Introduction
With the invention of every new technology comes an inevitable question: how should that new technology be taxed? Generally speaking, the history of American tax law has followed a predictable pattern as it relates to the development of new technology. The new technology is invented and then the existing tax rules are adapted to provide clear answers as to how the new technology fits into the existing Internal Revenue Code (the "Code"). For example, as Internet became increasingly prominent in the economy, the existing tax rules were adapted as needed to the new and changing technology.1 Transactions that utilise blockchain technology obviously were not contemplated at the time existing rules of the Code were drafted. Therefore, as with past advances in technology, adaptation of existing rules is once again needed.
Some new questions raised by blockchain technology are merely questions of interpretation. Are tokens ever currency for purposes of the foreign currency rules? Is a token a commodity for purposes of Subpart F? How do we treat transactions (like a hard fork) that are unique to blockchain technology? These are important questions, and some of those questions – and answers – will be covered by this chapter.
Some of the questions are more esoteric and require deeper exegesis of an income tax law that has existed for more than 100 years, but whose drafters could not have foreseen the substantial changes in our economy that blockchain technology is bringing. Hard forks, soft forks, airdrops, mining, staking, liquid staking, swaps – the new terminology alone highlights the complexity and diversity of transactions on the blockchain. And many of these transactions are of a kind that is different from the transactions that characterised the traditional economy before the emergence of this new technology.
Therefore, to arrive at a methodology to apply the tax law to blockchain transactions very often requires a trip to first principles – to the cases and the questions that are asked (and answered) in first-year tax law courses all across the country. For example, in applying the federal income tax to property: what is income? When does one have income? How do we think about things such as value when you are exchanging highly volatile pieces of property?
Tax authorities have offered some limited guidance (generally informal and non-precedential guidance), but the taxation of blockchain transactions remains an area with minimal formal guidance, and virtually no formal guidance from the United States. As recognised by the U.S. Internal Revenue Service (the "Service") in its limited and informal published guidance, generally applicable principles related to property transactions apply to cryptocurrency.
This chapter addresses some, but by no means all, of the tax issues that are currently facing cryptocurrency today. It will begin with an overview of the limited guidance from the Service on the taxation of blockchain. It will then address some thoughts on several key issues in blockchain tax today.
IRS guidance on blockchain taxation
IRS Notice 2014-21
No provision of the Code or the regulations thereunder specifically addresses the tax treatment of virtual currency. There has been some informal guidance published by the Service, most notably Notice 2014-21, published in 2014. The Notice "describes how existing general tax principles apply to transactions using virtual currency". The Notice provides this guidance in the form of answers to frequently asked questions ("FAQs").
In the Notice, the Service defines "virtual currency" as:
[A] digital representation of value that functions as a medium of exchange, a unit of account, and/or a store of value. In some environments, it operates like "real" currency – i.e., the coin and paper money of the United States or of any other country that is designated as legal tender, circulates, and is customarily used and accepted as a medium of exchange in the country of issuance – but it does not have legal tender status in any jurisdiction.2
The Service further defines "convertible virtual currency":
Virtual currency that has an equivalent value in real currency, or that acts as a substitute for real currency, is referred to as "convertible" virtual currency. Bitcoin is one example of a convertible virtual currency. Bitcoin can be digitally traded between users and can be purchased for, or exchanged into, U.S. dollars, Euros, and other real or virtual currencies.3
For purposes of this chapter, the term "cryptocurrency" shall be equivalent to the concept of a convertible virtual currency. It is unclear to the authors whether there is any token that the Service would consider "virtual currency" but not consider "convertible virtual currency".
The Notice provides the Service's position on a number of key issues in the taxation of cryptocurrency. Its first, fundamental clarification is that for federal tax purposes, virtual currency should be treated as property. Thus, general tax principles applicable to property transactions apply to transactions using virtual currency.4 That is, basic principles of basis, gain/loss, et cetera, apply to virtual currency.5 Correspondingly, in accordance with the treatment of virtual currency as property, it is not treated as currency (like a pound or a euro) that could generate foreign currency gain or loss for U.S. federal tax purposes.6
The Notice also states that for U.S. tax purposes, transactions using virtual currency must be reported in U.S. dollars. Therefore, taxpayers will be required to determine the fair market value of virtual currency in U.S. dollars as of the date of payment or receipt. Accordingly, a taxpayer who exchanges one type of cryptocurrency for another type of cryptocurrency (say, exchanges Bitcoin for Solana) could have to recognise gain or loss on such an exchange. Because a federal tax liability must be paid in U.S. dollars, a taxpayer with a tax liability on such a transaction would need access to U.S. dollars to pay such liability.
