Skip to main content
Log in

Simple rules and the Political Economy of Income Taxation: the strengths of a uniform expense rule

  • Published:
European Journal of Law and Economics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The complexity of the U.S. income tax system emerged in part from the differentiated fiscal treatment of specific investments and various sorts of business expenditures that, as Richard Wagner says, creates “a tax code so large that no one can read it and which creates nearly a unique tax liability for each taxpayer.” While tax scholarship documents the costs of complexity, current scholarship lacks a normative legal theory that could inspire an alternative to this practice of targeted credits and deduction rules. This paper builds on Epstein’s general Simple Rules framework to develop a radical simplification of income tax: the operationalization of a uniform expense rule, i.e., the application of a single deduction scheme across all expenses and investments. With regard to the trade-off between targeted rules and this general approach, this paper investigates the nature of a uniform expense rule and reveals its strengths with respect to political economy. First, a stable and universal expense rule would narrow the scope of politicians’ ability to concentrate benefits on special-interest groups and would limit rent-seeking. The abolition of deviating rules for investments would restrict the scope of tax optimization, meaning that individual and corporate tax liabilities would be more determined by the ability to pay them. The same policy would save companies and government millions of dollars that they currently spend on tax compliance and administration of the tax system, respectively. Last, a deduction rule that applies across all businesses and industries would be less price distortive and thus would enhance the quality of the price signal.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. Beneficial tax treatment for specific expenses and investments can be realized through both deductions and credits. Deductions point at subtractions from the taxable income, whereas a credit minimizes a taxpayers’ tax liability. Both techniques pertain to providing a beneficial fiscal treatment for specific expenses and investments, so this paper discusses them together.

  2. Special treatment of expenses and investments, whether via credits or deductions, creates a financial benefit for specific taxpayers and constitutes “tax expenditures.” (Schizer, 2015; Surrey and McDaniel, 1985; Thuronyi, 1988).

  3. For a list of tax expenditures in the fiscal year 2018, see U.S. Department of the Treasury (2018).

  4. This example relates to other jurisdictions as well, since all OECD members have adopted tax incentives for R&D of similar kinds.

  5. Tax exemptions that deviate from the general rule can be seen as “subsidies” since, economically speaking, there is no difference between directing tax dollars to specific activities or groups and exempting specific groups or activities from taxation (Schizer, 2015; Surrey and McDaniel, 1985; Thuronyi, 1988).

  6. Of course, many targeted taxes are intended to improve the price signal (see Part 3.2). Hayek’s response would be that on many occasions, the requisite information to perfect the market though targeted taxes is not available in any centralized manner. This is not to say that all targeted taxes (e.g., Pigouvian taxes) are flawed.

  7. From a taxpayer’s perspective, there is little difference between the cost of taxation (i.e., the actual liability), and the cost of tax compliance (i.e., the information and administration costs of paying the tax). Hence decreased compliance costs may well generate similar effects as low tax rates.

References

  • Abreu, A., & Greenstein, R. (2011). Defining income. Florida Tax Review, 11(5), 295–348.

    Google Scholar 

  • Acs, Z. J., Åstebro, T., & Robinson, R. (2016). Public policy to promote entrepreneurship: A call to arms. Small Business Economics, 47, 35–51.

    Google Scholar 

  • Aghion, P., Akcigit, U., Lequien, M., & Stantcheva, S. (2017). Tax simplicity and heterogeneous learning. National Bureau of Economic Research Working Paper No. 24049. https://doi.org/10.3386/w24049.

  • Akcigit, U., Hanley, D. & Stantcheva S. (2016). Optimal taxation and R&D policies. National Bureau of Economic Research Working Paper Series, No. w22908. Cambridge Massachusetts.

  • Alexander, R., Mazza, S., & Scholz, S. (2009). Measuring rates of return for lobbying expenditures: An empirical case study of tax breaks for multinational corporations. Journal of Law and Politics, 25(401), 401–458.

    Google Scholar 

  • Arrow, K. (1962). Economic welfare and the allocation of resources for invention. In The Rate and Direction of Inventive Activity: Economic and Social Factors (pp. 609–626). Princeton University Press. Retrieved March 15, 2021, from http://www.nber.org/chapters/c2144.

  • Bacher, H. U., & Brülhart, M. (2013). Progressive taxes and firm births. International Tax and Public Finance, 20(1), 129–168. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10797-012-9218-z

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Baptista, R., Escária, V., & Madruga, P. (2008). Entrepreneurship, regional development and job creation: The case of Portugal. Small Business Economics, 30(1), 49–58.

