{"id":4332,"date":"2017-01-05T20:54:44","date_gmt":"2017-01-06T01:54:44","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/journals.law.harvard.edu\/hblr\/?page_id=4332"},"modified":"2025-02-18T18:15:47","modified_gmt":"2025-02-18T23:15:47","slug":"volume-6-issue-2","status":"publish","type":"page","link":"https:\/\/journals.law.harvard.edu\/hblr\/volume-6-issue-2\/","title":{"rendered":"Volume 6, Issue 2 (2017)"},"content":{"rendered":"<h5>TAXATION<\/h5>\n<h3><a href=\"https:\/\/journals.law.harvard.edu\/hblr\/\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/87\/2017\/01\/1.-Evaluating-BEPS.pdf\">EVALUATION BEPS: A RECONSIDERATION OF THE BENEFITS PRINCIPLE AND PROPOSAL FOR UN OVERSIGHT<\/a><\/h3>\n<h6><em><strong>Reuven S. Avi-Yonah &amp; Haiyan Xu<\/strong><\/em><\/h6>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify\">The Financial Crisis of 2008 and Great Recession that followed have exacerbated income inequality within and between countries. In the aftermath of the economic turbulence, politicians have turned their attention to the twin problems of individual tax evasion and corporate tax avoidance. U.S. legislators enacted the Foreign Account Tax Compliance Act (FACTA), leading to the United States signing a series of Intergovernmental Agreements (IGAs) for the exchange of tax information. The Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) developed the Multilateral Agreement for Administrative Assistance in Tax Matters (MAATM) and initiated the Base Erosion and Profit Shifting (BEPS) project to reduce tax evasion and tax avoidance globally. Although these efforts were well-intended, this Article argues that the tax policy response to the Financial Crisis and Great Recession has ultimately been inadequate. The problem, which is discussed in-depth in the sections that follow, is the benefits principle.<\/p>\n<hr \/>\n<h5>TAXATION<\/h5>\n<h3><a href=\"https:\/\/journals.law.harvard.edu\/hblr\/\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/87\/2017\/01\/2.-Bargaining-Bankrupt.pdf\">TAMING THE DRAGON: DRAWING LINES \u2014 A CASE STUDY ON FOREIGN HEDGE FUND LENDING TO U.S BORROWERS AND TRANSACTING IN U.S. DEBT SECURITIES<\/a><\/h3>\n<h6><em><strong>Julie A.D. Manasfi<\/strong><\/em><\/h6>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify\">Legislators, judges, and administrative agencies often have to distinguish between similar transactions for tax purposes. To help, Congress has drawn some lines via certain categories. These categories, or \u201ccubbyholes,\u201d raise \u201cline drawing\u201d issues of whether seemingly similar benefits qualify as taxable under specific categories. One line drawing area where the stakes are high is in the taxation of foreign persons lending money to U.S. borrowers and transacting in U.S. debt securities. The relevant category that determines federal income tax consequences to those transactions is whether persons are \u201cengaged in a U.S. trade or business.\u201d The stakes are high in these situations because of the legal uncertainty in these transactions, which may create interconnectedness and credit channels, increase systemic risk, and make our system more fragile.<\/p>\n<hr \/>\n<h5>BANKRUPTCY &amp; RESTRUCTURINIG<\/h5>\n<h3><a href=\"https:\/\/journals.law.harvard.edu\/hblr\/\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/87\/2017\/01\/3.-Taming-the-Dragon.pdf\">BARGAINING BANKRUPT: A RELATIONAL THEORY OF CONTRACT IN BANKRUPTCY<\/a><\/h3>\n<h6><em><strong>Jonathan C. Lipson<\/strong><\/em><\/h6>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify\">This Article studies the growing use of contract in bankruptcy. Sophisticated \u201cdistress\u201d investors (for example, hedge funds and private equity funds) increasingly enter into contracts amongst themselves and corporate debtors during bankruptcy in order to evade \u201cmandatory\u201d rules on the priority of distribu- tions, thus preferring themselves at the expense of other stakeholders (for example, employees of the corporate debtor). Bankruptcy courts that supervise these cases struggle with these priority-shifting contracts. They are asked to approve them, but have little theoretical or doctrinal guidance on how to assess them.<\/p>\n<hr \/>\n<h5>SECURITIES &amp; FINANCIAL REGULATION \u2022 INVESTING &amp; ASSET MANAGEMENT<\/h5>\n<h3><a href=\"https:\/\/journals.law.harvard.edu\/hblr\/\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/87\/2017\/01\/4.