Tax Policy Concept Statement No. 4 — Guiding Principles ...



Tax Policy

Concept Statement 4

[pic]

Guiding Principles for

Tax Equity and Fairness

Issued by the Tax Division of the

American Institute of Certified Public Accountants

Copyright © 2007 by

American Institute of Certified Public Accountants, Inc.

New York, NY 10036-8775

All rights reserved. For information about the procedure for requesting permission to make copies of any part of this work, please call the AICPA's authorized copyright permissions agency, the Copyright Clearance Center, at 978-750-8400. For your convenience, a CCC Internet permissions request form is now available at WWW.FirstTimeUsers.Asp.

Table of Contents

Page

Forward ii

Equity and Fairness: Desirable Attributes for a Tax System 1

Definitions of Equity and Fairness 1

The Seven Dimensions of Tax Equity and Fairness 3

Exchange Equity and Fairness 4

Process Equity and Fairness 4

Horizontal Equity and Fairness 5

Vertical Equity and Fairness 6

Time-Related Equity and Fairness 7

Inter-Group Equity and Fairness 8

Compliance Equity and Fairness 9

Challenges 9

Conclusion 10

Appendix – Desirable Attributes for Tax Systems 11

Bibliography 12

Foreword

This is the fourth in a series of tax policy concept statements issued by the AICPA Tax Division on tax policy matters. It is intended to aid in the development of federal tax legislation in directions that the AICPA believes are in the public interest. Prior Tax Policy Concept Statements include:

1. Guiding Principles of Good Tax Policy: A Framework for Evaluating Tax Proposals (2001)

2. Guiding Principles for Tax Simplification (2002)

3. Guiding Principles for Tax Law Transparency (2003)

Tax Policy Concept Statements are approved by the Tax Executive Committee of the AICPA Tax Division, after they are developed and approved by the Division’s Tax Legislation and Policy Committee. Other Division committees and technical resource panels may develop Tax Policy Concept Statements if requested to do so.

This Statement was developed by the Tax Equity and Fairness Task Force with input from the 2006-2007 Tax Legislation and Policy Committee and the 2006-2007 Tax Executive Committees. It was approved by the 2006-2007 Tax Legislation and Policy Committee and the 2007–2008 Tax Executive Committee. Members of the bodies that approved this Tax Policy Concept Statement are listed below.

AICPA Tax Executive Committee

(2007-2008)

Jeffrey R. Hoops, Chair

Alan R. Einhorn, Vice Chair

Evelyn M. Capassakis

Stephen R. Corrick

Diane D. Fuller

Andrew D. Gibson

Cherie J. Hennig

Andrew M. Mattson

T. Chris Muirhead

Kenneth N. Orbach

Gregory A. Porcaro

Roby Sawyers

Joseph Scutellaro

Christopher J. Sokolowski

Norman S. Solomon

Mark A. Van Deveer

Brian T. Whitlock

Carol E. Zurcher

Additional AICPA Tax Executive Committee Members

(2006-2007)

Thomas J. Purcell, III, Immediate Past Chair

Janice M. Johnson

Dean A. Jorgensen

James W. Sansone

Patricia Thompson

AICPA Tax Legislation and Policy Committee

(2006-2007)

Nicholas P. Giordano, Chair

Donald A. Barnes, Immediate Past Chair

Walter B. Doggett, III

John H. Gardner

Nicholas Lascari

David A. Lifson

W. Val Oveson

Gerald W. Padwe

M. Andrew Prior

Melbert E. Schwarz, II

Kaye F. Sheridan

Thomas A. Stout, Jr.

Deborah Walker

AICPA Tax Equity and Fairness Task Force

Judyth A. Swingen, Chair

Gerald W. Padwe

W. Val Oveson

AICPA Tax Division Staff

Edward S. Karl, Director

Bonner Menking, Technical Manager

Jean E. Trompeter, Technical Manager

The AICPA Tax Division gratefully acknowledges the significant contributions of Judyth A. Swingen in the development of the direction and the drafting of the Statement.

