Podcasts about Apportionment

Send us a textTwo state tax policy experts discuss key tax proposals that states will likely address in 2025, including efforts to raise revenue and extend provisions of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act. For additional coverage, read these articles in Tax Notes:Massachusetts Adopts Reg Changes on Apportionment, Married FilersIdaho Governor Pledges to Continue Providing Tax ReliefLeaked Docs ID Taxes Washington Senate Democrats Could ConsiderCOST Report Shows Modest State and Local Business Tax GrowthWashington Governor's Final Budget Adds to Calls for Wealth TaxationFollow us on X:David Stewart: @TaxStewTax Notes: @TaxNotes**This episode is sponsored by the University of California Irvine School of Law Graduate Tax Program. For more information, visit law.uci.edu/gradtax.***CreditsHost: David D. StewartExecutive Producers: Jasper B. Smith, Paige JonesShowrunner: Jordan ParrishAudio Engineers: Jordan Parrish, Peyton Rhodes

Rene Thomas Folse, JD, Ph.D. is the host for this edition which reports on the following news stories: WCAB Affirms WCJ's Apportionment in Psyche Case. WCAB Rescinds WCJ Order to Compel Answers to Interrogatories. No Discovery of Attorney Work Product in Carrier's Subrogation Case. New Trial Ordered in Employers' Class Action Against Sutter Health. Palomar Hospital Pays $250,000 for Diverting Fentanyl. Growing Number of Female Minority Doctors in California Report Burnout. FDA Approves Traumatic Brain Injury. Rapid Test Using One Drop of Blood. Data from MRI Can Detect Who Will Get Alzheimer's and When.

The Constitution dictates every 10 years we undergo a Census to count how many people live in each state.  Based off these population numbers, congressional seats are then apportioned.  States who lost population might lose a seat and states who grew may gain a seat or two since we can only have 435 total seats in the U.S. House.  This brings up an obvious question: who gets to redraw congressional districts after apportionment and can they redraw those districts for a political benefit?  This is where gerrymandering comes into play.  According to our guest expert, “gerrymandering” is drawing districts that are perceived to be unfair in their representation.  To further complicate the issue, the Voting Rights Act of 1965 placed restrictions on how these districts are redrawn and subsequent Supreme Court decisions have further altered this process.  The current Supreme Court case Alexander v. South Carolina State Conference of the NAACP has the potential to challenge again how districts are redrawn. It's a complicated issue but we are grateful to have as our guest Mark Braden, an attorney with BakerHostetler who specializes in election law and voting issues to help us navigate this issue.

State Rep. Gina Johnsen (R-Lake Odessa). Rep. Johnsen urges Congress to maintain integrity of U.S. House apportionment process

In 2021, in Arkansas State Conference NAACP v. Arkansas Board of Apportionment, private litigants sued to challenge the Arkansas state House redistricting map as violating Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act by illegally diluting the vote of racial minorities. In 2022, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas ruled that Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act does not grant a private right of action. In 2023, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court holding, and in 2024, the Eighth Circuit denied rehearing of the case en banc. In this panel, three voting rights practitioners will provide their analysis of the Voting Rights Act, the Eighth Circuit's decision, and the implications of this decision on redistricting and voting rights cases. Featuring: J. Christian Adams, President and General Counsel, Public Interest Legal Foundation Nicholas Bronni, Solicitor General, The State of Arkansas Jeffrey Wice, Adjunct Professor of Law, New York Law School & Senior Fellow, New York Census and Redistricting Institute (Moderator) Maya Noronha, Civil Rights Attorney

Authored by Alexander Hamilton, James Madison and John Jay to appear anonymously in New York papers under the pseudonym "Publius" in 1787 and 1788, the Federalist Papers aimed to rally public support for the proposed Constitution of the United States. As such, it is one of the most important sources for understanding the original intent of the US Constitution by those who participated in its construction. In Federalist number one Alexander Hamilton sets forth the ambition of arguing the following positions in favor of the adoption of the Constitution: "I propose, in a series of papers, to discuss the following interesting particulars: THE UTILITY OF THE UNION TO YOUR POLITICAL PROSPERITY THE INSUFFICIENCY OF THE PRESENT CONFEDERATION TO PRESERVE THAT UNION THE NECESSITY OF A GOVERNMENT AT LEAST EQUALLY ENERGETIC WITH THE ONE PROPOSED, TO THE ATTAINMENT OF THIS OBJECT THE CONFORMITY OF THE PROPOSED CONSTITUTION TO THE TRUE PRINCIPLES OF REPUBLICAN GOVERNMENT ITS ANALOGY TO YOUR OWN STATE CONSTITUTION and lastly, THE ADDITIONAL SECURITY WHICH ITS ADOPTION WILL AFFORD TO THE PRESERVATION OF THAT SPECIES OF GOVERNMENT, TO LIBERTY, AND TO PROPERTY." Articles and essays written by Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, and John Jay under the collective pseudonym "Publius" to promote the ratification of the Constitution of the United States.   If you enjoy our content, consider donating through PayPal via https://ko-fi.com/thechristianatheist   Take a moment to enjoy our weekly Photos of the Day videos here - short slideshows with relaxing music ...https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC_9GPi4HTqoZ8xFgTldbBaA   https://www.youtube.com/c/TheChristianAtheist/featured https://www.facebook.com/JnJWiseWords https://wisewordsforyouroccasion.wordpress.com   #thechristianatheist #drjohndwise #drjohnwise #johnwise #christian #atheist #christianity #atheism #jesus #jesuschrist #god #bible #oldtestament #newtestament #nocompromise #rationality #faith #philosophy #philosopher #culture #society #hegelism #hegelianism #hegel #reason #incarnation #history#psychology #theology #literature #humanities #hardquestions #postmodernism #woke #wisdom #ethics #science #poetry #paradox #oxymoron  

