East Asia's dynamic development model and the Republic of Korea's experiences

No region has been more dynamic in recent years than East Asia. Despite its successful economic development, evaluations of the East Asian development model have often been capricious, shifting from"miracle"to"cronyism."How can we explain East Asia's ups and downs consistently? To respond to this challenge, it is necessary to study the progress of East Asian development and to trace the influence of Asian cultural values. This study mainly focuses on cultural aspects of economic progress and analyzes East Asia's philosophical and historical backgrounds to explain the dynamic process. East Asians believe that balance between opposite but complementary forces, Yin and Yang, will ensure social stability and progress. Through repeated rebalancing to maintain harmony, the society comes to maturity. In traditional East Asian societies, a balance was maintained between Confucianism (Yang) and Taoism, Buddhism, and other philosophies (Yin). In modern societies, the challenge is to balance traditional systems (Yang) and Western style capitalism (Yin). This East Asian development model explains the Republic of Korea's rise, fall, and recovery. Korea was a poor country until the early 1960s, during the time when spiritualism (Yang) dominated. From the 1960s through the 1980s, Korea achieved rapid growth by finding a new balance and moving toward materialism (Yin) from spiritualism (Yang). But the failure to maintain a harmonious balance between cooperative systems and collectivism (Yang) and individualism (Yin) led to major weaknesses in labor and financial markets that contributed significantly to the financial crisis in 1997. As Korea arrived at a new balance by instituting reform programs, the venture-oriented information and communication technology (ICT) industry blossomed and led to a rapid economic recovery. Since 2000, domestic financial scandals and political corruption have emerged as new social issues. Korea's next challenge is to find a new harmonization between morality (Yang) and legal frameworks (Yin).Environmental Economics&Policies,Public Health Promotion,Ethics&Belief Systems,Earth Sciences&GIS,Decentralization,Earth Sciences&GIS,Ethics&Belief Systems,Economic Theory&Research,Environmental Economics&Policies,Health Economics&Finance

The Power of Social Movements to Influence Government Action In Urban Water Crises: A Dual Case Study of Flint, MI and Newburgh, NY

As the problem of urban water pollution continues to grow, so does the need to ensure clean viable water sources that are irrefutably safe for public consumption. The growing need to regulate clean water creates a sense of urgency amongst marginalized low-income communities, with less power and therefore less of a fortifiable claim to the inalienable right of a citizen to clean, toxin free drinking water. Although the United States acknowledges its obligation to protect the wellbeing of the people under its leadership, there is a continual disregard for at-risk communities, unless they actively take a role in fighting for their rights through social mobilization and community action. Using the urban water crises taking place in Flint, MI and Newburgh, NY this senior project investigates how communities have used social movements as a way of engaging with one another and getting a response from government agencies

Tax Shelter Disclosure and Penalties: New Requirements, New Exposures

One of the primary weapons in the battle against tax shelters has been mandatory disclosure to the IRS. The American Jobs Creation Act of 2004 built on this approach by clarifying and making consistent the various disclosure requirements and strengthening penalties for non-disclosure. To uncover abusive transactions, Congress drew the boundaries of disclosure so broadly that even legitimate tax planning transactions are covered. To understand the dangers in the new rules, one must look at the broad range of transactions covered, the participants covered, and the harsh penalties for nondisclosure. - Transactions Covered. The disclosure requirements apply to six categories of reportable transactions. Although the Service has established angel lists excluding some transactions from the broad definitions, many clearly legitimate transactions still will have to be disclosed. - Participants Covered. The disclosure requirements apply to participants in the transaction and material advisors, which are also broadly defined terms. For example, an exempt organization that is an accommodation party in a reportable transaction is a participant, even though the exempt organization does not receive any tax benefits from the transaction. - Penalties. The Act added a new penalty for a taxpayer\u27s failure to disclose a reportable transaction. This penalty applies even if a court rejects the Service\u27s view of the tax treatment of the transaction. The Act also strengthened the accuracy-related penalty for underpayments. However, this penalty is imposed only if the Service successfully challenges the tax treatment of the transaction. The new tax shelter disclosure and list maintenance requirements are complex, with significant penalties for non-compliance. The IRS is likely to apply these penalties strictly and aggressively. Anyone involved in virtually any capacity in any substantial transaction will need to evaluate their exposure carefull

