追讨因税务顾问疏忽而少缴税款的利息

Jacob L. Todres
{"title":"追讨因税务顾问疏忽而少缴税款的利息","authors":"Jacob L. Todres","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.1474927","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Three views have developed on the issue of whether there can be a recovery of interest on a tax underpayment caused by a tax advisor’s negligence. The traditional view, which is still the majority view, permits the recovery of such interest as one of the elements of recoverable damages. Under this view, since the negligence caused the payment of the interest, it is an element of recoverable damages under normal tort doctrine. The minority view absolutely prohibits the recovery of interest. The reason for this position is that, in the minority’s view, the recovery of interest would result in a windfall for the plaintiff. The plaintiff would have both the use of the unpaid tax money as well as a recovery of the interest paid for the use of that money. According to the minority view, the payment of interest is not damages since it is merely a charge for the use of money that really belonged to the government rather than the plaintiff. A third, more modern and intermediate view permits the recovery of such interest only to the extent the interest charged by the government exceeds the interest earned by the use of the tax underpayment.The article explores each of the three views (Part II). It then traces the development of the views and presents a tally of the jurisdictions following each view (Part III). An analysis of the views follows with a conclusion that the modern, intermediate view is best ( Part IV). In conclusion, the article argues that the modern intermediate view should be adopted universally, the minority view needs to be changed and that the majority view can attain the modern view’s results by slightly altering its approach.","PeriodicalId":318348,"journal":{"name":"Akron Tax Journal","volume":"5 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2009-09-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Recovery of Interest on a Tax Underpayment Caused by a Tax Advisor’s Negligence\",\"authors\":\"Jacob L. Todres\",\"doi\":\"10.2139/ssrn.1474927\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Three views have developed on the issue of whether there can be a recovery of interest on a tax underpayment caused by a tax advisor’s negligence. The traditional view, which is still the majority view, permits the recovery of such interest as one of the elements of recoverable damages. Under this view, since the negligence caused the payment of the interest, it is an element of recoverable damages under normal tort doctrine. The minority view absolutely prohibits the recovery of interest. The reason for this position is that, in the minority’s view, the recovery of interest would result in a windfall for the plaintiff. The plaintiff would have both the use of the unpaid tax money as well as a recovery of the interest paid for the use of that money. According to the minority view, the payment of interest is not damages since it is merely a charge for the use of money that really belonged to the government rather than the plaintiff. A third, more modern and intermediate view permits the recovery of such interest only to the extent the interest charged by the government exceeds the interest earned by the use of the tax underpayment.The article explores each of the three views (Part II). It then traces the development of the views and presents a tally of the jurisdictions following each view (Part III). An analysis of the views follows with a conclusion that the modern, intermediate view is best ( Part IV). In conclusion, the article argues that the modern intermediate view should be adopted universally, the minority view needs to be changed and that the majority view can attain the modern view’s results by slightly altering its approach.\",\"PeriodicalId\":318348,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Akron Tax Journal\",\"volume\":\"5 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2009-09-17\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"1\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Akron Tax Journal\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.1474927\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Akron Tax Journal","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.1474927","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

摘要

关于是否可以就因税务顾问疏忽而导致的少缴税款追讨利息的问题,有三种观点。传统的观点,也就是目前占多数的观点,认为这种利益的恢复是可恢复损害赔偿的要素之一。这种观点认为,由于过失行为导致了利息的支付,因此在一般侵权理论下,它是可追回损害赔偿的构成要件。少数人的观点绝对禁止收回利益。这一立场的原因是,在少数人看来,利息的收回会给原告带来意外之财。原告既可以使用未缴的税款,也可以收回为使用这笔钱而支付的利息。根据少数人的观点,利息的支付不是损害赔偿,因为它仅仅是对真正属于政府而不是原告的金钱的使用收取的费用。第三种更为现代和中间的观点认为,只有在政府收取的利息超过使用少缴税款所赚取的利息时,才允许收回这些利息。本文探讨了这三种观点中的每一种(第二部分)。然后追溯了这些观点的发展,并对每种观点所遵循的司法管辖区进行了统计(第三部分)。对这些观点进行分析后得出的结论是,现代的中间观点是最好的(第四部分)。最后,文章认为现代中间观点应该被普遍采用。少数人的观点需要改变,多数人的观点可以通过稍微改变其方法来达到现代观点的结果。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Recovery of Interest on a Tax Underpayment Caused by a Tax Advisor’s Negligence
Three views have developed on the issue of whether there can be a recovery of interest on a tax underpayment caused by a tax advisor’s negligence. The traditional view, which is still the majority view, permits the recovery of such interest as one of the elements of recoverable damages. Under this view, since the negligence caused the payment of the interest, it is an element of recoverable damages under normal tort doctrine. The minority view absolutely prohibits the recovery of interest. The reason for this position is that, in the minority’s view, the recovery of interest would result in a windfall for the plaintiff. The plaintiff would have both the use of the unpaid tax money as well as a recovery of the interest paid for the use of that money. According to the minority view, the payment of interest is not damages since it is merely a charge for the use of money that really belonged to the government rather than the plaintiff. A third, more modern and intermediate view permits the recovery of such interest only to the extent the interest charged by the government exceeds the interest earned by the use of the tax underpayment.The article explores each of the three views (Part II). It then traces the development of the views and presents a tally of the jurisdictions following each view (Part III). An analysis of the views follows with a conclusion that the modern, intermediate view is best ( Part IV). In conclusion, the article argues that the modern intermediate view should be adopted universally, the minority view needs to be changed and that the majority view can attain the modern view’s results by slightly altering its approach.
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
×
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