Since 1965, the Voting Rights Act (VRA) has been integral to protecting people of color at the polls. But in recent decades, the strength of the VRA has been diminished by decisions like Shelby County v. Holder in 2013, and the subsequent influx of voter restrictions imposed by states. Despite this, there are ways we can fight back in the courts. Section 2 of the VRA prohibits voting practices and procedures that discriminate on the basis of race, color, or membership in certain language minority groups. It is the right of private individuals to challenge discriminatory voting practices and of organizations like the ACLU to support those who raise these challenges. But now, the right to bring these crucial cases before the courts is being threatened. On January 30, we received a decision from the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals that it will not rehear Arkansas State Conference NAACP v. Arkansas Board of Apportionment, a case which challenges the Arkansas House district map for unlawfully stifling the voting strength of Black Arkansas residents. This decision upholds a 2022 lower court ruling in the case that radically concluded that voters may not sue to protect their voting rights under Section 2. This is unprecedented—more than 400 Section 2 cases have been litigated in federal court in the past four decades to protect the voting rights of racial and language minorities, and private plaintiffs have brought the vast majority of them. In today's episode, you'll hear from Barry Jefferson, Dorothy Nairne, and Khadidah Stone, three plaintiffs from Section 2 cases. They'll discuss their experiences challenging racially gerrymandered district maps in their respective states, what compelled them to take action, and how we can all be voting rights advocates. To learn more about redistricting, the cases we mentioned in this episode, and the ACLU's efforts to protect voting rights, click here: https://www.aclu.org/redistricting/redistricting-101#slide2

In this episode of the SALT Shaker Podcast, Eversheds Sutherland Associate Jeremy Gove welcomes Partner Jeff Friedman for another discussion of a landmark state tax case. For this installment, Jeff and Jeremy jump into Moorman Manufacturing Co. v. Bair, discussing the history of 3-factor apportionment, and how the Moorman decision paved the way for states shifting to single-sales factor apportionment.  After their discussion, the episode wraps with another edition of overrated/underrated – how do you feel about adults dressing up for Halloween? Questions or comments? Email SALTonline@eversheds-sutherland.com. You can also subscribe to receive our regular updates hosted on the SALT Shaker blog.

Dr. John Alchemy discusses one of the most difficult parts of workers' compensation impairment ratings: Apportionment. When a workers' compensation injury involves a pre-existing condition on the injured body system, the physician must calculate apportionment to determine how much functional loss was due to the workplace injury, and how much of it is owed to the pre-existing condition. Dr. Alchemy will outline how to navigate through this particularly tough topic for the best outcome for impairment rating. For more information on this episode, and other helpful tips about workers' compensation, visit the RateFast Blog. Visit our YouTube channel to see this video and more!If you're a workers' compensation provider, adjuster, or case manager check out RateFast Express: the service that writes your impairment reports with you!Questions? Comments? Suggestions for podcast episodes? Reach out to us anytime at caworkcompreport@rate-fast.com!Connect with RateFast CEO Dr. John Alchemy on LinkedIn! 

**After a two month hiatus, Deep Dive returns next week (Sunday, Nov 26th) with a slew of new episodes with exciting, entertaining, and interesting guests.  In the meantime, in light of the recent polling suggesting that voters may return Donald Trump to the White House in next year's presidential election, check out this Greatest Hit of Deep Dive, in advance of the 2022 midterm election, when the landscape also looked dire for Democrats.**-----What if the game of American politics is structurally rigged? Dr. David Faris, author of 'It's Time to Fight Dirty: How Democrats Can Build a Lasting Majority in American Politics', steps onto the stage in this episode to reveal the striking institutional disadvantages within our democracy. We dissect how Republicans have leveraged these disparities to gain power, and we question the true value of bipartisanship. David lays out a feasible roadmap for Democrats to counteract these imbalances, even if tactics seem a bit unorthodox.Our dialogue doesn't stop there. We examine the distressing trend of presidents securing their seat in the Oval Office without the popular vote, and the impact this has had on the perceived legitimacy of our political system. By peeling back the layers of our Constitution, we attempt to understand how its outdated mechanisms have allowed such outcomes. Despite the evident structural deficits in the House and Senate, we discuss potential solutions such as the Fair Representation Act and the bold move of statehood for DC and Puerto Rico. We wrap up our deep dive with an innovative exploration of political relocation, discussing the implications of planned mass migration of liberal voters to conservative states. Would flipping North and South Dakota, Montana, and Wyoming really make a difference? As we navigate these thought-provoking avenues, we also touch on the potential overturning of Roe v Wade, the influence of language within politics, and the potential of a central coordinating mechanism to shift the balance of Senate seats. This conversation challenges conventional thought and presents new perspectives on the dynamics of American politics. Be sure not to miss it.Recommended:It's Time to Fight Dirty: How Democrats Can Build a Lasting Majority in American Politics - David Faris-------------------------Follow Deep Dive:InstagramPost.newsYouTube Email: deepdivewithshawn@gmail.com **Artwork: Dovi Design **Music: Joystock

Today's podcast was recorded at the roundtable on Boundary Delimitation and Malapportionment in Asia and the Pacific held in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia on October 28-29, 2023. The event was hosted by Indonesian NGO Perludem and Malaysian organisations Bersih and Tindak Malaysia, in coordination with International IDEA. I attended to present on Papua New Guinea's electoral boundaries and while there I recorded interviews with six of the other participants. In this episode you'll hear from: Niranjan Sahoo, from India Heroik Pratama, from Indonesia Wong Chin Huat, from Malaysia Luie Guia, from the Philippines Enkhtsetseg Dagva, from Mongolia Adhy Aman, from International IDEA Thanks to everyone for joining me. Read the Kuala Lumpur Declaration on Apportionment and Boundary Delimitation. This podcast is supported by the Tally Room's supporters on Patreon. If you find this podcast worthwhile please consider giving your support.

Promising an enlightening journey through the historical and contemporary significance of the U.S. Census, I'm joined by esteemed scholar Dr. Dan Bouk - professor of History at Colgate University and author of the book Democracy's Data: The Hidden Stories in the U.S. Census and How to Read Them. This episode unearths the nuanced power dynamics and biases inherent in the census process. With a focus on the 1940 Census, a task monumental in scale, we uncover the detailed process of transforming raw data into a compelling narrative about who we value as a society.We investigate the poetic yet complex process of conducting the census, shedding light on the intricacies of data literacy and the potential pitfalls of interpretation. Dr. Bouk offers valuable advice for researchers and analysts, emphasizing the importance of recognizing and conveying uncertainty in statistical data. Moreover, we explore how this counting of people creates narratives about societal importance, resonating particularly when considering marginalized groups and queer communities.Unmasking the suppression, survival, and blossoming of marginalized communities through the lens of census data, we endeavour to understand how this vital tool impacts the power distribution among states. We analyze the effects on American democracy, considering the challenges and potential of an accurate and inclusive census count. In conclusion, we reflect on the immense potential of the U.S. Census, not just as a data gathering tool, but as a means to shape a more representative and united America.Recommended:Democracy's Data: The Hidden Stories in the U.S. Census and How to Read Them - Dan BoukMentioned:The 272: The Families who were Enslaved and Sold to Build the American Catholic Church - Rachel L. SwarnsClose to the Machine - Ellen Ullman Thinking Like an Economist: How Efficiency Replaced Equality in US Public Policy - Elizabeth Popp BermanThe Wandering Mind: What Medieval Monks Tell Us about Distraction - Jamie Kreiner-------------------------Follow Deep Dive:InstagramPost.newsYouTube Email: deepdivewithshawn@gmail.com **Artwork: Dovi Design **Music: Joystock