Guiding Principles for Tax Equity and Fairness

The subjects of every state ought to contribute towards the support of the government, as nearly as possible, in proportion to their respective abilities. (Adam Smith, 1776)

When a number of persons engage in a mutually advantageous cooperative venture according to rules . . . we are not to gain from the cooperative labors of others without doing our fair share. (John Rawls, 1971)

Equity and Fairness: Desirable Attributes for a Tax System

While no one enjoys paying taxes, most recognize that taxes are the price we pay for the essential infrastructure and services provided by federal, state and local governments. In a free and prosperous society, citizens will generally comply with tax levies as long as certain criteria are met. First, political processes provide citizens with input as to how and to what extent they are taxed. Second, public officials serve as good stewards of the resources generated by the tax system. Finally, most citizens perceive that tax burdens and benefits are distributed in a fair and equitable manner.

In a complex economic and social environment, it may not be possible to design and administer a tax system that is fair and equitable in an absolute sense. However, a tax system that is generally perceived as fair and equitable is a desirable and achievable goal.

This Statement’s primary purpose is to challenge tax lawmakers and administrators to more fully address the issues of tax equity and fairness. We also hope this Statement will motivate further discussion and analysis by tax policy advocates and academic researchers.

The importance of tax equality, equity and fairness has long been recognized. Adam Smith established “four maxims with regard to taxes,” one of which was the need for equality in a tax system. [See Appendix.] Subsequent writers have expanded Adam Smith’s maxims, adding simplicity, transparency, neutrality, economic efficiency, and other desirable attributes for a good tax system. However, tax equality, equity and fairness continue to be the most frequently cited characteristics when writers describe an ideal tax system.

Definitions of Equity and Fairness

Baseline definitions for key terms are essential to the full discussion of any complex topic. The terms equity and fairness are difficult – and some would argue impossible – to define. Judgments as to whether or not a rule or action is fair can be quite subjective. Prior experience and the current context clearly shape personal perceptions of equity. The following observations on equity and fairness from other fields of study are offered to help formulate a definition of tax equity and fairness.

Fairness is a moral and social concept we are exposed to from childhood. Parents and elementary school teachers patiently explain that fairness means sharing and following the rules. Religious institutions provide moral codes and illustrative stories to guide behavior. Most faiths teach two general rules of fairness – (1) treat others as we would want to be treated; and (2) be benevolent to those who are less fortunate. As we mature, our framework for assessing fairness is further shaped by observing the behavior of friends, role models and public figures.

In his Nicomachean Ethics, the philosopher Aristotle equated fairness with justice. In a just system “equals are to be treated equally and un-equals unequally.” The differential treatment of un-equals is not to be arbitrary, but is to be based on some relevant factor(s). The challenge in designing a just or fair system is determining what factors should be used to define equality (or inequality) and to allocate rights and/or resources.

Theories of distributive justice require that the rules for allocating economic resources (or imposing economic obligations) should be set in advance. Ideally, these rules should also be comprehensible to those who must administer or abide by them. Some commentators state that justice can only be achieved if rules (or laws) are strictly administered without discretion. However, even Aristotle acknowledged that a set of rules may not anticipate all scenarios and that some administrative discretion may be needed to mitigate unfair and unintended consequences.[1]

In his Theory of Justice, Rawls [1971] stated that the only way to develop a totally fair system of rules would be “from behind a veil of ignorance.” It is natural to perceive a particular rule as being more or less fair if it has positive or negative impact on one’s personal wealth or well-being. Under Rawls’ theory, rule makers could only construct a fair system if they had no knowledge of their own current or future situations, and hence, were unable to assess the personal impact of the rules they promulgate. This is a state that is impossible to achieve. Lawmakers at all levels of government are usually aware of how new provisions will affect them, their families and their constituents.

Both Aristotle and Rawls agreed that for a system of rules or laws to function in a fair and equitable manner the persons subject to that system must willingly comply. If citizens perceive that a system is reasonably fair, then they will comply. Noncompliance essentially negates the structural fairness that the system’s designers intended.

In many situations, a system for setting priorities is needed to assure fairness. Educators state that fairness in the allocation of scarce resources means that each student gets what he or she needs, not necessarily everything that he or she wants. Computer scientists define fairness in terms of Pareto Efficiency – i.e. “all computer jobs deserve an equal share of resources, but if some jobs can use more without hurting others, that’s okay.”[2] Medical personnel use triage systems to determine which patients should be seen first. Tending to those with the most critical needs is considered fair.

Tax policy advocates and writers generally agree that two criteria are essential for a tax system to be perceived as equitable – horizontal and vertical equity. Horizontal equity means that taxpayers who are similarly situated pay the same amount of taxes. Vertical equity requires that those who have more income (or property) pay more in taxes because they are better able to pay. This two-dimensional model provides a useful, but simplistic, framework for discussing and evaluating tax equity issues. The next section of this Statement introduces a more extensive model for considering tax law equity.

