Group 9: Tax and Intellectual Property
How Vague State Tax Collection Alternatives Create Compounding Collateral Consequences That Impact Low-Income Taxpayers
Through a racial equity lens, this article explains how the lack of clarity in state tax collection alternatives disproportionately impact low-income taxpayers, particularly Black and Brown individuals, creating invisible burdens when settling their state tax debt. When a taxpayer cannot pay their full state tax liability, states offer various collection alternatives to assist them with repaying their unpaid tax debt. Most states provide two primary options: (1) offer-in-compromise, which allows a taxpayer to settle their debt for less than the original amount owed, and (2) installment agreement, which enables a taxpayer to make monthly payments until the debt is paid in full.
However, state tax collection agencies make it difficult for taxpayers to understand the various collection alternatives because the governing statutes are often ambiguous or nonexistent. Thus, the vagueness in a statute can significantly hinder taxpayers’ ability to understand the requirements for pursuing alternatives, creating disproportionate enforcement at the state level.
Additionally, many states impose overly harsh collection procedures, such as suspending driver’s or professional licenses for unpaid state tax debt. While these deterrents aim to ensure taxpayers meet their state tax obligations, low-income taxpayers are unlikely to be evading taxes; they simply lack funds to pay.
To address these inequities, this article proposes three solutions: (1) states should provide clear, plain-language statutes governing collection alternatives, (2) they should eliminate license suspensions for unpaid taxes, and (3) they should align collection procedures with the IRS guidelines. These reforms will help ensure fairness and equity in state tax collections procedures.
Invention Gaps: Understanding the impact and effects of invention submission companies
Invention submission companies purport to offer a wide range of services, from patent evaluation and filing, prototype development, market research, and licensing. But are these organizations too good to be true? In a word, yes – Wikipedia states, “hundreds of companies offer invention-promotion services and ‘virtually all of them are either ineffective or outright fraudulent.’”
These companies aren’t new. The FTC investigated and settled with several invention submission companies in the late 1990’s. In 1999, Congress passed the American Inventors Protection Act, which required certain disclosures and provided for civil penalties for deceptive practices. About 15 states have similar legislation.
Many patent lawyers have heard devastating stories of inventors putting $5000 that they don’t have on a credit card with hope that financial independence will follow. When the companies fail to deliver on promises, filing suit to recover fees paid is costly and success is questionable. Consumer protection attorneys, who may be best equipped to tackle these cases, likely lack the patent-specific knowledge necessary to evaluate the strength of a case.
This article will serve as a case study to illustrate how companies have exploited a gap in understanding due to the technical complexity of the patent system to avoid accountability. This article will further consider how clinics can use this as a project to promote access to justice and participation in patent pro bono activities.
Discussant: Shweta Kumar, Georgetown