-Puffery-on-the-Market.pdf\">PUFFERY ON THE MARKET: A BEHAVIORAL ECONOMIC ANALYSIS OF THE PUFFERY DEFENSE IN THE SECURITIES ARENA<\/a><\/h3>\n<h6><em><strong>Adi Osovsky<\/strong><\/em><\/h6>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify\">Puffery statements in the securities arena are statements that are so optimistic, general, broad, or vague that they are considered immaterial as a matter of law and, thus, shielded from liability. The courts\u2019 underlying assumption is that investors disregard puffery statements and do not rely on them when making investment decisions.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>TAXATION EVALUATION BEPS: A RECONSIDERATION OF THE BENEFITS PRINCIPLE AND PROPOSAL FOR UN OVERSIGHT Reuven S. Avi-Yonah &amp; Haiyan Xu [&hellip;]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":6,"featured_media":0,"parent":0,"menu_order":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","template":"","meta":{"site-sidebar-layout":"default","site-content-layout":"","ast-site-content-layout":"default","site-content-style":"default","site-sidebar-style":"default","ast-global-header-display":"","ast-banner-title-visibility":"","ast-main-header-display":"","ast-hfb-above-header-display":"","ast-hfb-below-header-display":"","ast-hfb-mobile-header-display":"","site-post-title":"","ast-breadcrumbs-content":"","ast-featured-img":"","footer-sml-layout":"","ast-disable-related-posts":"","theme-transparent-header-meta":"","adv-header-id-meta":"","stick-header-meta":"","header-above-stick-meta":"","header-main-stick-meta":"","header-below-stick-meta":"","astra-migrate-meta-layouts":"default","ast-page-background-enabled":"default","ast-page-background-meta":{"desktop":{"background-color":"var(--ast-global-color-5)","background-image":"","background-repeat":"repeat","background-position":"center center","background-size":"auto","background-attachment":"scroll","background-type":"","background-media":"","overlay-type":"","overlay-color":"","overlay-opacity":"","overlay-gradient":""},"tablet":{"background-color":"","background-image":"","background-repeat":"repeat","background-position":"center center","background-size":"auto","background-attachment":"scroll","background-type":"","background-media":"","overlay-type":"","overlay-color":"","overlay-opacity":"","overlay-gradient":""},"mobile":{"background-color":"","background-image":"","background-repeat":"repeat","background-position":"center center","background-size":"auto","background-attachment":"scroll","background-type":"","background-media":"","overlay-type":"","overlay-color":"","overlay-opacity":"","overlay-gradient":""}},"ast-content-background-meta":{"desktop":{"background-color":"var(--ast-global-color-4)","background-image":"","background-repeat":"repeat","background-position":"center center","background-size":"auto","background-attachment":"scroll","background-type":"","background-media":"","overlay-type":"","overlay-color":"","overlay-opacity":"","overlay-gradient":""},"tablet":{"background-color":"var(--ast-global-color-4)","background-image":"","background-repeat":"repeat","background-position":"center center","background-size":"auto","background-attachment":"scroll","background-type":"","background-media":"","overlay-type":"","overlay-color":"","overlay-opacity":"","overlay-gradient":""},"mobile":{"background-color":"var(--ast-global-color-4)","background-image":"","background-repeat":"repeat","background-position":"center center","background-size":"auto","background-attachment":"scroll","background-type":"","background-media":"","overlay-type":"","overlay-color":"","overlay-opacity":"","overlay-gradient":""}},"jetpack_post_was_ever_published":false,"footnotes":""},"class_list":["post-4332","page","type-page","status-publish","hentry"],"jetpack_shortlink":"https:\/\/wp.me\/PgKEUK-17S","jetpack-related-posts":[{"id":5256,"url":"https:\/\/journals.law.harvard.edu\/hblr\/taxation\/","url_meta":{"origin":4332,"position":0},"title":"Taxation","author":"wgu","date":"February 15, 2025","format":false,"excerpt":"VOLUME 11 \u2022 COLUMNS RETHINKING TAX FOR THE DIGITAL ECONOMY AFTER COVID-19 Tarc\u00edsio Diniz Magalh\u00e3es and Allison Christians Before COVID-19 arrived, policymakers from around the world were busy working on the makings of a new global tax consensus to reflect structural changes in the world economy as a result of\u2026","rel":"","context":"Similar post","block_context":{"text":"Similar post","link":""},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"","width":0,"height":0},"classes":[]},{"id":4637,"url":"https:\/\/journals.law.harvard.edu\/hblr\/blog\/","url_meta":{"origin":4332,"position":1},"title":"Blog","author":"Harvard