Blank field submm sources, failed stars, and the dark matter

I discuss the possibility that a significant fraction (possibly a third) of the faint SCUBA sources are not in fact high redshift galaxies, but actually local cold dark dusty gas clouds emitting only in the submm, with a temperature around 7K. I show that the observational constraints on such a population - dynamical limits on missing matter, the FIR-mm background, and the absence of gross high-latitude extinction features - constrains the mass of such objects to be in the range 0.1 - 10 Jupiter masses. The characteristics deduced are closely similar to those of the objects proposed by Walker and Wardle (1998) to explain halo dark matter. However, such objects, if they explain a large fraction of the SCUBA sources, cannot extend through the halo without greatly exceeding the FIR-mm background. Instead, I deduce the characteristic distance of the SCUBA sources to be around 100 pc, consistent with being drawn from a disk population with a scale height of few hundred parsecs. Regardless of the dark matter problem, the possible existence of such compact sub-stellar but non-degenerate objects is intriguing. They may be seen as "failed stars", representing an alternative end-point to brown dwarfs. It is possible that they greatly outnumber both stars and brown dwarfs. The nearest such object could be a fraction of a parsec away. Several relatively simple observations could critically test this hypothesis.Comment: 25 pages, 1 figure, to be published in Monthly Notices of the RA

Unbounded Symmetric Homogeneous Domains in Spaces of Operators

We define the domain of a linear fractional transformation in a space of operators and show that both the affine automorphisms and the compositions of symmetries act transitively on these domains. Further, we show that Liouville's theorem holds for domains of linear fractional transformations, and, with an additional trace class condition, so does the Riemann removable singularities theorem. We also show that every biholomorphic mapping of the operator domain $I < Z^*Z$ is a linear isometry when the space of operators is a complex Jordan subalgebra of ${\cal L}(H)$ with the removable singularity property and that every biholomorphic mapping of the operator domain $I + Z_1^*Z_1 < Z_2^*Z_2$ is a linear map obtained by multiplication on the left and right by J-unitary and unitary operators, respectively. Readers interested only in the finite dimensional case may identify our spaces of operators with spaces of square and rectangular matrices

Tax Enforcement for Gamers: High Penalties or Strict Disclosure Rules?

This essay responds to Alex Raskolnikov’s proposal to replace the current federal income tax compliance regime with a two-track approach based on taxpayer choice. The “deterrence regime” (DR) would be designed to be chosen by “gamers”, and the “compliance regime” (CR) would be designed to be chosen by all other taxpayers. Penalty rates would be significantly higher in the DR than in the CR. In this response, Lawrence Zelenak notes that the tax shelter disclosure rules of current law can also be viewed as a way of imposing a special compliance regime-featuring high odds of detection rather than high penalty rates-on gamers. Zelenak compares Raskolnikov’s proposal with the current regime, and suggests that there are plausible grounds for preferring the current regime to the proposal

Justice Holmes, Ralph Kramden, and the Civic Virtues of a Tax Return Filing Requirement

A major goal of some tax reform proponents is the elimination of the return filing requirement for many or all Americans. Although the President\u27s Advisory Panel on Federal Tax Reform heard several hours of testimony concerning the possibility of a return-free income tax system, the Report of the Panel failed even to discuss the issue. This Article contends that the Panel was right to recommend (by implication) the retention of a return-based tax system, given the Panel\u27s recommendations for major tax simplification. As long as the return filing obligation is not unduly burdensome which it would not be under the Panel\u27s simplification proposals a filing obligation has significant civic virtues. A return-based system represents an appropriate compromise on the level of visibility and painfulness of taxation, and the filing of an tax return can serve an important ceremonial function as an expression of fiscal citizenship. The civic potential of return filing is not now realized because of the tremendous complexity of the income tax, but that potential could be realized under a simplified system

Of Punitive Damages, Tax Deductions, and Tax-Aware Juries: A Response to Polsky and Markel

In “Taxing Punitive Damages,” Gregg D. Polsky and Dan Markel argue that defendants paying punitive damages are under-punished relative to juries’ intentions, because tax-unaware juries do not take into account the fact that the deductibility of punitive damages significantly reduces defendants’ after-tax costs. They note that the Obama administration has proposed addressing the under-punishment problem by amending the Internal Revenue Code to disallow deductions for punitive damages (and for settlements paid on account of punitive damage claims). They conclude, however, that the proposal would be ineffective because defendants could avoid its impact by disguising nondeductible punitive damage settlements as deductible compensatory damage settlements. They argue that a superior approach would be to leave federal tax law unchanged and to change jury instructions in punitive damage cases instead. If juries were explicitly told that punitive damages were deductible, they could “gross up” the awards to impose the desired level of after-tax punishment on defendants. In contrast with the Obama administration’s proposal, this non-tax, non-federal solution to the under-punishment problem would not be undermined by pre-trial settlements: “Gross ups, in addition to increasing jury verdicts, would increase settlement values because litigants determine these values in the shadow of what a jury would be expected to award.” Their argument is powerful and original. It may have dramatic realworld effects, if it inspires plaintiffs’ lawyers across the nation to request the jury instructions required to produce tax-aware juries, and if courts grant those requests. In this brief Response, however, I raise two possible objections to their analysis. The first objection is that they do not consider the alternative of a nondeductibility rule applicable to punitive damages but not to settlements of punitive damage claims. This narrower nondeductibility rule is arguably superior to both broader nondeductibility and tax-aware juries. The second objection is that they do not consider how their analysis would change if deterrence, rather than punishment, were viewed as the primary function of punitive damages. Although these are considerably more than quibbles, they do not detract from my view of their article as a major contribution to the scholarly literature on the intersection of torts and taxes, with the potential for significant real-world impact. The Response closes with a brief observation on the relationship between the article, plaintiffs’ attorneys, and ten-dollar bills on sidewalks