Clause 2: Qualifications of Members. No Person shall be a Representative who shall not have attained to the Age of twenty five Years, and been seven Years a Citizen of the United States, and who shall, when elected, be an Inhabitant of that State in which he shall be chosen. The Constitution provides three requirements for Representatives: A Representative must be at least 25 years old, must be an inhabitant of the state in which he or she is elected, and must have been a citizen of the United States for the previous seven years. There is no requirement that a Representative reside within the district in which he or she represents; although this is usually the case, there have been occasional exceptions. The Supreme Court has interpreted the Qualifications Clause as an exclusive list of qualifications that cannot be supplemented by a house of Congress exercising its Section 5 authority to "judge...the...qualifications of its own members" or by a state in its exercise of its Section 4 authority to prescribe the "times, places and manner of holding elections for Senators and Representatives." The Supreme Court, as well as other federal courts, have repeatedly barred states from additional restrictions, such as imposing term limits on members of Congress, allowing members of Congress to be subject to recall elections, or requiring that Representatives live in the congressional district in which they represent. A 2002 Congressional Research Service report also found that no state could implement a qualification that a Representative not be a convicted felon or incarcerated. However, the United States Supreme Court has ruled that certain ballot access requirements, such as filing fees and submitting a certain number of valid petition signatures do not constitute additional qualifications and thus few Constitutional restrictions exist as to how harsh ballot access laws can be. Finally, although the U.S. Constitution places no restrictions on state or local office-holders simultaneously holding federal office, most state constitutions today effectively ban state and local office holders from also holding federal office at the same time by prohibiting federal office holders from also holding state and local office. Unlike other state-mandated restrictions, these sorts of prohibitions are constitutional as long they are enforced purely at the state level (for example against active federal office holders seeking to obtain or hold a state or local office). Clause 3: Apportionment of Representatives and taxes. Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons. The actual Enumeration shall be made within three Years after the first Meeting of the Congress of the United States, and within every subsequent Term of ten Years, in such Manner as they shall by Law direct. The number of Representatives shall not exceed one for every thirty Thousand, but each State shall have at Least one Representative; and until such enumeration shall be made, the State of New Hampshire shall be entitled to chuse three, Massachusetts eight, Rhode-Island and Providence Plantations one, Connecticut five, New-York six, New Jersey four, Pennsylvania eight, Delaware one, Maryland six, Virginia ten, North Carolina five, South Carolina five, and Georgia three. --- Send in a voice message: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/law-school/message Support this podcast: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/law-school/support

Rene Thomas Folse, JD, Ph.D. is the host for this edition which reports on the following news stories: WCAB En Banc Rejects "Vocational" Theory of Apportionment. Caregiver Injury During Transit Not Barred by Going and Coming Rule. Chamber of Commerce & Others Sue Government Over Drug Pricing Plan. Riverside Nursing Facility Resolves Doctor Kickback Case for $3.8M. CWCI Reviews California Private Self-Insureds' 2022 Claim Experience. UCSF Study Shows Calif ER Demand Increasing as ER Facilities Decline. Is the New Tenth Annual FDA Report on Drug Shortages Accurate? Biden Suspends VA Accountability and Whistleblower Protection Act.

The U.S. Supreme Court surprisingly passed a major decision on June 8, which will now force states to consider race when apportioning their congressional districts, all being done under the banner of “anti-racism.” And in this decision, the Supreme Court officially struck down Alabama's electoral map for congressional districts, ruling that it was racially discriminatory. ⭕️ Sign up for our NEWSLETTER and stay in touch

With the Supreme Court weighing two cases involving Harvard and the University of North Carolina that could end affirmative action in higher education, scholars William B. Allen of Michigan State University and Hasan Kwame Jeffries of The Ohio State University discuss its future. Jeffrey Rosen, president and CEO of the National Constitution Center, moderates.  Additional Resources William B. Allen, “End of Affirmative Action 2023”   William B. Allen, Drew S. Days III, Benjamin L. Hooks, and William Bradford Reynolds, “Is Affirmative Action Constitutional?” AEI Journal on Government and Society   Jonathan Hicks, “Proponents Worry About Supreme Court Review of Affirmative Action,” BET   “Why Conservatives want the Supreme Court to take up Affirmative Action Case,” Yahoo!News   National Constitution Center, “14th Amendment: Citizenship Rights, Equal Protection, Apportionment, Civil War Debt,” Interactive Constitution   National Constitution Center, “Affirmative Action and the 14th Amendment,” Live at the National Constitution   National Constitution Center, “Affirmative Action and the 14th Amendment – Part 1,” We the People podcast   National Constitution Center, “Affirmative Action and the 14th Amendment – Part 2,” We the People podcast   Fisher v. University of Texas (2013)   Gratz v. Bollinger (2003)   Regents of the University of California v. Bakke (1978)   Griggs v. Duke Power Company (1971) Oral Argument Trasnscript in Students for Fair Admissions v. President and Fellows of Harvard College   Oral Argument Trasnscript in Students for Fair Admissions v. University of North Carolina   Slaughter-House Cases (1873) National Constitution Center, "Civil Rights Act of 1866," Founders' Library: Civil War and Reconstruction National Constitution Center, "Civil Rights Act of 1875," Founders' Library: Civil War and Reconstruction Shelby County v. Holder (2013)   Stay Connected and Learn More Continue the conversation on Facebook and Twitter using @ConstitutionCtr. Sign up to receive Constitution Weekly, our email roundup of constitutional news and debate, at bit.ly/constitutionweekly. Please subscribe to Live at the National Constitution Center and our companion podcast We the People on Apple Podcasts, Stitcher, or your favorite podcast app.

