The False Promise of Presidential Indexation

Tax eJournal Pub Date : 2018-05-24 DOI:10.2139/ssrn.3184051
Daniel Hemel, David Kamin
{"title":"The False Promise of Presidential Indexation","authors":"Daniel Hemel, David Kamin","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.3184051","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The Trump Administration faces mounting pressure from conservative thinkers and activists — including calls from its own National Economic Council director — to promulgate a U.S. Treasury Department regulation that indexes capital gains for inflation. Proponents of such a move — which is sometimes called “presidential indexation” — make three principal arguments in favor of the proposal: (1) that inflation indexing would be an economic boon; (2) that the President and his Treasury Department have legal authority to implement inflation indexing without further congressional authorization; and (3) that in any event, it is unlikely that anyone would have standing to challenge such an action in court. This Article evaluates the proponents’ three arguments and concludes that all are faulty. First, whatever the merits of comprehensive legislation that adjusts the taxation of capital gains and various other elements of the Internal Revenue Code for inflation, rifle-shot regulatory action that targets only the capital gains tax would be costly and regressive, would open a number of large loopholes that allow for rampant tax arbitrage, and would be unlikely to significantly enhance growth. Second, the legal authority for presidential indexation simply does not exist. The Justice Department under the first President Bush reached the conclusion in 1992 that the Executive Branch cannot implement inflation indexing unilaterally, and doctrinal developments in the last quarter century have — if anything — strengthened that conclusion. Third, a number of potential plaintiffs — including a Democrat-controlled House of Representatives, certain states, brokers subject to statutory basis reporting requirements, and investment funds whose tax liability could rise as a result of the regulation — would likely have standing to challenge presidential indexation in federal court. In sum, the promise of presidential indexation turns out too hollow, and calls for unilateral action should be spurned.","PeriodicalId":22313,"journal":{"name":"Tax eJournal","volume":"40 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2018-05-24","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Tax eJournal","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3184051","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

Abstract

The Trump Administration faces mounting pressure from conservative thinkers and activists — including calls from its own National Economic Council director — to promulgate a U.S. Treasury Department regulation that indexes capital gains for inflation. Proponents of such a move — which is sometimes called “presidential indexation” — make three principal arguments in favor of the proposal: (1) that inflation indexing would be an economic boon; (2) that the President and his Treasury Department have legal authority to implement inflation indexing without further congressional authorization; and (3) that in any event, it is unlikely that anyone would have standing to challenge such an action in court. This Article evaluates the proponents’ three arguments and concludes that all are faulty. First, whatever the merits of comprehensive legislation that adjusts the taxation of capital gains and various other elements of the Internal Revenue Code for inflation, rifle-shot regulatory action that targets only the capital gains tax would be costly and regressive, would open a number of large loopholes that allow for rampant tax arbitrage, and would be unlikely to significantly enhance growth. Second, the legal authority for presidential indexation simply does not exist. The Justice Department under the first President Bush reached the conclusion in 1992 that the Executive Branch cannot implement inflation indexing unilaterally, and doctrinal developments in the last quarter century have — if anything — strengthened that conclusion. Third, a number of potential plaintiffs — including a Democrat-controlled House of Representatives, certain states, brokers subject to statutory basis reporting requirements, and investment funds whose tax liability could rise as a result of the regulation — would likely have standing to challenge presidential indexation in federal court. In sum, the promise of presidential indexation turns out too hollow, and calls for unilateral action should be spurned.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
总统索引的虚假承诺
特朗普政府面临来自保守派思想家和活动人士越来越大的压力,包括其国家经济委员会主任的呼吁,要求颁布美国财政部的一项规定,将资本收益与通货膨胀挂钩。这一举措有时被称为“总统指数化”,其支持者提出了三个主要论点来支持这一提议:(1)通胀指数化将是一项经济福利;(2)总统及其财政部拥有实施通胀指数化的法定权力,无需国会进一步授权;(3)无论如何,任何人都不太可能有资格在法庭上对这种行为提出质疑。本文对支持者的三个论点进行了评价,并得出结论,认为它们都是错误的。首先,无论调整资本利得税和《国内税收法》(Internal Revenue Code)中针对通胀的各种其他要素的全面立法有何优点,只针对资本利得税的短枪式监管行动将是代价高昂和累退的,将打开许多巨大的漏洞,允许大量的税收套利,而且不太可能显著促进经济增长。其次,总统指数化的法律权威根本不存在。老布什总统领导下的司法部在1992年得出结论,行政部门不能单方面实施通货膨胀指数化,而过去25年的理论发展——如果有什么区别的话——强化了这一结论。第三,一些潜在的原告——包括民主党控制的众议院、某些州、受法定基础报告要求约束的经纪人,以及因监管而可能增加纳税义务的投资基金——可能有资格在联邦法院挑战总统指数化。总而言之,总统指数化的承诺太过空洞,应该摒弃单边行动的呼吁。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
New Puzzles in International Tax Agreements Analysts’ GAAP earnings forecast quality Workplace Transformation and Its Tax Compliance Implications Consumption Taxes and Multinational Tax Planning in the Digital Age - Evidence from the European Service Sector Tax Avoidance and Equity Pricing: The Importance of Countries’ Legal Institutions and Disclosure Regulations
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1