重整革命:财政规则制定与行政法

David M Berke
{"title":"重整革命:财政规则制定与行政法","authors":"David M Berke","doi":"10.36640/mjeal.7.2.reworking","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"How administrative law applies to tax rulemaking is an open and contested question. The resolution of this question has high stakes for the U.S. tax system. The paradigm is shifting away from so-called “tax exceptionalism”—where Treasury action is considered effectively exempt from the Administrative Procedure Act (the “APA”) and related administrative law doctrines. This paradigm-shift is salutary. However, currently prevailing anti-exceptionalist theory—an administrative framework for tax that is rapidly gaining credence within both the federal judiciary and the legal academy—threatens to destabilize the U.S. tax system. This formalistic approach to administrative law in tax rulemaking has the potential to invalidate a wide swath of existing Treasury regulations and to preclude the timely promulgation of new tax rules.\n\nThis Article argues that these two existing theories of tax administration— exceptionalism and anti-exceptionalism—are inadequate, often for complementary reasons. This Article’s critique then supports its proposals for tax rulemaking processes that comply with the APA, but in a workable manner that does not upend established tax law. These proposals provide an intellectual and practical middle ground between the exceptionalists and anti-exceptionalists.","PeriodicalId":401480,"journal":{"name":"Michigan Journal of Environmental & Administrative Law","volume":"7 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"1900-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Reworking the Revolution: Treasury Rulemaking & Administrative Law\",\"authors\":\"David M Berke\",\"doi\":\"10.36640/mjeal.7.2.reworking\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"How administrative law applies to tax rulemaking is an open and contested question. The resolution of this question has high stakes for the U.S. tax system. The paradigm is shifting away from so-called “tax exceptionalism”—where Treasury action is considered effectively exempt from the Administrative Procedure Act (the “APA”) and related administrative law doctrines. This paradigm-shift is salutary. However, currently prevailing anti-exceptionalist theory—an administrative framework for tax that is rapidly gaining credence within both the federal judiciary and the legal academy—threatens to destabilize the U.S. tax system. This formalistic approach to administrative law in tax rulemaking has the potential to invalidate a wide swath of existing Treasury regulations and to preclude the timely promulgation of new tax rules.\\n\\nThis Article argues that these two existing theories of tax administration— exceptionalism and anti-exceptionalism—are inadequate, often for complementary reasons. This Article’s critique then supports its proposals for tax rulemaking processes that comply with the APA, but in a workable manner that does not upend established tax law. These proposals provide an intellectual and practical middle ground between the exceptionalists and anti-exceptionalists.\",\"PeriodicalId\":401480,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Michigan Journal of Environmental & Administrative Law\",\"volume\":\"7 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"1900-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"1\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Michigan Journal of Environmental & Administrative Law\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.36640/mjeal.7.2.reworking\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Michigan Journal of Environmental & Administrative Law","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.36640/mjeal.7.2.reworking","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

行政法律如何适用于税收规则制定是一个公开而有争议的问题。这个问题的解决对美国的税收制度来说利害攸关。这种范式正在从所谓的“税收例外主义”(tax exceptionalism)——即财政部的行为被认为有效地不受《行政程序法》(Administrative Procedure Act,简称APA)和相关行政法理论的约束——转变。这种范式转变是有益的。然而,目前盛行的反例外论理论——一种在联邦司法和法律学院中迅速获得信任的税收管理框架——威胁着美国税收制度的稳定。在税收规则制定中,这种形式主义的行政法方法有可能使大量现有的财政部法规失效,并妨碍及时颁布新的税收规则。本文认为,现有的两种税收征管理论——例外论和反例外论——往往是由于互补的原因而不足的。这篇文章的批评支持了它对税收规则制定过程的建议,这些过程符合APA,但以一种可行的方式,不会颠覆既定的税法。这些建议在例外论者和反例外论者之间提供了一个理智和实际的中间地带。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Reworking the Revolution: Treasury Rulemaking & Administrative Law
How administrative law applies to tax rulemaking is an open and contested question. The resolution of this question has high stakes for the U.S. tax system. The paradigm is shifting away from so-called “tax exceptionalism”—where Treasury action is considered effectively exempt from the Administrative Procedure Act (the “APA”) and related administrative law doctrines. This paradigm-shift is salutary. However, currently prevailing anti-exceptionalist theory—an administrative framework for tax that is rapidly gaining credence within both the federal judiciary and the legal academy—threatens to destabilize the U.S. tax system. This formalistic approach to administrative law in tax rulemaking has the potential to invalidate a wide swath of existing Treasury regulations and to preclude the timely promulgation of new tax rules. This Article argues that these two existing theories of tax administration— exceptionalism and anti-exceptionalism—are inadequate, often for complementary reasons. This Article’s critique then supports its proposals for tax rulemaking processes that comply with the APA, but in a workable manner that does not upend established tax law. These proposals provide an intellectual and practical middle ground between the exceptionalists and anti-exceptionalists.
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