Following a hectic week in the House of Representatives, including debate over the state budget, Rep. Tonya Pfaff shares insights from her service on Education, Elections and Apportionment, and Ways and Means - committees that played host to a number of controversial bills throughout the week.

Jess Harrold is joined by barristers Simon Allison and Brooke Lyne, of Landmark Chambers,  to discuss the Supreme Court decision in Williams and others v Aviva Investors Ground Rent GP Ltd and another [2023] UKSC 6; [2023] PLSCS 29. Allison and Lyne, who represented the successful respondents, explain the court's decision in a highly important case on landlords' discretion to apportion service charges. In addition, they outline the significant implications of what they describe as a rare case that should be beneficial for both landlords and tenants.

Election Law: May private citizens sue to enforce Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act? - Argued: Wed, 11 Jan 2023 9:50:28 EDT

Oral argument argued before the Eighth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals on or about 01/11/2023

Rene Thomas Folse, JD, Ph.D. is the host for this edition which reports on the following news stories: Failure to Admit Medical Records Dooms Employer's Apportionment. Carriers Not Required to Notify Insured of WCIRB Classification Changes. City Immune from Suit for Bad Advice to Injured Police Officer. School District COVID Vaccination Mandates Preempted by State Law. O.C. Pharmacist Guilty of 22 Felonies for $11M Insurance Fraud. DIR Sends Employers Notice of More Than $1.5B in 2023 Assessments. Oregon Report Says California Has 3rd Highest Comp Rates in Nation. American Bar Association Lowers the Bar to Law School Admission. Low Back Pain Study of 17,326 Records Has Sobering Conclusions. Pharmacy Cutbacks Cause Big Delays for Customers in Bay Area.

Last week, in episodes 74 and 75, I read the majority and dissenting opinions in the case Rucho v. Common Cause (2019). The majority held that political gerrymandering of congressional districts, as opposed to racial gerrymandering which is prohibited by Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act, is a political question and thereby "nonjusticiable," or beyond the Court's power to resolve. But, the dissent argued that the Court had already held apportionment cases were indeed reviewable by federal courts in Baker v. Carr and twice upheld in Wesberry v. Sanders and Reynolds v. Sims - both decided in 1964. Collectively, these three cases are known as the "One person, One Vote" cases because they were concerned with ensuring substantial equality of voting districts when compared to the actual population. In other words, if a quarter of a state identifies with party A and there are four districts, party A should have one district, not three or four.  The Court in Rucho ignored the precedents established fifty years earlier in the Marshall Court's "one person, one vote" cases - in favor of reviving the even older precedents of non-justiciability under the Frankfurter Court.  Chief Justice Marshall thought today's case so important that, when he was later asked which case he was most proud of during his tenure on the Court, he did not say Brown v. Board of Education - he said this one, Baker v. Carr was. Because no kind of equality will last for long if it doesn't extend to the ballot box.  I'm still reading and recording this case right now, but I'm so excited for you all to hear it that I thought I would tell you about it now, before election day is over, so you'll be sure to come back and listen by the time I get it published.   Access this SCOTUS opinion and other essential case information on Oyez. Music by Epidemic Sound

We continue reading Baker v. Carr (1962) beginning with Part IV: Justiciability.    Access this Supreme Court opinion and other essential case information on Oyez.  Music by Epidemic Sound

Last week, in episodes 74 and 75, I read the majority and dissenting opinions in the case Rucho v. Common Cause (2019). The majority held that political gerrymandering of congressional districts, as opposed to racial gerrymandering which is prohibited by Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act, is a political question and thereby "nonjusticiable," or beyond the Court's power to resolve. But, the dissent argued that the Court had already held apportionment cases were indeed reviewable by federal courts in Baker v. Carr and twice upheld in Wesberry v. Sanders and Reynolds v. Sims - both decided in 1964. Collectively, these three cases are known as the "One person, One Vote" cases because they were concerned with ensuring substantial equality of voting districts when compared to the actual population. In other words, if a quarter of a state identifies with party A and there are four districts, party A should have one district, not three or four.  The Court in Rucho ignored the precedents established fifty years earlier in the Marshall Court's "one person, one vote" cases - in favor of reviving the even older precedents of non-justiciability under the Frankfurter Court.  Chief Justice Marshall thought today's case so important that, when he was later asked which case he was most proud of during his tenure on the Court, he did not say Brown v. Board of Education - he said this one, Baker v. Carr was. Because no kind of equality will last for long if it doesn't extend to the ballot box.  I'm still reading and recording this case right now, but I'm so excited for you all to hear it that I thought I would tell you about it now, before election day is over, so you'll be sure to come back and listen by the time I get it published.   Music by Epidemic Sound

Today's guests: Ron DeSantis, Florida Governor. Jim Talent, Bipartisan Policy Center. Jared Kushner Interview, Part 1 of 2. See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Apportionment. The courts have held that the requirement for fair apportionment may be met by apportioning between jurisdictions all business income of a corporation based on a formula using the particular corporation's details. Many states use a three factor formula, averaging the ratios of property, payroll, and sales within the state to that overall. Some states weigh the formula. Some states use a single factor formula based on sales. State capital gains taxes. Most states tax capital gains as ordinary income. Most states that do not tax income (Alaska, Florida, Nevada, South Dakota, Texas, and Wyoming) do not tax capital gains either, nor do two states (New Hampshire and Tennessee) that do or did tax only income from dividends and interest. History. The first state income tax, as the term is understood today in the United States, was passed by the State of Wisconsin in 1911 and came into effect in 1912. However, the idea of taxing income has a long history. Some of the English colonies in North America taxed property (mostly farmland at that time) according to its assessed produce, rather than, as now, according to assessed resale value. Some of these colonies also taxed "faculties" of making income in ways other than farming, assessed by the same people who assessed property. These taxes taken together can be considered a sort of income tax. The records of no colony covered by Rabushka (the colonies that became part of the United States) separated the property and faculty components, and most records indicate amounts levied rather than collected, so much is unknown about the effectiveness of these taxes, up to and including whether the faculty part was actually collected at all. Colonies with laws taxing both property and faculties. Rabushka makes it clear that Massachusetts and Connecticut actually levied these taxes regularly, while for the other colonies such levies happened much less often; South Carolina levied no direct taxes from 1704 through 1713, for example. Becker, however, sees faculty taxes as routine parts of several colonies' finances, including Pennsylvania. During and after the American Revolution, although property taxes were evolving toward the modern resale-value model, several states continued to collect faculty taxes. States with faculty taxes. Between the enactment of the Constitution and 1840, no new general taxes on income appeared. In 1796, Delaware abolished its faculty tax, and in 1819 Connecticut followed suit. On the other hand, in 1835, Pennsylvania instituted a tax on bank dividends, paid by withholding, which by about 1900 produced half its total revenue. Several states, mostly in the South, instituted taxes related to income in the 1840s; some of these claimed to tax total income, while others explicitly taxed only specific categories, these latter sometimes called classified income taxes. These taxes may have been spurred by the ideals of Jacksonian democracy, or by fiscal difficulties resulting from the Panic of 1837. None of these taxes produced much revenue, partly because they were collected by local elected officials. --- Send in a voice message: https://anchor.fm/law-school/message Support this podcast: https://anchor.fm/law-school/support

