Many localities are facing unprecedented challenges — such as a dramatic rise in homelessness and insufficient transportation infrastructure — that have reached crisis levels. These localities are in a precarious position. If they do not solve these problems quickly, or if they impose overbearing and poorly designed taxes, there will be dire economic and social repercussions.

In response to these challenges, several localities recently enacted or proposed taxes targeted directly at large businesses, with revenues allocated explicitly for a designated purpose. Localities are gravitating toward targeted taxes for several reasons. Some assert that the success of large employers within the locality contributed to, or even directly created, these challenges. Perhaps most importantly, targeted tax laws serve a clear expressive function. Depending on the locality’s primary objective, targeted taxes may be problematic and counterproductive.

This Article begins by examining the recent local targeted tax provisions, which have crucial distinctions in motivations and mechanics. The Article then undertakes a tax policy and constitutional analysis of these targeted taxes, and considers whether they are properly characterized as a tax or a fee. The Article concludes with several proposed alternatives that will generate the requisite revenue — and may serve an expressive function — more effectively than targeted taxes.

This article examines the Wayfair case through the lens of substantive and enforcement jurisdiction and focuses on the question of whether there is a constitutionally required relationship between the nexus of the person that the state seeks to enlist as the tax collector and the underlying activity that the state is taxing.

Taxation of international athletes is a failure. The lack of a single, consistent regime results in substantial enforcement difficulties for tax administrators as well as a massive compliance burden and potential double taxation for athletes. International athletes’ unique characteristics necessitate a separate tax regime. Athletes are extremely mobile and transient taxpayers and are often among the most highly compensated individuals in the world. They can earn substantial sums of money during very short periods in a particular country. And athletes often have vast freedom to decide where to reside and where to perform. The implications of this broken tax system run very deep due to the increasing commercialization and popularity of professional sports around the globe.

The purpose of this Article is threefold. First, to compare how six significant countries - the United States, the United Kingdom, Germany, Spain, Brazil, and China - currently deal with the inherent problems of taxing extremely mobile, transient, high-income taxpayers with diverse income. Second, to illustrate that each country takes a very different - and often very convoluted - approach that has resulted in confusing, complex, and inconsistent regimes. And finally, to propose a solution that will benefit tax administrators and athletes alike. This Article presents a rough blueprint for a feasible regime that is simple, effective, efficient, and extremely beneficial for both tax administrators and athletes. Now the sports world will have to wait and see if any countries are willing to play ball.

Intercollegiate athletics are a fundamental part of the American college experience. Nothing else unites and impassions entire campuses while providing educational opportunities to thousands of students who might not otherwise be able to attend college. Congress and the IRS have long recognized the immense educational value of intercollegiate athletics and have properly exempted intercollegiate athletics from federal income taxation. However, a few vocal critics have overreacted to escalating broadcasting agreements and coaching salaries, often without stepping back to examine these transactions in a broader tax policy context. This Article does just that, and demonstrates that longstanding tax exemption is undeniably justified in intercollegiate athletics.

This Article begins in Part I with an overview of tax exemption fundamentals, including a discussion of the tax policy justifications for tax exemption. Part II provides a brief history of tax exemption for intercollegiate athletics, as well as an overview of the current legislative posture. Part III provides an analysis of tax exemption in intercollegiate athletics. This part illustrates that intercollegiate athletics satisfy all the requirements for tax exemption, and that even activities such as big-time D-I football and basketball very likely avoid the Unrelated Business Income Tax (UBIT). Additionally, this part demonstrates that tax exemption is justified for intercollegiate athletics under several tax policy justifications, and that intercollegiate athletics also fall outside the UBIT justifications. This part concludes with a proposal to clarify that intercollegiate athletics should remain fully exempt from federal income taxation.

In Stone v. Ritter, the Delaware Supreme Court attempted to end the debate revolving around good faith’s role in director fiduciary liability. The Stone court finally cleared up some doctrinal issues when it explicitly stated that good faith is not a freestanding duty on the level of care and loyalty. However, the court created a host of new questions and concerns - particularly in director oversight cases - when it included good faith solely as a subsidiary element of the duty of loyalty. The Stone court incorrectly held that the fiduciary duty of loyalty is not limited to cases involving a conflict of interest; loyalty also now encompasses director oversight cases. The court should have recognized that good faith is a necessary subsidiary element of both the duty of loyalty and the duty of care, and left director oversight in the realm of care.

