Pages Menu
Categories Menu

Vol. 3 No. 2



By: Jay Katz

Throughout his tenure as Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, William O. Douglas was well known for his interpretations of the Constitution and individual rights. However, unlike those in the “No Spin Zone,” of Bill O’Reilly, Justice Douglas was full of bias and spin when it came to tax law. His opinions on tax law through his 30-year career on the highest bench in the land walked a fine line that oftentimes read more like judicial legislation than judicial interpretation. Equally, the spin behind his decisions shifted radically throughout his tenure. Chief Justice Douglas’ views of tax law and interpretation moved wildly from being pro-

Commissioner early on in his career, to equally zealous pro-taxpayer at the end. Chief Justice Douglas’ opinions shifted as his allegiances to the party he favored shifted, and because of that his decisions on tax law often lacked well-reasoned analysis and ignored compelling counter-arguments. Ultimately the cases and decisions that Chief Justice Douglas handed down were framed more by his shifting allegiance to political spin and less on the reasoning of the law.


By: David B. Newman

Serving as a blueprint for tax attorneys and tax accountants, this article serves as a helpful resource to navigate the tax ramification of outbound and inbound transactions between U.S. Buyers and Sellers, and Foreign buyers and sellers. This article covers stock sales and asset sales between foreign and domestic buyers of corporate structures, as covered under § 338 of the Internal Revenue Code. Further the article analyzes other tax issues such as foreign acquisitions, foreign partnerships, foreign and domestic tax credits, and foreign and domestic tax planning. Written as a guide to assist tax attorneys and accountants, this article walks through all of the ramifications that might arise during the sale of corporate assets and merges between foreign and domestic corporate entities.


By: Timothy J. Peterkin

The truism that if a homeowner wants to avoid foreclosure, they should just pay their mortgage is a much more complex and complicated sentiment that it first appears. With the advent of predatory loans, the issue of foreclosure takes on new meaning. The North Carolina

Anti-Predatory Lending Law attempts to be a law that prevents lenders from taking advantage of loans that was not advantageous to North Carolina Homeowners, however the law needs to go further to assure equal protection for all parties. Thanks to many “power of sale” provisions in deeds of trusts, lenders have the authority to go to a county clerk of court and have a hearing on foreclosure. At this hearing, the clerk may only hear legal arguments and not equitable ones as laid out in the Anti-Predatory Lending Law. The hearing itself poses multiple hurdles for the homeowner and the foreclosure attorney alike. Therefore, to ensure that homeowners are making informed decisions, foreclosures that are preventable are prevented, and that all legal and equitable defenses can be raised at a foreclosure hearing, new policies are in order.