The Tax Cuts and Jobs Act was the most significant tax law in more than three decades, but the strategy for getting it enacted included a variety of maneuvers to avoid public scrutiny. As a result, many taxpayers did not know how they would be affected until they filed their own tax returns more than a year later. This Article identifies this lack of transparency as part of a persistent pathology of avoiding and constraining democratic inputs and responsiveness in U.S. federal tax lawmaking. Indeed, some scholars and policymakers have sought to channel tax lawmaking away from democratically grounded decisions and towards prescribed outcomes, justifying these moves with strands of public choice theory that are expressly critical of democratic decision making. I critique this democracy avoidance approach to tax lawmaking, and make the case that tax law should be a product of mechanisms that provide greater transparency, accountability and responsiveness to advance democratic legitimacy. I propose four reforms to tax lawmaking in the U.S. Congress to make resulting tax laws more democratically legitimate. One proposal is to require Congress to consider (and publicize) precisely how a proposed change in tax law is expected to affect different typical taxpayers, including taxpayers from each congressional district. This would allow actual taxpayers observing the lawmaking process to anticipate their treatment under a proposed law and in turn demand greater responsiveness to their real interests from their representatives. Other proposals build on this approach, calling for transparency as to the reasons why legislators support particular provisions and a radical—but, I argue, entirely achievable—reworking of the types of analysis produced in the federal tax legislative process for consumption by non-experts.
《减税与就业法案》(Tax Cuts and Jobs Act)是30多年来最重要的税法，但让它获得通过的策略包括了各种规避公众监督的策略。因此，许多纳税人直到一年多以后提交自己的纳税申报表时才知道自己将受到怎样的影响。本文认为，这种缺乏透明度是美国联邦税收立法中避免和限制民主投入和回应的持续病态的一部分。事实上，一些学者和政策制定者试图将税收立法从基于民主的决策转向规定的结果，并用明确批评民主决策的公共选择理论为这些举措辩护。我批评这种对税收立法的民主回避方法，并提出税法应该是提供更大透明度、问责制和响应机制的产物，以促进民主合法性。我建议对美国国会的税收立法进行四项改革，以使由此产生的税法更加民主合法。其中一项建议是要求国会准确考虑(并公布)一项拟议中的税法变化预计将如何影响不同的典型纳税人，包括来自每个国会选区的纳税人。这将使观察立法过程的实际纳税人能够预测他们在拟议法律下的待遇，进而要求他们的代表对他们的实际利益作出更大的反应。其他的建议建立在这种方法的基础上，要求立法者支持特定条款的原因透明化，以及对联邦税收立法过程中产生的分析类型进行彻底的改造，以供非专家使用，但我认为这是完全可以实现的。
{"title":"Democracy Avoidance in Tax Lawmaking","authors":"Clint Wallace","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.3920749","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3920749","url":null,"abstract":"The Tax Cuts and Jobs Act was the most significant tax law in more than three decades, but the strategy for getting it enacted included a variety of maneuvers to avoid public scrutiny. As a result, many taxpayers did not know how they would be affected until they filed their own tax returns more than a year later. This Article identifies this lack of transparency as part of a persistent pathology of avoiding and constraining democratic inputs and responsiveness in U.S. federal tax lawmaking. Indeed, some scholars and policymakers have sought to channel tax lawmaking away from democratically grounded decisions and towards prescribed outcomes, justifying these moves with strands of public choice theory that are expressly critical of democratic decision making. I critique this democracy avoidance approach to tax lawmaking, and make the case that tax law should be a product of mechanisms that provide greater transparency, accountability and responsiveness to advance democratic legitimacy. \u0000I propose four reforms to tax lawmaking in the U.S. Congress to make resulting tax laws more democratically legitimate. One proposal is to require Congress to consider (and publicize) precisely how a proposed change in tax law is expected to affect different typical taxpayers, including taxpayers from each congressional district. This would allow actual taxpayers observing the lawmaking process to anticipate their treatment under a proposed law and in turn demand greater responsiveness to their real interests from their representatives. Other proposals build on this approach, calling for transparency as to the reasons why legislators support particular provisions and a radical—but, I argue, entirely achievable—reworking of the types of analysis produced in the federal tax legislative process for consumption by non-experts.","PeriodicalId":54058,"journal":{"name":"EJournal of Tax Research","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.3,"publicationDate":"2021-09-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"80255264","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Since enactment of the Taxpayer First Act (TFA) in July 2019, the IRS has issued subregulatory guidance to implement the major new provisions affecting appeals, including a memorandum on taxpayer access to the appeals office and a memorandum on taxpayer access to case files prior to scheduled appeals conferences. In addition, recent court decisions have also dealt with appeals-related issues, including challenges over the scope of the right to appeal under the TFA. Although it can be argued the TFA simply rebranded the "IRS Independent Office of Appeals” because most of the appeals-related provisions formalized current IRS practice and procedure, the TFA has provided significant taxpayer rights.