The Seven Dimensions of Tax Equity and Fairness

The AICPA reiterates its position[3] that equity and fairness is an essential attribute of a good tax system, and recommends that equity and fairness be given due consideration in both the making and administration of tax laws. The AICPA further recommends that the following seven dimensions be considered in determining tax equity and fairness:[4]

1. Exchange Equity and Fairness – Over the long run taxpayers receive appropriate value for the taxes they pay.

2. Process Equity and Fairness – Taxpayers have a voice in the tax system, are given due process and are treated with respect by tax administrators.

3. Horizontal Equity and Fairness – Similarly situated taxpayers are taxed similarly.

4. Vertical Equity and Fairness – Taxes are based on the ability to pay.

5. Time-Related Equity and Fairness – Taxes are not unduly distorted when income or wealth levels fluctuate over time.

6. Inter-Group Equity and Fairness – No group of taxpayers is favored to the detriment of another without good cause.

7. Compliance Equity and Fairness – All taxpayers pay what they owe on a timely basis.

Before proceeding with a detailed discussion of these equity dimensions, there are two important caveats to remember. First, equity should be evaluated within the context of the entire tax system, not just the income tax, and not on a proposal-by-proposal basis.[5] Vertical equity provided by progressive income tax rates may be structurally offset by sales, Social Security and property taxes. Second, whether a tax system is equitable is largely a matter of perception. Feelings about whether a particular aspect of the tax system is fair or unfair are influenced by prior experiences and information (or misinformation).

Exchange Equity and Fairness – Taxes are the price we pay for the essential infrastructure and services provided by federal, state and local governments. Exchange equity and fairness means that, over the long run, governmental agencies provide adequate public goods and services to meet the needs of taxpayers and their families. Exchange equity does not mean that, during a specific period, the amount of taxes paid by a particular taxpayer will exactly correspond with the value of the tax benefits directly or indirectly received.

Tax revenues must be pooled to fund essential shared services, such as education, defense, health care, public safety, social services, and even tax administration. Substantial amounts of tax revenue must be invested in long-lived assets, such as airports, bridges, highways, schools and public buildings. This investment in infrastructure will benefit not only today’s, but also future taxpayers. Although individuals may not currently need to use all of the facilities or services offered by governmental units, the lack of such facilities or services could have a negative impact on their quality of life. For example, the presence of a police or fire department is reassuring, even if you never need to call them.

Exchange equity also allows for the sharing of pooled resources with others in return for the promise of future benefits if and when needed. The Social Security system largely relies on the taxes paid by current workers to fund the benefits of retired workers. This is done with the implicit promise that when today’s workers retire, others will fund their benefits. The funding of disaster relief can also be viewed as implicit exchange equity. Taxpayers are willing to assist the victims of natural or man-made disasters, not only because it is the right thing to do; but because they all have the expectation that similar aid would be available for them, if they were victims of such a disaster.

For a tax system based on the concept of voluntary compliance to function effectively, taxpayers must have a positive perception of exchange equity. They must feel that, in the long run, they are getting their money’s worth for the taxes they pay.[6] Lawmakers should keep in mind that perceptions of insufficient exchange equity and a lack of representation in tax decisions were part of the impetus for the American Revolution.

Process Equity and Fairness – There are three key aspects to process equity and fairness. First, political processes give taxpayers an opportunity to influence how and to what extent they are taxed. Second, tax systems include safeguards that permit taxpayers to challenge the taxes assessed. Third, tax administrators are expected to treat taxpayers with respect.

In the interest of both exchange and process equity, taxpayers should have some direct or indirect voice in how tax revenues are spent. Citizens who strongly disagree with how government spends their money may be inclined to engage in tax protests or be noncompliant.

By agreeing to be taxed by forming a representative, democratic government, citizens have an indirect voice in tax matters when they elect legislative bodies at the national, state and local levels. Congress, state legislatures, city councils, and even school boards are then responsible for approving budgets and the taxes necessary to fund those budgets. In certain instances, taxpayers are given a direct voice in tax matters when state and local sales or property tax rates must be approved by referendum.

