Superficial Proxies for Simplicity in Tax Law

Emily L. Cauble
{"title":"Superficial Proxies for Simplicity in Tax Law","authors":"Emily L. Cauble","doi":"10.2139/SSRN.3162604","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Simplification of tax law is complicated. Yet, political rhetoric surrounding tax simplification often focuses on simplistic, superficial indicators of complexity in tax law such as word counts, page counts, number of regulations, and similar quantitative metrics. This preoccupation with the volume of enacted law often results in law that is more complex in a real sense. Achieving genuine simplification – a reduction in costs faced by taxpayers at various stages in the tax planning, tax compliance, and tax enforcement process – often requires enacting more law not less. In addition, conceptualizing simplicity in simplistic terms can leave the public vulnerable to policies advanced under the guise of simplification that have real aims that are less innocuous. A perennial example involves lawmakers proposing a reduction in the number of tax brackets under the heading of simplifying tax law. In reality, this change does very little, if anything, to simplify law in a meaningful sense, and its truer aim is to reduce progressivity in the tax code. Although the tax legislation ultimately enacted in December 2017 did not change the number of brackets applicable to individual taxpayers, political discourse preceding its enactment once again touted a reduction in the number of tax brackets as a simplifying measure.","PeriodicalId":83423,"journal":{"name":"University of Richmond law review. University of Richmond","volume":"2 1","pages":"329-371"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2018-04-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"3","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"University of Richmond law review. University of Richmond","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2139/SSRN.3162604","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 3

Abstract

Simplification of tax law is complicated. Yet, political rhetoric surrounding tax simplification often focuses on simplistic, superficial indicators of complexity in tax law such as word counts, page counts, number of regulations, and similar quantitative metrics. This preoccupation with the volume of enacted law often results in law that is more complex in a real sense. Achieving genuine simplification – a reduction in costs faced by taxpayers at various stages in the tax planning, tax compliance, and tax enforcement process – often requires enacting more law not less. In addition, conceptualizing simplicity in simplistic terms can leave the public vulnerable to policies advanced under the guise of simplification that have real aims that are less innocuous. A perennial example involves lawmakers proposing a reduction in the number of tax brackets under the heading of simplifying tax law. In reality, this change does very little, if anything, to simplify law in a meaningful sense, and its truer aim is to reduce progressivity in the tax code. Although the tax legislation ultimately enacted in December 2017 did not change the number of brackets applicable to individual taxpayers, political discourse preceding its enactment once again touted a reduction in the number of tax brackets as a simplifying measure.
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
税法简洁性的表面表征
税法的简化是复杂的。然而,围绕税收简化的政治言论往往侧重于税法复杂性的简单、肤浅的指标,如字数、页数、法规数量和类似的定量指标。这种对制定法律数量的关注往往导致法律在真正意义上更加复杂。实现真正的简化——减少纳税人在税务筹划、税务合规和税务执行过程的各个阶段所面临的成本——往往需要制定更多的法律,而不是更少。此外,将简单性概念化过于简单化,可能会使公众容易受到以简化为幌子提出的政策的影响,这些政策的真正目的并非无害。一个老生常谈的例子是,立法者在简化税法的标题下提议减少税收等级的数量。实际上,这一变化对于在有意义的意义上简化法律几乎没有任何作用,其更真实的目的是减少税法的累进性。虽然最终于2017年12月颁布的税法并没有改变适用于个人纳税人的税级数,但在其颁布之前的政治话语再次吹捧减少税级数是一种简化措施。
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
How (Not) to Talk about Abortion Tribute to Professor Carroll "John Was Third" The Recent Amendments to UCC Article 9: Problems and Solutions Harry L. Carrico and the Ideal of the Lawyer-Statesman Tribute to Chief Justice Harry L. Carrico
×
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