great, so within that broad context of administrative flaw, steve rosenthal, steve shea has written anrticle that suggests -- and he gave us a preview of it, that the treasury actually has authority to take the juice out and i think some of the conclusions there have been contested by some. but first, why don't you just describe what those are. >> sure, happy to do that. could i slip in a quick question to sally. secretary lew told us that he thought any legislation tackling inversion should be retroactive to early may. was that sufficient pronouncement by the secretary that if he wanted to issue regulations to take the juice out of inversions that he could yet write regulations retroactive to may? was that clear enough in terms of the information provided or is that still to be determined? >> um, not willing to give a legal opinion here, but i would say that specification of a date without the accompanying what it is that he wants to be made retroactive would somehow fail to be sufficient notice. >> okay. thank you, sally. >> but i didn't say that. well, i did say it. yes. >> let's ta

with me is steve rosenthal, a senior fellow at the brookings tax policy center who has done a lot ofrk on inversions. what could change in the tax law coming down from the treasury secretary? >> thank you for including me. everyone agrees corporate inversions are a problem. congress have been on for the last few months, waiting for congress to act. many believe that treasury could act if congress does not do so. we have a couple weeks of congress before they recess, then people will turn their attention to secretary lew to see if he follows through on what he suggested, that treasury might get act on inversions. >> what would be the headline from that? what would be the big move the jack lew could make? >> the headline would be jack lew takes the juice out of tax inversions. right now, u.s. corporations that invert sidestep a lot of taxes. it becomes economically attractive for them to flee our country. there are pending legislative proposals to remove those incentives, but many believe that secretary lew can take steps on his own which would remove some of the tax incentives for u.s

finally, we have the urban institute tax policy center senior fellow steve rosenthal. efore joining the steve spent 25 years practicing tax law in washington, d.c. and also had a stint developing and directing tax legislation in the committee of taxation. we are lucky to have such experience and what i am going to do this pose some questions to the speakers to try to get them to pose some questions and raise conversations with each other. and then we will bring all of you and after that. but the again encourage you if you are online to make your question to event@urban.org and social media hash tag #live@urban. you may have picked this up on your chair i called a simple description of what we are talking about. and remember, while we have some of the leading experts. >> i can try that first let me say thank you for your kind introduction and note that the nyu magazine i am and i love my of nyu with a very heavy fund-raising city cut with a substantial could have a substantial grain of salt. so i want to put the issue of the so-called inversions into perspective and i wa

so within that broad context of administrative law, steve rosenthal, c. shea has written articles that suggest and he gave us a preview of the treasury has authority and i think some of the conclusions there has been contested by sun. the first, one that you describe what those are? >> i be happy to do that. can i slipped a quick question to sally. secretary lew told us he thought any legislation tackling the regime should be retroactive to early may. was that a sufficient pronouncement that the secretary that if you wanted to issue regulations to take the juice out of inversion that he could yet write regulations retroactive today? was that clear enough in terms of the information provided for us has still to be determined? >> not willing to give a legal opinion here, but i would say specification of the date without the accompanying what it is that he wants to be made richer active would somehow fail to be sufficient notice. but i didn't say that. yes. >> to talk about what treasury can do once they are ready to do some name. as sarah mentioned, profess