Unfortunately, too many taxpayers perceive that they have little or no voice in tax matters. Others believe that tax agencies, rather than legislative bodies, have the primary responsibility for making tax laws.[7]

One danger in any tax system is that those charged with enforcing tax laws and collecting the tax will abuse their authority. Safeguards to prevent abuse of power are a necessary condition for process equity in any system of laws, including the tax system. Communications from tax agencies should clearly describe taxpayer obligations and the legal basis for any additional assessments or penalties. There should be procedures to appeal the amount of tax to be paid. There should also be appropriate limits on the methods tax agencies can use to enforce payment. Any appeals procedures or taxpayer rights should be available to all taxpayers, not just those who are able to afford professional assistance.

Finally, taxpayers should be treated with respect and assisted with (not coerced into) meeting their tax reporting and payment obligations. Federal and state governments have adopted Taxpayer Bills of Rights in recent years. Respect, however, is an attitude or point of view and can not be achieved solely by legislation. In many tax agencies, cultural change may be necessary to fully achieve this aspect of process equity.

Horizontal Equity and Fairness – Horizontal equity and fairness is the most-often-cited aspect of tax equity. Horizontal equity means that taxpayers with equal amounts of income (or property) should pay the same amount of tax. Horizontal equity also suggests that similarly situated taxpayers should be taxed similarly. Unfortunately, these two definitions are not synonymous. Taxpayers may have equal amounts of income, but different tax liabilities, because income from capital is generally taxed at more favorable rates than earned income.[8]

To fully explain horizontal equity, it is necessary to return to the idea that equity or fairness is related to need fulfillment. Two households may earn exactly the same income, but may not be “similarly situated,” and therefore have differing abilities to pay taxes. A certain amount of each family’s income is needed to provide for basic human needs – the definition of which changes as our society changes. This amount should not be subject to tax. The amount of income that should not be taxed depends on several factors, including the cost of living,[9] the size and structure of the family, the age of family members, and extenuating circumstances such as disabilities or illness.

Horizontal equity is the justification for personal and dependency exemptions for income taxes and homestead credits for property taxes. Other income tax deductions and credits for personal expenses – such as child care, education, and medical expenses – attempt to achieve horizontal equity with varying degrees of success. Unfortunately, most of these provisions increase complexity and decrease perceptions of equity for taxpayers who fail to qualify for these deductions or credits.

Another issue in determining whether taxpayers are similarly situated relates to family structure. Income tax laws at the federal level, and in most states, employ a very traditional definition of family. An individual’s filing status and tax rate is determined by marital status. Married couples are then taxed as a family, rather than as individuals. Historically, unmarried couples who maintained a household together paid less in taxes than married couples with a similar level of combined income.[10] Although recent legislation has sought to mitigate this marriage penalty, other family-related horizontal equity issues need to be addressed. Should unmarried couples, raising children together, be taxed as a family? Should extended families that include grandparents or elderly parents in the same household be given a larger tax-free base? Should credits related to children favor two-earner families or reward families with a stay-at-home parent?

Extenuating circumstances can also affect the ability of an individual or family to pay taxes. Individuals who are seriously ill, physically or mentally impaired, or too young or too old to care for themselves can strain family finances. In the past, federal tax laws granted extra income tax exemptions for the elderly and blind.[11] One problem with using this approach to enhance horizontal equity is that the list of conditions that should be given special consideration would be extremely long. Further, this would be an area that could be prone to abuse and could actually favor families who have the resources to have maladies or disabilities diagnosed and documented.

Vertical Equity and Fairness – Vertical equity and fairness means that the tax burden should be based on the taxpayer’s ability to pay. Clearly individuals with subsistence levels of income should not be subject to all types of taxes because they need all their resources to provide for themselves and their families. Beyond this subsistence or poverty level of income, exchange equity suggests that all citizens should pay some taxes, even a relatively small amount.

Vertical equity is generally the justification for progressive tax rate structures in income and wealth transfer taxes.[12] As income or wealth levels rise, the tax rates rise. Likewise, the marginal utility of further earnings or wealth accumulation declines. If tax rates rise without limit, there is a danger that taxpayers will reach tipping points at which they either stop working or move to a different tax jurisdiction. States have been particularly sensitive to the latter problems. Taxpayers are mobile and can move if they perceive that state tax rates are excessive. Therefore, the range between the highest and lowest income tax rates is smaller at the state level than it is at the federal level. However, state taxpayers tend to reach the highest marginal rate at lower levels of income than they do under federal rate structures.

