Date of Publication:
Rebecca C. Morgan, The Future of Elder Law. NAELA Quarterly Winter, 1999 President’s Message, 12 NAELA Quarterly 2 (2010)Clicking on the button will copy the full recommended citation.
Date of Publication:
Andrew D. Appleby, For the Love of the Game: The Justification for Tax Exemption in Intercollegiate Athletics, 44 John Marshall Law Review 179– (2010)Clicking on the button will copy the full recommended citation.
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.
Date of Publication:
Rebecca C. Morgan, Introduction, Teaching Elder Law, 40 Stetson L. Rev. 1 (2010)Clicking on the button will copy the full recommended citation.
Date of Publication:
Allison D. Burroughs et al., Off-label Promotion: Government Theories of Prosecution and Facts that Drive Them, 65 Food & Drug Law Journal 555 (2010)Clicking on the button will copy the full recommended citation.
This article examines the U.S. government's aggressive and novel legal strategies in prosecuting pharmaceutical and medical device manufacturers for the off-label promotion of approved products. The authors highlight a fundamental tension between these enforcement actions and the public interest in disseminating scientific information about off-label uses, which are often a vital component of medical practice. The primary legal tool for these prosecutions has been the False Claims Act (FCA), frequently initiated by whistle-blower (qui tam) lawsuits alleging that off-label promotion induces fraudulent claims to government healthcare programs like Medicare and Medicaid. While civil actions under the FCA can result in substantial fines, the government often pursues parallel criminal investigations under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FDCA) to leverage more severe penalties. The article details the two main criminal prosecution theories under the FDCA: unapproved "new drug" theory and misbranding theory. The authors also explore the significant First Amendment implications of regulating the dissemination of truthful, non-misleading information about off-label uses. The article provides in-depth analysis of the factual patterns that trigger government investigations with examples from prominent cases. Key areas of focus for investigators include sales data, business and marketing plans, and sales force conduct. Despite the legal ambiguity and untested nature of its prosecution theories, the government has achieved significant financial settlements. The article suggests that future legal clarity may emerge from criminal or civil cases where the government declines to intervene (where vigorous challenge of the government's legal theories most likely).
Date of Publication:
Mark D. Bauer, Department Stores on Sale: An Antitrust Quandary, 26 Ga. St. U. L. Rev. 255 (2010)Clicking on the button will copy the full recommended citation.
In 2005, Macy's bought its largest competitor, May Department Stores, for $17 billion. The resulting combination created a department store behemoth with over one thousand stores across the United States. Despite protests by the attorneys general of a number of states, and consumers and advocacy groups around the country, the Federal Trade Commission ("FTC") blessed this merger without requiring any modification in its terms. And according to law and economics scholars, this merger had no substantive impact on consumers, competition or consumer welfare.
My empirical research, published in an earlier law review article, showed that Macy's now charges consumers 13% more than it did before the merger, and was featured in a page one New York Times article. My empirical research, however, was an observation. This article tells the heart of a very compelling story behind that empirical research and critically analyzes important legal questions. Department stores are an important part of the fabric of American life. For example, more than two years after Macy's changed the name of all Marshall Field's stores in Chicago, people are still picketing the store - in fact they led a large protest at Macy's most recent annual stock holder's meeting. Barely a day goes by without a major newspaper featuring a story on the plight of American department stores and consumer angst over these destructive changes.
The FTC, which investigated Macy's acquisition of May, may have erred. This article explains the relevant history of department stores, analyzes the FTC's flawed investigation of the deal, and critiques the narrowly applied law and economics analysis that led to these incorrect conclusions.
Date of Publication:
Joseph F. Morrissey, Introduction, The Transformative Power of Law, 39 Stetson L. Rev. 625 (2010)Clicking on the button will copy the full recommended citation.
Date of Publication:
Theresa J. Pulley Radwan and Rebecca C. Morgan, The Elderly in Bankruptcy and Health Reform, 18 Geo. J.L. & Pub. Pol'y 1 (2010)Clicking on the button will copy the full recommended citation.
Date of Publication:
Louis J. Virelli, Evolutionary Due Process, 104 Northwestern Juniversity Law Review Colloquy 251 (2010)Clicking on the button will copy the full recommended citation.
Date of Publication:
Ann Piccard, U.S. Ratification of CEDAW: From Bad to Worse?, 28 Law & Ineq. 119 (2010)Clicking on the button will copy the full recommended citation.
Date of Publication:
Theresa J. Pulley Radwan and Rebecca C. Morgan, Today’s Elderly in Bankruptcy and Predictions for the Elderly of Tomorrow, 6 NAELA Journal 1 (2010)Clicking on the button will copy the full recommended citation.