{"title":"Recent Administrative and Judicial Developments in IRS Appeals","authors":"Frank G. Colella","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.3915461","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3915461","url":null,"abstract":"Since enactment of the Taxpayer First Act (TFA) in July 2019, the IRS has issued subregulatory guidance to implement the major new provisions affecting appeals, including a memorandum on taxpayer access to the appeals office and a memorandum on taxpayer access to case files prior to scheduled appeals conferences. In addition, recent court decisions have also dealt with appeals-related issues, including challenges over the scope of the right to appeal under the TFA. Although it can be argued the TFA simply rebranded the \"IRS Independent Office of Appeals” because most of the appeals-related provisions formalized current IRS practice and procedure, the TFA has provided significant taxpayer rights.","PeriodicalId":54058,"journal":{"name":"EJournal of Tax Research","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.3,"publicationDate":"2021-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"74791376","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2021-08-03DOI: 10.32721/ctj.2021.69.2.pf.robert-angers.e
Michael Robert-Angers, L. Godbout
The development and expansion of the digital economy is changing how companies interact with their customers and suppliers. Digital business models facilitate transactions between individuals and make it easier to conduct business abroad without the need for a physical presence. However, the growing use of such models creates many challenges for tax administrations. In particular, these new business practices call into question the traditional ways of collecting tax revenues, and thus force tax administrations to innovate. In Quebec, the context surrounding the legalization of the operations of the multinational Uber has led to an agreement between the company and the provincial government providing that Uber will carry out, on behalf of the drivers using its platform, tax compliance activities that employers would normally perform. Specifically, Uber now pays the sales tax applicable to drivers' transactions directly to Revenu Québec. This arrangement helps to protect commodity tax revenues in an economic sector where tax evasion is prevalent.
{"title":"Policy Forum: Promoting Tax Compliance by Regulating the Digital Economy - Quebec's Uber Initiative","authors":"Michael Robert-Angers, L. Godbout","doi":"10.32721/ctj.2021.69.2.pf.robert-angers.e","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.32721/ctj.2021.69.2.pf.robert-angers.e","url":null,"abstract":"The development and expansion of the digital economy is changing how companies interact with their customers and suppliers. Digital business models facilitate transactions between individuals and make it easier to conduct business abroad without the need for a physical presence. However, the growing use of such models creates many challenges for tax administrations. In particular, these new business practices call into question the traditional ways of collecting tax revenues, and thus force tax administrations to innovate. In Quebec, the context surrounding the legalization of the operations of the multinational Uber has led to an agreement between the company and the provincial government providing that Uber will carry out, on behalf of the drivers using its platform, tax compliance activities that employers would normally perform. Specifically, Uber now pays the sales tax applicable to drivers' transactions directly to Revenu Québec. This arrangement helps to protect commodity tax revenues in an economic sector where tax evasion is prevalent.","PeriodicalId":54058,"journal":{"name":"EJournal of Tax Research","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.3,"publicationDate":"2021-08-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"90927727","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
How do lawmakers support small businesses most deserving of assistance in places most in need of governmental support? As a means for approaching this question, this Essay examines two recent laws — the Paycheck Protection Program and the Opportunity Zone tax incentive. The Paycheck Protection Program was the cornerstone of the CARES Act, designed to keep employees on payroll during the worst parts of the COVID-19 pandemic. The Opportunity Zone incentive was implemented to provide economic development stimulus to neighborhoods identified as needing capital investment following the Great Recession.Both laws purported to support small businesses. However, in practice, both failed to deliver promised capital to the most marginalized business owners in places most in need. In the case of the Paycheck Protection Program, larger businesses, including those with access to capital from other non-governmental sources, were able to access initial rounds of federal funds because of their close relationship with Small Business Administration-certified lenders. In the case of the Opportunity Zone incentive, although there is no official reporting, voluntary data collection indicates that most investments are flowing into large commercial real estate developments instead of small businesses.There are a number of implications and research questions arising from analysis of these laws. This Essay seeks to draw out additional similarities and differences between these two laws. It seeks to both offer a critique of the Biden Administration’s proposals with respect to economic development interventions supporting small businesses in places in need and suggest improvements to these laws, as well as future ones.
