tax Evasion and Compliance, 41 Law & Social Inquiry 288 (2016), available here.

The article studies a particular form of tax evasion practiced by some lawyers in China: The lawyer, although affiliated with a law firm, retains clients privately, accepts cash payments from such clients without giving the client a tax receipt, and does not report the case to the law firm. This behavior actually contains both a tax evasion and a business-driven purpose: it enables the lawyer to underreport income for tax purposes while also avoiding payment of a significant cut to the law firm. Unsurprisingly, the law prohibits these practices. The paper employs qualitative “semistructured” interviews with lawyers at large and medium-sized law firms using open-ended questions, in order to generate a nuanced picture of how enforcement, deterrence, and risk are perceived by these lawyers.

The findings are fascinating, and provide a unique perspective on legal ethics, tax compliance, and perceptions of enforcement and deterrence among lawyers in China. Continue reading “Tax Evasion and Risk Perceptions among Lawyers in China” →

Walmart and Puerto Rico

By: David J. Herzig

Everyone knows by now the dire financial problems facing Puerto Rico. (My co-blogger Shu-Yi Oei wrote about the default in Surly here.) In order to generate liquidity to pay debt and run government operations, Puerto Rico began to look to the deepest pockets for help. If you are looking for a deep pocket, look no further than Walmart. The question facing Puerto Rico was how to get more money out of Walmart without actually targeting the corporation (that would be unconstitutional.)

The territory, instead, tinkered with an old law to created a tax hikes which on the face seemed neutral. However, the law, according to Walmart, targeted primarily the large retail corporation. The after-tax effect of the corporate alternative minimum tax change was to raise Walmart’s Puerto Rican tax liability to over 90% of its income.

How did we get here? Last year, Puerto Rico enacted Act 72-2015 (Act 72) into law. The key component of the act was an increase in the Tangible Property Component (TPC) of the corporate AMT. According to prior reporting, “The TPC piece of the AMT imposes a tax on the value of property transferred to an entity doing business in Puerto Rico from a related party outside of Puerto Rico.”

Then last December, Walmart filed suit styled, Wal-Mart Puerto Rico Inc. v. Zaragoza-Gomez, 15-cv-3018, U.S. District Court, District of Puerto Rico (San Juan) challenging Act 72. According to Walmart, the tax was unconstitutional violating the commerce clause. Moreover, the new tax raised the company’s estimated income tax to “an astonishing and unsustainable 91.5% of its net income.”

In March of 2016, the District Court agreed with Walmart and in a 109 page opinion stated, “Puerto Rico’s AMT, on its face, clearly discriminates against interstate commerce.” Part of the story told by bond holders, is that in the course of the trial, it came to light the government of Puerto Rico might have been misleading their bond holders and this law was a kind of hail-mary. Per the UBS report, “In the course of the trial, senior officials of the García administration were obliged to provide sworn testimony. Judge Fusté’s subsequent written opinion provided information that had been either knowingly or inadvertently withheld from investors by the Government Development Bank.” So, yes, the tax was targeted at Walmart. Also, the government of Puerto Rico was also not disclosing to its bond holders the true economic conditions.

Late last week, the 1st Circuit agreed with the District Court. The 1st Circuit concluded, “As to the merits of the Commerce Clause challenge, the AMT is a facially discriminatory statute that does not meet the heightened level of scrutiny required to survive under the dormant Commerce Clause.”

Continue reading “Walmart and Puerto Rico” →

House Staffer is a Tax Protester?

By: David J. Herzig

Politico reported yesterday that “Isaac Lanier Avant, chief of staff to Rep. Bennie Thompson (D-Miss.) and Democratic staff director for the Homeland Security Committee, allegedly did not file returns for the 2009 to 2013 tax years.”

According to the Department of Justice Press Release, Mr. Avant has been a staff member of the U.S. House of Representatives since 2002. In 2005, he filed a form with “his employer that falsely claimed he was exempt from federal income taxes. Avant did not have any federal tax withheld from his paycheck until the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) mandated that his employer begin withholding in January 2013.”

This seemingly innocent story might get more torrid. For starters, missing from the press release by Justice is that, as Richard Rubin pointed out to me, Mr. Avant’s employer was Congress. Do you hear the can of worms opening? I mean, who at payroll in Congress is green-lighting the stopping of withholding? What did his form look like? Did he make up an official and name it – W-NONE? How many other staffer’s did this? How did he never get audited? According the the press release and the story, Mr. Avant did not file tax returns for 5 years; I guess a matching program would not catch anything since he had no withholding. But, one would think Congress would at least ensure that every employee has filed a tax return.