The Derby Board of Apportionment and Taxation adopted a budget of $48,385,128 on April 28. There's no mill rate increase. This podcast has clips from the end of the meeting, including statements from BOAT chairman Jeff Polis on what the budget accomplishes, and a statement from Derby Town Clerk Marc Garofalo on how the board worked through a highly unusual budget season.

Derby Mayor Rich Dziekan was willing to allocate more money for education in his budget but wanted to tie funding to academic performance, according to statements made at the Tuesday, April 5 meeting of the Derby Board of Apportionment and Taxation. In addition, a $1 million increase in medical insurance costs for the school district precluded additional funding from the city because the mayor had capped all department increases to no more than 2.5 percent. Jim Gildea, chairman of the Derby Board of Education, said the administration's reasoning does not make sense.

Learn the minimum qualifications to serve in the House of Representatives. Discover how Representatives are apportioned among the States, and the establishment of the census. Explore the infamous Three Fifths Compromise/Clause (3/5 clause) in which the enslaved were considered 3/5's a person for purposes of representation in the House of Representatives - review the intense debate behind its creation and whether it was really necessary to establish the Constitution.  Check out PatriotWeek.org, Judge Warren's book at www.AmericasSurvivalGuide.com, and the Save our Republic! video series on Patriot Week's YouTube Channel. Support this podcast at: https://anchor.fm/michael-warren9 --- Support this podcast: https://anchor.fm/michael-warren9/support

In this episode, Garon Muller rejoins Wade and Tain to discuss apportionment - again! The written outline, with citations, can be found at goodjudgepod.com.

On this week's episode Valerie Knight-DiGangi of The Valley Community Foundation stops by to encourage groups to apply for a VFC "responsive needs" grant, which are multi-year grants that can be used to bolster a nonprofit group's operating budget. The deadline for "responsive needs" grant applications is Feb. 24, so head to the VCF website to learn more and to complete an application. At about the 31 minute of the podcast, the topic switches to a recent debate that started during a meeting of the Ansonia Board of Apportionment and Taxation, when two Ansonia Democrats said the board only has five members when the city charter says there should be seven members.  

We open the show hearing about what was presented to the Legislature by the Legislative Apportionment Board. Then, WCAX Capitol Bureau Chief Calvin Cutler provides a State House update. Next, we'll learn about the change in ownership at the Elmore General Store and get an update on the Post Office located there. After that, former UVM player and athletic director Rick Farnham shares memories of Catamount football. And we finish the show with open phones.  

Friday the Arkansas Board of Apportionment review the proposed new legislative districts for Arkansas. John Brummett, a political columnist with the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette, offers his first impressions of the maps.

Matt Hunsaker breaks down the latest state tax news including a discussion of tax arguments in a controversial civil war era statue removal case, the Texas Supreme Court's decision to hear Sirius XM's apportionment case, and the Maryland Comptroller's proposed regulations for sourcing receipts under the Maryland digital advertising tax. Questions & Comments: mhunsaker@bakerlaw.com bakerlaw.com/matthunsaker

