Why Examples? Towards More Behaviorally-Intelligent Regulation

Y. Brauner
{"title":"Why Examples? Towards More Behaviorally-Intelligent Regulation","authors":"Y. Brauner","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.3008261","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Tax regulation authors habitually infuse regulations with explanatory examples. These examples are viewed favorably by both the government that encourages their drafting and the taxpayers who regularly rely on such examples to assist them in dealing with the notoriously complex tax rules. Despite the ubiquity of these examples, there is no published guidance for their drafting, their use, or their interpretation. The first original contribution of this Article is the exposition and classification of the advantages and deficiencies in the current use of examples in tax regulations. This Article is the first to question the rationale behind the ubiquitous use of examples in tax regulations. The Article uses data collected by original surveys of expert tax professionals and government employees involved in drafting tax regulations. The second original contribution of this Article is the explanation of the appeal of these examples among tax experts, and the potential hazards of the examples despite this apparent appeal. This analysis uses insights from behavioral science, and particularly from the study of cognitive biases, to explain, for example, how anchoring via an example could shift the focus of a regulatory rule and alter the boundaries of the law in inappropriate or unfair ways. Relying on this analysis, the Article finally proposes — the third original contribution — a better-informed approach to the writing of examples in tax regulations.","PeriodicalId":191231,"journal":{"name":"Law & Psychology eJournal","volume":"1 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2017-07-24","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Law & Psychology eJournal","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3008261","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Tax regulation authors habitually infuse regulations with explanatory examples. These examples are viewed favorably by both the government that encourages their drafting and the taxpayers who regularly rely on such examples to assist them in dealing with the notoriously complex tax rules. Despite the ubiquity of these examples, there is no published guidance for their drafting, their use, or their interpretation. The first original contribution of this Article is the exposition and classification of the advantages and deficiencies in the current use of examples in tax regulations. This Article is the first to question the rationale behind the ubiquitous use of examples in tax regulations. The Article uses data collected by original surveys of expert tax professionals and government employees involved in drafting tax regulations. The second original contribution of this Article is the explanation of the appeal of these examples among tax experts, and the potential hazards of the examples despite this apparent appeal. This analysis uses insights from behavioral science, and particularly from the study of cognitive biases, to explain, for example, how anchoring via an example could shift the focus of a regulatory rule and alter the boundaries of the law in inappropriate or unfair ways. Relying on this analysis, the Article finally proposes — the third original contribution — a better-informed approach to the writing of examples in tax regulations.
为什么例子吗?走向更加行为智能的监管
税收法规的作者们习惯性地给法规注入解释性的例子。这些例子受到政府和纳税人的欢迎,政府鼓励这些例子的起草,而纳税人经常依靠这些例子来帮助他们处理众所周知的复杂的税收规则。尽管这些例子无处不在,但没有关于它们的起草、使用或解释的出版指南。本文的第一个原创性贡献是对现行税收法规运用实例的优点和不足进行了阐述和分类。这篇文章是第一个质疑在税收法规中普遍使用例子背后的理由。本文采用了对参与税收法规起草的税务专家和政府工作人员的原始调查收集的数据。本文的第二个原创贡献是解释这些例子在税务专家中的吸引力,以及尽管这种明显的吸引力,这些例子的潜在危害。这一分析使用了行为科学的见解,特别是来自认知偏见研究的见解来解释,例如,通过一个例子来解释锚定如何转移监管规则的焦点,并以不恰当或不公平的方式改变法律的界限。基于这一分析,本文最后提出了——第三个原创贡献——一种更明智的方法来编写税收法规中的示例。
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 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
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
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
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 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信