I'm a retired academic who, as an accountant, taught mostly graduate level Federal tax law. Every semester I had one or two students propose a tax avoidance scheme and discussed it while patting themselves on the back and stating that they couldn't figure out why no one else was proposing it (this should have been a clue). This last phrase actually gives it away. I had no issues with student questions and even suggestions; it was the arrogance that I didn't like. To assume that because you've taken a course or two in a particular area of taxation you knew more than anyone else in the field is sad. These students would read a particular tax statute but ignored the regulations, other administrative rulings, and the judicial history of the statute. There is also a very important judicial concept in tax law - substance over form. Basically, it's insufficient to dot every "i" and cross every "t"; you have to follow the intent of the statute, which also means that you have to have an idea of the forest, not only the leaves. I also taught ethics to MBA students who believed that every business financial problem could be miraculously solved by laying off employees. I'd have to discuss stakeholder theory to demonstrate that laying off employees causes a negative ripple effect among families, communities, local businesses, government, etc. that more than offsets the positive one-time financial effect on the corporation's financial statements and the CEO's pay. Muskaswamy know that layoffs aren't a "real" solution, they simply don't care.
Trump fired the FEMA Lab Director during his last term who was streamlining coordination efforts during large scale disasters and could have save millions per disaster…. Capabilities lost that may never be recovered…..
I'm a retired academic who, as an accountant, taught mostly graduate level Federal tax law. Every semester I had one or two students propose a tax avoidance scheme and discussed it while patting themselves on the back and stating that they couldn't figure out why no one else was proposing it (this should have been a clue). This last phrase actually gives it away. I had no issues with student questions and even suggestions; it was the arrogance that I didn't like. To assume that because you've taken a course or two in a particular area of taxation you knew more than anyone else in the field is sad. These students would read a particular tax statute but ignored the regulations, other administrative rulings, and the judicial history of the statute. There is also a very important judicial concept in tax law - substance over form. Basically, it's insufficient to dot every "i" and cross every "t"; you have to follow the intent of the statute, which also means that you have to have an idea of the forest, not only the leaves. I also taught ethics to MBA students who believed that every business financial problem could be miraculously solved by laying off employees. I'd have to discuss stakeholder theory to demonstrate that laying off employees causes a negative ripple effect among families, communities, local businesses, government, etc. that more than offsets the positive one-time financial effect on the corporation's financial statements and the CEO's pay. Muskaswamy know that layoffs aren't a "real" solution, they simply don't care.
Trump fired the FEMA Lab Director during his last term who was streamlining coordination efforts during large scale disasters and could have save millions per disaster…. Capabilities lost that may never be recovered…..