JUST HOW FAR SHOULD GOVERNMENT BE ABLE TO GO IN TELLING ME WHAT I CAN, CANNOT, OR MUST DO ON MY PROPERTY?
I have seen this news item linked in at least two different places, so I don’t want to give it more attention than it deserves, but I think it’s worthy of notice and comment because it’s an apt illustration of a subject that I have repeatedly discussed in this space. The subject is the extent to which the concerns of other should control my use of my private property. This example goes much further than the land use planning issues that I have discussed here in the past, however, because the suggestion in this case would, if implemented, dictate that private property owners dedicate part of their property to residential use by others without compensation.
The example is just a suggestion by a narrow majority of a subcommittee in one city, so it’s far from a trend, but it does illustrate, to me anyway, that there is no reach too far for some people who believe that government should be able to dictate how private property owners can use their property.
THE DELAWARE COURTS HAVE NOT BACKED AWAY FROM THE RULE THAT A CORPORATION MUST PUT THE INTERESTS OF ITS SHAREHOLDERS ABOVE ALL OTHERS
A quote from an opinion by the Delaware Court of Chancery issued October 7, 2019:
“Delaware case law is clear that the board of directors of a for-profit corporation . . . must, within the limits of its legal discretion, treat stockholder welfare as the only end, considering other interests only to the extent that doing so is rationally related to stockholder welfare.”
Via Professor Bainbridge.
To try to make up for that, I’m suggesting that you take a look at the item about it posted today at tucson.com. It has a large number of interesting photos chronicling the history of the U.S.S. Arizona. It’s well worth looking at (and is not behind their usual paywall).
I don’t recall ever seeing anyone riding one of the e-scooters in Tucson, although I have seen them parked here and there. I suppose they really could be a menace, but except possibly on 4th Avenue, I don’t see how they could be prevalent enough to be as much of a problem as this news item suggests. Thank goodness our protectors on the city council have seen fit to allow the scooters to remain, at least for now.
To reach the status of one of the dumber tax ideas I have heard recently, the idea must be pretty dumb, but I think this one qualifies: take a sales tax that was enacted to protect an urban area’s water supply and divert it to pay for public transit instead. Huh?
If the tax is needed to protect the water supply, how could it possibly make any sense to divert it to pay for public transit?
On the other hand, if the objective for which the tax was levied has been accomplished, then how about repealing it? Why don’t politicians ever think of that?
In my latest Estate Planning Law Report, I discuss the new law that makes it possible to have an enforceable electronic will. I also make the case that although that law is now in place, it may be a while before you can actually take advantage of it. And I caution that the new law does not mean that an electronic copy of your existing will can now replace the physical, paper, original document.
Please read all about it in the news and events section of deconcinimcdonald.com and let me know what you think.
IRS: We’ll get your income tax liability figured correctly with no help from you. Trust us.
Me: Really? Thanks for the offer, but I think I have some information you don’t, and I’m just as likely to get it right as you are.
When I wrote yesterday about the senator who won’t give up on taxation of unrealized gains, I gave him a little too much credit when I said that he apparently figured out that it wouldn’t work on some types of assets (he calls them "nontradeable" assets). No, he’s come up with a Rube Goldberg type contrivance to penalize you for deferring the realization of gains on your "nontradeable" assets. By deferring the gains, what he means is, you didn’t sell the assets. He’s going to fix that (you) by going back and treating the gain as if it was realized in each year that you held the asset, apparently. He still doesn’t really explain how this is going to work.
Here’s the senator’s description of this latest brilliant idea:
Tax due on gain realized from non-tradeable property such as real estate, business interests or collectibles will be calculated at sale or transfer through a lookback charge. The lookback charge would tax accrued gain and minimize the benefit of deferring tax. Senator ***** is evaluating several possible methods of calculating a lookback charge, including an interest charge on deferred tax, a yield-based tax to eliminate the benefits of deferral or a surtax based on an asset’s holding period.
No, I’m not going to link to it. if you really want to read the whole thing, it’s not hard to find.
I have written about this before, and predicted that a U.S. Senator’s proposal for taxing unrealized gains (that’s what “mark-to-market” means) would never be adequately explained. After reading about his latest pronouncement on the subject, I still think that’s the case.
I’m not sure how his new proposal is all that different from the last one. The new proposal does at least concede that taxing unrealized gains on certain kinds of assets is just not going to work, hence the limitation of the proposed tax to “tradeable assets” (whatever that means).
A court said that in denying a homeowner’s request to seal the records of the homeowner’s lawsuit against his insurance company. The homeowner sued the insurance company to force them to pay for water damage to his home. The homeowner claimed that despite the fact that he had completely fixed the water damage, no one would buy his house, nor would any broker even list it for sale.
The contents of this blog, this web site, and any writings by me that are linked here, are all my personal commentary. None of it is intended to be legal advice for your situation.