    Google Scholar 

  • Batchelder, L., Golberg, F., & Orszag, P. (2006). Efficiency and tax incentives: The case for refundable tax credits. Stanford Law Review, 59(23), 23–76.

    Google Scholar 

  • Baumol, W. (1972). On taxation and the control of externalities. The American Economic Review, 62(3), 307–322.

    Google Scholar 

  • Blank, J., & Osofsky, L. (2017). Simplexity: Plain language and the tax law. Emory Law Journal, 66, 189–264.

    Google Scholar 

  • Buchanan, J. M. & Tullock, G. (1999). The calculus of consent: Logical foundations of constitutional democracy. In The collected works of James M. Buchanan, 10. Liberty Fund (Original work published 1985).

  • Boadway, R. W. (2012). From optimal tax theory to tax policy: Retrospective and prospective views. Munich Lectures in Economics. MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Capron, H. & van Pottelsberghe de la Potterie, B. (1997). Public support to business R&D: A survey and some new quantitative evidence. In Policy evaluation in innovation and technology: Towards best practices (pp. 171–188). OECD.

  • Center on Budget and Policy Priorities (2019). Policy basics: Federal tax expenditures. https://www.cbpp.org/research/federal-tax/policy-basics-federal-tax-expenditures.

  • Chamley, C. (1986). Optimal taxation of capital income in general equilibrium with infinite lives. Econometrica, 54(3), 607. https://doi.org/10.2307/1911310

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chirelstein, M. A. (1988). Federal income taxation: A law student’s guide to the leading cases and concepts. University Textbook Series (5th ed.). Foundation Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Christensen, C., Craig, T., & Hart, S. (2001). The great disruption. Foreign Affairs, 80(2), 80. https://doi.org/10.2307/20050066

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Christians, A. (2017). Trust in the tax system. In D. de Cogan & M. Hen (Eds.), Building Trust in Taxation (pp. 151–172). Cambridge Intersentia.

    Google Scholar 

  • David, P., Hall, B., & Toole, A. (1999). Is public R&D a complement or substitute for private R&D? A review of the econometric evidence. National Bureau of Economic Research. https://doi.org/10.3386/w7373

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Dechezleprêtre, A., Einiö, E., Martin, R., Nguyen, K.-T., & Van Reenen, J. (2016). Do tax incentives for research increase firm innovation? An RD design for R&D. National Bureau of Economic Research Working Paper No. 22405. https://doi.org/10.3386/w22405.

  • Delmotte, C. (2017). The right to autonomy as a moral foundation for the realization principle in income taxation. In M. Bhandari (Ed.), Philosophical foundations of tax law (pp. 281–304). Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198798439.003.0013

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Delmotte, C. (2020). Tax uniformity as a requirement of justice. Canadian Journal of Law and Jurisprudence, 33(1), 59–83. https://doi.org/10.1017/cjlj.2019.30

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Delmotte, C., & Cowen, N. (2019). The mirage of mark-to-market: Distributive justice and alternatives to capital taxation. Critical Review of International Social and Political Philosophy. https://doi.org/10.1080/13698230.2019.1644585

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Diamond, P., & Piketty, T. (2011). The case for a progressive tax: From basic research to policy recommendations. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 25(4), 165–190.

    Google Scholar 

  • Epstein, R. A. (1995). Simple rules for a complex world. Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Evans, L., Grimes, A., Wilkinson, B., & Teece, D. (1996). Economic reform in New Zealand 1984–1995: The pursuit of efficiency. Journal of Economic Literature, 34(4), 1856–1902.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fölster, S. (2002). Do lower taxes stimulate self-employment? Small Business Economics, 19(2), 135–145. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1016200800982

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Guceri, I., & Liu, L. (2019). Effectiveness of fiscal incentives for R&D: Quasi-experimental evidence. American Economic Journal: Economic Policy, 11(1), 266–291. https://doi.org/10.1257/pol.20170403

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Guenther, G. (2015). Research tax credit: Current law and policy issues for the 114th Congress. Congressional Research Service.

  • Haig, R. M. (1921). The federal income tax. Columbia University Press.

  • Hall, A. & Rabushka, A. (2007). The flat tax. 2nd edn. Stanford, CA: Hoover Institution Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Harper, D. A. (2018). Innovation and institutions from the bottom up: An introduction. Journal of Institutional Economics, 14(6), 975–1001. https://doi.org/10.1017/S174413741800019X

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Harrison, J. L., & Theeuwes, J. (2008). Law and economics (1st ed.). W.W. Norton & Co.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hemel, D., & Ouellette, L. (2013). Beyond the patents–prizes debate. Texas Law Review, 92(2), 303–382.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hemel, D., & Ouellette, L. (2019). Innovation policy pluralism. Yale Law Journal, 128(3), 544–614.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hettich, W., & Winer, S. L. (1999). Democratic choice and taxation: A theoretical and empirical analysis. Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hindriks, J., & Myles, G. D. (2013). Intermediate public economics. The MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hodge, S. (2016). The compliance costs of IRS regulations. Tax Foundation: Fiscal Fact, no. 512.

