Love seeing all the earnest #1Ladvice and comparing it to the #3Ladvice from a friend of mine: only take classes that end in “and the law” (Movies and the Law, Literature and the Law...)
Yes, come to law school to become a lawyer for Greenpeace, leave with a BigLaw job writing motions for Dow/DuPont opposing class certification (YMMV)
Actually, my #3Ladvice is: 1) take bar classes if failing the bar is a legitimate concern (which depends on your grades, your test-taking savvy, and what state you are taking
2) take some classes relevant to your future practice area, but also
3) take some interesting classes you might not otherwise take, whether that’s an “and the law” class or something else. As a 3L I took two First Amendment classes (very different, one doctrinal and one about ideas) and a great Critical Race Theory class.
4) Don’t do this to be a slacker and ramp up your day drinking. It’s your last chance to be a student (probably) and learn something new and different.
5) and, as always, take the Professor, not the class
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
The longer that I teach partnership tax, which I think is the hardest class in law school to take (or teach), the more I believe that subchapter K is broken.
We has 704(b) regs that people mostly don’t follow because it doesn’t work for them, opting for targeted allocations and the murky test of “partners interest in the partnership”.
The policy choice behind special allocations is … unclear.
The language that they are complaining about is a reversion to language in the House passed BBB. It’s a technical fix to ensure that billion dollar sponsors are subject to the minimum tax like other corporations. 2/x
Unlike traditional conglomerates with subsidiaries that file a consolidated return, private equity sponsors like Blackstone, Apollo, and KKR own controlling interests in companies through partnerships (funds) and those companies file separate returns. 3/x
I’ve spent 15 years working on carried interest. Whatever happens this weekend, I’m ready to go another 15 rounds. 2/x
Not a lot of easy changes to the current proposal. 5 year holding period is already too short. I guess you could move it to 4, but that looks really bad. 3/x
The Chamber of Commerce released a bogus study on carried interest that claims massive job losses if we tax carried interest allocations as ordinary income. Here's why it's a bogus study. 1/x
Big picture: The study claims massive (4.9 million!) job losses as fund managers scale back investment and avoid risk. But raising tax rates on fund managers will have virtually no impact on fund investors or risk preference. 2/x
Unlike corporate taxes, where the economic incidence of the tax is split between shareholders, managers, and employees, the burden of taxing carried interest as ordinary income falls on fund managers. 3/x
This gets confusing, so at the risk of oversimplifying I'll try to keep it somewhat general. Also, to be honest, a lot of the details are still unclear. 2/x
Trump borrowed a lot of money and sank it into casinos. When those casinos crashed and were restructured, creditors lost money. 3/x
Trump tax thread. I'll start with the smaller stuff. What's with the consulting fees to the kids? 1/x
First, by structuring as a consulting fee instead of a gift, it avoids gift tax (and eventually estate tax). This only works if the fee is legit and market rate, which it certainly wasn't. 2/x
Second, a consulting fee is deductible by the partnership, while a gift is not. If Ivanka's marginal tax rate (consulting fees are includible, gifts are not) is < Donald's marginal tax rate (a big if), then it's a useful arbitrage. 3/x