Tax Analysts’ Tax Notes and State Tax Notes are part of my healthy breakfast, and today they are especially delicious. The only bad part, for me, is that they are subscription publications, making them hard to share in full. I can give you morsels, though.
Joseph Thorndike has an excellent discussion of the hollow moralism of tax debates, though he ends up defending it. In the course of discussing an article by Allison Christians on the role of moralism in tax debates, he comes up with gem after gem. He quotes Learned Hand’s discussion of the issue, which I find conclusive:
Over and over again courts have said that there is nothing sinister in so arranging one’s affairs as to keep taxes as low as possible. Everybody does so, rich or poor; and all do right, for nobody owes any public duty to pay more than the law demands: taxes are enforced exactions, not voluntary contributions. To demand more in the name of morals is mere cant.
That never stops politicians, as Joseph points out:
More recently, President Obama’s proposal for a “Buffett rule” clearly falls within that tradition of tax moralism (although in this version of the morality play, the billionaire plays the hero rather than the villain). Like the AMT, the Buffett rule is a rear-guard action to defend the fisc against the predations of aggressive avoiders.
But those sorts of Rube Goldberg tax contraptions are an admission of failure. They take for granted that the existing tax base and its statutory rate structure cannot be defended. But the efficacy of those second-best tax systems — at least when measured in terms of fairness — is anything but self-evident. And their costs in terms of complexity and opacity are substantial.
If you move away from the law, to a system of “morality” in paying taxes, you lose your way. Who decides what is moral? Politicians? Don’t make me laugh. It’s hard enough to follow the law, given its ridiculous complexity. If you then require taxpayers to meet subjective standards of whatever pressure group feels like calling a press conference that day, you make taxes pretty much impossible.
One point not mentioned is the conflicting moral obligations of taxpayers. A rich individual has moral responsibilities to his children, his business and his own community. The IRS can’t be the supreme moral agent. And a corporation has moral and legal obligations to its shareholders, customers and employees that conflict with any “moral” obligation to the fisc. Given that pensions are mostly invested in corporation stock and bonds, their “moral” obligation to give politicians more money for buying votes is hard to take seriously.
For dessert, David Brunori chimes in on e-cigarettes and politicians:
I get the rationale for tobacco taxes. You smoke, you get sick, society has to pay for your medical care. That’s consistent with the classic rationale for excise taxes. Those taxes are legitimate only if used to pay for externalities — that is, the societal costs that aren’t borne by the market.
Of course, cigarette taxes in particular have never really been about externalities. If they were, every penny of revenue would go to smoking-related healthcare. Instead, dozens of states earmark some cigarette tax revenue for education (I still can’t believe teachers who rely on cigarette tax revenue for their raises aren’t leaving cartons of Lucky Strikes on their kids’ desks).
Ah, but giving away cartons of cigarettes on a teacher’s salary? Of course, my mom was a teacher, and I remember as a kid buying her cigarettes at the store. But she never shared them, and I never picked up the habit.
Taxing e-cigarettes is a money grab. If people use e-cigarettes instead of real cigarettes, the state loses money. The vested interests like the public employee unions and the myriad government contractors can’t have that. But proponents won’t admit the money-grabbing motive.
Iowa, like many other states, is a partner in the tobacco industry as a result of a
shakedown settlement agreement with the big tobacco companies. The industry continues to operate, with the politicians getting a cut of the revenue (nice vice racket you got there, hate to see something bad happen to it). The moral panic over e-cigarettes is really about protecting this franchise.
We’ll let them steal your money, and then we’ll punish you for it. IRS freezes tax ID theft victims’ return – then hits them with late penalties. (Cleveland.com)
Pat Pekarek and her husband, Roger, discovered someone filed taxes using Roger’s Social Security number last year, after the IRS rejected their e-filed joint return.
The Pekareks, who live in Parma Heights, dutifully followed the IRS’ instructions to send their return by mail with documentation proving they were the real Pekareks. The IRS immediately froze their account, along with a credit that Pat Pekarek expected to use toward this year’s taxes.
A year later, the account remains in the IRS deep freeze – along with the credit. And now, even though it was the IRS freeze that kept the credit on ice, the agency is demanding the Pekareks cough up back taxes and pay late penalties.
The IRS has let identity theft get completely out of control, while spending its time and energy trying to regulate law-abiding preparers and harassing uncongenial political groups. And they’ve managed to neglect and abuse the victims while doing so. Good thing they are responsible for our health insurance system too.
William Perez, Foreign Bank Accounts due June 30th. New form, and now you have to e-file.
TaxGrrrl, Las Vegas Man Cheated IRS, Taxpayers Using False Home Buyer Credits: “Refundable credits are traditionally a magnet for fraudulent claims and this one was no different: initial reports indicated that nearly 100,000 refunds were perhaps inappropriately distributed, with $600 million of taxpayer credits labelled “suspicious” in 2009 (despite those numbers, Congress kept extending the credit).”
Jack Townsend, Accountant Sentenced For Tax Crimes; Conduct Included FBAR violations . “The gravamen of Duban’s conduct is that he assisted the persons related to the automobile dealership in running nondeductible personal expenses through the corporation.”
Scott Schumacher, Winning the He-Said-She-Said Case (Procedurally Taxing)
Tony Nitti, S Corporation Shareholder Must Reduce Basis For Non-Deductible Corporate Loss
Lyman Stone, Response to Politico: Taxes and the Texas Miracle (Tax Policy Blog):
But long-term tax policies do matter. Stable, neutral, non-distortionary tax policies, offering low tax rates on broad tax bases, can support economic growth. Firm site selection is one channel, through which taxes affect economic decisions on the margin. There is robust evidence that taxes (while certainly not the only or even the largest factor) do matter for site selection. And, as one of the few site selection variables policymakers can directly control, it makes sense for them to be concerned about the role of taxes.
But not in the form of paying people to be your friends via tax credits.
Annette Nellen, Is tax reform on or off? Odd activities in the House last week
Kay Bell, Debate continues about tax havens and punishment fairness
Renu Zaretsky, Holes, Holidays, Hurricanes, and Tax Bills (TaxVox). “The Illinois legislature passed a budget with revenue holes and no spending cuts.”
TaxProf, The IRS Scandal, Day 388
Me, 2 million served. An arbitrary milestone, achieved!
Russ Fox, No, Fido & Lulu Can’t Own Your Business:
All corporations have to have a Board of Directors. That board handles various business items of the corporation. Now, in a tightly controlled corporation you might just have one board member–yourself. But Mr. Zuckerman elected a strategy that I haven’t seen before (and I doubt I’ll see again): He named his pets as board members.
They were probably as independent as any number of human board members.