立法者如何在最需要政府支持的地方支持最需要援助的小企业?为了探讨这个问题，本文考察了最近出台的两项法律——工资保护计划和机会区税收激励。工资保护计划是《关怀法案》的基石，旨在在COVID-19大流行最严重的时期保持员工的工资。机会区激励措施的实施是为了在大衰退之后为需要资本投资的社区提供经济发展刺激。这两项法律都旨在支持小企业。然而，在实践中，两者都未能向最需要的地方最边缘化的企业主提供承诺的资金。就工资保障计划而言，大型企业，包括那些能够从其他非政府来源获得资金的企业，由于与小企业管理局(Small Business administration)认证的贷款机构关系密切，能够获得最初几轮联邦资金。就机会区激励措施而言，尽管没有官方报告，但自愿收集的数据表明，大多数投资都流入了大型商业房地产开发项目，而不是小型企业。对这些规律的分析产生了许多启示和研究问题。本文试图找出这两个法律之间的其他异同。它试图对拜登政府关于在有需要的地方支持小企业的经济发展干预措施的建议提出批评，并对这些法律以及未来的法律提出改进建议。
{"title":"Supporting Small Businesses in Place","authors":"Edward W. De Barbieri","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.3888845","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3888845","url":null,"abstract":"How do lawmakers support small businesses most deserving of assistance in places most in need of governmental support? As a means for approaching this question, this Essay examines two recent laws — the Paycheck Protection Program and the Opportunity Zone tax incentive. The Paycheck Protection Program was the cornerstone of the CARES Act, designed to keep employees on payroll during the worst parts of the COVID-19 pandemic. The Opportunity Zone incentive was implemented to provide economic development stimulus to neighborhoods identified as needing capital investment following the Great Recession.Both laws purported to support small businesses. However, in practice, both failed to deliver promised capital to the most marginalized business owners in places most in need. In the case of the Paycheck Protection Program, larger businesses, including those with access to capital from other non-governmental sources, were able to access initial rounds of federal funds because of their close relationship with Small Business Administration-certified lenders. In the case of the Opportunity Zone incentive, although there is no official reporting, voluntary data collection indicates that most investments are flowing into large commercial real estate developments instead of small businesses.There are a number of implications and research questions arising from analysis of these laws. This Essay seeks to draw out additional similarities and differences between these two laws. It seeks to both offer a critique of the Biden Administration’s proposals with respect to economic development interventions supporting small businesses in places in need and suggest improvements to these laws, as well as future ones.","PeriodicalId":54058,"journal":{"name":"EJournal of Tax Research","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.3,"publicationDate":"2021-07-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"75231087","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2021-06-16DOI: 10.5195/taxreview.2021.131
Y. Brauner
Thinking Like a Source State in a Digital Economy
在数字经济中像源头国家一样思考
{"title":"Thinking Like a Source State in a Digital Economy","authors":"Y. Brauner","doi":"10.5195/taxreview.2021.131","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.5195/taxreview.2021.131","url":null,"abstract":"Thinking Like a Source State in a Digital Economy","PeriodicalId":54058,"journal":{"name":"EJournal of Tax Research","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.3,"publicationDate":"2021-06-16","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"75050866","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Since the beginning of his candidacy, there have been demands for President Donald J. Trump’s tax returns. Since his election, there have been non-stop court battles over his refusal to release personal financial information. Several House Committees have sought President Trump’s personal information on multiple different grounds, each claiming a valid legislative purpose for needing the information. President Trump argues the subpoenas do not serve a valid legislative purpose and that the House Committees are seeking this information to release to the public. The various sides have been locked in legal battles for years, with no end in sight.