Alternatives to the current federal income tax system – consumption tax, “flat” tax, retail sales tax, and value-added tax regimes – result in greater regressivity and lower vertical equity.[13] While attractive to those with sufficient income to control discretionary spending subject to a sales or consumption tax, these taxes would be a significant burden on middle- and lower-income taxpayers who must spend all or nearly all their income on necessities.

Vertical equity is the one dimension of equity that is readily measurable, both as a percentage and an amount of each family’s tax burden. Economists use a variety of techniques to assess the extent to which tax burdens are shifted among income classes.[14] The theoretical question is to what extent tax burdens can be shifted among taxpayers with higher versus middle versus lower income or property values without impairing exchange or inter-group equity. [See page 8.]

Time-Related Equity and Fairness – Time-related equity and fairness means that the total tax obligation is appropriate over the long-run and not unduly distorted by fluctuations in income or wealth. Two factors contribute to potential time-related inequities. First, tax liabilities are based on short-term or single point-in-time measures. Second, changes in the general price level affect the value of the monetary unit, as well as the relative value of various tax provisions.

Taxable income is measured in one-year increments, and then taxed using progressive rates. Taxpayers with significantly higher income one year may potentially pay more in taxes than they would have paid if the same income had been spread over a couple of years. Likewise, individuals who temporarily leave the work force to raise families, attend college, or recover from an illness experience time-related tax inequities. Time-related equity within the income tax system could be improved if taxpayers were once again permitted to average income over multi-year periods. Alternatively, the progressive rate structure could be replaced with a proportional rate structure, but that would impair vertical equity and fairness.

Home owners in areas with rapidly rising real estate values experience another form of time-related inequity. Property taxes are based on market values, whether or not property owners intend to sell their homes in the foreseeable future. Market values may, in fact, drop before the home owner decides to sell his or her property. Prior to a sale or exchange transaction, the true value of the home is its value in use. Unfortunately, value in use is difficult to measure.

Inflation eventually erodes the equity of certain tax provisions. Although many items are now adjusted on an annual basis for inflation, others are not. Over time, taxpayers find themselves paying higher marginal tax rates, not because they have experienced real growth in earnings, but because inflation has caused “bracket creep.” Two examples of tax “benefits” that have not kept pace with inflation are the IRA contribution limit[15] and the capital loss limitation.[16]

Increasingly frequent changes to the tax law also affect time-related equity and fairness by disrupting taxpayer expectations and making tax-planning more difficult. Temporary changes that “sunset” in a few years further disrupt taxpayers’ ability to evaluate the long-term impact of the tax law, and therefore, its overall equity and fairness.

Inter-Group Equity and Fairness – Inter-group equity and fairness implies that no group is favored to the detriment of another without good cause. While some shifting of tax burdens based on the ability to pay may be appropriate, tax burden and benefit inequities should be minimized.

Several examples of actual or perceived inequities can be found in the system for determining Social Security benefits.[17] Women, low-income retirees, and married people receive higher rates of return when their Social Security benefits are compared to the Social Security taxes they paid. Historically, retirees have received benefits far in excess of their contributions plus a normal return. These higher than normal returns were made possible by increases in the wage base subject to Social Security taxes. Given current demographics, that pattern cannot be sustained. As the post World War II “Baby Boom” begins to retire, serious intergenerational inequities will arise as the burden of sustaining Social Security benefits shifts to younger workers.[18]

Tax laws tend to favor homeowners by providing deductions for property taxes and mortgage interest. This indirect subsidy of home ownership could be viewed as an inter-group inequity by those, who for age, economic or lifestyle reasons, are not homeowners.

One often overlooked aspect of inter-group equity is the shifting of tax revenues or spending mandates between levels of government. The framers of the Constitution envisioned a concurrent tax system where certain public services, such as defense and transportation infrastructure, were funded at the federal level and other items, such as education and public safety were funded at the state and local level.[19] Over time, the myriad of services that taxpayers expect from government, as well as the cost of infrastructure, has increased substantially, resulting in budgetary pressures.

Compliance Equity and Fairness – Compliance equity and fairness means that all taxpayers pay what they owe on a timely basis. Significant noncompliance depresses perceptions of equity, increases tax administration costs, shifts tax burdens, and enlarges the tax gap. A large current tax gap makes it necessary for legislative bodies to raise future tax rates, borrow additional funds or reduce costs or benefits. Changes in tax law or tax administration that make it easier for taxpayers to comply (or more difficult to not comply) result in fairer tax systems.