  • Holcombe, R. (1998). Tax policy from a public choice perspective. National Tax Journal, 51(2), 359–371.

    Google Scholar 

  • Holcombe, R. G. (2002). Excise taxation and interest group politics. In D. P. Racheter & R. E. Wagner (Eds.), Politics, Taxation, and the Rule of Law (pp. 123–143). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4615-1069-7_7

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Kaplow, L. (2011). The theory of taxation and public economics. Princeton University Press. Retrieved March 15, 2021, from http://public.eblib.com/choice/publicfullrecord.aspx?p=769614.

  • Kleinbard, E. (2017). Business taxes reinvented: A term sheet. Tax Notes, 156(8), 999–1013.

    Google Scholar 

  • Köhler, C., Laredo, P., & Rammer, C. (2012). The impact and effectiveness of fiscal incentives for R&D. National Endowment for Science, Technology & the Arts, Working Paper No. 12/01, 2012. Retrieved March 15, 2021, from https://media.nesta.org.uk/documents/the_impact_and_effectiveness_of_fiscal_incentives.pdf.

  • Laffer, A., Winegarden, W., & Childs, J. (2011). The economic burden caused by tax code complexity. Laffer Center.

  • Laplante, S. K., Skaife, H. A., Swenson, L. A., & Wangerin, D. D. (2019). Limits of tax regulation: Evidence from strategic R&D classification and the R&D tax credit. Journal of Accounting and Public Policy, 38(2), 89–105. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jaccpubpol.2019.02.003

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Liu, Y., & Mao, J. (2019). How do tax incentives affect investment and productivity? Firm-level evidence from China. American Economic Journal: Economic Policy, 11(3), 261–291. https://doi.org/10.1257/pol.20170478

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lucas, R. (1990). Supply-side economics: An analytical review. Oxford Economic Papers New Series, 42(2), 293–316.

    Google Scholar 

  • Maffini, G., Xing, J., & Devereux, M. P. (2019). The impact of investment incentives: Evidence from UK corporation tax returns. American Economic Journal: Economic Policy, 11(3), 361–389. https://doi.org/10.1257/pol.20170254

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mankiw, N. G., & Weinzierl, M. (2010). The optimal taxation of height: A case study of utilitarian income redistribution. American Economic Journal: Economic Policy, 2(1), 155–176.

    Google Scholar 

  • Marciano, A., & Khalil, E. L. (2012). Optimization, path dependence and the law: Can judges promote efficiency? International Review of Law and Economics, 32(1), 72–82. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.irle.2011.12.010

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McChesney, F. (1987). Rent extraction and rent creation in the economic theory of regulation. The Journal of Legal Studies, 16(1), 101–118.

    Google Scholar 

  • McChesney, F., & Doerberg, R. (1987). On the accelerating rate and decreasing durability of tax reform. Minnesota Law Review, 71, 913–962.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mukherjee, A., Singh, M., & Žaldokas, A. (2017). Do corporate taxes hinder innovation? Journal of Financial Economics, 124(1), 195–221. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jfineco.2017.01.004

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Musgrave, R. A. (1990). Horizontal equity, once more. National Tax Journal, 43(2), 113–122.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nelson, R. R. (1959). The simple economics of basic scientific research. Journal of Political Economy, 67(3), 297–306.

    Google Scholar 

  • OECD. (2003). The sources of economic growth in OECD countries. Paris: OECD Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264199460-en.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Olson, M. (2003). The logic of collective action: Public goods and the theory of groups. Harvard Economic Studies (p. 124). Harvard University Press (21st printing).

  • Pigou, A. C. (1932). The economics of welfare. Library of Economics and Liberty. Retrieved March 15, 2021, from http://www.econlib.org/library/NPDBooks/Pigou/pgEW.html.