While the House Committees seek President Trump’s personal financial information, the District Attorney’s Office of New York also seeks to subpoena the same information for a grand jury investigation into possible wrongdoing by President Trump in his business matters. Recently, the Supreme Court addressed each case in turn. The Court heard concerns ranging from the Supremacy Clause and separation of powers to whether a state may investigate a sitting President, and, if so, must the seeking party show a heightened showing of need. However, despite the recent Supreme Court decisions, further disputes involving President Trump’s release of personal financial information to both the House Committees and the District Attorney’s Office of New York are anticipated.
自唐纳德·j·特朗普(Donald J. Trump)总统开始竞选以来，就有人要求他提供纳税申报表。自他当选以来，围绕他拒绝公布个人财务信息的诉讼一直不绝于耳。几个众议院委员会以多种不同的理由寻求特朗普总统的个人信息，每个委员会都声称需要这些信息有一个有效的立法目的。特朗普总统辩称，传票没有有效的立法目的，众议院委员会正在寻求向公众发布这些信息。多年来，各方一直陷入法律斗争，看不到结束的迹象。在众议院委员会寻求特朗普总统的个人财务信息的同时，纽约地方检察官办公室也寻求传唤同样的信息，以供大陪审团调查特朗普总统在商业事务中可能存在的不当行为。最近，最高法院依次审理了这两个案件。最高法院听取了从最高条款和权力分立到一个州是否可以调查现任总统，如果是这样，寻求调查的一方必须表现出高度的需要。然而，尽管最近最高法院做出了裁决，但有关特朗普总统向众议院委员会和纽约地方检察官办公室公布个人财务信息的进一步争议预计会出现。
{"title":"Trumped: Constitutional Issues in the Trump Tax Return Cases","authors":"Beckett G. Cantley","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.3862065","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3862065","url":null,"abstract":"Since the beginning of his candidacy, there have been demands for President Donald J. Trump’s tax returns. Since his election, there have been non-stop court battles over his refusal to release personal financial information. Several House Committees have sought President Trump’s personal information on multiple different grounds, each claiming a valid legislative purpose for needing the information. President Trump argues the subpoenas do not serve a valid legislative purpose and that the House Committees are seeking this information to release to the public. The various sides have been locked in legal battles for years, with no end in sight.<br><br>While the House Committees seek President Trump’s personal financial information, the District Attorney’s Office of New York also seeks to subpoena the same information for a grand jury investigation into possible wrongdoing by President Trump in his business matters. Recently, the Supreme Court addressed each case in turn. The Court heard concerns ranging from the Supremacy Clause and separation of powers to whether a state may investigate a sitting President, and, if so, must the seeking party show a heightened showing of need. However, despite the recent Supreme Court decisions, further disputes involving President Trump’s release of personal financial information to both the House Committees and the District Attorney’s Office of New York are anticipated.","PeriodicalId":54058,"journal":{"name":"EJournal of Tax Research","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.3,"publicationDate":"2021-06-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"87070757","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Taxes are acknowledged by the United Nations to play a vital role in achieving the Sustainable Development Goals, while, according to the World Economic Forum, stakeholders’ increasing interest in societal impact and greater demand for transparency are encouraging firms to go beyond simply “playing by the rules”. How do these broadly agreed statements influence corporate tax policies? How does corporate governance enable sustainable tax policies? How could sustainable tax policies enhance the company’s business while pursuing the 2030 Agenda? The Author tackles these crucial topics through the analysis of the latest achievements in the matter of tax risk assessment and management, internal control system, and ESG reporting standards, with a focus on the European and Italian experience.
