Ten Truths about Tax Shelters
Preprint
- 2 May 2001
- preprint
- Published by Elsevier in SSRN Electronic Journal
Abstract
This paper advances ten propositions about tax shelters and tax avoidance. The first four propositions argue that tax shelters must be analyzed solely by the consequences of shelters and the responses, rejecting reasoning based on notions such as the right to tax plan, legitimate tax planning, or statutory interpretation. The next three propositions analyze the consequences of tax shelters by viewing shelters as unintentional gaps in the tax base and attacks on shelters as similar to broadening the base. At the margin, the benefits of broadening the base must be set equal to the administrative costs of doing so and the propositions examine these costs and benefits in detail. The last three propositions discuss issues relating to implementing anti-shelter rules, including the problem of getting empirical estimates, and the role uncertainty and motive should play.Keywords
This publication has 70 references indexed in Scilit:
- The welfare economics of immigration law: a theoretical survey with an analysis of U.S. policyPublished by Cambridge University Press (CUP) ,1995
- Explicit Reasons for Implicit Contracts: The Legal Logic to the Japanese Main Bank SystemPublished by Oxford University Press (OUP) ,1995
- The Economic Underpinnings of Patent LawThe Journal of Legal Studies, 1994
- Blackmail, Privacy, and Freedom of ContractUniversity of Pennsylvania Law Review, 1993
- What Do Judges and Justices Maximize? (The Same Thing Everybody Else Does)Supreme Court Economic Review, 1993
- Sequential versus Unitary Trials: An Economic AnalysisThe Journal of Legal Studies, 1993
- Endogenous Preferences, Environmental LawSSRN Electronic Journal, 1993
- Security Interests, Misbehavior, and Common PoolsThe University of Chicago Law Review, 1992
- Copyright Protection of Letters, Diaries, and Other Unpublished Works: An Economic ApproachThe Journal of Legal Studies, 1992
- Constitutionalism and SecessionThe University of Chicago Law Review, 1991