The extent of director oversight liability under Stone remains to be seen. Whether the Chancery can appropriately apply the reformulated Caremark/Disney standard is anybody’s guess. If the recent contradictory decisions in Bear Stearns, Ryan, and Bridgeport are any indication, clarity and consistency in Delaware fiduciary law is a chimera.Fortunately, the Delaware Supreme Court’s cogent analysis in Lyondell, however, should provide some much needed post-Stone guidance.

In the wake of the current economic crisis, the Delaware courts need to recognize that the Stone formulation of good faith is inaccurate. The Delaware courts must also recognize that good faith is the overarching fiduciary goal, and thus, a necessary element of both the duty of loyalty and the duty of care.

This article examines Stone, including the factual basis and rationale of both the Chancery Court and the Delaware Supreme Court. This article then provides a concise history of Delaware’s constant repositioning of directors’ fiduciary duties. The article then analyzes the Delaware Supreme Court’s doctrinal shift regarding good faith and the duty of loyalty. This analysis includes both the conceptual and practical implications of good faith as a component of loyalty. This article also analyzes the Stone court’s improper repositioning of Caremark cases solely into the realm of loyalty. Additionally, this article analyzes the potential changes in section 102(b)(7) after the Delaware Supreme Court’s improper shift of good faith from care to loyalty, as well as the most recent - and inconsistent - post-Stone cases. This article concludes with a glance at the future of director liability and a proposed solution to the new quagmire presented by Stone. In brief, the Delaware courts need to recognize that good faith is the overarching fiduciary goal, and thus a necessary element of both the duty of loyalty and the duty of care. Further, the Delaware courts need to reverse Stone’s reframing of director oversight claims as primarily loyalty claims and reincorporate the appropriate Caremark duty of care framework.

The United States of America currently faces unprecedented challenges. If our nation fails to effectively answer these challenges - such as fragile national security, the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression, and potentially catastrophic climate change - we will lose our position as a world power. One problem underlies all of the United States’ challenges: Dependence on foreign oil. If the United States can dramatically reduce its oil dependence, the direct effect would be less exposure to Middle Eastern turmoil, dampened competitive pressures in Asia, significantly reduced funds flowing to terrorist activities, and a revived economy.

This article proposes a detailed plan that would efficiently and effectively eliminate the United States’ foreign oil dependence. The foundation of this novel proposal is a significantly increased gasoline tax that would eliminate gasoline consumption and consequently solve our nation’s most pressing challenges.

This article begins by analyzing the root problem of the United States’ most pressing challenges: Staggering foreign oil consumption. This article examines the wide-ranging effects of our immense oil consumption on virtually all aspects of life - including national security, climate change, the world economy, the environment, and public health. This article then proposes a simple solution: A federal gasoline tax large enough to reduce consumer demand to practically zero. A significantly increased gasoline tax is the ideal solution; nothing else so simple can have such an immense impact on all our nation’s most pressing challenges. The discussion begins with the general economic principles underlying a gasoline tax, and then moves to a detailed plan to effectively implement such a gasoline tax. Although virtually all economists support an increased gasoline tax, this article is the first to thoroughly propose such a substantial tax combined with the elimination of fuel economy standards. This article also analyzes the Obama administration’s most recent efforts to stimulate the economy and fight climate change. This article then discusses the results of the proposed gasoline tax and its accompanying precipitous drop in fossil-fuel demand. The article concludes with a detailed look at the alternative-energy solutions that would quickly proliferate in a society devoid of gasoline demand.

This article presents a novel and timely proposal that would efficiently and effectively eliminate the United States’ foreign oil dependence, and at the same time immediately stimulate the economy and build a foundation for long-term economic growth. Hopefully this article will begin the discussion that prompts the United States to lead an international shift toward sustainable growth and prosperity.