Not sure which awesome tax protester argument he is going with. Personally, I hope it is that he is a sovereign citizen. It would be great if the Democratic staff director of Homeland Security thought the U.S. laws did not apply to him. I guess we will have to wait for the actual complaint. For those interested, the IRS has outlined numerous frivolous tax arguments.

[UPDATE 8/24/16 at 8:41 pm: It appears that a claim of Sovereign Citizen might really be in play. According to the Panolian, a local Batesville, Mississippi newspaper, Mr. Avant is the son of Vernice Black Avant and the late Robert Allen Avant Sr. In 2011, according to the Panolian, Mr. Avant’s mother, who is also a court clerk, filed an “11-page ‘Affidavit of Truth'” “declaring that she is a “freeborn Sovereign” are meant to distinguish her as an individual, distinct from a corporation.” “The affidavit cites participation in the use of bank accounts, Social Security numbers, driver’s licenses, vehicle license plates and tax returns as ‘under duress.'”]

Johnny Rex Buckles: The Sexual Integrity of Religious Schools and Tax Exemption

Johnny Rex Buckles (University of Houston Law Center) has a new paper out entitled “The Sexual Integrity of Religious Schools and Tax Exemption” looking at whether religious schools that discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation should maintain their tax exemption. The article can be found here. The abstract states:

Many private universities and other schools adhere to religiously grounded codes of conduct that embrace heterosexual monogamy as the sole moral context for sexual relationships. The federal income tax exemption of these schools has been questioned following the recent Supreme Court opinion of Obergefell v. Hodges. In Obergefell, the Supreme Court held that the right to marry is a fundamental constitutional right that same-sex couples may exercise. The relevance of this decision to the federal tax status of private religious schools arises from another Supreme Court decision, Bob Jones University v. United States. The Court in Bob Jones held that two schools with racially discriminatory policies as to students were not entitled to exemption from federal income tax because the policies violate established public policy. The issue now is whether the sexual conduct policies of private religious schools violate the established public policy of the United States following Obergefell. After reviewing Bob Jones and surveying the application of the public policy doctrine by the IRS and the courts, this article argues that, regardless of the factual context of a controversy in which the IRS seeks to invoke Bob Jones to deny or revoke federal income tax exemption, the public policy doctrine should be narrowly construed. Applying a suggested framework for limiting the public policy doctrine coherently, this Article argues that schools maintaining sexual conduct policies that prohibit sexual activity inconsistent with their religiously informed, traditional view of marriage remain tax-exempt after Obergefell. Apart from the proposed framework, this Article further explains why Obergefell’s analytical approach, language and tone are inconsistent with applying Bob Jones to the disadvantage of religious schools that maintain sexual conduct policies.

If Churches Really Want to Vindicate Their Right to Endorse a Candidate, It’s Easy for Them to Get into Court

By Benjamin Leff

Last week, attendees at the Republican National Convention applauded loudly when Donald Trump repeated his promise that if he’s elected president, he’ll work to end the ban on political-campaign activity by tax-exempt churches. All 501(c)(3) organizations (including churches) have been prohibited from “intervening” in a campaign for public office for over half a century, and the arguments for and against the prohibition have remained remarkably consistent for decades. Activists on one side call for an end to the ban, which they believe is an infringement on free exercise of religion or free speech. Activists on the other side call for the IRS to actually enforce the ban, which they argue is being flouted by (mainly) churches who thereby distort the electoral process. A long list of academics has written articles from a wide range of perspectives, proposing a wide range of solutions (including my contribution way back in 2009). (I also spoke about this issue a few weeks ago in Australia, at a fabulous round-table at the University of Melbourne.) As Sam Brunson pointed out on this blog in May, the IRS is “stuck in the middle.”

In his post, Sam pointed out that “Over the last eight years or so, the Alliance Defending Freedom has sponsored an annual event it calls Pulpit Freedom Sunday, in which pastors preach a sermon that expressly violates the prohibition, then send a copy of their sermon to the IRS. Of the possibly thousands of churches that have participated over the years, none have lost their exemptions.” This is often presented as a dilemma for the churches: they want to get in to court, and are disappointed that the IRS won’t let them.

To me, this public stance on the part of the churches and Alliance Defending Freedom seems disingenuous. If they really want to get into court, why don’t they just use the statutory procedures provided to 501(c)(3) organizations under the law? Continue reading “If Churches Really Want to Vindicate Their Right to Endorse a Candidate, It’s Easy for Them to Get into Court” →

Emmet Till and The Panama Papers

Photo AP.