Law Development","date":"February 11, 2019","format":false,"excerpt":"[vc_row][vc_column][vc_column_text] Current Accounts About Current Accounts Welcome to Current Accounts, the Harvard Business Law Review\u2019s biweekly online blog that seeks to keep our readers up to date on key legal and business developments as they occur in real time. Every other week during the academic semester, Current Accounts will publish\u2026","rel":"","context":"Similar post","block_context":{"text":"Similar post","link":""},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"","width":0,"height":0},"classes":[]},{"id":4373,"url":"https:\/\/journals.law.harvard.edu\/hblr\/volume-7-issue-1\/","url_meta":{"origin":4332,"position":2},"title":"Volume 7, Issue 1 (2017)","author":"ehansen","date":"June 3, 2017","format":false,"excerpt":"TAXATION THE STATE ADMINISTRATION OF INTERNATIONAL TAX AVOIDANCE Omri Marian This Article documents a process in which a national tax administration in one jurisdiction is consciously and systematically assisting taxpayers to avoid taxes in other jurisdictions. The aiding tax administration collects a small amount of tax from the aided taxpayers.\u2026","rel":"","context":"Similar post","block_context":{"text":"Similar post","link":""},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"","width":0,"height":0},"classes":[]},{"id":5315,"url":"https:\/\/journals.law.harvard.edu\/hblr\/","url_meta":{"origin":4332,"position":3},"title":"HOME","author":"wgu","date":"February 16, 2025","format":false,"excerpt":"FEATURED ESSAY \u2022 SECURITIES & FINANCIAL REGULATION CAN SECTION 11 BE SAVED?: \u201cTRACING\u201d A PATH TO ITS SURVIVAL John C. Coffee, Jr. & Joshua Mitts Last term, a unanimous Supreme Court held in Slack Techs. v Pirani that purchasers of securities must \u201ctrace\u201d their shares to the registration statement that\u2026","rel":"","context":"Similar post","block_context":{"text":"Similar post","link":""},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"","width":0,"height":0},"classes":[]},{"id":4844,"url":"https:\/\/journals.law.harvard.edu\/hblr\/volume-11\/","url_meta":{"origin":4332,"position":4},"title":"Volume 11 (2020\u20132021)","author":"wgu","date":"January 11, 2021","format":false,"excerpt":"TAXATION \u2022 TECHNOLOGY & INNOVATION RETHINKING TAX FOR THE DIGITAL ECONOMY AFTER COVID-19 Tarc\u00edsio Diniz Magalh\u00e3es and Allison Christians Before COVID-19 arrived, policymakers from around the world were busy working on the makings of a new global tax consensus to reflect structural changes in the world economy as a result\u2026","rel":"","context":"Similar post","block_context":{"text":"Similar post","link":""},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"","width":0,"height":0},"classes":[]},{"id":5257,"url":"https:\/\/journals.law.harvard.edu\/hblr\/technology-innovation\/","url_meta":{"origin":4332,"position":5},"title":"Technology &amp; Innovation","author":"wgu","date":"February 15, 2025","format":false,"excerpt":"VOLUME 15 \u2022 COLUMNS THICKER THAN ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE Olivia Schwartz Saudi Arabia and the United States have a strong history together. As Saudi Arabia implements Vision 2030, it may do so in a way that jeopardizes this longstanding relationship. Saudi Arabia is in the midst of creating an artificial intelligence\u2026","rel":"","context":"Similar post","block_context":{"text":"Similar post","link":""},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"","width":0,"height":0},"classes":[]}],"jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.harvard.edu\/hblr\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/4332","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.harvard.edu\/hblr\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.harvard.edu\/hblr\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/page"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.harvard.edu\/hblr\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/6"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.harvard.edu\/hblr\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=4332"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.harvard.edu\/hblr\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/4332\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.harvard.edu\/hblr\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=4332"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}