评议委员会:“对财政机制最有用的补充”

Dominic de Cogan, L. Oats, Mark Billings
{"title":"评议委员会:“对财政机制最有用的补充”","authors":"Dominic de Cogan, L. Oats, Mark Billings","doi":"10.5040/9781782257929.ch-004","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"In this chapter we examine the Board of Referees, an innovative administrative body established in 1915 with the remit of resolving certain questions relating to the assessment of the wartime Excess Profits Duty. The Board is particularly notable for its composition of eminent members of the practical trades, as well as professional accountants and even the occasional MP. We argue that the Board addressed certain shortcomings of the administrative architecture of the time, in particular the absence of an obvious way to control or counterbalance the great expansion of Inland Revenue discretions during wartime. We also highlight the support that the Board provided to the tax authorities with their ready commercial expertise and their ability to buy the wider business community into a tax that could have been very controversial. In terms of the legal framework, the Board was carefully designed but did undergo a significant degree of scope creep, particularly in 1922 which is when our study ends. The debates of the time have some resemblance – and therefore relevance – to recent discussions about the General Anti-Abuse Rule Panel, but the parallels should not be exaggerated.","PeriodicalId":123337,"journal":{"name":"History of Accounting eJournal","volume":"84 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2015-09-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"2","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"The Board of Referees: ‘A Most Useful Addition to Fiscal Machinery’\",\"authors\":\"Dominic de Cogan, L. Oats, Mark Billings\",\"doi\":\"10.5040/9781782257929.ch-004\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"In this chapter we examine the Board of Referees, an innovative administrative body established in 1915 with the remit of resolving certain questions relating to the assessment of the wartime Excess Profits Duty. The Board is particularly notable for its composition of eminent members of the practical trades, as well as professional accountants and even the occasional MP. We argue that the Board addressed certain shortcomings of the administrative architecture of the time, in particular the absence of an obvious way to control or counterbalance the great expansion of Inland Revenue discretions during wartime. We also highlight the support that the Board provided to the tax authorities with their ready commercial expertise and their ability to buy the wider business community into a tax that could have been very controversial. In terms of the legal framework, the Board was carefully designed but did undergo a significant degree of scope creep, particularly in 1922 which is when our study ends. The debates of the time have some resemblance – and therefore relevance – to recent discussions about the General Anti-Abuse Rule Panel, but the parallels should not be exaggerated.\",\"PeriodicalId\":123337,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"History of Accounting eJournal\",\"volume\":\"84 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2015-09-10\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"2\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"History of Accounting eJournal\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.5040/9781782257929.ch-004\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"History of Accounting eJournal","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.5040/9781782257929.ch-004","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 2

摘要

在本章中,我们将研究评议委员会,这是一个成立于1915年的创新行政机构,其职责是解决与战时超额利润税评估有关的某些问题。该委员会特别值得注意的是,它的成员包括实际行业的杰出成员,以及专业会计师,甚至偶尔还有议员。我们认为,该委员会解决了当时行政架构的某些缺陷,特别是缺乏一种明显的方法来控制或平衡战时国税局自由裁量权的大幅扩张。我们还强调,委员会向税务当局提供了支持,他们拥有现成的商业专业知识,并有能力说服更广泛的商界接受一项可能非常有争议的税收。在法律框架方面,联委会是精心设计的,但确实经历了相当程度的范围蔓延,特别是在我们的研究结束的1922年。当时的辩论与最近关于一般反滥用规则小组的讨论有一些相似之处,因此也有相关性,但这种相似之处不应被夸大。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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
The Board of Referees: ‘A Most Useful Addition to Fiscal Machinery’
In this chapter we examine the Board of Referees, an innovative administrative body established in 1915 with the remit of resolving certain questions relating to the assessment of the wartime Excess Profits Duty. The Board is particularly notable for its composition of eminent members of the practical trades, as well as professional accountants and even the occasional MP. We argue that the Board addressed certain shortcomings of the administrative architecture of the time, in particular the absence of an obvious way to control or counterbalance the great expansion of Inland Revenue discretions during wartime. We also highlight the support that the Board provided to the tax authorities with their ready commercial expertise and their ability to buy the wider business community into a tax that could have been very controversial. In terms of the legal framework, the Board was carefully designed but did undergo a significant degree of scope creep, particularly in 1922 which is when our study ends. The debates of the time have some resemblance – and therefore relevance – to recent discussions about the General Anti-Abuse Rule Panel, but the parallels should not be exaggerated.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Evolution of U.S. Regulation and the Standard-Setting Process for Financial Reporting: 1930s to the Present Learning to Disclose: Disclosure Dynamics in the 1890s Streetcar Industry Financial Reporting by Charities: Why Do Some Choose to Report Under a More Extensive Reporting Framework? What Makes Research Possible? The Management Studies Research Division at the London School of Economics How America was Tricked on Tax Policy: Secrets and Undisclosed Practices - Book Review.
×
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