DEFINING “PROFITS” FOR BRITISH INCOME TAX PURPOSES: A CONTEXTUAL STUDY OF THE DEPRECIATION CASES, 1875–1897

2002 ◽  
Vol 29 (1) ◽  
pp. 105-172 ◽  
Author(s):  
Margaret Lamb

Seven British income tax disputes over depreciation (1875–1897) are analyzed in this contextual study. The legal cases reveal how uncertainty over meanings for “depreciation,” “profits,” and “capital” reflected social and political tensions which had commercial accounting implications. Case analysis yields evidence of how judicial support reinforced the Inland Revenue's technical authority over a competing tax administration institution and enabled its modern regulatory control over taxpayers to be constructed. The British example illustrates the ways in which technical and administrative practices may emerge from the contestation of meanings that takes place both in a wide political context and within particular institutional settings.

1959 ◽  
Vol 12 (1) ◽  
pp. 37-53
Author(s):  
HAROLD M. GROVES

2013 ◽  
Vol 63 (4) ◽  
pp. 405-421 ◽  
Author(s):  
Tine Stanovnik ◽  
Miroslav Verbič

This paper analyses the distribution of employee earnings in Slovenia in the period 1991–2009. The analysis is based on large samples from the personal income tax (PIT) files. According to the Gini coefficient, increases in earnings inequality were moderate; however, relatively large increases in the shares accruing to the top 5% and top 1% of employees did occur. Inequality of employees’ after-tax earnings (i.e. net of employee social contributions and PIT) remained fairly stable in this time period, due to the increasing progressivity of PIT, as shown by the Kakwani index of progressivity. Increases in progressivity of the personal income tax came in leaps, following the introduction of new income tax legislation. Institutional settings and the introduction of minimum wage legislation in 1995 also appear to havemoderated inequality increases, which were quite large in the early years of the transition.


Author(s):  
Edward J. McCaffery

This chapter argues that a behavioral law and economics approach to tax is deeply needed for a wider normative analysis of the impacts of law on social welfare. The absence of traditional markets to serve as arbitrage mechanisms in public finance means that suboptimal tax and fiscal systems can arise and persist for long periods of time. Most of the current scholarly applications of behavioral approaches to tax, however, fail to take into account the institutional settings in which tax laws exist. For example, the common recommendation for tax-favored savings plans to counteract a persistent individual-level myopia that leads to undersavings for many suffers from the possibility of being undercut on account of the ability to borrow tax-free under the current income tax system, combined with individual-level myopia itself. Similarly, a recent trend of scholarship that argues for “low salient” taxes to help ameliorate persistent fiscal crises (themselves exacerbated by pervasive behavioral biases playing out in a setting absent effective arbitrage mechanisms) ignores or underplays the real costs of even hidden taxes, both allocatively and distributionally. The chapter concludes that the most critical work for a behavioral law and economics approach to tax lies ahead.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document