For a tax system to achieve full and voluntary taxpayer compliance, all the other equity dimensions must also be met. Taxpayers are more likely to feel a “natural moral duty” to pay their taxes if they have an adequate voice in how tax burdens and benefits are distributed and if they perceive that the tax system and its administration are fair and just.[20] In addition, taxpayer compliance should improve with a perception that most are complying and those who do not comply experience adverse consequences.

Challenges

Tax laws and administration should be equitable and fair. However, enhancing the equity and fairness of current tax systems presents significant challenges. First, the tax legislative process should make room for consideration of equity issues. Second, the tax laws should be fairly enforced. Third, a comprehensive assessment of equity and fairness within the tax system should be undertaken. Fourth, equity and fairness should not be considered alone, but in conjunction with other desirable attributes of a good tax system.

The process of writing tax law is often rushed and complicated. When tax legislation is initially proposed, lawmakers call for desirable outcomes, such as equity and fairness, simplification and economic growth. During the legislative process, these proposals encounter balanced-budget and political constraints and trade-offs are made. Often, little time is available for thoughtful consideration of equity and fairness or input from taxpayers who will be affected by the proposed changes.

Employees of tax agencies have a dual obligation to enforce the law and to treat taxpayers equitably and with respect. However, their desire to be fair is often thwarted. Rigidly drafted tax laws may not allow administrative discretion to mitigate unintended and unfair consequences. Agency administrators are under pressure to maximize collections, which may discourage “leniency.”

One of the most significant challenges is the complexity of enhancing the equity and fairness of our tax system. When evaluating the equity and fairness of any tax proposal, lawmakers at the federal, state, and local levels must consider the tax regimes of all levels of government and the interactions among these various tax rules. Any given tax law change may improve equity and fairness for taxpayers in particular locations or situations, but may reduce overall equity and fairness within the larger context.

In Tax Policy Concept Statement No. 1, the AICPA identified ten desirable attributes of a good tax system. [See Appendix] Provisions that enhance equity and fairness may have either a positive or negative impact on the simplicity, transparency or certainty of the tax system. Provisions intended to promote economic growth may result in horizontal inequity. Interaction of these competing objectives can pose a major challenge to tax writers and administrators.

Conclusion

Tax Policy Concept Statement No. 4 identifies and defines seven “dimensions” that should be considered when assessing tax equity and fairness. This approach requires the collection and analysis of an extensive amount of information. With the possible exception of vertical equity, the measurements for these dimensions will be based on soft data that are influenced by individual perceptions. When the data are analyzed, the relative importance of the equity and fairness dimensions, as well as possible interactions among dimensions, will depend on the scenario being considered and the critical perspective of the analyst. This does not mean that the task is impossible, but it is challenging.

The AICPA hopes that this Statement will: (1) challenge tax lawmakers to more fully consider the importance and scope of tax equity and fairness; (2) encourage tax administrators to strive for enhanced public perceptions of tax equity and fairness; (3) provide a useful framework for tax policy advocates and students; and (4) motivate academic researchers to develop the measures and models needed to empirically address equity and fairness issues.

Appendix

Desirable Attributes for Tax Systems

|Adam Smith[21] |CEA[22] |JEC[23] |AICPA[24] |IPI[25] |GAO[26] |

|1776 |1996 |1998 |2001 |2005 |2005 |

|Certainty | | |Certainty | | |

|Convenience of Payment | | |Convenience of Payment | | |

|Economy in Collection | | |Economy of Collection | | |

| |Simplicity | |Simplicity |Simplicity |Simplicity |

| | |Neutral Economic Impact|Neutrality |Neutrality | |

| |Economic Efficiency | |Economic Growth and | |Economic Efficiency |

| | | |Efficiency | | |

| | |Transparent |Transparency and |Visibility |Transparency |

| | | |Visibility | | |

| | |Tax Avoidance Difficult|Minimum Tax Gap | | |

| | |and Risky | | | |

| | | |Appropriate Government | | |

| | | |Revenues | | |

| | |Not Costly to | | |Administrability |

| | |Administer | | | |

| | |Not Costly to Calculate| | | |

Bibliography

AICPA. (2005). Understanding Social Security Reform: The Issues and Alternatives. New York: AICPA.

