RTP's Fourth Branch Podcast

Cryptocurrencies have been around for 10 years, but there remains significant ambiguity in the tax consequences of their use. A recent report by Coin Center identifies six of those ambiguities and recommends approaches to resolving them. James Foust, the report's author, will provide an overview of what is and is not known, and suggested actions that Congress and the IRS could take to fill the gaps.Topics covered will include: - What guidance the IRS has published to date- Calculating the fair market value of cryptocurrency- Determining the cost basis of cryptocurrency dispositions- Tax implications of network forks and airdropped tokens.Featuring:- James Foust, Senior Research Fellow, Coin CenterVisit our website – RegProject.org – to learn more, view all of our content, and connect with us on social media.

After over two years of regulatory inactivity, the Wage and Hour Division of the U.S. Department of Labor recently published three proposals to revise the FLSA regulations – on joint employment, the “white collar” overtime exemptions, and the regular rate/overtime calculation. All three will have a significant impact on how employees are classified and paid. In its Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) on joint employment, the DOL proposes to adopt the Ninth Circuit’s four-part Bonnette test. The NPRM on the overtime exemptions proposes to increase the minimum weekly salary that employers must pay to exempt employees from $455 to $679, formally revoking the 2016 Final Rule raising the minimum to $913 which was enjoined by a Texas District Court. Finally, the DOL’s NPRM on the regular rate will clarify the types of compensation that employers must include in (and may exclude from) the overtime compensation. Join Tammy McCutchen, former Administrator of the DOL’s Wage & Hour Division, for a briefing on all three proposed regulations.Featuring:- Tammy McCutchen, Principal, Littler Mendelson PCVisit our website – RegProject.org – to learn more, view all of our content, and connect with us on social media.

Most people would be surprised to discover that music is among the most regulated of all the products and services they enjoy each day. Through a combination of historical accidents, momentum, and politics, the U.S. government has ended up strictly controlling the prices that radio stations, streaming services, and others pay to use music, and also regulating the terms of sale. This strict control has been in place since 1941 as a result of consent decrees that settled antitrust lawsuits brought by President Roosevelt's Department of Justice. As a result, a handful of judges determine how songwriters and composers get paid for the use of their music and how they can do business.The 77-year-old consent decrees were originally designed to regulate a marketplace that faded into history a long time ago. They pre-date streaming services, the internet, commercial FM radio, and even the birth of rock, hip-hop, and most other modern popular music genres. The music business has evolved and changed many times in the intervening years, but the consent decrees march on determining how songwriters are compensated.The Department of Justice has recently announced a review of aged consent decrees, with Assistant U.S. Attorney General Makan Delrahim targeting the music licensing consent decrees for particular scrutiny.Featuring:- Kristen Osenga, Professor of Law, University of Richmond School of Law- Mark Schultz, Professor of Law, Southern Illinois University School of LawVisit our website – RegProject.org – to learn more, view all of our content, and connect with us on social media.

Senator Elizabeth Warren recently claimed that big tech companies like Amazon, Google, and Facebook have grown into monopolies that make it effectively impossible for smaller competitors to gain a foothold in the market. As a potential fix, she proposed that the government should unwind past anti-competitive mergers. There is fierce debate about governmental oversight of big tech companies and the proper role of the federal government in promoting consumer welfare and market competition. In this episode of the Fourth Branch Podcast, Neil Chilson and Charlotte Slaiman will explore the surrounding debate.Featuring:- Neil Chilson, Senior Research Fellow for Technology and Innovation, Charles Koch Institute- Charlotte Slaiman, Policy Counsel for Competition, Public KnowledgeVisit our website – RegProject.org – to learn more, view all of our content, and connect with us on social media.

This Deep Dive episode brings you the audio from a recent teleforum co-hosted by the Regulatory Transparency Project and the Federalist Society's Environmental Law & Property Rights Practice Group.This episode deals with a pending lawsuit in the Western District of Washington: Lighthouse Resources v. Inslee. This case, which involves a dispute over permitting construction for a coal export terminal on Washington's Columbia river, has important implications for disputes between federal and state jurisdiction in environmental law and regulation.Featuring:- Glenn G. Lammi, Chief Counsel, Legal Studies Division and Director, Communications, Washington Legal Foundation- Donald Kochan, Parker S. Kennedy Professor in Law and Associate Dean for Research & Faculty Development, Chapman University, Dale E. Fowler School of Law Visit our website – https://RegProject.org – to learn more, view all of our content, and connect with us on social media.