{"title":"What Corporate Tax Policy Has to Do with Sustainability (And How Companies Should Deal with It)","authors":"Alfio Valsecchi","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.3854974","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3854974","url":null,"abstract":"Taxes are acknowledged by the United Nations to play a vital role in achieving the Sustainable Development Goals, while, according to the World Economic Forum, stakeholders’ increasing interest in societal impact and greater demand for transparency are encouraging firms to go beyond simply “playing by the rules”. How do these broadly agreed statements influence corporate tax policies? How does corporate governance enable sustainable tax policies? How could sustainable tax policies enhance the company’s business while pursuing the 2030 Agenda? The Author tackles these crucial topics through the analysis of the latest achievements in the matter of tax risk assessment and management, internal control system, and ESG reporting standards, with a focus on the European and Italian experience.","PeriodicalId":54058,"journal":{"name":"EJournal of Tax Research","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.3,"publicationDate":"2021-05-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"80483259","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Experts predict that the use of smart contracts and other applications of blockchain technology can potentially revolutionize the manner in which we do business. Blockchain promises trust, transparency, improved access to shared information and records, as well as operational efficiency and cost savings. Thus, it is no surprise that companies and entrepreneurs are now developing blockchain solutions for an array of markets, ranging from real estate to health care. But, can this new technology revolutionize tax administration? Our current tax administration system suffers from a large tax gap, high compliance and administrative costs, and many inefficiencies. Blockchain’s core attributes may present a solution to these shortcomings.
This Article considers the underexplored role of blockchain in the tax space and concludes that blockchain has tremendous potential to revolutionize tax administration. In particular, implementing a blockchain-based platform for tax administration would present significant opportunities to digitalize and automate certain tax processes, minimize government information constraints, increase the transparency and trustworthiness of tax-related data, and reduce costs, data redundancies, and other inefficiencies involved in the tax administration process. However, many challenges and limitations must first be overcome to achieve these revolutionary goals. Thus, this Article also sets forth several normative steps for policymakers to undertake in supporting the development of blockchain and helping it to realize its full potential in the tax space. Taking an active role in exploring and understanding blockchain’s benefits, limitations and implications will place the government in the best position to harness the advantages of blockchain and modernize our system of tax administration.
{"title":"Can Blockchain Revolutionize Tax Administration?","authors":"Orly Mazur","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.3841785","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3841785","url":null,"abstract":"Experts predict that the use of smart contracts and other applications of blockchain technology can potentially revolutionize the manner in which we do business. Blockchain promises trust, transparency, improved access to shared information and records, as well as operational efficiency and cost savings. Thus, it is no surprise that companies and entrepreneurs are now developing blockchain solutions for an array of markets, ranging from real estate to health care. But, can this new technology revolutionize tax administration? Our current tax administration system suffers from a large tax gap, high compliance and administrative costs, and many inefficiencies. Blockchain’s core attributes may present a solution to these shortcomings. <br><br>This Article considers the underexplored role of blockchain in the tax space and concludes that blockchain has tremendous potential to revolutionize tax administration. In particular, implementing a blockchain-based platform for tax administration would present significant opportunities to digitalize and automate certain tax processes, minimize government information constraints, increase the transparency and trustworthiness of tax-related data, and reduce costs, data redundancies, and other inefficiencies involved in the tax administration process. However, many challenges and limitations must first be overcome to achieve these revolutionary goals. Thus, this Article also sets forth several normative steps for policymakers to undertake in supporting the development of blockchain and helping it to realize its full potential in the tax space. Taking an active role in exploring and understanding blockchain’s benefits, limitations and implications will place the government in the best position to harness the advantages of blockchain and modernize our system of tax administration.","PeriodicalId":54058,"journal":{"name":"EJournal of Tax