The Notice also touches on valuation issues, stating that if a virtual currency is listed on an exchange and the exchange rate is established by market supply and demand, the fair market value of the virtual currency is determined by converting the virtual currency into U.S. dollars (or into another real currency that in turn can be converted into U.S. dollars) at the exchange rate, in a reasonable manner that is consistently applied. There are many cases, of course, where there is no exchange on which a particular token is traded, or there is minimal liquidity of a token, which can complicate questions of valuation. And there remains the question of whether there is a distinction between the concept of a "virtual currency" and a "convertible virtual currency".
The Notice also addresses a number of other issues relevant to the taxation of cryptocurrency. The Notice addresses, without any substantive analysis, the question of whether a taxpayer who "mines" new units of a cryptocurrency has taxable income upon the mining of the tokens, a topic to which this chapter will return.7 The Notice also addresses information reporting requirements, and notes that payments of virtual currency are subject to general information reporting requirements.8 Of course, myriad complications arise in how to implement information reporting requirements – this is another topic to which this chapter will return.
In response to certain countries (most notably El Salvador) adopting Bitcoin as a form of legal tender, the Service provided an update to Notice 2014-21. In that update – Notice 2023-34 – the Service clarified that:
In certain contexts, virtual currency may serve one or more of the functions of "real" currency – i.e., the coin and paper money of the United States or of any other country that is designated as legal tender, circulates, and is customarily used and accepted as a medium of exchange in the country of issuance – but the use of virtual currency to perform "real" currency functions is limited.
Aside from this relatively minor change, the Service did not and has not otherwise altered its conclusions in the 2014 Notice. Revenue Ruling 2019-24
Revenue Ruling 2019-24, the first revenue ruling issued by the Service on the taxation of cryptocurrency, addresses two situations. Situation (1) addresses whether a hard fork of a cryptocurrency creates taxable income under Section 61 if the taxpayer does not receive the new cryptocurrency. Situation (2) addresses whether a hard fork with an airdrop creates taxable income when the taxpayer receives the new cryptocurrency.
The Service defines several key terms in the Ruling. A "hard fork" is deemed to occur "when a cryptocurrency on a distributed ledger undergoes a protocol change resulting in a permanent diversion from the legacy or existing distributed ledger". A hard fork may result in the creation of a new cryptocurrency in addition to the old cryptocurrency. The Service defines "airdrop" as "a means of distributing units of a cryptocurrency to the distributed ledger addresses of multiple taxpayers".
The Service's analysis focuses on a key inquiry – whether the taxpayer has "dominion and control" over cryptocurrency after a hard fork. This test comes from the landmark U.S. Supreme Court case Commissioner v. Glenshaw Glass. 9 In that case, the Court defined "income" as "undeniable accessions to wealth, clearly realized, and over which the taxpayers have complete dominion".10 In analysing whether the taxpayer had income upon a hard fork or an airdrop, the Court looked to this fundamental caselaw test. In situation (1), the Service concluded that the taxpayer did not have income under Section 61 since the taxpayer did not receive new cryptocurrency and, accordingly, the taxpayer does not have an accession to wealth.
In situation (2), the Service drew a different conclusion because the taxpayer received the new cryptocurrency via an airdrop. Accordingly, the taxpayer was deemed to have an accession to wealth. Because the taxpayer is able to dispose of the cryptocurrency immediately, the Ruling holds that the taxpayer has dominion and control over the new cryptocurrency at the time of the airdrop. This dominion and control is generally established when the transaction is recorded on the distributed ledger (that is, when the transaction is recorded on the blockchain), subject to the important limitation discussed below. The Service further concluded that the taxpayer's basis in the new cryptocurrency is equal to the fair market value of the new cryptocurrency when the airdrop is recorded on the distributed ledger, and the taxpayer's income is ordinary in character.