By David J. Herzig

Yesterday (July 25) would have been Emmet Till’s 75th birthday. Since high school I have been fascinated by his story and the impact he had on the Civil Rights movement. For those who don’t know, Mr. Till was born and lived in Chicago. While visiting his relatives in Mississippi in 1955, at the age of 14, he was killed for allegedly flirting with a white women. His killers (although an all white jury acquitted both men they both admitted to the killings in this Look Magazine article) were the husband of the woman, Roy Bryant and his half-brother J. W. Milam.

The death of Mr. Till is often credited with a mobilizing factor in the Civil Rights Movement. For those interested, here is an excellent PBS documentary on the topic.

Thankfully, it did not take long to justify a post on a tax blog about a Civil Rights hero. The son of one of Mr. Till’s killers name seems to show up in the Panama Papers. According to the Clarion Ledger, “Harvey T. Milam of Ocean Springs, whose father, J.W., shot Till in 1955, appears in” the Panama Papers. Apparently, Harvey had quite a scheme involving using off-shore insurance companies. I may actually have to do some digging around to find out more about the alleged scheme.

Emerging Trend for Uber in Europe?

By: Diane Ring

Uber, one of the most prominent faces of the sharing economy, has not always been welcome in the EU. Similarly, Airbnb has experienced legal, regulatory, and public policy resistance across European countries. However, two recent developments in the EU suggest that, on balance, Europe might be staking out a regulatory path for the sharing economy that is intended to demonstrate the region’s support for the new sector. . . . Continue reading “Emerging Trend for Uber in Europe?” →

The Tax Aspects of Pokémon Go

Adam Thimmesch
Assistant Professor, University of Nebraska-Lincoln College of Law

The new Pokémon Go app has already generated many discussions regarding the multiple ways that the game intersects with the law. I’ve previously opined on some of the broader issues, but, as a tax professor, my thoughts have naturally focused on that topic. Fortunately, the Surly Subgroup was nice enough to let me present those thoughts here in a guest post.

The tax issues that I’ve been thinking about stem largely from the fact that Pokémon Go is built on a freemium business model. That is, the app is free, but users can pay for certain “premium” features like additional Pokéballs, incense, and lure modules. (If these phrases mean nothing to you, here is a nice primer on the game.) Those purchases are all done through the purchase and use of an in-app currency called Pokécoins. The whole thing might sound silly, but the app is already generating over $1.5 million in daily revenue for its developer, Niantic, Inc. The company will also soon be selling “sponsored partnerships” that allow companies to be listed more prominently in the game. The potential revenue streams look plentiful at this point. So what are the tax issues?

Continue reading “The Tax Aspects of Pokémon Go” →

Flying, an Alpaca Farm and Baseball Cards – What do they have in common?

By: Diane Ring

In teaching Basic Income Tax, I have found that teaching students about the lines between engaging in a trade or business, profit seeking, and hobbies helps them become comfortable using facts in tax analysis and argument. It confirms for students that tax law is a type of law demanding factual and legal analysis – facts do matter and they are not self-evident. Thus, in anticipation of my next class, I have been collecting (thanks to Tax Notes and the BNA Daily Tax Report) new examples of taxpayer failures to convince a court that their activity was, in fact, for profit. It turns out the pool is quite large, but some personal favorites have risen to the top . . . Continue reading “Flying, an Alpaca Farm and Baseball Cards – What do they have in common?” →

Messi Sentenced To Jail for Tax Fraud

By David J. Herzig

In a statement today, the court (the decision is in Spanish) in the tax fraud trial of Lionel Messi and his father found them guilty with a sentence of 21 months. Although, under the Spanish system Messi and his father will serve probation and not jail time.

The court rejected Messi’s side of the story. He had been claiming that he did not know what he signed. The court did not believe Messi and decided that he (my translations) “decided to remain in ignorance over time” in a situation that benefited him, “because he received returns of the funds”.

Because the strategy that they court thought Messi knew about and used was to a scheme to “create the appearance of assignment” of these rights to “companies located in countries whose tax legislation allowed opacity”.

Thus, the court added over 3.5 in Euros of fines (2 million for Messi and 1.5 for his father) for the scheme to conceal earnings from image rights. Prior to the trial, Messi claimed to have paid the 5 million Euro tax deficiency. Messi does retain appeal rights.

F.C. Barcelona issued this statement in support of Messi and his father. As Shu-Yi pointed out to me, F.C. Barcelona might have it’s own agenda on tax schemes. As the E.U. is about set to give a verdict against the Spanish clubs for violating the public spending provisions via tax breaks. The opening of the inquiry stated, “Professional football clubs should finance their running costs and investments with sound financial management rather than at the expense of the taxpayer. Member states and public authorities must comply with EU rules on state aid in this sector as in all economic sectors.”

