Saved by \u3ci\u3eLabell\u3c/i\u3e: Local Taxation of Video Streaming Services

Over the last few years, Netflix and other video streaming services have erupted to become a preeminent form of entertainment for millennials and the public at large. With traditional forms of entertainment waning, video streaming services represent a novel source of revenue for cities. Local governments currently have numerous tax approaches that may be used to cover these services. Different cities and states have taken distinctive approaches to taxing these services. Certain jurisdictions tax them in line with traditional pay-TV providers under utility taxes, while other jurisdictions tax them under sales or amusement taxes. This Note considers these different approaches, with a focus on Labell v. City of Chicago, a 2018 case upholding Chicago’s application of its amusement tax to Netflix and other video streaming services. Recognizing the various constraints that state and federal laws place on local taxation, this Note outlines the benefits and drawbacks of different approaches and highlights the challenges that cities should consider when issuing interpretive rulings to bring video streaming services into their tax bases. This Note suggests that other cities should draw on Labell and follow Chicago’s lead in taxing these services under existing amusement tax laws where possible, given the easier procedural hurdles, strong theoretical backing, and recent supporting precedent from the U.S. Supreme Court

Requiring Individuals to Obtain Health Insurance: A Constitutional Analysis

[Excerpt] This report analyzes certain constitutional issues raised by requiring individuals to purchase health insurance under Congress’s authority under its taxing power or its power to regulate interstate commerce. It also addresses whether the exceptions to the minimum coverage provision to purchase health insurance satisfy First Amendment freedom of religion protections. Finally, this report discusses some of the more publicized legal challenges to ACA, as well additional issues that are currently before the Court

Jurisdictional and Interstate Commerce Problems in the Imposition of Excess on Sales

I denne rapport argumenterer forfatterne for, at der i beskæftigelsespolitikken er behov for at flytte det strategiske fokus fra 'flexicurity' til 'mobication' ('mobility through education'), som indebærer, at man sætter kompetenceudvikling i centrum. Det er forfatternes vurdering, at 'flexicurity' fortsat udgør et vigtigt fundament for fleksibiliteten og sikkerheden for først og fremmest de ledige på arbejdsmarkedet, men at der er behov for en langt mere offensiv satsning på livslang uddannelse af hele arbejdsstyrken, hvis man skal sikre arbejdskraftens konkurrencedygtighed fremover. 'Mobication' sigter netop mod at styrke arbejdskraftens muligheder for at tilpasse sig og bevæge sig i forhold til de skiftende behov på et arbejdsmarked i en stadigt mere konkurrencepræget verdensøkonomi

State Taxation of Unitary Businesses

The income taxation of multistate businesses has created problems for tax administrators, primarily with regard to the question of how to divide the income taxation amongst the multiple states. To address this, the concepts of unitary business and formula apportionment have been created. However, the non-uniform state taxation practices create difficulties even with the existence of these concepts. Some states have adopted the Multistate Tax Compact, but for it to be completely effective there still must be a uniform view adopted on what constitutes a unitary business. This note examines the constitutional issues attendant to developing a standard definition of a unitary business, an in-depth analysis of the unitary business concept and its origins, and proposes a workable definition of a unitary business

State Taxation of Unitary Businesses

The income taxation of multistate businesses has created problems for tax administrators, primarily with regard to the question of how to divide the income taxation amongst the multiple states. To address this, the concepts of unitary business and formula apportionment have been created. However, the non-uniform state taxation practices create difficulties even with the existence of these concepts. Some states have adopted the Multistate Tax Compact, but for it to be completely effective there still must be a uniform view adopted on what constitutes a unitary business. This note examines the constitutional issues attendant to developing a standard definition of a unitary business, an in-depth analysis of the unitary business concept and its origins, and proposes a workable definition of a unitary business

The Uneasy Case for the Affordable Care Act

The constitutionality of the Affordable Care Act is sometimes said to be an easy question, with the Act\u27s opponents relying more on fringe political ideology than mainstream legal arguments. This essay disagrees. While the mandate may win in the end, it won\u27t be easy, and the arguments against it sound in law rather than politics. Written to accompany and respond to Erwin Chemerinsky\u27s essay in the same symposium, this essay argues that each substantive defense of the mandate is subject to doubt. While Congress could have avoided the issue by using its taxing power, it chose not to do so. Congress has power to regulate commerce among the several States, but that might not extend to every individual decision involving economic considerations -- walking rather than taking the bus, stargazing rather than renting movies, or carrying a gun in a school zone rather than hiring private bodyguards. Even the necessary-and-proper power, the strongest ground for the mandate, may stop short of letting Congress claim extraordinary powers to fix the problems created by its exercise of ordinary ones. Because the mandate\u27s opponents can find some support in existing doctrines, a decision striking down the mandate needn\u27t be a drastic break from past practice. By contrast, a decision upholding the mandate would raise serious questions about the limits of Congress\u27s powers. To many, these questions offer good reasons for doubting whether existing doctrine gets it right -- reasons having more to do with constitutional theory than political preference

Chief Justice John “Marshall” Roberts—How the Chief Justice’s Majority Opinion Upholding the Federal Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2010 Evokes Chief Justice Marshall’s Decision in Marbury v. Madison

[Excerpt] “The United States Supreme Court sustained the Federal Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2010 based on Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Jr.’s majority opinion in National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius. The decision was feted by President Obama, liberal politicians, activists, and citizens who feared the Supreme Court would use its judicial review powers to invalidate the signature achievement of the United States’ forty-fourth President. Unsurprisingly, the decision disappointed many conservatives, who expected the Court to exercise its judicial review power to invalidate what is arguably the most important and ambitious piece of federal social welfare legislation signed into law by any President since the Great Society Era. The Act is very unpopular with conservatives and right-wing media pundits because it was signed into law by a Democratic President in a country with increasingly pronounced partisan political cleavages and because it substantially reallocates resources in an industry that already consumes nearly one-fifth of the nation’s gross domestic product. Opponents of the Act seized on the “individual mandate,” which requires federal income tax-paying individuals to “ensure that the individual, and any dependent of the individual who is an applicable individual, is covered under minimum essential coverage . . . from private health insurance companies or pay what the Act describes as a “shared responsibility payment” or “penalty” directly to the Internal Revenue Service of the United States Treasury Department (“IRS”).