AICPA. (2005). Understanding Tax Reform: A Guide to 21st Century Alternatives. New York: AICPA.

AICPA. (2001). Tax Policy Concept Statement No. 1, Guiding Principles of Good Tax Policy: A Framework for Evaluating Tax Proposals. New York: AICPA.

Anderson, J., Roy, A. & P. Shoemaker. (2003). “Confidence Intervals for the Suits Index.” National Tax Journal, Vol. LVI, No. 1, Part 1, pp. 81-90.

Aristotle. (1975, Translation by H. Rackham). The Nicomachean Ethics. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

Beach, W. (2005). “Measuring the Fairness of a Tax System.” Testimony before the Committee on Ways and Means of the United States House of Representatives. Heritage Foundation. .

Blum, W. & H. Kalvern Jr. (1953). The Uneasy Case for Progressive Taxation. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Buchanan, A. & D. Mathieu. (1986) “Philosophy and Justice,” in Justice: Views from the Social Sciences. R. Cohen (ed.). New York: Plenum.

Cordero, R. (1988). “Aristotle and Fair Deals,” Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 7, Issue 9, pp. 681-690.

Council of Economic Advisors. (1996). Economic Report of the President. Washington, DC: US Government Printing Office.

Government Accountability Office. (2005). Understanding the Tax Reform Debate: Background, Criteria and Questions. (GAO-05-1009SP)

Hamilton, A., Jay, J., and Madison, J. (1788). The Federalist Papers: A Collection of Essays.

Hunter, L. and S. Entin. (2005). A Framework for Tax Reform. Institute for Policy Innovation. [See also Statement of Stephen Entin before House Ways and Means Committee, Hearing on Fundamental Tax Reform, April 13, 2000.]

Internal Revenue Service. The Impact of the Tax Reform Act of 1986: Did It Improve Fairness and Simplicity? Report of the 1989 IRS Research Conference, Department of the Treasury Document 7301 (Rev. 3-90).

Internal Revenue Service Restructuring and Reform Act of 1998, Pub. L. 105-206, title I, section 1204, July 22, 1998, 112 Stat. 722.

Lavoie, R. “Fairness: To each according to his needs.” .

Lefkowitz, D. (2004). “The Nature of Fairness and Political Obligation: A Response to Carr,” Social Theory and Practice, January, Vol. 30, Issue 1, pp. 1-31.

Moser, D., J. Evans III & C. Kim. (1995). “The Effects of Horizontal and Exchange Inequity on Tax Reporting Decisions,” Accounting Review, October, Vol. 70, Issue 4, pp. 619-634.

Penner, R. (2003). “Searching for a Just Tax System.” Washington, DC: Urban Institute, Discussion Paper No. 13. .

Rawls, J. (1999) [1958]. “Justice as Fairness,” in S. Freedman (ed.), John Rawls: Collected Papers. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, pp. 47-72.

_______. (1999) [1971]. A Theory of Justice. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Reeve, C. (1992). Practices of Reason: Aristotle’s Nichomachean Ethics. New York: Oxford University Press.

Seetharaman, A & G. Iyer. (1995). “A Comparison of Alternative Measures of Tax Progressivity: The Case of the Child and Dependent Care Credit.” The Journal of the American Tax Association, Vol. 17, No. 1, pp. 42-70.

Shapiro, R. (1996). Why Fairness Matters: Progressive Versus Flat Taxes. Progressive Policy Institute.

Smith, A. (1976) [1776]. An Inquiry into the Nature and Wealth of Nations. E. Cannan (ed.). Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.

Streuerle, C., Carasso, A. & L. Cohen. (2004). “How Progressive is Social Security and Why?” Washington, DC: Urban Institute, Number 37 in Series “Straight Talk on Social Security and Retirement Policy.” .

Suits, D. (1977). “Measurement of Tax Progressivity.” American Economic Review, Vol. 67, No. 4, pp. 747-752.

Thorndike J. and D. Ventry (eds.) (2002). Tax Justice: The Ongoing Debate. Washington, D.C.: Urban Institute Press.

Vedder, R. & L. Gallaway. (1998). Some Underlying Principles of Tax Policy. Joint Economic Committee Study. .

Zajac, E. (2002). “What Fairness-and-Denial Research Could Have Told the Florida Supreme Court,” Independent Review, Volume 6, Issue 3, pp. 377-398.

-----------------------

[1] The Innocent Spouse and the Offers in Compromise rules are examples of tax provisions designed to mitigate unintended and unfair consequences.