INTRO: Welcome back to Flyover View, a member of the Heartland Pod family of podcasts and a look at heartland news from 30,000 feet, from the gateway arch to the rocky mountains, I'm your host, Kevin Smith. I have two parts to today's show: the Heartland Headlines segment, where I cover the BIGGEST stories of the week, followed by the Lightning Round- where I cover the rest of our favorites in rapid succession.HEARTLAND HEADLINES HEADLINE 1: COVID RATES ARE UP AS DELTA VARIANT SPREADSLink:https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2021/us/missouri-covid-cases.htmlhttps://www.ksdk.com/article/news/health/coronavirus/vaccine/map-covid-19-vaccine-hesitancy-st-louis-missouri-illinois/63-551df1ce-a195-48c3-bd44-6fce604d7f38https://account.kansascity.com/paywall/registration?resume=252480233In the heartland states we are seeing a troubling trend emerge as vaccination rates stall out while new COVID cases rise. In Missouri, the 7 day average for new cases has risen to almost 1,000 again, after dipping as low as 375 in March of 2021. Rural counties in the SW of the state have seen the steepest increase, but numbers all around the state continue to climb. Meanwhile in Ohio, new cases are down to rates not seen since early April of 2020. The biggest difference on paper? Vaccination rates. In Ohio, 45% of all residents are fully vaccinated, and 55% of those 18 and up are fully vaccinated. In Missouri, those numbers are 39% for the general population and only 49% for those 18 and up. In Missouri, only 73% of those 65 and up are fully vaccinated, while in Ohio that number is at 80%In Colorado, where the overall rate is 52% and 18 and up is at 63%, numbers remain on the downward trajectory as well. While in Oklahoma, with numbers like Missouri at 38% overall and 49% for 18 and up fully vaccinated, the cases are up with a 37% increase over the last 14 day periodIn a story from early June of 2021, over ⅓ of Missourians in suburban St. Charles county showed hesitancy to get vaccinated at all, and in rural counties that number is higher. All in all it points to a simple reality: A failure to have a vaccinated population could lead to more cases, with the faster spreading and deadlier Delta Varient, as vaccine rates stall out. It is impossible not to point to the leadership in the states where rates of new cases are up and vaccination rates are suppressed and wonder where they are on this issue. In Ohio you may recall the vaccine lottery, which saw a great response. Meanwhile, in Missouri many legislators and Statewide officials seem to ignore the need for vaccinations. Missouri Governor and noted sentient goldfish, Mike Parson, in what is best described as a complete 180 from his prior statements, is now urging folks to get the vaccine and walking back his prior comments comparing COVID to merely the seasonal flu. And now a report comes form the KC star that Gov. Parson has requested federal help for containment efforts. Nothing like some good old fashioned leadership from behind. Time will tell just how much of a difference it all makes, but the early indications show that many heartland states could be headed for a catastrophic second wave of the pandemic. If only we had seen something like this 100 years ago… oh wait, we did, with the spanish flu which had a second wave that eclipsed the first in scale for deaths. At least this time no one is telling us to drink bleach. HEADLINE 2: Iowa Permitless Carry Law Goes Into EffectLink:https://www.desmoinesregister.com/news/politics/Death rates up: https://apnews.com/article/ia-state-wire-iowa-gun-politics-business-laws-656a5ba4382a64f2d93790f56050ce3cIowans can now buy and carry handguns without first getting a permit, after a new law went into effect Thursday. For the first time, the law makes having a permit optional for adults 21 and older to buy a handgun or carry one in most public places. Gov. Kim Reynolds signed the Iowa law, which advocates often refer to as "constitutional carry" or "permitless carry," in April. More than a dozen states - including Missouri - have similar laws. The new law won't change the rules for long guns, like rifles and shotguns, which didn't require a permit under the previous law. Customers will still need to pass a background check when buying long guns and handguns from a federally licensed dealer.Meanwhile, in 2020 gun deaths in Iowa are up by 23% from 2019, making back to back record breaking years in Iowa for gun deaths. When Missouri passed a similar law in 2007, gun related crime rates spiked nearly instantly. They must still pass an instant federal background check to buy handguns at retailers, but face no such requirement if buying through private sellers. They will not need any permit to carry guns on themselves or in their cars in most places, including the Iowa Capitol, and they no longer need to take an online training course on gun safety and self-defense.Gov. Kim Reynolds signed the bill in April following pressure from conservative activists. She previously said the permitting system was “reasonable and responsible” and should remain.Supporters say the Iowa law will prevent law-abiding citizens from having to apply to the government and pay a $50 carry permit fee to exercise their gun rights, while allowing them to quickly obtain handguns for self-defense.“The relationship between your state government and the citizen is going to be flipped 180 degrees,” said state GOP Sen. Jason Schultz, who noted that the push to loosen Iowa's firearm rules has taken decades. “You can bear that firearm without permission from the state in the form of a concealed weapon permit or in violation of any open-carry laws.”He said this would not harm public safety, calling it a “blessing on the citizenry and a problem for criminals because there's more good guys armed out there.” But the new law is highly unpopular: two-thirds of those surveyed this month for the Des Moines Register's Iowa Poll said they disapprove.Yes, this law is part of the now traditional GOP response to voters, passing unpopular laws and ignoring the public at large.HEADLINE 3: Missouri's AG loses case to former AG candidatehttps://missouriindependent.com/2021/06/29/missouri-supreme-court-state-cant-charge-attorney-fees-for-sunshine-law-requests/In a 6-0 ruling, the Missouri supreme court has ruled that attorney review time for public records released by public entities cannot be charged for. Missouri attorney and former Democratic AG hopeful Elad Gross made what is often referred to as a “sunshine law” request under Missouri's chapter 610 which requires public entities and governments to provide access to public records. The Parson administration provided the documents after redaction by attorneys but tried to charge $3,618.40 for the access to Mr. Gross. In the unanimous opinion, Judge Patricia Breckenridge wrote that the court concluded the allegations were sufficient to plead that “the Governor's Office had an intent to violate the law.”The case now goes back to the trial court for further proceedings. Said Gross in response to the ruling “Now there's a very clear ruling that those practices have always been illegal, should never have been used to stop the public from accessing public records or members of the media for that point, too,” Gross said. “And hopefully those kinds of abuses will now be put to an end.”Our own attorney, and Heartland POD host Adam Sommer said of the ruling: “This ruling is a clear message to not just the administration that it acted in bad faith, but to any and all Missouri governmental or other public entities that the Sunshine law of Missouri is not optional. People have a right to know what the government is doing and they have a right to have access to that information without it costing exorbitant fees. You shouldn't need an extra $4,000 on hand, and a law degree, to get public records. It's pretty simple. The law allows for some charges, mostly related to the actual costs for physical copies of a staff member to make those copies or search for those records and locate them. It doesn't provide for the cost of a lawyer to review them for redactions. The government, and it's lawyers, have a duty to do that work already, that cost cannot be passed on, we already paid for it with our tax dollars.”The remaining case is part of an investigation into a dark money group best known for its connection to former Governor, and now Senate candidate, Eric Grietens. HEADLINE 4: A Clean FRA Bill Heads to Governor in Missourihttps://www.kansascity.com/news/politics-government/article252476943.htmlhttps://missouriindependent.com/2021/06/29/no-changes-in-committee-as-fra-bill-heads-to-missouri-house-for-debate/On Wednesday Missouri lawmakers finally sent the renewal of the Federal Reimbursement Allowance, or FRA, a critical extension to the major source of funding for Medicaid in the state, to Gov. Mike Parson, just ahead of a deadline he imposed for enacting drastic budget cuts across the state. Missouri has had the tax, called the FRA, in place for about three decades, and its renewal has been routine. This year, hardline conservatives in the Senate sought to add provisions banning Medicaid coverage of certain forms of birth control, which they called akin to abortion, and block the program from making payments to Planned Parenthood. In a win for pragmatism neither provision was included in the renewal sent to the governor.