Effect of Priorities Allowed by State Statutes in Bankruptcy Proceedings

Various federal and state statutes in the United States define the role of the court interpreter with clear and unequivocal rules. This definition is based on the underlying principles of the U.S. legal system, which is derived from the Anglo-Saxon common-law tradition. Consequently, the distinctive features of that system, including the jury trial and the concept of adversarial proceedings, make the function of the court interpreter quite different from that of his/her counterparts in other countries. In recent years, the judiciary has made an effort to enhance the public's access to the justice system, but at the same time, the latest wave of immigration comprises individuals from societies in which cultural norms differ greatly from those of the United States. Moreover, many of these immigrants have received little or no formal education. As a result, judiciary interpreters feel somewhat constrained by the rules that govern their profession when they strive to bridge the cultural and linguistic gap. This paper reexamines the function of the court interpreter in light of these circumstances and an analysis of prevailing practices in other countries, and proposes a new approach to the interpreter's role.

Download Full-text

The Validity of State Statutes Prohibiting Contracts of Exemption by Carriers concerning Interstate Commerce

The Virginia Law Register ◽

10.2307/1103064 ◽

1906 ◽

Vol 12 (1) ◽

pp. 1

Author(s):

J. R. Tucker

Keyword(s):

Interstate Commerce ◽

State Statutes

Download Full-text

Constitutional Law: Jurisdiction: Validity of State Statutes Providing for Constructive Service upon Non-Resident Motorists in Personal Injury Actions

California Law Review ◽

10.2307/3475295 ◽

1928 ◽

Vol 16 (5) ◽

pp. 428

Author(s):

P. W. B.

Keyword(s):

Constitutional Law ◽

Personal Injury ◽

State Statutes

Download Full-text

Current Developing Trend of Sales Tax on E-Business

International Journal of E-Business Research ◽

10.4018/ijebr.2015040104 ◽

2015 ◽

Vol 11 (2) ◽

pp. 60-73

Author(s):

James G. S. Yang ◽

Peter L. Lohrey ◽

Leonard J. Lauricella

Keyword(s):

State Government ◽

The United States ◽

United States Senate ◽

Sales Tax ◽

Internet Commerce ◽

Business Operations ◽

State Statutes ◽

State Income Tax ◽

Physical Presence ◽

State Income

This article explores the development of sales tax on e-business. It points out that the problem was rooted in the fact that the seller is required to collect and remit the tax to the buyer's state government. If the seller and the buyer do not reside in the same state, the buyer's state government has no jurisdiction over the seller, unless there is a “physical presence” of the seller in the buyer's state. A state government can require an out-of-state seller to collect sales tax from the in-state buyer only when there is “physical presence.” However, what constitutes “physical presence” can become very controversial and complex. This article discusses many court cases. As Internet commerce was incorporated into the business operations, a great many transactions were executed online. The concept of “physical presence” became even more complex, as websites and digitized products became more commonplace. A new concept of “economic nexus” has evolved under many state statutes. Now an out-of-state seller may be required to collect sales tax from an in-state buyer, regardless of “physical presence.” In 2013 the United States Senate enacted the “Marketplace Fairness Act of 2013.” This embraced the concept of “economic nexus.” This legislation could potentially end or at least greatly simplify all controversies in e-business taxation. This paper further notes that the concept of “economic nexus” may be extended to the arena of state income tax.

Download Full-text