This Deep Dive episode brings you the audio from the keynote address at the 2019 Pepperdine Law Review Symposium: "Regulating Tech: Present Challenges and Possible Solutions". In this keynote, Roger Alford, Deputy Assistant Attorney General for International Affairs, addresses a number of issues in antitrust regulation and enforcement, including consent decrees, consumer welfare, and the challenges of the emerging global digital markets.Featuring:- Roger P. Alford, Deputy Assistant Attorney General for International AffairsVisit our website – RegProject.org – to learn more, view all of our content, and connect with us on social media.

This Deep Dive episode brings you the recording of a teleforum co-sponsored with the Federalist Society’s Environmental Law practice group.In this episode, Adam Gustafson and Daniel Farber discuss various approaches to considering co-benefits in the cost-benefit analyses of new air pollution regulations, and whether the standing approach is the most efficient and cost-effective.Featuring:- Prof. Dan Farber, Sho Sato Professor of Law and Faculty Director of the Center for Law, Energy, and the Environment, University of California, Berkeley- Adam Gustafson, Partner, Boyden Gray & Associates PLLCVisit our website – RegProject.org – to learn more, view all of our content, and connect with us on social media.

This Deep Dive episode brings you the recording of the second panel from the Pepperdine Law Review's 2019 Symposium "Regulating Tech: Present Challenges and Possible Solutions".In this panel, the speakers debate varying standards for antitrust rule-making and enforcement. The merits of the Neo-Brandeisian "populist" approach are weighed against more recent "consumer-welfare" standards.Featuring:- Geoffrey A. Manne, Executive Director, International Center for Law & Economics- William Rinehart, Director of Technology and Innovation Policy, American Action Forum- Hal Singer, Managing Director, Econ One- Joanna Tsai, Vice President, Charles River Associates- [Moderator] Babette E. Boliek, Chief Economist, Federal Communications Commission and Professor of Law, Pepperdine School of LawVisit our website – RegProject.org – to learn more, view all of our content, and connect with us on social media.

This Deep Dive episode brings you the recording of the first panel from the Pepperdine Law Review's 2019 Symposium "Regulating Tech: Present Challenges and Possible Solutions".In this panel, the speakers discuss the implications of internet privacy legislation in both California and Europe on innovation, small businesses, and consumer protection.Featuring:- Thomas Hazlett, Hugh H. Macaulay Endowed Professor of Economics, Clemson College of Business- Matthew R. A. Heiman, Senior Fellow and Associate Director for Global Security, National Security Institute- Justin “Gus” Hurwitz, Associate Professor of Law and Co-Director of Space, Cyber, and Telecom Law Program, Nebraska College of Law- Chris Riley, Director, Public Policy, Mozilla- [Moderator] Anna Hsia, Head of West Coast Office, ZwillGenVisit our website – RegProject.org – to learn more, view all of our content, and connect with us on social media.

On Wednesday, March 27th, the Supreme Court heard oral argument in Kisor v. Wilkie. The Supreme Court granted certiorari in Kisor to decide whether to overrule Bowles v. Seminole Rock & Sand Co., 325 U.S. 410 (1945), and Auer v. Robbins, 519 U.S. 452 (1997). Seminole Rock and Auer are often cited for the proposition that when an administrative agency promulgates a regulation and the regulation is ambiguous, a reviewing court must give “controlling weight” to the agency’s interpretation of the regulation unless the interpretation is plainly erroneous or is inconsistent with the regulation. A number of the Court’s members have cast doubt on the soundness of the Seminole Rock/Auer deference doctrine in recent years. Many observers believe that the doctrine’s days are numbered.Featuring:- Karen Harned, Executive Director, NFIB Small Business Legal Center- Andrew Varcoe, Partner, Boyden Gray & Associates- [Moderator] Stephen Vaden, General Counsel, United States Department of AgricultureVisit our website – RegProject.org – to learn more, view all of our content, and connect with us on social media.