· GOP Supermajority failed to pass the extension during regular session· GOP got what it wanted, hours of pontificating on the evils of Planned Parenthood and birth controlo Only 12 clinics in the entire state, 11 of which are only family planning clinics. Only one can be considered an abortion clinic· In a statement, House Speaker Rob Vescovo, Speaker Pro Tem John Wiemann and Majority Leader Dean Plocher said they had supported both the FRA and anti-abortion efforts.o “We are proud of the work done by the House today to approve the FRA renewal so the vital programs that assist many of Missouri's most vulnerable citizens can continue to be funded,” they said. “We're also proud of our members for taking a strong stand in defense of the lives of the unborn as we approved House Bill 2 to prevent taxpayer dollars from going to abortion providers.”· Minority Leader Crystal Quadeo “All it was was a political move,”· Barring any funny business from Parson I'm happy to just be done talking about this.BREAK: Really quick reminder for folks if you or someone you know has been on or is now on unemployment, the ACA coverage may be available to them free of charge for the rest of 2021, go to marketplace.org to learn more on that. For Monday, the heartland pod has special guest host Jessica Piper and a Mt. Rushmore draft of the best patriotic movies, plus a talkin politics about the Trump org charges and the Missouri special session.Missouri Prison health care contract changes companieshttps://www.thepitchkc.com/missouri-prison-healthcare-contract-won-by-company-accused-of-bid-rigging-in-tennessee/Centurion Health, a Virginia subsidiary of St. Louis-based managed care company Centene, beat out four other bidders – including current provider Corizon Health – for a contract awarded May 28. Under the terms of the contract, Centurion would be paid $174.6 million for the year starting July 1. The initial contract term is three years, with four optional years, and Centurion's bid totals $1.4 billion over the full period.Lawmakers appropriated $152.8 million for prison medical services in the coming year, the third year where the amount has been unchanged. The actual cost in fiscal 2020 was $149.9 million.In the formal protest filed last week, Corizon wrote that it was treated unfairly in the scoring and that Centurion failed to report problems that cost it a Tennessee contract on May 10 — including that key personnel involved in its Missouri bid were fired over their involvement in the Tennessee scandal.https://www.cpr.org/2021/06/30/covid-vaccine-incentive-uchealth-employees/Anti-Vaxxers: FACED! UCHealth pays $500 incentive to employees who get the COVID vaccineUCHealth plans to give $500 dollars to those among its 26,000 employees who are vaccinated. Contractors can also receive the bonus. The system operates 12 hospitals and about 700 individual clinics across Colorado, southern Wyoming and western Nebraska. The bonus applies to thousands of additional contractors, like those working as security guards or valets.Those UCHealth workers who are now vaccinated will get the money in mid-July, and anyone who gets vaccinated between now and August 22 would get it on Sept. 3. “UCHealth will mandate the vaccine for all of our employees and contractors at some point, likely later this year,” said Dan Weaver, Vice President of Communications for UCHealth, via email. He noted the system already requires employees to get the flu vaccine. “We want to provide the safest possible environment for our patients, visitors and employees, and requiring everyone to be vaccinated against COVID-19 in the same way we mandate influenza vaccinations will help improve safety for everyone.”https://www.riverfronttimes.com/newsblog/2021/06/30/st-louis-mayor-tishaura-jones-80-million-relief-proposal-heads-to-board-of-aldermenMayor Jones Gives and ServesMayor Tishaura Jones' $80 million direct relief proposal was approved by the St. Louis Board of Estimate and Apportionment, but faces a challenge for final approval with the board of alderman."The past year and a half has been devastating for St. Louis families and businesses," Comptroller Darlene Green, who is one third of E&A, said in a press release. "The relief package presented by Mayor Jones prioritizes addressing the most urgent needs for our residents, and I encourage everyone to work together so that we can quickly put these relief funds to work for our community."Jones and Green both voted for the package, but E&A's third member, Board of Aldermen President Lewis Reed, refused. Reed and Jones are frequent rivals and have quarreled throughout the process. The proposal passed by E&A, which has oversight of a swath of city finances, could clash with a separate proposal in the Board of Aldermen.Reed called out Jones saying she cannot do the job of the Board, to which Mayor Jones replied: “You can't do the job of the Mayor either, honey.”EXXON Mobil in the hot seathttps://www.npr.org/2021/07/01/1012138741/exxon-lobbyist-caught-on-video-talks-about-undermining-bidens-climate-pushExxon Mobil has been attempting a new face lately, obtaining new board members “focused on climate change” and claiming to finally be sensitive to the issue. However, a recent sting by the group Greenpeace finds one major lobbyist for Exxon sowing some doubt on that new branding. Keith McCoy, the oil giant's senior director for federal relations was caught on camera during what he thought was a job interview blatantly revealing that tactics to sow doubt on the science and protect profits by working with "shadow groups," and influencing senators to weaken climate elements of President Biden's infrastructure plan. Saying "Joe Manchin, I talk to his office every week," calling Manchin a "kingmaker" Rep. Ro Khanna, a Democrat from California, says he will hold a hearing this fall about "climate disinformation & the coordinated attack on scientific truth among polluters and their lobbyists."It should be an interesting hearing. Among McCoy's comments to the undercover activists, he said Exxon Mobil has a playbook for dealing with hearings like what Khanna plans. He said they usually send trade group representatives to be "the whipping boy."Dark Money Is Just Fine, says the US Supreme Courthttps://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/20pdf/19-251_p86b.pdfIn a 6-3 ruling, and bringing the term to an end, the US Supreme Court has ruled that people who donate to political nonprofits have a first amendment right to remain anonymous. The case, stemming from a california rule requiring disclosure of donors, similar to a political candidate, was one of the few this term that lined up exactly on the 6-3 right and left lines of the high court. The reasoning was that while a state may have an interest in preventing fraud in non-profits, these kinds of non-profits really don't represent enough potential fraud to matter and that forcing disclosure of donor information could be chilling to the First Amendment right of free association. So there you have it folks, you have no protection for your information if you give money to a candidate, but as long as it's to a hyper partisan nonprofit, you can give all you want and no one has to know. It will be our little secret. Outro: That's all the time we have, thanks for joining us. If you have a story you feel we should look into and possibly highlight on the show tweet us @theheartlandpod and visit us for links to all our shows and our merchandise shop at heartlandpod.com. The Flyover View is a production of Mid Map Media LLC. This week's episode featured reporting from The Pitch out of kansas city, The Riverfront Times, The Missouri Independent, Colorado Public Radio, Associated Press, New York Times, KSDK St. Louis, The Des Moines Register, & Supreme Court.gov, Remember to Subscribe so you get this show and all our Heartland Pod offerings, with new episodes released Monday, Wednesday and Friday. Thanks for joining us, and see you next week: same time, same place. Take care. https://heartlandpod.com/Twitter: @TheHeartlandPOD"Change The Conversation"

