https://journals.library.columbia.edu/index.php/taxlaw <p>The&nbsp;<em>Columbia Journal of Tax Law</em>&nbsp;provides a needed forum for academics, practitioners, and policymakers to explore ideas in tax law and policy. The Journal aims to bridge the worlds of both theory and practice. Our commentary section,&nbsp;Tax Matters, features current perspectives from tax practitioners.</p> Columbia University Libraries en-US Columbia Journal of Tax Law 2169-4680 https://journals.library.columbia.edu/index.php/taxlaw/article/view/14478 <p>Tax policy offers a core tool for mitigating the sweeping public policy challenges of generative artificial intelligence (“AI”). Specifically, we propose a tax that would allow the public to own a share of AI itself, not just through future income tax liabilities or new excise taxes, but a proposed ownership structure that requires a one-time tax payment by generative AI firms in the form of equity.</p> <p>Fractional public ownership of AI would directly address four of the key harms of AI that have been well-documented in a deep and still expanding literature. First, many types of AI were built through the unauthorized use of millions of copyrighted works, allegedly amounting to copyright infringement on an unprecedented scale. Sharing ownership of AI would compensate injured creators alongside the broader public whose data was nonconsensually harvested. Second, AI is expected to pose massive labor market disruptions, but shared ownership would allow displaced workers to benefit from the profits of the technology substituting for their labor. Third, greater public voice in the corporate governance of AI could lead to greater scrutiny and bolder interventions in the ways AI has been shown to reproduce and compound many existing forms of discrimination. Finally, sharing the ownership of AI through government’s principal tool for redistribution, taxation, directly addresses the rapid wealth concentration and monopolization already underway with AI developers. This proposal can also work in tandem with targeted regulation of AI and private law remedies addressing AI’s many harms.</p> <p>Ultimately, the original contribution of this Article is to propose a unique in-kind tax payment structure that would require firms with ownership of AI to remit equity shares to the public. The Article describes multiple structures for this arrangement, drawing from existing models of fractional ownership used in private investment to serve as a paradigm for a partial public interest in AI. In total, this Article argues that many of the greatest concerns related to AI can be solved through sharing AI. And tax policy is the best tool to achieve this goal.</p> Jeremy Bearer-Friend Sarah Polcz Copyright (c) 2025 Jeremy Bearer-Friend, Sarah Polcz https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0 2025-12-30 2025-12-30 17 1 1 40 10.52214/cjtl.v17i1.14478 https://journals.library.columbia.edu/index.php/taxlaw/article/view/14479 <p>This Article points out the legal and ethical exposure American workers’ and retirees’ preparation of tax withholding forms presents when they seek to take advantage of a tax payment deferral technique the forms so readily offer. It details three withholding settings and how each presents potential legal risk for the worker or retiree. Two of the settings exploit a frequently touted safe harbor that allows withholding to occur very late in the year to eliminate penalties that normally apply for not having paid the taxes earlier in the year. This safe harbor presents a multi-billion-dollar time-value-of-money loss to the government. Besides legal risk for Americans who inaccurately complete the forms, this Article argues that the tax ethics and nascent tax-related Environmental, Social, and Governance (“ESG”) literature has not yet judged the behavior of those who delay a tax payment (even when done in full legal compliance), as opposed to those who engage in tax avoidance or evasion. It also argues that the government’s approach to withholding and its inconsistent and confusing forms are tantamount to the government becoming complicit in Americans’ deficient submissions. In some cases, the government is laying a perjury trap, especially for Americans in financial straits looking to their withholding form as a lifeline. The 2022 increase in the information that retirees must provide on their forms, now matching the details employees have always provided, expands prosecutorial reach to retirees. This Article offers numerous recommendations to improve the withholding process and forms to reduce the temptation to engage in the criticized behavior.</p> Stanley Veliotis Copyright (c) 2025 Stanley Veliotis https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0 2025-12-30 2025-12-30 17 1 41 92 10.52214/cjtl.v17i1.14479