Comparative Conflict Resolution Procedures in Taxation: An Analytic Comparative Study

Tax administrators in well developed countries rarely have either occasion or opportunity to compare experiences or exchange opinions regarding procedures and practices utilized in administering complicated tax laws. Moreover, there is little comparative literature on the subject. Even the tax institutes which are internationally oriented usually focus on substantive tax principles, not procedures and practices. Hopefully, therefore, administrators in highly developed countries will find useful this analytic comparison of practices and procedures through which six of their number resolve disputable income tax questions -administratively and judicially. Concern for tax administrators in well developed countries, however, was not the prime motivation for this study. The initial conception grew out of the belief that administrators in countries just now developing would find especially useful an analytic comparison of diverse functioning models which had evolved out of long experience. Since these now developing countries differ from one another on many counts, it was imperative that there be equally wide dissimilarity among the several experienced countries selected as models. Thus, the choice of Belgium, France, West Germany, Great Britain, the Netherlands, and the United States. These countries differ in their size and population, the complexity and precision of their tax statutes, the degree their legislative bodies provide additional guidance through pre-enactment materials, the assessment system used (self- versus non-self-assessment systems), the standards of construction to which their courts traditionally conform, the theoretical status assigned by each to the doctrine of precedent, and the types of persons available to handle tax disputes-both within and without the government. Consequently, it was possible to determine whether such basic differences were relevant or irrelevant when choosing, from among the alternative functioning models, the structural arrangement and practices most appropriate for each level involved in the conflict resolution process. Also, the analytic comparison contained in the first four chapters should enable any given country to determine the extent to which diverse parts of different wholes are adaptable to its situation. The third purpose of this study is a byproduct of the first two. Practitioners engaged in international tax practice may gain a useful insight into the conflict resolution process followed in each of the six countries covered.https://repository.law.umich.edu/michigan_legal_studies/1005/thumbnail.jp

Comparative Conflict Resolution Procedures in Taxation: An Analytic Comparative Study

Tax administrators in well developed countries rarely have either occasion or opportunity to compare experiences or exchange opinions regarding procedures and practices utilized in administering complicated tax laws. Moreover, there is little comparative literature on the subject. Even the tax institutes which are internationally oriented usually focus on substantive tax principles, not procedures and practices. Hopefully, therefore, administrators in highly developed countries will find useful this analytic comparison of practices and procedures through which six of their number resolve disputable income tax questions -administratively and judicially. Concern for tax administrators in well developed countries, however, was not the prime motivation for this study. The initial conception grew out of the belief that administrators in countries just now developing would find especially useful an analytic comparison of diverse functioning models which had evolved out of long experience. Since these now developing countries differ from one another on many counts, it was imperative that there be equally wide dissimilarity among the several experienced countries selected as models. Thus, the choice of Belgium, France, West Germany, Great Britain, the Netherlands, and the United States. These countries differ in their size and population, the complexity and precision of their tax statutes, the degree their legislative bodies provide additional guidance through pre-enactment materials, the assessment system used (self- versus non-self-assessment systems), the standards of construction to which their courts traditionally conform, the theoretical status assigned by each to the doctrine of precedent, and the types of persons available to handle tax disputes-both within and without the government. Consequently, it was possible to determine whether such basic differences were relevant or irrelevant when choosing, from among the alternative functioning models, the structural arrangement and practices most appropriate for each level involved in the conflict resolution process. Also, the analytic comparison contained in the first four chapters should enable any given country to determine the extent to which diverse parts of different wholes are adaptable to its situation. The third purpose of this study is a byproduct of the first two. Practitioners engaged in international tax practice may gain a useful insight into the conflict resolution process followed in each of the six countries covered.https://repository.law.umich.edu/michigan_legal_studies/1005/thumbnail.jp

Corticosteroid co-treatment induces resistance to chemotherapy in surgical resections, xenografts and established cell lines of pancreatic cancer

BACKGROUND: Chemotherapy for pancreatic carcinoma often has severe side effects that limit its efficacy. The glucocorticoid (GC) dexamethasone (DEX) is frequently used as co-treatment to prevent side effects of chemotherapy such as nausea, for palliative purposes and to treat allergic reactions. While the potent pro-apoptotic properties and the supportive effects of GCs to tumour therapy in lymphoid cells are well studied, the impact of GCs to cytotoxic treatment of pancreatic carcinoma is unknown. METHODS: A prospective study of DEX-mediated resistance was performed using a pancreatic carcinoma xenografted to nude mice, 20 surgical resections and 10 established pancreatic carcinoma cell lines. Anti-apoptotic signaling in response to DEX was examined by Western blot analysis. RESULTS: In vitro, DEX inhibited drug-induced apoptosis and promoted the growth in all of 10 examined malignant cells. Ex vivo, DEX used in physiological concentrations significantly prevented the cytotoxic effect of gemcitabine and cisplatin in 18 of 20 freshly isolated cell lines from resected pancreatic tumours. No correlation with age, gender, histology, TNM and induction of therapy resistance by DEX co-treatment could be detected. In vivo, DEX totally prevented cytotoxicity of chemotherapy to pancreatic carcinoma cells xenografted to nude mice. Mechanistically, DEX upregulated pro-survival factors and anti-apoptotic genes in established pancreatic carcinoma cells. CONCLUSION: These data show that DEX induces therapy resistance in pancreatic carcinoma cells and raise the question whether GC-mediated protection of tumour cells from cancer therapy may be dangerous for patients

