This chapter outlines the advantages and limitations of both third-party and first-party reporting requirements. We begin by evaluating the Biden Administration’s 2021 bank information reporting proposal as an example of a third-party information reporting reform. Then, we provide a model for introducing first-party information reporting from high-end taxpayers regarding their finances through an annual wealth reporting form, which we call the Annual Net Asset Statement. Next, we introduce a hybrid system that incorporates both first- and third-party information reporting and explain how this system would have offered an alternative approach to the Biden Administration’s proposal for reporting inflows and outflows from financial accounts. Finally, we describe how this framework can help improve the tailoring of penalties for noncompliance in two areas: with information-reporting obligations, and in the use of audit resources. We explain how a means-adjusted approach can improve the operation of these information-reporting rules and complement the activity-based focus in current law.

This chapter considers how the statute of limitations can enable high-end tax noncompliance and prevent the IRS from challenging tax positions of high-end taxpayers. The chapter begins by describing the statute of limitations on tax assessment and the rationale underlying its design, which is followed by an explanation of how it encourages and facilitates abusive tax avoidance by high-end taxpayers. Following this discussion, we present a proposal for incorporating means adjustments into the statute of limitations in order to level the playing field between high-end taxpayers and the IRS.

Tax-information reporting is an essential element of the tax compliance system. Despite the power of tax-information reporting to maximize the IRS’s ability to collect taxes owed, these rules also contain significant gaps. High-end taxpayers can often earn their income through transactions that do not require a third party to file tax-information reports with the IRS. This chapter demonstrates how the activity-based approach to information reporting often allows high-end taxpayers to engage in noncompliance with the tax law, while other taxpayers face significant automatic IRS scrutiny. It also shows that the government’s approach to tax-information reporting applies almost exclusively to specific activities, ranging from methods of earning income to designated transactions. This approach is consistent with the government’s design of other tax compliance rules that apply to certain types of activities, such as the use of tax shelters, offshore bank accounts, and transactions lacking economic substance to avoid tax liability.

I went back to work in the hospital in Edinburgh, as my previous employers could not give me part-time work. Experience as a psychiatric trainee in this hospital was hard. Passed MRCPsych Part 2.

An inquest is an inquisitorial process, and this has an impact on the roles of the advocates and the jury, if there is one. This chapter explains their roles, and also when a professional may require separate legal representation, with some further tips on giving evidence from the perspective of an advocate.

The purpose of a pre-inquest review hearing is explored in this chapter.

Shareholder engagement is pivotal in corporate governance, evolving beyond formal resolutions to impact business decisions. This chapter unveils the typically undisclosed dynamics of board-shareholder engagement through a survey of 171 SEC-registered corporations, targeting corporate secretaries, general counsel, and investor relations officers. The survey was complemented by a review of the disclosure on shareholder voting and engagement included in proxy statements filed by Russell 3000 companies during the 2018–2022 meeting seasons. Larger and mid-sized companies more frequently engage than smaller organizations. Engagement, often with major asset managers, can take a confrontational turn, particularly with hedge funds at smaller firms. Topics include executive incentive plans, ESG metrics, GHG emission reduction, workforce diversity, pay equity, and political spending. The study reveals that engagement significantly influences corporate practices, leading to changes, withdrawal of proposals, alterations in proxy votes, and the inclusion of engaged shareholder-nominated directors in management slates.

Despite the benefits of the convergence of AI in ecommerce, it is necessary to address some concerns. The presence of AI-powered platforms raises significant challenges to consumer autonomy. This chapter discusses the overlap and interplay among three main legal regimes – EU AI Act Proposal, Digital Services Act (DSA), and EU Consumer Law.These laws will need to be amended with new articles to adequately address AI-specific concerns

The chapter presents an overview of the procedural arrangements adopted at the international criminal jurisdictions, namely the UN ad hoc tribunals for the former Yugoslavia and Rwanda and the International Criminal Court (ICC), covering the main milestones from the initiation of the investigation to trial phase to appeals against the judgment and sentence and review. Before delving into the trajectories of an criminal case before international criminal courts and tribunals, the chapter highlights the origins of international criminal procedure in the common law (Anglo-American, or ‘adversarial’) and civil law (Continental, or ‘inquisitorial’) approaches, resulting in its legal nature as a hybrid scheme where the balance between the domestic influences varies by tribunal and over time due to reforms pursued by judge-legislators (ICTY and ICTR) or by states and, to a lesser extent, judges (ICC). The chapter reviews the role and functions of the main actors in international criminal proceedings, including repeat or professional players (judges, prosecutors, and defence) and other participants such as victims and witnesses and states and international organisations. It also highlights the normative importance of human rights to international criminal process and the imperative of complying with the principles of public, fair and expeditious proceedings.

