CBA Record March-April 2024

companies that retrain their would-be displaced employees for new jobs—and it can be achieved by modifying an already existing policy: the Work for Opportunity Tax Credit. WOTC gives employers tax credits when they hire employees from a particular “Targeted Group,” such as ex felons. Amending the WOTC to include low-skill workers in the Targeted Group would create an incentive to retain many employees who would otherwise be replaced by automation. Defining the term “low-income worker” would be uncomplicated: the government’s goal is to incentivize human employment, and the employer’s goal would be to receive the tax benefit, making a broad definition mutually agreeable. Funding for this tax credit could come from the very people most likely to benefit from it by investing in automation: big corporations. The Robot Tax aims to address the serious social problem of human work force displacement, but its ability to do so effectively is questionable. Instead, this article proposes an alternative solution of amending the already existing WOTC to incentivize employers to retain and retrain workers who would otherwise be replaced by automation. (c) property division. Additional rulings addressed the following: • A “fee enhancement provision” with no standards was too broad to enforce. Grund & Leavitt, P.C. v. Stephenson, 2022 IL App (1st) 210619-U. • A judge who said that they should recuse themselves from trial could val idly conduct the trial. In re Marriage of Cummings, 2022 IL App (1st) 211507. • Ex-husband must be served with motion to terminate his parental rights. In re Adoption of Konieczny, 2022 IL App (2d) 210333. • A 26-year-old claim for money damages for failure to pay money under a divorce judgment was barred by the statute of limitations. In re Marriage of Poulsom, 20222 IL App (1st) 220100.

REVIEW OF REVIEWS

CONTINUED

a modification of maintenance is not an abuse of discretion. In re Marriage of Staszak, 2022 IL App (2d) 210427-U. • Salary decreases from a good faith retire ment may constitute a change in cir cumstance. In re Marriage of Bartlett, 2022 IL App (1st) 201358. • Parties must explicitly provide that maintenance is non-modifiable when intended. In re Marriage of Podolsky, 2022 IL App (5th) 210195-U. • A catch-all provision of non-modifiabil

ity precludes modifying maintenance. In re marriage of Scarp and Rahman, 2022 IL App (1st) 210711. • A party cannot attack or modify a 12-year-old child support order because of an incorrect termination date. In re Marriage of Hampton, 2022 IL App (4th) 210528-U. Courts also ruled on numerous other family law issues, including (a) problems arising out of the Covid-19 pandemic, (b) allocation of parental responsibility, and

They Took Our Jobs! The Robot Tax, Its Impracticability, And a Better Solution By Gilberto Gonzalez, 2022 U. Ill. L. Rev. Online 54 (June 18, 2022) By Ariana Wagner, 3L at Northwestern Pritzker School of Law

Expansion of AI could dramatically decrease federal revenue derived from labor. Yet the Tax Code incentivizes work force automation by replacing high pay roll taxes with tax deductions for business expenses and depreciated machinery. This article considers one way the government may respond–the “Robot Tax”–and pro poses a simpler solution by modifying existing law. The Robot Tax focuses on a targeted approach designed to address high unem ployment. This tax would be imposed on companies using automated machinery on a per-robot basis. Each robot replacing a human worker would prompt tax liability comparable to the payroll tax the employer would otherwise face using human workers, thereby equalizing tax liability for employ ers whether they hire a human employee or replace that labor with a robot. Although this tax is meant to promote human labor and reduce unemployment, the author argues it may achieve neither of these goals. Though a tax liability equal to

payroll tax creates some deterrence, it does not fully correct for the tax deductions available for machinery, business expense and depreciation deductions, effectively making the increased tax liability less than those forgone payroll taxes. Further, because each company faces unique cost benefits with automation, this per-robot tax would impose unequal incentives to retain human employees. And employ ers will simply pass down the tax to con sumers through increased prices. Finally, defining “robot” is problematic: the gov ernment will desire a broad definition to maximize revenue, but companies will prefer a narrow one to avoid taxation. The author rejects the Robot Tax and proposes a direct focus on reducing unem ployment by incentivizing companies to develop advanced skills among displaced employees. This strategically changes the focus from robots replacing jobs to robots creating room for new types of jobs. This alternative could be implemented through the Tax Code by providing tax benefits to

46 March/April 2024