TEFRA-Partnership Refunds: Five Steps to Protect a Partner’s Rights

The Tax Equity and Fiscal Responsibility Act of 1982 (TEFRA) established a unified procedure for determining the tax treatment of partnership items at the partnership level rather than the partner level. The TEFRA-partnership refund procedures differ from the refund claim procedures that apply to other taxpayers. For a TEFRA partnership, a refund claim is an administrative adjustment request (AAF) and a notice of deficiency is a notice of final partnership administrative adjustment (FPAA). Procedures for the assessment of additional tax attributable to partnership items have received much attention in recent years, but the procedures concerning refunds are complex and full of traps.The tax matters partner (TMP) plays a key role in protecting the partners’ rights, but the TMP’s interests may differ significantly from those of other partners. Because of potential conflicts of interest, an individual partner should not rely entirely on the TMP. This article recommends five steps a taxpayer should take to protect its rights in a TEFRA partnership.First, file an AAR before the IRS issues an FPAA; otherwise, it will be too late. Outside of the TEFRA-partnership context, taxpayers can simply default on a notice of deficiency, pay the resulting assessment, and then file a refund claim. With a TEFRA-partnership, the partners may no longer file an AAR after the IRS issues an FPAA so the only way to pursue a taxpayer-favorable adjustment on other issues is to contest the FPAA in court. Failing to do so will permanently forfeit any such favorable adjustments.Second, review the complex statute of limitations for AARs carefully. There are significant differences between the statute of limitations concerning refund claims and refund suits, outside the TEFRA-partnership context, and the statute of limitations for AARs and related judicial review. Assumptions based on other statutes of limitations could easily result in forfeiting claims. Third, file a separate AAR and do not rely entirely on the AAR filed by the TMP. Individual partners can always contest an FPAA in court, even if the TMP chooses not to, so their rights are protected. But if the IRS disallows an AAR filed by the TMP, only the TMP can file a petition for judicial review and redetermination. Individual partners should consider filing their own AAR and not relying on the TMP’s. The duplicative AAR will likely be rejected but would preserve the partner’s right to judicial review if the TMP’s AAR is disallowed and the TMP does not file a petition in Tax Court.Fourth, consider extending the partner-level statute of limitations for assessments to avoid forfeiting potential refund claims. If the TMP consents to an extension of the statute of limitation for the assessment of tax attributable to partnership items, that will extend the statute of limitations for filing an AAR. If the TMP has not extended the statute of limitations, and an individual partner needs more item to prepare an AAR, the partner may need to extend the partner-level statute of limitations.Fifth, if beyond the statute of limitations for an AAR, consider alternative methods of recovery. For example, the partner may request a discretionary adjustment by the IRS under Section 6230(d). In appropriate circumstances, a partner can seek to apply the statutory mitigation provisions or the judicial doctrine of equitable recoupment.The TEFRA procedures for AARs provide all partners a way to recover overpayments attributable to partnership items. The procedures are complex, however, with many potential pitfalls. Any partner who identifies a potential refund item for the partnership should thoroughly review all of the applicable requirements and carefully assess what it must do to preserve its rights. In particular, a partner may find it beneficial to file its own AAR, or include refund items in a petition for readjustment of an FPAA, in case the TMP cannot or will not act in the partner’s interests. Under some circumstances, it may even be appropriate for a partner to extend its own statute of limitations to protect its interests

Navigating TEFRA Partnership Audits in Multi-Tiered Entity Structures

The Tax Equity and Fiscal Responsibility Act of 1982 (TEFRA) established a unified procedure for determining the tax treatment of partnership items at the partnership level rather than the partner level. Although these rules addressed a serious and real administrative problem in the assessment of partnership level deficiencies, they also created a complex process with many new problems and potential traps. One particularly unique set of challenges arises in the context of multi-tiered entities.Multi-tiered entities are partnerships that have a partnership or other pass-through entity as a partner. The pass-through partner is commonly referred to as a “tier,” and the partnership in which it holds its interest is the “source” partnership. The partners who hold an interest in the source partnership through a pass-through partner are “indirect partners” of the source partnership. TEFRA procedures apply to all partners, whether direct partners, pass-through partners, and indirect partners. Pass-through partners and indirect partners face unique issues in navigating the TEFRA rules. This article highlights some common issues.The Internal Revenue Service (IRS) provides notices of the beginning of an audit to the partnership and “notice partners,” generally those partners identified on the partnership’s return. Pass-through partners are required to pass the information along to their partners, but any partnership proceedings and adjustments apply to indirect partners even if they did not receive notice of the proceedings. Indirect partners therefore may wish to follow the special procedure to become notice partners and therefore receive notifications directly from the IRS. This may be particularly important if the pass-through partner is in bankruptcy or the indirect partner holds less than 1% interest in a large partnership. All partners have a right to participate in certain administrative proceedings. However, some rights are limited to notice partners, such as the right to file a protest to a notice of final partnership administrative adjustment (FPAA) or the right to file a petition for redetermination in Tax Court. Further, the tax matters partner (TMP) can reach a settlement with the IRS that binds all partners who are not notice partners, while notice partners can accept the settlement or not. Thus, indirect partners may wish to protect these rights by follow the special procedure to become notice partners.Finally, the statute of limitations for assessment of taxes attributable to partnership items is longer for “unidentified partners”; it does not expire until one year after the unidentified partner is identified to the IRS. Becoming a notice partner may therefore prevent an indefinite extension of the statute of limitations for indirect partners. This is particularly important if the indirect partner, whether knowingly or unknowingly, takes a position on its tax return that is inconsistent with the partnership’s return.In many ways, TEFRA reduced the procedural burden on partners by streamlining the process and reducing overall audit costs. In exchange for this benefit, TEFRA’s procedures in many cases shift the notice burden to pass-through partners and limit an indirect partner’s right to control the resolution of its tax liability. Pass-through partners and indirect partners should approach a TEFRA audit with caution. A pass-through partner should take care to comply with TEFRA’s notice requirements to avoid potential liability to its partners. Likewise, indirect partners should protect their rights to participate in partnership-level proceedings and to control the resolution of their own tax liability