(A) Capan-1 cells were treated with DEX (1 μM) for 24, 48 or 72 h as indicated

<p><b>Copyright information:</b></p><p>Taken from "Corticosteroid co-treatment induces resistance to chemotherapy in surgical resections, xenografts and established cell lines of pancreatic cancer"</p><p>BMC Cancer 2006;6():61-61.</p><p>Published online 15 Mar 2006</p><p>PMCID:PMC1434760.</p><p>Copyright © 2006 Zhang et al; licensee BioMed Central Ltd.</p> Cells were lysed, proteins were harvested and analyzed by Western blot analysis. (B) MIA-Pa-Ca2, SU8686, T3M4, Capan-2, AsPC1 and PANC-1 were treated as described in Fig. 1. 48 h later proteins were harvested. Western blot analysis using antibodies toward BAG-1 and HSP-70 were performed. The p50, p36 and p29 subunits of BAG-1 as well as the band of HSP-70 are indicated. ACTIN expression is a marker for equal conditions. Antibodies used are: MKP-1 (42 kD), SGK-1 (50-55 kD), X-IAP (57 kD), Bcl-2 (28 kD), BAG-1 (p50, p36 and p29 subunits) HSP-70 (70 kD) and ACTIN (44 kD). The experiments have been performed three times with similar outcome

Childhood cancer predisposition syndromes-A concise review and recommendations by the Cancer Predisposition Working Group of the Society for Pediatric Oncology and Hematology

Heritable predisposition is an important cause of cancer in children and adolescents. Although a large number of cancer predisposition genes and their associated syndromes and malignancies have already been described, it appears likely that there are more pediatric cancer patients in whom heritable cancer predisposition syndromes have yet to be recognized. In a consensus meeting in the beginning of 2016, we convened experts in Human Genetics and Pediatric Hematology/Oncology to review the available data, to categorize the large amount of information, and to develop recommendations regarding when a cancer predisposition syndrome should be suspected in a young oncology patient. This review summarizes the current knowledge of cancer predisposition syndromes in pediatric oncology and provides essential information on clinical situations in which a childhood cancer predisposition syndrome should be suspected

Dual guidance structure for evaluation of patients with unclear diagnosis in centers for rare diseases (ZSE-DUO): study protocol for a controlled multi-center cohort study

Background: In individuals suffering from a rare disease the diagnostic process and the confirmation of a final diagnosis often extends over many years. Factors contributing to delayed diagnosis include health care professionals' limited knowledge of rare diseases and frequent (co-)occurrence of mental disorders that may complicate and delay the diagnostic process. The ZSE-DUO study aims to assess the benefits of a combination of a physician focusing on somatic aspects with a mental health expert working side by side as a tandem in the diagnostic process. Study design: This multi-center, prospective controlled study has a two-phase cohort design. Methods: Two cohorts of 682 patients each are sequentially recruited from 11 university-based German Centers for Rare Diseases (CRD): the standard care cohort (control, somatic expertise only) and the innovative care cohort (experimental, combined somatic and mental health expertise). Individuals aged 12 years and older presenting with symptoms and signs which are not explained by current diagnoses will be included. Data will be collected prior to the first visit to the CRD's outpatient clinic (T0), at the first visit (T1) and 12 months thereafter (T2). Outcomes: Primary outcome is the percentage of patients with one or more confirmed diagnoses covering the symptomatic spectrum presented. Sample size is calculated to detect a 10 percent increase from 30% in standard care to 40% in the innovative dual expert cohort. Secondary outcomes are (a) time to diagnosis/diagnoses explaining the symptomatology; (b) proportion of patients successfully referred from CRD to standard care; (c) costs of diagnosis including incremental cost effectiveness ratios; (d) predictive value of screening instruments administered at T0 to identify patients with mental disorders; (e) patients' quality of life and evaluation of care; and f) physicians' satisfaction with the innovative care approach. Conclusions: This is the first multi-center study to investigate the effects of a mental health specialist working in tandem with a somatic expert physician in CRDs. If this innovative approach proves successful, it will be made available on a larger scale nationally and promoted internationally. In the best case, ZSE-DUO can significantly shorten the time to diagnosis for a suspected rare disease