Name a memorable moment in your career.
Three early life episodes come to mind. First, in third grade at PS 232 in Queens NY, I built a diorama depicting the Boston Tea Party. Since then I have been on a mission to fulfill James Otis’ vision of avoiding tyranny through ‘representation’ with (albeit, minimum) ‘taxation’. Second, while moonlighting my senior year at NYU for a Manhattan real estate mogul, I quickly learned that the after-tax math almost always drove the decision. Finally, after explaining to Mel Brooks what I was doing on the studio lot at Fox as a young impressionable lawyer (namely, performing tax due diligence on a prospective transaction), Mr. Brooks commented that working as a tax lawyer would make my mom proud, much more so than being President Skroob of Planet Spaceball (a later to be released film that was universally panned by the critics but ultimately achieved cult like notoriety).
Aside from your immediate colleagues, whom in tax do you most admire and why?
Jack Bernstein, my friend, at Aird & Berlis in Canada is probably on lots of folks lists. A welcome tool of the trade for any tax lawyer navigating his/her professional journey would be a map drawn by a cartographer that captures Jack’s energy, enthusiasm and drive to both make rain and maintain his position as an intellectual and creative heavyweight of the global tax bar. Jack has taught me that it is often too easy to say ‘no’; the challenge is finding the reason to say ‘yes’. Jack has realized success by coupling professional know-how with life experiences (as supplemented with good food, good drink and good company - after all, clients are humans too).
What advice would you give to someone new to the profession?
Assume the role of the architect of the project and don’t be afraid to issue change orders. Clients value the genius of the structure; often times more so than they value the builders.
If you could make one change to a tax law or practice (in any country), what would it be?
The OECD and other policy makers should ask for a ‘mulligan’ (a golf term meaning a do-over) when it comes to the taxation of the digital economy. The many ideas flowing from the BEPS draft reports should simply not be pursued. For many years I have been a staunch supporter of the right to protect the GAFAs (the acronym for high tech MNCs like Google, Apple, Facebook and Amazon) and like-minded persons that invent the technology and/or risk the capital to make and exploit the invention. If more GAFAs happen to reside in the U.S. than elsewhere - so be it. That’s not to say that some ‘fair’ allocation of a tax charge is not warranted. When it comes to the digital economy why do the policy makers ignore the learning of the US States? A ‘fair’ allocation of tax might be found by disregarding separate company existence and by apportioning profits based on sales, costs, property and payroll. In the case of the digital economy, perhaps an additional hefty factor could be added in recognition of the invention.
What’s your view on Obama’s proposed tax on foreign income held overseas by MNCs?
A Wall Street Journal editorial once called BEPS nothing more than a ‘global revenue grab.’ President Obama in his Administration’s 2016 Revenue Proposals (the ‘Green Book’) has now added the US to the list of ‘grabbers’. The proposed 14% transition tax on the deferred foreign earnings of US MNCs is nothing more than a $240bn revenue grab by the U.S. The press is littered with many reasons why the proposal is bad tax policy. My constituency believes (as do I) that if the US wishes to remain as the ‘cradle of invention’, the 14% transition tax for mature companies and the 19% minimum tax for start-ups and all others going forward should never make its way into a Congressional bill. Though economists might differ on the count, my abacus shows that the amount of U.S. tax revenues generated (with a lower corporate tax rate and without these Green Book provisions) as a percentage of GDP will likely be the higher than the current tax revenues generated (with the currently high corporate tax rate) as a percentage of GDP.
You have over 30 years’ experience as a valued adviser and strategist to the world’s largest communications and media conglomerates. What’s the most challenging day in the office you’ve had during that time?
My toughest day on the job came not from acting for any global media behemoth, but rather from representing the performing artists’ guilds. My firm’s tag-line for many years was, ‘At the intersection of business and government.’ The day I tried to cross the intersection to the ‘government’ side of the street, was the day I felt like I was struck by an 18-wheel lorry. On behalf of the performing artists’ guilds, I testified before a Select Committee of the US Congress in support of a tax bill intended to assist the rank and file, non-A list, members of the industry. Despite entertainment representing the largest U.S. export commodity and despite overwhelming support from the obvious Congressional delegations (California, Florida, Illinois and NY), the Committee members from the rest of the country treated my well-intentioned proposal in the same way they would treat a ‘fat hog’ on Sunday. Parenthetically, several years later, a watered-down version of the proposal was eventually passed.
Your extensive practice includes structuring multiparty and cross-border joint ventures and acting as a first chair in structuring, negotiating, and concluding complex joint venture arrangements among many of the largest companies in the world. What’s the secret to crafting tax-efficient strategies and structures?
There are no short-cuts. You need to do your homework, which means you need to know (1) the law, (2) the client, (3) the industry and (4) the market. Emails and the internet are very poor substitutes for direct and personal interaction. People like to talk, particularly those in the media, entertainment, sports and technology sectors. So follow the 80/20 rule – let the others deliver 80% of the sound bites (which is often hard for lawyers to do). Nobody ever learned something by talking. Hopefully, you can use all of this new found information very effectively in your representation of the client.
Tell us a secret.
My secret (which really isn’t a secret to those who know me) is that personal appearance is important in the sandbox I play in. Therefore, I dye my beard, shop only with my hipster kids and their friends, and place a premium on footwear. A jog (preferably with the dogs) every morning also doesn’t hurt. Though I play, don’t be fooled: golf is not a sport.
Name a memorable moment in your career.