Research","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.3,"publicationDate":"2021-05-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"83962135","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Congress passed the first round of checks as part of the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act (“CARES Act”) in late March 2020 to infuse more than $2 trillion into the national economy and address the overlapping medical and economic emergencies stemming from the COVID-19 pandemic. But incarcerated individuals were initially excluded from receiving stimulus checks, despite being eligible to receive them. This delay in delivering immediate cash assistance through the CARES Act to incarcerated individuals exposes the inadequacy of the tax administrative doctrine in resolving emergency relief disputes and how exclusionary measures embedded in the tax system and other economic policies inhibit the rehabilitation prospects of incarcerated people. Millions of Americans made personal and financial sacrifices in 2020 to aid the public health efforts, including incarcerated individuals. In return, those who were denied economic relief on an arbitrary basis by the government should not have to wait until the following tax year to seek a legal remedy. In other words, the legal framework for challenging tax decisions is too unsympathetic toward many taxpayers that rely on policies embedded in the tax code for immediate economic relief. Further, by providing nearly universal economic stimulus, Congress recognized the plight of incarcerated individuals during a pandemic and moved away from the exclusionary stimulus measures enacted in prior economic crises. Providing economic stimulus to those in incarceration is sound economic stimulus policy so long as punitive measures for individuals in and exiting incarceration are embedded in tax and economic policy.
{"title":"Enjoined and Incarcerated: Complications with Incarcerated People Seeking Economic Relief under the CARES Act","authors":"Mitchell Caminer","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.3839780","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3839780","url":null,"abstract":"Congress passed the first round of checks as part of the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act (“CARES Act”) in late March 2020 to infuse more than $2 trillion into the national economy and address the overlapping medical and economic emergencies stemming from the COVID-19 pandemic. But incarcerated individuals were initially excluded from receiving stimulus checks, despite being eligible to receive them. This delay in delivering immediate cash assistance through the CARES Act to incarcerated individuals exposes the inadequacy of the tax administrative doctrine in resolving emergency relief disputes and how exclusionary measures embedded in the tax system and other economic policies inhibit the rehabilitation prospects of incarcerated people. Millions of Americans made personal and financial sacrifices in 2020 to aid the public health efforts, including incarcerated individuals. In return, those who were denied economic relief on an arbitrary basis by the government should not have to wait until the following tax year to seek a legal remedy. In other words, the legal framework for challenging tax decisions is too unsympathetic toward many taxpayers that rely on policies embedded in the tax code for immediate economic relief. Further, by providing nearly universal economic stimulus, Congress recognized the plight of incarcerated individuals during a pandemic and moved away from the exclusionary stimulus measures enacted in prior economic crises. Providing economic stimulus to those in incarceration is sound economic stimulus policy so long as punitive measures for individuals in and exiting incarceration are embedded in tax and economic policy.","PeriodicalId":54058,"journal":{"name":"EJournal of Tax Research","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.3,"publicationDate":"2021-05-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"77282695","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
The tax code, at present, affords great discretion to the IRS in enforcing its individual provisions. This discretion contributes to distrust among taxpayers, bureaucratic inefficiency, and waste. By allocating funding for specific tax programs, Congress can restore trust, streamline the tax process, and make wiser use of taxpayer dollars.
{"title":"Who Says Life Is Fair? Itemizing the IRS Budget for Accountability","authors":"Luke Zahari","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.3901474","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3901474","url":null,"abstract":"The tax code, at present, affords great discretion to the IRS in enforcing its individual provisions. This discretion contributes to distrust among taxpayers, bureaucratic inefficiency, and waste. By allocating funding for specific tax programs, Congress can restore trust, streamline the tax process, and make wiser use of taxpayer dollars.","PeriodicalId":54058,"journal":{"name":"EJournal of Tax Research","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.3,"publicationDate":"2021-04-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"78008708","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：