As a final thought, I do wonder, however, if that open probation affects his ability to travel via Visa to various countries, e.g., will Brexit matter for Messi?

It’s Complicated.

By: Shu-Yi Oei

I’ve been thinking a lot about movies lately, partly because this pesky sign appeared outside my house a couple of days ago, and partly because of the Louisiana film tax credit, which has been all over the local news.

film sign 2

A couple of days ago, an Associated Press article reported that Louisiana’s motion picture industry was down by 90% this year as filmmakers moved production to states with more generous tax incentives. (I guess that puts the filming outside my house in the 10%?). It was also reported that Governor John Bel Edwards and the Louisiana Economic Development agency are going to commence an examination of the film tax credit and its economic impact in Louisiana. As the news reports indicate, the decline in movie production activity is undoubtedly due to the fact that, facing a state budget deficit, legislators placed caps and limitations on the credit in legislation passed last year. The most material change was an aggregate $180 million cap on the credit for tax years 2015-18, which will then sunset. RS: 47:6007(C)(1)(d)(ii). As a result, movie production has reportedly moved to states with more generous film tax incentives.

The Louisiana film tax credit is a complex beast, and I can’t cover all its intricacies here. But some broad policy points are worth mentioning. Continue reading “It’s Complicated.” →

More Merger Mayhem: Tax Lawyers Testifying

By: David J. Herzig

Great news, the awesome clerks at the Delaware Courts were nice enough to help me get my hands on the trial transcript. I guess I have some heavy reading to do now. My goal is to first look through the transcript to see if anything jumps off the pages. My longer goal is to try to create a tax opinion using the transcript and any depositions if necessary. I would like to see whether I agreed with Cravath or L&W. After all, the judge did not decide whether the transaction withstood a should opinion. Rather, he plotted the various opinions and decided that there was not a sufficient cluster to consider a should opinion was warranted.

[As a quick aside, I can’t believe that all the documents are not readily available for free on the court web site. The judge (chancellor) references the trial transcript in his opinion, yet, the supporting document is not available on-line for free. I have free lexis access as an academic and can find portions of documents but not the docket or the document. As a member of society, this certainly raises an access to justice problem. Thankfully, the clerks are super helpful and accommodated me.]

I also have received some thoughtful responses and theories about the case. I will be wrapping them up into my opinion post later (sorry you have to follow me on twitter (@professortax) to know when it hits or better yet keep checking surlysubgroup.com). But some of the best initial thoughts take into account some of my concerns.

First, I am still not sure why there was an out in the deal base on the should opinion. Continue reading “More Merger Mayhem: Tax Lawyers Testifying” →

Updates on the Williams/ETE Merger

By: David J. Herzig

On Saturday, I posted about a merger gone bad that I thought only a couple partnership tax people would find interesting.

Essentially, a $38 Billion merger was torpedoed because neither, Latham, Morgan Lewis nor Gibson Dunn could conclude that the merger qualified as tax-free under 721.[1] The fight between the the tax attorneys was whether the transaction was truly a partnership formation eligible under 721 with a 731 distribution or if the transaction was a disguised sale under the anti-Otey regulations (Treas. Reg. § 1.707-3).[2] Chancery Court Vice Chancellor Sam Glasscock [http://courts.delaware.gov/opinions/list.aspx?ag=court%20of%20chancery%5] ruled, since there was enough uncertainty that the proposed transaction could not be eligible for 721 treatment under a should opinion standard, Energy Transfer Equity (ETE) could back out of the deal. Williams stated that they will appeal.

I honestly thought no one would care about the post. But, it looks like people care, so I will try to keep up with the case and post updates here. I actually have some other thoughts on the transaction that I will post as they become more developed.

To some of the updates, here is a link to a letter to the shareholders of the Williams Continue reading “Updates on the Williams/ETE Merger” →

The EU, Robots, and Star Trek

By Diane Ring

Even in the midst of great turmoil surrounding the Brexit vote, I was intrigued by recent reports that the EU is contemplating taxing robots on their “labor.” My initial reaction was that this focus on “sophisticated autonomous” robotic forms was Star Trek meets employment taxes, reminiscent of an episode in which the ship’s android officer, Data, asserts and argues for status as a sentient being rather than a piece of shipboard machinery to be disposed of at will. See generally Episode 9, Season 2 (“The Measure of a Man”) of Star Trek: The Next Generation.

While my sci-fi vision of EU legislation was enticing, it turns out that the motivations for this proposal were grounded in much more immediate concerns . . . Continue reading “The EU, Robots, and Star Trek” →