The ever-increasing disclosure requirements we impose on public companies are, at best, not read, and at worst, are likely reducing the quality of investor decision-making. More environmental and social (ESG) disclosure has been touted as a popular solution to climate change and social issues. However, the evidence suggests this is highly unlikely, as it is very difficult for shareholders to understand the impact of corporate actions and the viable alternatives. Making matters worse, the very information shareholders require is information that assists a firm’s competitors and therefore is information that, if disclosed, has the effect of reducing the incentives for ESG innovation. Shareholders possess few legal tools capable of constructively engaging with corporate behavior. The empirical evidence about these theoretical points is evaluated, along with an examination of the real-world evidence about the outcomes of shareholder ESG interventions.

As scholars and activists seek to define and promote greater corporate political responsibility (CPR), they will benefit from understanding practitioner perspectives and how executives are responding to rising scrutiny of their political influences, reputational risk and pressure from employees, customers and investors to get involved in civic, political, and societal issues. This chapter draws on firsthand conversations with practitioners, including executives in government affairs; sustainability; senior leadership; and diversity, equity and inclusion, during the launch of a university-based CPR initiative. I summarize practitioner motivations, interests, barriers and challenges related to engaging in conversations about CPR, as well as committing or acting to improve CPR. Following the summary, I present implications for further research and several possible paths forward, including leveraging practitioners’ value on accountability, sustaining external calls for transparency, strengthening awareness of systems, and reframing CPR as part of a larger dialogue around society’s “social contract.”

This chapter examines the role of disclosure as a tool for promoting corporate political accountability by reviewing how shareholders reacted to various events in the United States and abroad that either changed the ability of firms to engage in the political process or revealed previously hidden corporate political activity. The conclusions drawn from this summary are mixed, with investors’ reactions contingent on myriad factors, including the form of the political activity engaged in, prior contestation over such activity by shareholders, and other firm-level nonmarket and market dynamics. The chapter concludes by discussing the limits of disclosure as a tool for regulating corporate political activity, as well as public policy more broadly, and advocates for broader, institutional reforms regarding the role of money in politics.

Between 2006 and 2009, firms spent an estimated billion dollars lobbying on climate-related bills and issues. Although such spending is largely perceived as a strategy by industry to oppose regulation, recent research finds a U-shaped relationship between greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and lobbying expenditures (Delmas et al., 2016). These results suggest that both dirty and clean firms are active in lobbying, which challenges the view of adversarial corporate strategy. However, limitations on legal requirements for detailed disclosure make it impossible to hold companies accountable for their lobbying activity on specific issues. This chapter explores the existing disclosures, demand for additional disclosures by various stakeholders, and regulatory changes in process and on the horizon. Our discussion develops recommendations for enhanced disclosure of climate-related political activity, considering issues related to content, timing, disclosure users, disclosure regulators, and the value and role of third-party information intermediaries.

In this chapter, we examine the measurement issues that currently plague analysis of corporate political activity and that must be remedied for CPR to be credible, with a focus on the federal level. We begin with issues of electoral spending before turning to spending on lobbying. In each case, we survey the laws mandating disclosure of these activities, along with what some firms and third parties are doing to shed light on activities that fall outside these reporting requirements. We then discuss the questions that can be answered with existing data, and the important questions that are impossible to answer due to data gaps. Finally, we discuss changes to current laws, and to norms of corporate behavior, that could increase transparency and accountability around corporate political activity.

Chapter 7 forms the second of the two chapters examining cases which one would expect to fall into the middle circle in the loose concentric circles model, where both forum internum relevance and countervailing factors may both be strong or both be weak and, as such, for the degree of protection offered to depend heavily on the way in which the ECtHR balances the factors. Chapter 7 examines cases in which applicants have objected to acting contrary to their religion or belief, or have objected to disclosing their religion or belief. Again, this chapter seeks to show that the ECtHR’s approach is consistent with its general principles concerning Article 9 as the ECtHR balances factors indicating a violation (primarily, but not only, forum internum relevance) with countervailing factors indicating no violation, to reach its decision. This chapter reiterates that the fact-sensitive nature of such cases means that protection offered ranges from a high to a low degree depending on the particular circumstances of the case.

This chapter responds to leading arguments about contract remedies, including the theory of efficient breach, contract interpretation, rules of disclosure (or permitting nondisclosure), consideration, and other topics in contract law. It shows how little progress the law-and-economics movement has made in understanding most areas of contract law, despite the obvious connections between contracts and economics.