In this week's episode, https://www.bakerlaw.com/MichaelJSemes (Mike Semes) joins Matt Hunsaker in the studio to discuss alternative apportionment and an unfortunate case coming out of Maryland. Questions & Comments: mhunsaker@bakerlaw.com and msemes@bakerlaw.com bakerlaw.com/matthunsaker

In this episode, Wade and Tain are once again joined by attorney and FOPC ("friend of the podcast") Garon Muller to discuss apportionment. The written outline, with citations, can be found at goodjudgepod.com.

This week, I'm looking at five key issues: Census Bureau released its apportionment count yesterday Latest domestic and global COVID developments Reflections on Biden's first 100 days Supreme Court hearing arguments on big issues like campaign finance and gun regulations State election developments – AZ recount, CA recall, LA special election

Independent investigative journalism, broadcasting, trouble-making and muckraking with Brad Friedman of BradBlog.com

The Hake Report, Tuesday, October 27, 2020  Virus shutdowns in El Paso, Juarez, etc.  Philly riot… BLM (and maybe antifa) out-of-control. Dem mayor!  ACB on SCOTUS: Election, ACA, Apportionment (3/5 compromise?), Mueller Report More “civil unrest” expected with election: DHS, ICE, CBP…  Kamala's insecure and immature. Man so many posers! (JLP vs Michaela, vs. NFAC, vs. these college educated black intellectuals) Handmaid's Tale protestors remind me of Women's March, SMH.  ALSO: I think I was right about Kayleigh McEnany… FUNNY: (TMZ) Dude told black man: 'This is a No-N***** Zone,' arrested & fired Also check out Hake News from today.  CALLERS Mike from Kentucky mentions election corruption, and has a rooster and a dog.  Kenny from Idaho — thank you!  Louie from Idaho — great call, thank you!  Art from Ohio says he wants James to help him name his new cow. Joe from Phoenix, AZ finally agrees about disproportionate crime stats, and that the Philly guy seemed out of his mind.  Zack from Oregon says his grandmother was a cop.  DarksideoftheBear from SD talks about the bad BLM culture TIME STAMPS 0:00 Stream start 4:09 Soooo…. 7:09 Philly riot 21:52 Handmaid's Tale weirdos 27:38 ACB SCOTUS cases 35:56 Mike in KY 41:22 Kenny in ID 46:03 Kamala Harris, cringe 53:57 DHS prep for election riots 56:52 Louie in ID 1:01:20 Break! 1:06:03 Can Macron protect France? 1:11:04 Art in Ohio 1:17:58 Female protestors 1:20:41 Posers! 1:25:14 Laos 1:29:40 Kayleigh McEnany 1:36:00 Joe in Phoenix, AZ 1:45:29 Zack in OR 1:54:21 Darkside of the Bear  1:57:39 No N-word Zone 2:01:34 Thanks, all!  HAKE LINKS VIDEO ARCHIVE: Facebook | Periscope/Twitter | YouTube | Audio podcast links below LIVE VIDEO: DLive | Periscope | Facebook | YouTube* | NOT Twitch*  PODCAST: Apple | Podcast Addict | Castbox | Stitcher | Spotify | PodBean | Google … SUPPORT: SubscribeStar | Patreon | Teespring | SUPER CHAT: Streamlabs | DLive  Call in! 888-775-3773, live Monday through Friday 9 AM (Los Angeles) https://thehakereport.com/show  Also see Hake News from JLP's show today.  *NOTE: YouTube and Twitch have both censored James's content on their platforms recently, over fake "Community Guidelines" violations.  BLOG POST: https://www.thehakereport.com/blog/2020/10/27/102720-tue-dem-fem-poc-posers 

Don't rest on your laurels because the closing ink has dried! In this final episode of the series on state and local tax issues in M&A, Matt Hunsaker addresses some of the issues that arise after closing and how to prepare for them, including tax sharing agreements, transition service agreements, voluntary disclosure agreements for lemon purchases, and more. Previous Episodes in M&A Series: https://www.bakerlaw.com/podcasts/state-tax-in-transactions-perspectives-of-ma-lawyers-part-1 (Part 1 - Perspectives of M&A Lawyers) https://www.bakerlaw.com/podcasts/state-tax-in-transactions-expanding-nexus-footprint-part-ii (Part 2 - Expanding Nexus Footprint) https://www.bakerlaw.com/podcasts/state-tax-in-transactions-apportionment-combination-implications-part-iii (Part 3 - Apportionment & Unitary Combination) Questions and Comments: mhunsaker@bakerlaw.com bakerlaw.com/matthunsaker https://www.icloud.com/photos/#0r9LONnbdoU8TpqvEOg3XfxJA (Picture of Roscoe)

In part 3 of our journey through SALT issues in M&A transactions, Matt Hunsaker highlights a few apportionment, unitary combination, and NOL usage implications that should be on your radar whenever you are involved in a transaction. Questions & Comments: mhunsaker@bakerlaw.com bakerlaw.com/matthunsaker

Discussion of Legal Challenges regarding the 2020 Census: (1) Presidential Memorandum regarding Apportionment (2) Revised Ending Date to Field Data Collection for the 2020 Census

Matt Hunsaker breaks down two recent Texas cases addressing franchise tax apportionment (and COGS): Lockheed Martin Corp. v. Hegar and Hegar v. SiriusXM Radio Inc. Find out how these cases might affect you! Comments, Feedback, Requests: mhunsaker@bakerlaw.com www.bakerlaw.com/matthunsaker

The SALT Show Episode 89 (Update for Week of December 15, 2019) On this week's episode: Overview of recent Texas decisions on treatment of hedging transactions and unitary business income ALJ opines on alternative apportionment and royalty exclusions in New York

The SALT Show Episode 83 (Update for Week of November 3, 2019) On this week's episode: • Listener Contest: Economic nexus guess • California's latest on alternative apportionment regs • Look-through sourcing: Microsoft's Wisconsin case • Alternative apportionment attack on royalty companies (Staples) • Uber strikes back on local taxes Links to share the podcast with colleagues: bakerbotts.com, iTunes, Stitcher, GooglePlay, Podbean, Spotify

The SALT Show Episode 82 (Update for Week of October 27, 2019) On this week's episode: • Reflections on the COST 50th Annual Meeting • Update on MTC's working group to update PL 86-272 guidance for internet contacts • Mailbag Question: How do you combine taxpayers with different apportionment formulas? Links to share the podcast with colleagues: bakerbotts.com, iTunes, Stitcher, GooglePlay, Podbean, Spotify