Three early life episodes come to mind. First, in third grade at PS 232 in Queens NY, I built a diorama depicting the Boston Tea Party. Since then I have been on a mission to fulfill James Otis’ vision of avoiding tyranny through ‘representation’ with (albeit, minimum) ‘taxation’. Second, while moonlighting my senior year at NYU for a Manhattan real estate mogul, I quickly learned that the after-tax math almost always drove the decision. Finally, after explaining to Mel Brooks what I was doing on the studio lot at Fox as a young impressionable lawyer (namely, performing tax due diligence on a prospective transaction), Mr. Brooks commented that working as a tax lawyer would make my mom proud, much more so than being President Skroob of Planet Spaceball (a later to be released film that was universally panned by the critics but ultimately achieved cult like notoriety).
Aside from your immediate colleagues, whom in tax do you most admire and why?
Jack Bernstein, my friend, at Aird & Berlis in Canada is probably on lots of folks lists. A welcome tool of the trade for any tax lawyer navigating his/her professional journey would be a map drawn by a cartographer that captures Jack’s energy, enthusiasm and drive to both make rain and maintain his position as an intellectual and creative heavyweight of the global tax bar. Jack has taught me that it is often too easy to say ‘no’; the challenge is finding the reason to say ‘yes’. Jack has realized success by coupling professional know-how with life experiences (as supplemented with good food, good drink and good company - after all, clients are humans too).
What advice would you give to someone new to the profession?
Assume the role of the architect of the project and don’t be afraid to issue change orders. Clients value the genius of the structure; often times more so than they value the builders.
If you could make one change to a tax law or practice (in any country), what would it be?
The OECD and other policy makers should ask for a ‘mulligan’ (a golf term meaning a do-over) when it comes to the taxation of the digital economy. The many ideas flowing from the BEPS draft reports should simply not be pursued. For many years I have been a staunch supporter of the right to protect the GAFAs (the acronym for high tech MNCs like Google, Apple, Facebook and Amazon) and like-minded persons that invent the technology and/or risk the capital to make and exploit the invention. If more GAFAs happen to reside in the U.S. than elsewhere - so be it. That’s not to say that some ‘fair’ allocation of a tax charge is not warranted. When it comes to the digital economy why do the policy makers ignore the learning of the US States? A ‘fair’ allocation of tax might be found by disregarding separate company existence and by apportioning profits based on sales, costs, property and payroll. In the case of the digital economy, perhaps an additional hefty factor could be added in recognition of the invention.
What’s your view on Obama’s proposed tax on foreign income held overseas by MNCs?
A Wall Street Journal editorial once called BEPS nothing more than a ‘global revenue grab.’ President Obama in his Administration’s 2016 Revenue Proposals (the ‘Green Book’) has now added the US to the list of ‘grabbers’. The proposed 14% transition tax on the deferred foreign earnings of US MNCs is nothing more than a $240bn revenue grab by the U.S. The press is littered with many reasons why the proposal is bad tax policy. My constituency believes (as do I) that if the US wishes to remain as the ‘cradle of invention’, the 14% transition tax for mature companies and the 19% minimum tax for start-ups and all others going forward should never make its way into a Congressional bill. Though economists might differ on the count, my abacus shows that the amount of U.S. tax revenues generated (with a lower corporate tax rate and without these Green Book provisions) as a percentage of GDP will likely be the higher than the current tax revenues generated (with the currently high corporate tax rate) as a percentage of GDP.
You have over 30 years’ experience as a valued adviser and strategist to the world’s largest communications and media conglomerates. What’s the most challenging day in the office you’ve had during that time?
My toughest day on the job came not from acting for any global media behemoth, but rather from representing the performing artists’ guilds. My firm’s tag-line for many years was, ‘At the intersection of business and government.’ The day I tried to cross the intersection to the ‘government’ side of the street, was the day I felt like I was struck by an 18-wheel lorry. On behalf of the performing artists’ guilds, I testified before a Select Committee of the US Congress in support of a tax bill intended to assist the rank and file, non-A list, members of the industry. Despite entertainment representing the largest U.S. export commodity and despite overwhelming support from the obvious Congressional delegations (California, Florida, Illinois and NY), the Committee members from the rest of the country treated my well-intentioned proposal in the same way they would treat a ‘fat hog’ on Sunday. Parenthetically, several years later, a watered-down version of the proposal was eventually passed.
Your extensive practice includes structuring multiparty and cross-border joint ventures and acting as a first chair in structuring, negotiating, and concluding complex joint venture arrangements among many of the largest companies in the world. What’s the secret to crafting tax-efficient strategies and structures?
There are no short-cuts. You need to do your homework, which means you need to know (1) the law, (2) the client, (3) the industry and (4) the market. Emails and the internet are very poor substitutes for direct and personal interaction. People like to talk, particularly those in the media, entertainment, sports and technology sectors. So follow the 80/20 rule – let the others deliver 80% of the sound bites (which is often hard for lawyers to do). Nobody ever learned something by talking. Hopefully, you can use all of this new found information very effectively in your representation of the client.
Tell us a secret.
My secret (which really isn’t a secret to those who know me) is that personal appearance is important in the sandbox I play in. Therefore, I dye my beard, shop only with my hipster kids and their friends, and place a premium on footwear. A jog (preferably with the dogs) every morning also doesn’t hurt. Though I play, don’t be fooled: golf is not a sport.
.jpg?sfvrsn=335a554c_0 "300 x 250 (MPU)")