According to the Service's interpretation, the "taxpayer does not have receipt of cryptocurrency when the airdrop is recorded on the distributed ledger if the taxpayer is not able to exercise dominion and control over the cryptocurrency". Accordingly, a taxpayer would not have dominion and control over a cryptocurrency if such cryptocurrency were in a wallet managed through an exchange that does not support the newly created cryptocurrency. The key consideration is that the Service asserts that the taxpayer has income when the taxpayer is able to transfer, sell, exchange or otherwise dispose of the cryptocurrency.
The Service further addresses some of these issues in Chief Counsel Advice ("CCA") 202114020. The CCA addresses the tax consequences for an individual who received Bitcoin Cash as a result of the Bitcoin hard fork on August 1, 2017. In applying the ruling of Revenue Ruling 2019-24 to the particular facts of the Bitcoin/Bitcoin Cash hard fork, the Ruling noted a few key things. First, it suggested that the Service would be flexible in taxpayers' reasonable attempts to value cryptocurrency, finding that taxpayers "can determine the Bitcoin Cash's fair market value using any reasonable method, such as adopting the publicly published price value at a cryptocurrency exchange or cryptocurrency data aggregator". This is critical because it can often be difficult, if not impossible, to determine the fair market price of crypto at the exact moment of an airdrop. It also confirmed the Service's position that dominion and control was tied to the ability to sell the token – the delivery of the token to a cryptocurrency exchange was not, in and of itself, sufficient to establish dominion and control where that cryptocurrency exchange did not support the new token.
Revenue Ruling 2023-14
On July 31, 2023, the Service issued Revenue Ruling 2023-14, which sets forth the Service's position as to when certain staking "rewards" are taxable income.
The Ruling analyses a fact pattern where a cash method taxpayer "stakes 200 units of [token] M and validates a new block of transactions on the M blockchain, receiving 2 units of M as validation rewards". The Ruling concludes that the taxpayer must include the "fair market value of the validation rewards received" in gross income during "the taxable year in which the taxpayer gains dominion and control over the validation rewards".
Our analysis of this Ruling is discussed below in our discussion of mining and staking.
Other guidance
In various other forms of informal guidance, the Service has presented its position on issues relevant to taxpayers in cryptocurrency. For example, in CCM 202035011, the Service addresses the question of crowdsourcing services. The Memorandum concludes that a taxpayer who receives virtual currency in exchange for performing a microtask on a crowdsourcing platform has received consideration in exchange for performing a service, and the convertible virtual currency is taxable as ordinary income. And in CCA 202124008, the Service states its position that exchanges of different cryptocurrencies were not like-forlike exchanges under the pre-TCJA (Tax Cuts and Jobs Act) version of Section 1031.
The Service has also issued some other forms of informal guidance. Some of this has been in the form of FAQs. These questions and answers are informal guidance that even the Service cannot rely on. Per the Service's website:
FAQs are a valuable alternative to guidance published in the Bulletin because they allow the IRS to more quickly communicate information to the public on topics of frequent inquiry and general applicability. FAQs typically provide responses to general inquiries rather than applying the law to taxpayer-specific facts and may not reflect various special rules or exceptions that could apply in any particular case. FAQs that have not been published in the Bulletin will not be relied on, used, or cited as precedents by Service personnel in the disposition of cases.11
Key topics in blockchain tax
Although IRS guidance has only touched on a few topics in the taxation of cryptocurrency, there are numerous issues related to the taxation of cryptocurrency and blockchain transactions that are highly important and relevant to practitioners in the field. In the following section, we will discuss a few of those transactions.
Staking/mining
An area of tax law that has gained considerable attention in the past couple of years is staking. Staking is a type of transaction that only arises in the context of the blockchain. The transaction comes about due to the need for a blockchain to validate transactions recorded on that blockchain using its native token. Two approaches to this problem are mining and staking.
Mining, as used here, refers to the creation of tokens through an on-chain validation process in blockchains with a proof-of-work consensus mechanism. In proof-of-work cryptocurrencies (like Bitcoin), the process of mining requires nodes to solve computationally complicated math problems using a computer. Each node attempts to solve the problem repeatedly until one node is successful (computing a hash). With this hash, the node can then build a verified blockchain, and is able to likewise create a new token (or tokens).
Staking, on the other hand, uses a different process that results in the creation of new tokens. Staking, as used here, refers to the creation of tokens through an on-chain validation process in blockchains with a proof-of-stake consensus mechanism. The use of existing tokens and computing power together validate transactions that use other tokens native to that blockchain through a process referred as "staking". Persons use tokens native to that blockchain to engage in the staking process, which also requires computing power to validate transactions.
