- Analyze the report and provide a one paragraph summary in your own words about the purpose and the
findings of the report. Avoid dismissing groups based on names of the sub-groups but instead focus on the
descriptions of each group’s values.
- Describe the seven groups of the political electorate in detail from the report. Provide a description and
concrete examples of what each group is about. Include data from the charts and graphs in the report. Start
with the groups that do not resonate with you. Explain what they stand for and why that does not speak to you.
- Describe the group(s) that spoke to you. Which group(s) best represent your viewpoints and values when it
comes to the political landscape? Explain why with thoughtful examples.
- Describe your thoughts on the polarized state of the American political landscape. Is it an urgent cause for
concern? Do you believe the polarization of American politics is getting better or worse? Provide concrete
examples to support your opinion.
- Finally, from the report and from your own critical analysis, what might help heal this great divide and allow
the country to work to successfully address societal issues and serious threats?
egislations of the Member States. The question, then, is whether this can still be regarded as a European concept of abuse. 5.3 Koefed: a loose use of the abuse concept Neither based on VAT directives nor Treaty freedoms, the Koefed decision is an interpretation of the Merger Directive, and in particular the anti-abuse provision of the Merger Directive contained in Article 11. Of relevance to the purpose of this paper is the second part of the decision which dealt with the doctrine of abuse of Community law. It started its analysis from Article 11 of the Merger Directive, which provided that a Member State: “May refuse to apply or withdraw the benefit of all or any part of the provisions… where it appears the merger… has at its principal objective or one of its principal objectives tax evasion or tax avoidance” It then went on to emphasise that in line with the general principle that abuse of rights is prohibited, Article 11(1)a of the Directive states that individuals: “must not improperly or fraudulently take advantage of provisions of Community law.” , along with stating that the application of Community law cannot cover transactions carried out not in the context of commercial operations, but “solely for the purpose of wrongfully obtaining advantages provided for by Community law”. In this instance it is apparent the Court adopted a rather flexible use of concepts which it had been using in its anti-abuse case law. Although Halifax formed a appeared to accept the prohibition of abuse of EU law as a general principle, the Court did not characterise the prohibition as such. The Court did not make the pivotal distinction between two anti-abuse doctrines. The first of these entails prohibiting tax advantages when tax considerations were the only way to determine the taxpayer’s legal behaviour and there was no other credible explanation based on objectively ascertainable facts. The second involves a doctrine in which tax considerations may be the principal (or one of the principal reasons) for explaining the taxpayer’s behaviour. In failing to make this distinction, the Court is seen to interpret the rule of “principal” or “one of the principal” tax reasons as formulated in Article 11 of the Directive as the expression of the “one and only” doctrine of Cadbury Schweppes. The Court then essentially gave the power of decision making back to the national court. By doing this, it left open the possibility for the national courts to control how the anti>GET ANSWER