American Bankruptcy Institute Law Review 17 Am. Bankr. Inst. L. Rev., No. 1, Spring, 2009. Boston College Law Review 50 B.C. L. Rev., No. 3, May, 2009. Boston University Public Interest Law Journal 18 B.U. Pub. Int. L.J., No. 2, Spring, 2009. Cardozo Journal of Conflict Resolution 10 Cardozo J. Conflict Resol., No. 2, Spring, 2009. Cardozo Public Law, Policy, & Ethics Journal 7 Cardozo Pub. L. Pol’y & Ethics J., No. 3, Summer, 2009. Chicago Journal of International Law 10 Chi. J. Int’l L., No. 1, Summer, 2009. Colorado Journal of International Environmental Law and Policy 20 Colo. J. Int’l Envtl. L. & Pol’y, No. 2, Winter, 2009. Columbia Journal of Law & the Arts 32 Colum. J.L. & Arts, No. 3, Spring, 2009. Connecticut Public Interest Law Journal 8 Conn. Pub. Int. L.J., No. 2, Spring-Summer, 2009. Cornell Journal of Law and Public Policy 18 Cornell J.L. & Pub. Pol’y, No. 1, Fall, 2008. Cornell Law Review 94 Cornell L. Rev., No. 5, July, 2009. Creighton Law Review 42 Creighton L. Rev., No. 3, April, 2009. Criminal Law Forum 20 Crim. L. Forum, Nos. 2-3, Pp. 173-394, 2009. Delaware Journal of Corporate Law 34 Del. J. Corp. L., No. 2, Pp. 433-754, 2009. Environmental Law Reporter News & Analysis 39 Envtl. L. Rep. News & Analysis, No. 7, July, 2009. European Journal of International Law 20 Eur. J. Int’l L., No. 2, April, 2009. Family Law Quarterly 43 Fam. L.Q., No. 1, Spring, 2009. Georgetown Journal of International Law 40 Geo. J. Int’l L., No. 3, Spring, 2009. Georgetown Journal of Legal Ethics 22 Geo. J. Legal Ethics, No. 2, Spring, 2009. Golden Gate University Law Review 39 Golden Gate U. L. Rev., No. 2, Winter, 2009. Harvard Environmental Law Review 33 Harv. Envtl. L. Rev., No. 2, Pp. 297-608, 2009. International Review of Law and Economics 29 Int’l Rev. L. & Econ., No. 1, March, 2009. Journal of Environmental Law and Litigation 24 J. Envtl. L. & Litig., No. 1, Pp. 1-201, 2009. Journal of Legislation 34 J. Legis., No. 1, Pp. 1-98, 2008. Journal of Technology Law & Policy 14 J. Tech. L. & Pol’y, No. 1, June, 2009. Labor Lawyer 24 Lab. Law., No. 3, Winter/Spring, 2009. Michigan Journal of International Law 30 Mich. J. Int’l L., No. 3, Spring, 2009. New Criminal Law Review 12 New Crim. L. Rev., No. 2, Spring, 2009. Northern Kentucky Law Review 36 N. Ky. L. Rev., No. 4, Pp. 445-654, 2009. Ohio Northern University Law Review 35 Ohio N.U. L. Rev., No. 2, Pp. 445-886, 2009. Pace Law Review 29 Pace L. Rev., No. 3, Spring, 2009. Quinnipiac Health Law Journal 12 Quinnipiac Health L.J., No. 2, Pp. 209-332, 2008-2009. Real Property, Trust and Estate Law Journal 44 Real Prop. Tr. & Est. L.J., No. 1, Spring, 2009. Rutgers Race and the Law Review 10 Rutgers Race & L. Rev., No. 2, Pp. 441-629, 2009. San Diego Law Review 46 San Diego L. Rev., No. 2, Spring, 2009. Seton Hall Law Review 39 Seton Hall L. Rev., No. 3, Pp. 725-1102, 2009. Southern California Interdisciplinary Law Journal 18 S. Cal. Interdisc. L.J., No. 3, Spring, 2009. Stanford Environmental Law Journal 28 Stan. Envtl. L.J., No. 3, July, 2009. Tulsa Law Review 44 Tulsa L. Rev., No. 2, Winter, 2008. UMKC Law Review 77 UMKC L. Rev., No. 4, Summer, 2009. Washburn Law Journal 48 Washburn L.J., No. 3, Spring, 2009. Washington University Global Studies Law Review 8 Wash. U. Global Stud. L. Rev., No. 3, Pp.451-617, 2009. Washington University Journal of Law & Policy 29 Wash. U. J.L. & Pol’y, Pp. 1-401, 2009. Washington University Law Review 86 Wash. U. L. Rev., No. 6, Pp. 1273-1521, 2009. William Mitchell Law Review 35 Wm. Mitchell L. Rev., No. 4, Pp. 1235-1609, 2009. Yale Journal of International Law 34 Yale J. Int’l L., No. 2, Summer, 2009. Yale Journal on Regulation 26 Yale J. on Reg., No. 2, Summer, 2009.