Through staking, individual stakers create new blocks on the public blockchain that are an immutable record of transactions on the blockchain. As new blocks are created, new tokens are created due to the actions of the staker, which in turn reflect the creation of the new blocks in the expansion of the blockchain.
As noted above, the Service provided a statement in Notice 2014-21 about mining, but has otherwise not opined on the topic.12 But the Service (except through the government's litigation posture in the Jarrett case discussed below) has never addressed the question of staking.
Jarrett v. United States is a case of first impression on the taxation of native, on-chain staking on a proof-of-stake blockchain.13 The case involves an individual – a small business owner from Nashville, Tennessee – who staked tokens on a blockchain known as Tezos.
Jarrett is arguing that new units of Tezos ("Tezos tokens") created through staking are created property and should therefore not be taxed until the new Tezos tokens are sold. Jarrett's argument relies on generally applicable tax principles that apply to newly created property, arguing that those principles apply to cryptocurrency tokens. As put in the Complaint:
The federal income tax law does not permit the taxation of tokens created through a staking enterprise. Like a baker who bakes a cake using ingredients and an oven, or a writer who writes a book using Microsoft Word and a computer, Mr. Jarrett created property. Like the baker or the writer, Mr. Jarrett will realize taxable income when he first sells or exchanges the new property he created, but the federal income tax law does not permit the taxation of the Jarretts simply because Mr. Jarrett created new property.14
In December 2021, after answering the Complaint and nearing the end of fact discovery, the U.S. Department of Justice proffered a refund to the Jarretts for the full amount sought, including interest.
The District Court granted the government's motion to dismiss the Complaint on the grounds that the case is moot because the taxpayers were proffered a refund. The Jarretts have appealed this dismissal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit. In May 2023, the Sixth Circuit heard oral argument in the case. Three business days after oral argument, the Service issued Revenue Ruling 2023-14.
As noted above, Revenue Ruling 2023-14 sets forth the Service's position with respect to staking "rewards". What the Ruling does not say is far more significant than what it does say.
First, the facts that the Service rules on do not state that the tokens are newly created property with respect to which the taxpayer is the first owner. Of course, not all staking arrangements involve newly created property. For example, there are many situations where a person engaged in staking receives tokens from a preexisting pool of tokens (and is "paid" such tokens for providing services by a governance foundation, or some other entity). To the extent the Ruling simply stands for the proposition that a taxpayer who receives preexisting tokens from another party recognises income at the time the taxpayer gains dominion and control over those tokens, we agree with the conclusion as being straightforward.
However, in a wide array of staking transactions, this simply is not how things work. The Ruling does mention, as background, that "validation rewards typically consist of one or more newly created units of the cryptocurrency native to that blockchain" – a fact pattern typical of how tokens are created by stakers on proof-of-stake blockchains – but this statement is conspicuously absent from the facts on which the Service rules in the Ruling itself.
Second, the Ruling's application of the landmark U.S. Supreme Court case Commissioner v. Glenshaw Glass Co. is silent as to a necessary element of the Court's holding. Glenshaw Glass sets forth the classic definition of income, requiring "instances of undeniable accessions to wealth, clearly realized, and over which the taxpayers have complete dominion".15 The Ruling concludes that the taxpayer acceded to wealth, and states that the taxpayer has income when it gains complete dominion over the tokens, but the Ruling is conspicuously silent about clear realisation.
Thus, even if the facts posited by the Ruling are stretched beyond their most natural reading and the Ruling is construed as applying to situations where a staker creates new tokens and is the first owner of such tokens, the Ruling never concludes, as it must under Glenshaw Glass, that the taxpayer has a realisation event. The Ruling also fails to address a century of other caselaw and guidance that supports the non-taxability of self-created property. The Service cannot, of course, unilaterally override the Supreme Court and other judicial opinions.
Finally, we note that revenue rulings are not binding law; they merely reflect the Service's opinion of the law. Courts (and in particular the Tax Court) generally do not defer to the Service's analysis in a revenue ruling. And, to the extent the Service's analysis applies to tokens that are newly created through the staking process on a proof-of stake network, we believe the Ruling is, at best, incomplete in its analysis.
