Ordinarily, the income tax law treats distinct legal entities as separate taxpayers. As a result, each entity must determine its own tax liability, irrespective of the liability of any other entity that may be related to it. This principle, however, operates subject to the consolidation regime, which was introduced on 1 July 2002 and is contained in pt 3-90 ITAA97 (divs 700 to 721). This chapter outlines the basic features of the consolidation regime. Because of the complexity of the regime, it is only possible to discuss the main general rules and not the many intricate exceptions to them. The chapter commences by examining the nature of a consolidated group and how such a group is formed. It also discusses a related kind of group, known as an ‘MEC group’. The chapter then proceeds to examine some of the core rules that exist under the consolidation regime, being the single entity rule, the entry history rule and the exit history rule. Other important rules, such as the cost setting rules and loss transfer rules, are also considered. The chapter also discusses the consequences that arise where an entity leaves a consolidated group. It concludes with a discussion of the special liability rules that apply to the tax debts of a consolidated group.

This chapter applies the framework of exclusive property and liability rules originated by Calabresi and Melamed and developed by many others. Within this overarching framework, a detailed law and economics analysis is applied to the fundamental question of whether exclusive property or liability rules should govern interoperability standards and SEIP. The conclusion is reached that the general preference for exclusive property rules should be maintained. Key exceptions to this general presumption should be maintained, notably where two conditions are satisfied: (i) the existence of multiple IPRs reading on the same standard gives rise to a Cournot complements problem; and (ii) where the imposition of legal remedies (e.g. injunction) would have the effect of prohibiting significant non-infringing conduct, such as in circumstances where a patent may protect only one of many innovative features of a product. Consideration is also given to appropriate remedies for infringement of SEIP, and in particular to the correct principles for the calculation of damages in the form of reasonable royalty.

This chapter summarized the relevant concerns, the methodology applied and the salient conclusions, and recommends the development an international expert-led soft law instrument dealing with access to interoperability standards and SEIP.

The introduction explains the concerns existing in relation to access to interoperability standards and standards-essential intellectual property. The thesis is then explained and an expert-led international instrument is proposed to address the concerns identified. The topical methodology is introduced and explained. Rather than proceeding in rigidly Cartesian fashion, the work instead outlines relevant topoi or topics, such as protection under intellectual property and competition law, as well as comparison of leading jurisdictions and law and economic analysis. The parallels between the topical jurisprudence and methodologies pursued in the law of equity, notably within the common law tradition as well as in international law are noted. A brief summary of each chapter is provided.

This chapter illustrates how the core progressive property tension between guarding against unfair exploitation and avoiding excessive constraint of legislative freedom translates into compensation doctrine. It considers the nature and degree of constitutional protection for security of value that has resulted from the Irish property rights guarantees, including a presumptive entitlement to full compensation for deprivations, and a presumptive lack of entitlement to compensation for regulatory interferences falling short of deprivation. That analysis demonstrates how constitutional property law can combine rule-based and contextual judicial decision-making to generate relatively predictable legal principle. It further illustrates the running theme of judicial deference to political decision-making concerning the mediation of property rights and social justice, since the courts have created space for legislative exceptions to presumptive compensation entitlements to secure social justice.