法律不确定时的最优税收遵从与处罚

Kyle D. Logue
{"title":"法律不确定时的最优税收遵从与处罚","authors":"Kyle D. Logue","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.950379","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This article examines the optimal level of tax compliance and the optimal penalty for noncompliance in circumstances in which the substance of the tax law is uncertain — that is, when the precise application of the Internal Revenue Code to a particular situation is not clear. In such situations, a number of interesting questions arise. This article will consider two of them. First, as a normative matter, how certain should taxpayers be before they rely on a particular interpretation of a substantively uncertain tax rule? If a particular position is not clearly prohibited but neither is it clearly allowed, what is the appropriate threshold of confidence that the taxpayer ought to have before engaging in the transaction? Second, what penalty regime would give the taxpayer the right incentive with respect to relying on substantively uncertain tax law? With these questions in mind, this article shows that, applying standard assumptions from the economic literature on deterrence, the tax penalty regime that would induce the optimal reliance (or non-reliance) on uncertain tax laws depending on the circumstances would involve (a) a rule of strict liability with respect to taxes owed as well as to the penalty, and (b) a penalty that roughly approximates the famous Bentham-Becker punitive fine, calculated by dividing the harm (the underpaid tax) by the ex ante probability that the harm would be detected. This article also explains why a fault-based approach to tax penalties, under the standard assumptions of the classical deterrence model, would not work as well as the strict-liability approach. Reasons for the inferiority of the fault-based approach include its comparatively high administrative costs, its inability to properly regulate \"activity levels,\" and its relatively unattractive distributional consequences. This article concludes, however, that if Bentham-Becker level penalties or wide-spread use of tax liability insurance are not feasible, a second-best case can be made for using a fault-based penalty regime similar to the one currently in force. The framework used in this article may have implications for any area of law where the substantive law is uncertain.","PeriodicalId":304403,"journal":{"name":"University of Michigan Law School Legal Studies Research Paper Series","volume":"17 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2006-12-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"23","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Optimal Tax Compliance and Penalties When the Law is Uncertain\",\"authors\":\"Kyle D. Logue\",\"doi\":\"10.2139/ssrn.950379\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"This article examines the optimal level of tax compliance and the optimal penalty for noncompliance in circumstances in which the substance of the tax law is uncertain — that is, when the precise application of the Internal Revenue Code to a particular situation is not clear. In such situations, a number of interesting questions arise. This article will consider two of them. First, as a normative matter, how certain should taxpayers be before they rely on a particular interpretation of a substantively uncertain tax rule? If a particular position is not clearly prohibited but neither is it clearly allowed, what is the appropriate threshold of confidence that the taxpayer ought to have before engaging in the transaction? Second, what penalty regime would give the taxpayer the right incentive with respect to relying on substantively uncertain tax law? With these questions in mind, this article shows that, applying standard assumptions from the economic literature on deterrence, the tax penalty regime that would induce the optimal reliance (or non-reliance) on uncertain tax laws depending on the circumstances would involve (a) a rule of strict liability with respect to taxes owed as well as to the penalty, and (b) a penalty that roughly approximates the famous Bentham-Becker punitive fine, calculated by dividing the harm (the underpaid tax) by the ex ante probability that the harm would be detected. This article also explains why a fault-based approach to tax penalties, under the standard assumptions of the classical deterrence model, would not work as well as the strict-liability approach. Reasons for the inferiority of the fault-based approach include its comparatively high administrative costs, its inability to properly regulate \\\"activity levels,\\\" and its relatively unattractive distributional consequences. This article concludes, however, that if Bentham-Becker level penalties or wide-spread use of tax liability insurance are not feasible, a second-best case can be made for using a fault-based penalty regime similar to the one currently in force. The framework used in this article may have implications for any area of law where the substantive law is uncertain.\",\"PeriodicalId\":304403,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"University of Michigan Law School Legal Studies Research Paper Series\",\"volume\":\"17 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2006-12-13\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"23\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"University of Michigan Law School Legal Studies Research Paper Series\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.950379\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"University of Michigan Law School Legal Studies Research Paper Series","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.950379","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 23

摘要

本文考察了在税法的实质不确定的情况下,税收合规的最佳水平和不合规的最佳惩罚——也就是说,当《国内税收法》对特定情况的确切应用不明确时。在这种情况下,出现了许多有趣的问题。本文将考虑其中的两个。首先,作为一个规范性问题,纳税人在依赖对实质上不确定的税收规则的特定解释之前,应该有多确定?如果某一特定头寸没有明确禁止,但也没有明确允许,那么纳税人在进行交易之前应该具备的适当信心门槛是多少?其次,什么样的惩罚制度能给纳税人正确的激励,让他们不依赖实质上不确定的税法?考虑到这些问题,本文表明,应用关于威慑的经济学文献的标准假设,根据具体情况,诱导对不确定的税法的最优依赖(或不依赖)的税收惩罚制度将涉及(a)关于所欠税款和罚款的严格责任规则,以及(b)大致接近着名的边沁-贝克尔惩罚性罚款的罚款。计算方法是将危害(少缴的税款)除以危害被发现的事前概率。本文还解释了为什么在经典威慑模型的标准假设下,基于过错的税收处罚方法不会像严格责任方法那样有效。基于故障的方法的劣势原因包括其相对较高的管理成本,无法适当地调节“活动水平”,以及相对缺乏吸引力的分配后果。然而,本文的结论是,如果Bentham-Becker级别的处罚或广泛使用税务责任保险是不可行的,那么可以采用类似于目前有效的基于过错的处罚制度。本条所使用的框架可能对实体法不确定的任何法律领域产生影响。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Optimal Tax Compliance and Penalties When the Law is Uncertain
This article examines the optimal level of tax compliance and the optimal penalty for noncompliance in circumstances in which the substance of the tax law is uncertain — that is, when the precise application of the Internal Revenue Code to a particular situation is not clear. In such situations, a number of interesting questions arise. This article will consider two of them. First, as a normative matter, how certain should taxpayers be before they rely on a particular interpretation of a substantively uncertain tax rule? If a particular position is not clearly prohibited but neither is it clearly allowed, what is the appropriate threshold of confidence that the taxpayer ought to have before engaging in the transaction? Second, what penalty regime would give the taxpayer the right incentive with respect to relying on substantively uncertain tax law? With these questions in mind, this article shows that, applying standard assumptions from the economic literature on deterrence, the tax penalty regime that would induce the optimal reliance (or non-reliance) on uncertain tax laws depending on the circumstances would involve (a) a rule of strict liability with respect to taxes owed as well as to the penalty, and (b) a penalty that roughly approximates the famous Bentham-Becker punitive fine, calculated by dividing the harm (the underpaid tax) by the ex ante probability that the harm would be detected. This article also explains why a fault-based approach to tax penalties, under the standard assumptions of the classical deterrence model, would not work as well as the strict-liability approach. Reasons for the inferiority of the fault-based approach include its comparatively high administrative costs, its inability to properly regulate "activity levels," and its relatively unattractive distributional consequences. This article concludes, however, that if Bentham-Becker level penalties or wide-spread use of tax liability insurance are not feasible, a second-best case can be made for using a fault-based penalty regime similar to the one currently in force. The framework used in this article may have implications for any area of law where the substantive law is uncertain.
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:481959085
Book学术官方微信