Taxation of Non-Resident Entertainers and Sportsmen: The United Kingdom\u27s Definition of Performance Income and How it Ought to be Measured

This Note analyzes the U.K. approach to taxation of income earned for U.K. performances by foreign entertainers and athletes and agrees that the country of performance is the dispositive factor in determining which country is entitled to collect income tax on the endorsement income attributable to the performance. In Part II, this Note discusses the background of the relevant U.K. tax law. It reviews the U.K. court decisions in Agassi v. Robinson that led to the taxation of non-resident entertainers and athletes on endorsement contracts with companies that have no tax presence in the United Kingdom. Then, this Note discusses the U.K. acceptance of the substance-over-form tax doctrine after Agassi. In Part III, this Note evaluates the applicability of other sources of relevant international tax law, including the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (―OECD‖) and the United Kingdom—United States Bilateral Double Taxation Agreement. In Part IV, this Note recommends a definition for ―performance income‖ within the OECD Model Tax Convention on Capital and Investment. By working through the different possible types of compensation for the same service, this Note arrives at a definition consistent with income tax theory. The resulting definition parallels the same definition upheld by the U.K. courts. This Note also chooses a means for calculating the amount of income tax a country should charge from a performer‘s overall endorsement contract. Finally, the Note concludes in Part V

Taxing Corporate Income

Following Meade (1978), we reconsider issues in the design of taxes on corporate income. We outline developments in economies and in economic thought over the last thirty years, and investigate how these developments should affect the design of taxes on corporate income. We consider a number of tax systems which have been proposed, distinguishing them in two main dimensions: the definition of what is to be taxed, and where it is to be taxed. We propose that a tax levied on economic rent accruing in the corporate sector, and on a destination basis, merits serious consideration. We discuss alternative approaches, including both R-based and R+F-based flow-of-funds taxes and an ACE allowance. It is the destination basis – with border adjustments for exports and imports – which primarily distinguishes our proposals from those of Meade (1978).

The Immigration Reform and Control Act: Immigration Policy and the National Interest

Today more than ever the United States is a target for international migration. Population growth and economic stagnation in the Third World are increasing the pressures for emigration, and current United States immigration law is incapable of responding to the growing flow of illegal immigrants. The number of illegal aliens apprehended in the United States increased forty percent in 1983, and reached 1.4 million by the year\u27s end. The backlog of applications for political asylum is over 165,000, and many of these claims are frivolous. Polls by Roper, Gallup, NBC, and others have shown that ninety percent of the American public demands immigration reform, and yet we as a nation have been distinctly unwilling or unable to respond to this overwhelming public sentiment. This Article will discuss the history and philosophy of United States immigration policy, the causes and extent of illegal immigration, the related issue of political asylum, and the legislative response to the current need for immigration reform: the Immigration Reform and Control Act, known as the Simpson-Mazzoli Bill

Legal Immigration Reform

In this Article, Senator Simpson discusses Congress\u27s sweeping legislation to control illegal immigration, the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1996. Despite the passage of this legislation further legal immigration reform is still needed. The Article notes what reform is needed and addresses some of the major issues that Congress should consider when addressing it. Specifically, the two methods to achieve are (1) setting a national level of immigration which will be periodically reviewed by Congress and the Executive branch, and (2) increasing the number and proportion of visas granted to immigrants based on their skills or U.S. labor market needs