[2] A more detailed discussion of the fairness in computer queues research done by Adam Wierman and Mor Hachol-Balter at Carnegie Mellon University can be found at cs.cmu/~acw/.

[3] AICPA (2001). Tax Policy Concept Statement No. 1, Guiding Principles of Good Tax Policy: A Framework for Evaluating Tax Proposals.

[4] The seven equity and fairness dimensions are not listed in rank order. The relative importance of each will depend in part on the type of tax involved and the nature of the tax law or administrative change being considered.

[5] AICPA (2005). Understanding Tax Reform: A Guide to 21st Century Alternative, p. 11.

[6] Moser, Evans & Kim, 1995.

[7] Tax-writing committees in Congress have a history of enacting statutory provisions that mandate Treasury to draft the detailed regulations needed to implement the statute. While Treasury staff may have a better understanding of the technical issues involved, Congress erodes taxpayer perceptions of process equity by passing the primary responsibility for tax rule-making to an administrative agency.

[8] Congress uses the tax system to provide economic and social incentives. Preferential tax treatment of dividends and capital gains may provide economic incentives for capital investment. However, these provisions may also diminish the perceived horizontal equity of the tax system.

[9] This often includes the basic cost to maintain a household of modest means and could include differences among geographic locations. Currently, the federal tax system does not take cost-of-living differences among geographic locations into consideration [California versus Arkansas].

[10] While the income tax rules tend to penalize married couples with similar incomes, benefit distribution formulas for Social Security tend to favor married couples. The “marriage benefit” still works for couples with one wage-earner or couples with widely disparate incomes.

[11] Increased standard deductions are available to elderly or blind taxpayers, although this only results in lower taxes for those who do not itemize. The income tax laws in many states still grant extra exemptions if the taxpayer or the taxpayer’s spouse is elderly or blind.

[12] Advocates of a flat tax system argue vertical equity can only be achieved if a single rate is applied to all income – i.e., there are no deductions and no differential treatment of earned income versus income from capital. They further suggest that progressive tax rates actually leads to vertical “inequity.”

[13] See generally, AICPA, 2005, Understanding Tax Reform: A Guide to 21st Century Alternatives.

[14] See Anderson, Roy & Shoemaker, 2003; Seetharaman & Iyer, 1995; and Suits, 1977.

[15] IRAs were first available in 1975 with a $1,500 limit that remained unchanged until 1982, when it was raised to $2,000. For the next twenty years, the IRA limit remained at $2,000. The 2007 limit is $4,000 [$5,000 for taxpayers 50 or older]. If the IRA limitation had been adjusted for inflation since 1975, it would be closer to $5,700 today. If the limit had been indexed for inflation in $500 increments – consistent with the current method for going forward after 2008 – the same taxpayer could have contributed an additional $44,000 [$35,000 for catch-up eligible] over the same period. The limit would have risen to $2,000 in 1979, be $4,000 by 1993, $5,000 by 2002, and $5,500 by 2006. [Calculations made using the “Inflation Calculator” at .]

[16] In contrast, the capital loss limitation – initially set at $1,000 in 1942, then raised to the current $3,000 limit in 1978 – has not been adjusted for almost 30 years. Indexing for inflation would have resulted in a capital loss limitation closer to $12,600 (if indexed since 1954) or $9,500 (if indexed since 1978). [Calculations made using the “Inflation Calculator” at .]

[17] See Steuerle, Carasso & Cohen, 2004.

[18] AICPA. (2005). Understanding Social Security Reform: The Issues and Alternatives.

[19] See Hamilton, 1788, The Federalist Papers, No. 32.

[20] See Lefkowitz, 2004.

[21] Adam Smith – An Inquiry into the Nature and Wealth of Nations.

[22] Council of Economic Advisors – Economic Report of the President.

[23] Joint Economic Committee, Study by Vedder & Galloway – Some Underlying Principles of Tax Policy.

[24] American Institute of Certified Public Accountants – Tax Policy Concept Statement No. 1, Guiding Principles for Good Tax Policy: A Framework for Evaluating Tax Proposals.

[25] Institute for Policy Innovation, Study by Hunter & Entin – A Framework for Tax Reform.

[26] Government Accountability Office – Understanding the Tax Reform Debate: Background, Criteria and Questions.

................
................

In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.

Google Online Preview   Download