/pdf/current-index-to-legal-periodicals-8re353ze53.pdf

Current index to legal periodicals

Many authors have commented on the compliance risk associated with tax-deferred exchanges. However, no published studies explicitly address whether the risks associated with the exchange process impacts the price at which exchanged assets trade. Using a unique data set that separates buy and sell side transactions for non-direct exchanges, this study examines the price impact of tax-deferred exchanges on apartment transactions in the Phoenix, Arizona market. Consistent with the price pressure hypothesis originally developed by Scholes (1972) and Kraus and Stoll (1972), the data show that exchange participants pay an economically significant premium to acquire replacement assets. A conventional hedonic price index is generated to investigate the rational bounds of the exchange premium. While the impact of an exchange is large, the premium is within the rational bounds.

Do Tax-Deferred Exchanges Impact Purchase Price? Evidence form the Phoenix Apartment Market

Though research on drug and driving under the influence (DUI) courts increased significantly in the past two decades, very little has focused on women’s participation in these programs and how gender may have influenced clients’ performance, despite the call of feminist criminologists that entry into crime and substance abuse is different for women. Based on data collected from Tulsa County DUI and Drug programs in Oklahoma, this study examines the impact of gender on clients’ performance in both programs. In addition to identifying associations between clients’ gender and demographics, criminal history, addiction problems, and other medical and mental health problems, this study explores gender’s impact on both program progress (e.g., program length, use of sanctions, relapse) and final outcome (termination vs. graduation). Data show that different factors are associated with female entry into drug and DUI courts and successful completion of the program compared with men, which calls for gender tailored treatment for women.

https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/0022042612471811

Testing the Gender Effect in Drug and Alcohol Treatment: Women's Participation in Tulsa County Drug and DUI Programs

Law libraries should play a greater role in addressing the current crisis in legal education. Proponents for educational reform often view libraries as a vehicle for cost savings, while overlooking the ability of libraries to train students in the skills and competencies that are essential for the practice of law. Libraries’ research assistant programs can be particularly effective in imparting workplace values and lawyering skills beyond the traditional law school curriculum. This article encourages libraries to build on the strengths of their research assistant programs as a substantive way to equip law students with essential skills for today's legal marketplace.

/pdf/joining-the-conversation-law-library-research-assistant-264z32427h.pdf

Joining the Conversation: Law Library Research Assistant Programs and Current Criticisms of Legal Education

The Theranos saga encompasses many discrete areas of law. Reporting on Theranos, most notably John Carreyrou’s Bad Blood, highlights the questionable ethical decisions that many of the attorneys involved made. The lessons attorneys and law students can learn from Bad Blood are highly complex. The Theranos story touches on multiple areas of professional responsibility, including competence, diligence, candor, conflicts, and liability. Thus, Theranos serves as a helpful tool to explore the limits of ethical lawyering for Professional Responsibility students. 

This Article discusses the author’s experience with using Bad Blood as an extended case study in a new course on Legal Ethics in Contemporary Practice. It begins by discussing the pedagogical justifications for including Theranos in the course, and the unanticipated ways in which Bad Blood highlighted particular topics and questions. The Article then describes student reaction to using Bad Blood as a primary text to communicate ethical principles in legal practice, and the strengths and weaknesses of doing so. It concludes by contextualizing the use of Theranos as a case study in the larger history of other uses of popular texts in legal education, and what lessons other instructors might take from doing using such case studies.

https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/Delivery.cfm/SSRN_ID3811771_code2671545.pdf?abstractid=3613443&mirid=1

How and Why Did It Go So Wrong?: Theranos as a Legal Ethics Case Study

This Article presents a theory of partnership taxation. To provide context for the presentation, the Article examines the history and status of partnerships. That examination reveals humans have a natural tendency to form partnerships and partnerships create a significant challenge for lawmakers. The challenge is determining whether partnerships are entities separate from their members or aggregates of the members. After decades of debate and consideration, many lawmakers and commentators now view partnerships as entities. Tax law has not, however, adopted that view. Partnerships are subject to an aggregate tax regime that contains entity components. Economic theory justifies tax law deviating from the legal view of partnerships. People join together as partners to increase their collective welfare and use partnership law to apportion economic income to reduce agency costs. Aggregate taxation is uniquely suited to recognize the apportionment of economic items and accurately tax it. That accuracy helps foster economic efficiency. To ensure efficient and accurate tax laws, lawmakers should include entity components in partnership tax law only as needed to guarantee effective tax administration. This Article thus proposes the aggregate-plus theory of partnership taxation, recommending that lawmakers adopt the aggregate concept for all partnership tax laws and add entity components only as needed to facilitate tax administrative. It also demonstrates the theory's utility by applying it to existing and proposed rules.