This Ruling marks the first time that the Service has stated any published position on staking. The Ruling's analysis circumvents key factual and legal issues regarding whether newly created tokens through staking should be subject to taxation at the time of creation.
DAOs
An area of increasing interest and importance within the tax law of cryptocurrency is the taxation of decentralised autonomous organisations (or "DAOs"). In short, DAOs are organisations constructed by rules encoded in a computer program. The program that encodes these rules is generally open source. DAOs are decentralised and are thus governed by the tokenholders.
Among other issues, DAOs raise a fundamental question of entity classification. What is a DAO, for tax purposes? Is it a corporation? A partnership? A trust? None of the above? Of course, the answer is often fact-specific, and there is a variety of arrangements that could reasonably be called DAOs. This extraordinary variance suggests that there is not (and should not be) a one-size-fits-all answer. Each DAO must be evaluated under the basic principles of tax laws.
In 2022, Senators Lummis and Gillibrand proposed legislation that would mandate that DAOs be de facto business entities.16 The net effect of this would require all DAOs to be classified as either a partnership or a corporation. Again, the authors disagree with this onesize-fits-all approach. The term "DAO" does not describe a single arrangement; rather, it refers to a decentralised manner of governing the arrangement, and the underlying structure or economics of such arrangement (and the so-called "wrappers" that are used in connection with such DAOs) can vary widely.
Furthermore, DAOs with an international flavour often require an in-depth international tax analysis. One must consider whether a DAO is a corporation, a controlled foreign corporation, or a passive foreign investment company ("PFIC") (which we further discuss below). The application of these rules in the context of DAOs can be unclear. In the coming years, the authors expect questions about the taxation of DAOs to become increasingly prominent, and to increase in importance as this form of doing business becomes more widespread.
PFICs in cryptocurrency
U.S.-based investors in crypto enterprises often need to consider whether that investment will be considered an investment in a PFIC. The PFIC classification applies to investments in stock in foreign corporations by a U.S. person, with certain exclusions. The issue is particularly prominent within the blockchain industry because many blockchain enterprises and companies are located outside of the United States for non-tax regulatory reasons. Minority U.S. investors thus must carefully consider PFIC concerns before making an investment. In general, for an entity to be a PFIC, 50 per cent of its assets must be held for the production of passive income, or 75 per cent of its income must be passive.17
It is possible (particularly with market fluctuations) for an entity to have a significant proportion of passive assets even if the entity is primarily operating an active business. This has historically been a concern with cash-heavy, early-stage companies and can be a concern in the context of cryptocurrency.
Crypto loans
Another area of importance to cryptocurrency companies is how loans denominated in cryptocurrency are treated for tax purposes. Given the use of cryptocurrency as, in effect, a form of money, one type of transaction that has grown in prominence is to loan cryptocurrencies between parties in a manner similar to cash. But the tax treatment of such transactions makes loans of cryptocurrency a potential trap for the unwary.
What does it even mean to "loan" a fungible cryptocurrency token? Because cryptocurrency is generally treated as property for tax purposes, and not as money, characterisation as a "loan" is often not appropriate. Perhaps the best analogy is to a rental of fungible units as property – say, a loan of a commodity such as ounces of gold or silver.
Another possible analogy for loans denominated in cryptocurrency might be to loans of securities. Currently, loans of cryptocurrencies do not fall under the Code Section 1058 safe harbour for loans in securities. We note that this treatment has been suggested in the proposed Lummis/Gillibrand legislation. Section 1058 provides that no gain or loss is recognised on the transfer of certain securities pursuant to an agreement that satisfies certain requirements: (i) the agreement provides for the return to the transferor of identical securities; (ii) the agreement requires that payments be made to the transferor of amounts equivalent to all interest, dividends and other distributions that the owner of the securities is entitled to receive during the term of the loan; and (iii) the agreement does not reduce the risk of loss or opportunity for gain of the transferor of the securities in the securities transferred. Proper documentation of such "loans" is particularly important to achieve the desired tax treatment (including, for example, the proper taking into account of hard forks or airdropped property).
Information reporting
In 2021, Congress passed the first-ever bill to contain language concerning digital assets. This bill expands the current reporting requirements under Section 6045 of the Code, which requires any "brokers" to file information returns about its customers to the Service. This bill's expanded definition of "broker" would include "any person who (for consideration) is responsible for and regularly provides any service effectuating transfers of digital assets on behalf of another person". "Digital assets" are broadly defined as "any digital representation of value which is recorded on a cryptographically secured distributed ledger or any similar technology as specified by the Secretary". This bill's language is open to broad interpretation, which could obligate persons designated as "brokers" to provide the Service with information they do not actually possess.