  • Richter, B. K., Samphantharak, K., & Timmons, J. F. (2009). Lobbying and taxes. American Journal of Political Science. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-5907.2009.00407.x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rabushka, A. (1988). The tax reform act of 1986: Concentrated costs, diffuse benefits—An inversion of public choice. Contemporary Economic Policy, 6(4), 50–64. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1465-7287.1988.tb00546.x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rajagopalan, S., & Rizzo, M. J. (2017). Austrian perspectives in law and economics. In A. M. Polinsky & S. Shavell (Eds.), The Oxford handbook in law and economics (pp. 268–287). Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ramsey, F. (1927). A contribution to the theory of taxation. Economic Journal, 37, 47–61.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rizzo, M. J. (2015). Abstract morality for an abstract order: Liberalism’s difficult problem. Supreme Court Economic Review, 23(1), 7–34. https://doi.org/10.1086/686470

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schauer, F. (2004). The generality of the law. West Virginia Law Review, 107(1), 217–234.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schenk, D. H. (1999). Saving the income tax with a wealth tax. Tax Law Review, 53(3), 423–476.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schenk, D. H. (2004). A positive account of the realization rule. Tax Law Review, 57, 355–396.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schizer, D. M. (2001). Frictions as a constraint on tax planning. Columbia Law Review, 101(6), 1312–1409.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schizer, D. M. (2015). Limiting tax expenditures. Tax Law Review, 68, 275–354.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shay, S., Fleming, C., & Peroni, R. (2016). R&D tax incentives: Growth panacea or budget Trojan horse. Tax Law Review, 69(3), 419–458.

    Google Scholar 

  • Simons, H. C. (1938). Personal income taxation: The definition of income as a problem of fiscal policy. University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stephens, R. (1993). Tax reform in New Zealand. Fiscal Studies, 14(3), 45–63.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stiglitz, J. E. (1994). Whither socialism? MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Surrey, S. S., & McDaniel, P. R. (1985). Tax expenditures. Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tax Foundation (2013). There are over $1.2 trillion of tax expenditures. Retrieved March 15, 2021, from https://taxfoundation.org/there-are-over-12-trillion-tax-expenditures/.

  • Thuronyi, V. P. (1988). Tax expenditures: A reassessment. Duke Law Journal, 37(6), 1155–1206.

    Google Scholar 

  • 26 C.F.R. § 1.41-4(a)(4) (2020).

  • 26 C.F.R. § 1.41-4(a)(5)(ii) (2020).

  • 26 C.F.R. § 1.41-4(a)(8) (2020).

  • 26 U.S.C. § 41 (2018).

  • 26 U.S.C. § 41(a)(1) (2018).

  • 26 U.S.C.§ 41(d)(4)(B)–(H) (2018).

  • Ufuk, A., Grigsby, J., Nicholas, T., & Stantcheva, S. (2018). Taxation and innovation in the 20th Century. National Bureau of Economic Research Working Paper No. 24982.

  • U.S. Department of the Treasury (2018). Tax expenditures. Retrieved March 15, 2021, from https://home.treasury.gov/policy-issues/tax-policy/tax-expenditures.

  • U.S. Government Accountability Office (2019). Tax expenditures. Retrieved March 15, 2021, from https://www.gao.gov/key_issues/tax_expenditures/issue_summary.

  • von Hayek, F. A. (1945). The use of knowledge in society. American Economic Review, 35(4), 519–530.

    Google Scholar 

  • von Hayek, F. A. (1960). The constitution of liberty. University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • von Hayek, F. A. (1964). Kinds of order in society. New Individualist Review. Retrieved March 15, 2021, from http://files.libertyfund.org/files/2493/Hayek_KindsOrder1964.pdf.

  • von Hayek, F. A. (1993). Law, legislation, and liberty: A new statement of the liberal principles of justice and political economy. Reprinted 1993. Routledge.

  • von Hayek, F. A. (2001). The road to serfdom. Routledge Classics. Routledge.

  • Wagner, R. E. (2016). Politics as a peculiar business: Insights from a theory of entangled political economy. New Thinking in Political Economy. Edward Elgar Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Weisbach, D. A. (1999). Line drawing doctrine and efficiency in the tax law. Cornell Law Review, 84(6), 1627–1681.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zwick, E. (2018). The costs of corporate tax complexity. National Bureau of Economic Research Working Paper No. 24382. https://doi.org/10.3386/w24382.

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Charles Delmotte.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

I am indebted to Richard Epstein, Mario Rizzo, Dan Shaviro, Steven Dean, John Taylor, Jon Choi, Jeesoo Nam and Daniel Nientiedt and the other participants who were present at NYU’s Strengths and Weaknesses of Simple Rules Conference on 28–29 February 2020.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Delmotte, C. Simple rules and the Political Economy of Income Taxation: the strengths of a uniform expense rule. Eur J Law Econ 52, 323–339 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10657-021-09693-7

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10657-021-09693-7

Keywords

JEL codes

Navigation