https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/Delivery.cfm/SSRN_ID1421963_code331512.pdf?abstractid=1121351.&mirid=4

Aggregate-Plus Theory of Partnership Taxation

The Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017 changed Code Sec. 1031 and other provisions that may affect Code Sec. 1031. This Article examines those changes. Code Sec. 1031 now applies only to real property, so taxpayers must consider whether exchange properties are real property and like kind. Code Sec. 1031 does not have an established definition of real property, so its scope will be uncertain until further guidance emerges. Until then, taxpayers may look to definitions of real property in other provisions of the Code. The Article presents a table comparing the various other definitions of real property, showing that tax law does not have a unified definition of real property. The new act also includes a deduction of qualified business income under section 199A, which is subject to a limit based upon the unadjusted basis of property held in a business. The Article examines how exchanges under Code Sec. 1031 may affect the computation of unadjusted basis of replacement property. Finally, the Article considers whether the repeal of technical terminations and the prohibition of exchanges of partnership interests may affect exchange structures.

/pdf/code-sec-1031-after-the-2017-tax-act-nl85ik34mw.pdf

Code Sec. 1031 After the 2017 Tax Act

The law draws lines. It draws lines between manslaughter and murder, negligence and gross negligence, speeding and driving legally, and capital gains and ordinary income. Those lines invariably cause undesirable results. In particular, lines in the law cause inequity because they impose different treatment on similarly-situated persons. Despite line-drawing’s inequity, analysts generally shun inequity and embrace the quantitative comforts of inefficiency analysis. This Article introduces a quantitative model for measuring inequity, so the preference for quantitative measures no longer justifies the disdain for inequity analysis. Instead, democratic and philosophical ideals should make now-quantifiable inequity analyses the analytical tool of choice.The quantitative model introduces a robust method for measuring line-drawing inequity. The quantitative information it provides illustrates that the location of a line affects the amount of inequity line-drawing causes. The model provides an opportunity to test and rethink the relationship between equity and efficiency. It demonstrates that the governed may reduce line-drawing inequity by altering their behavior to avoid negative line-drawing effects. The model also provides quantitative evidence that the perceived tension between equity and efficiency analyses is misinformed. In fact, the model shows that efficiency and equity may correlate in the line-drawing context. Finally, the Article illustrates that the criteria used to draw a line may result in the inappropriate orientation of the line. The Article concludes that excessive inequity may signal a need to change the orientation of a line or otherwise alter the law to reduce line-drawing inequity.

Quantitative Model for Measuring Line-Drawing Inequity

The study of open tenancies-in-common leaves little doubt that tax law affects industry norms and individuals’ decisions Open tenancies-in-common have developed primarily to provide Internal Revenue Code section 1031 like-kind exchange opportunities for sellers of real property Typically, any disposition of property generates a gain or loss that figures into the taxable income of the person dis-

/pdf/open-tenancies-in-common-2m64yp6u6h.pdf

Open Tenancies-in-Common

The federal definition of tax partnership determines who will be subject to partnership tax law and thereby significantly impacts many taxpayers' tax liability. Despite this, the definition remains uncertain. This Article posits that the uncertainty flows from an uncoordinated effort to define tax partnership in the absence of tax policy considerations. Partnership tax policy first disregards partnerships for tax purposes. Only when partnership tax accounting and reporting become complex and tax administration becomes inconvenient does Congress impose partnership tax rules. Although the definition of tax partnership should consider this, Congress has not explicitly defined tax partnership. Furthermore, courts, Treasury, and the IRS generally have not considered the purposes of partnership tax law in the more than 150 instances they have interpreted and applied the definition of tax partnership. As a result, those efforts have produced ten separate tests for defining tax partnership, perpetuating the definition's uncertainty. This Article identifies and evaluates each of those tests and recommends abandoning tests that do not incorporate the purposes of partnership tax law and consolidating the remaining tests. Based on that consolidation, the Article proposes a new definition of tax partnership. The proposed definition incorporates the purposes of partnership tax law, and, because partnership tax law was intended to govern substantive-law partnerships, it includes some aspects of the substantive-law definition. Nonetheless, by using tax-specific terminology and relying on the purposes of partnership tax law, the proposal clarifies the definition of tax partnership and moves away from the substantive-law definition.

Bradley T. Borden

Papers

Aggregate-Plus Theory of Partnership Taxation

Code Sec. 1031 After the 2017 Tax Act

Quantitative Model for Measuring Line-Drawing Inequity

Open Tenancies-in-Common

The Federal Definition of Tax Partnership