The bill also includes several other changes to reporting requirements. First, the bill introduces the requirement that brokers report any transfer of a digital asset that is not part of a sale or exchange from an account maintained by the broker to an account maintained by a non-broker. This new requirement appears to target the transfer of digital assets from an exchange account into a cold wallet (an account not regulated by an exchange).
These requirements were scheduled to go into effect on January 1, 2023 and to apply to all transactions taking place in and after the 2023 calendar year. However, at the time of writing, the Service has not issued any guidance for the application of these rules, nor has Treasury issued proposed or final regulations.
Additionally, the bill expanded the cash reporting rules of Section 6050I to include crypto transactions of at least $10,000. The expanded reporting rules would require that any person operating a trade or business that receives payment in digital assets valued at more than $10,000 file an information return with the Service. This return would include information, such as the name, address, and social security number, of the person making such a payment. Just as in the case of the broker reporting rules, these regulations could require that individuals report information that they do not actually possess.
On August 25, 2023, Treasury and the Service released proposed regulations interpreting these rules. The proposed regulations address the treatment of gross proceeds and basis reporting by brokers in digital assets as well as the determination of amount realised and basis for digital asset transactions. The proposed regulations expand the meaning of "effect" within the definition of broker. Existing final regulations, which interpret the law before the Infrastructure Act's amendments, provide that a person is a broker if such person stands ready to effect sales made by others and, in addition, that a person effects sales if such person is an agent for a party in a sale such that the agent ordinarily would know the gross proceeds from the sale.
Furthermore, the proposed regulations state that a person can effect a transaction (and thus be a broker and subject to the reporting rules) if such person "knows or is in a position to know the identity of the party that makes the sale and the nature of the transaction potentially giving rise to gross proceeds from the sale". This "in a position to know" standard represents a departure from the usual "knows or has reason to know" standard used in other parts of the Code and regulations relating to reporting. According to Treasury, "[t]he ability to modify the operation of a platform to obtain customer information is treated as being in a position to know that information".
These rules are intended to be quite expansive. Treasury and the Service expect that this clarified proposed definition will ultimately require operators of some platforms generally referred to as decentralised exchanges to collect customer information and report sales information about their customers, if those operators otherwise qualify as brokers. Treasury has explicitly stated its intent for these rules to apply to certain decentralised finance platforms.
Conclusion
Blockchain technology presents new and potentially revolutionary ways of conducting business. While many arrangements utilising blockchain technology are unfamiliar, basic principles of income tax law can often be used and adapted (and should often be used and adapted) to provide answers to the myriad questions this new technology brings. It is an exciting time for the tax law.
Footnotes
1. An example would be the application of sourcing rules to cloud computing technologies. See Prop. Treas. Reg. Section 1.861-19.
2. Notice 2014-21. Notably, at least two countries have granted Bitcoin legal tender status. Despite this, it seems straightforward that the Service will continue to treat Bitcoin as a "virtual currency" for purposes of Notice 2014-21.
3. Notice 2014-21.
4. Id. at A-1. The Service has consistently held this position in all published guidance, and the authors agree with this characterisation. See, e.g., CCM 202035011. However, we note that in Jarrett v. United States, discussed later in this chapter, the government denied this in its answer. Answer, paragraph 30, Jarrett v. United States, No. 3:21-cv00419 (M.D. Tenn., Aug. 27, 2021).
5. Notice 2014-21 at A-3.
6. Id. at A-2.
7. Id. at A-8, A-9.
8. Id. at A-12, A-13.
9. 348 U.S. 426 (1955).
10. Glenshaw Glass, 348 U.S. at 431.
12. See Notice 2014-21 at A-3.
13. The authors are counsel to Joshua Jarrett in this case.
14. Complaint, paragraph 4, Jarrett v. United States, No. 3:21-cv-00419 (M.D. Tenn., Aug. 27, 2021).
15. Glenshaw Glass, 348 U.S. at 431 (emphasis added).
16. https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/senate-bill/4356/text
17. See generally Section 1297 et seq.
Originally published by Global Legal Insights.
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.
