More Resources

Disrupting the market for tax planning.


by Weisbach, David A.
Virginia Tax Review • Spring, 2007 • response to article by Philip Curry, Claire Hill, and Francesco Parisi in this issue, p. 943

Their market disruption examples fare better. Circular 230 and the Thompson/McNulty memo seem like clear examples of market disruption. Similarly, the rules regarding contingency fees seem aimed at making pricing less efficient. There are likely to be other examples. Thus, uncertainty may help disrupt sheltering. Anti-abuse rules have this feature--they have uncertain content, potentially forcing taxpayers to be more conservative than they would be if they had clear boundaries. Similarly, refusing to provide rules in some areas may be an example of the same strategy. Thus, the lack of rules in the debt/equity area or with regard to what is a constructive sale may prevent aggressive behavior. Rules against tax insurance may be a way of preventing signaling of quality, thereby creating adverse selection. Given the variety of examples of market disruption, I get the sense that the government already understand the point. Curry, Hill, and Parisi do the job of framing it and generalizing it. Their article is a worthy contribution to the literature.

David A. Weisbach*

* Walter J. Blum Professor of Law, The University of Chicago Law School.

(1) See Philip A. Curry, Claire A. Hill & Francesco Parisi, Creating Failures in the Market for Tax Planning, 26 VA. TAX REV. 943 (2007).

(2) Id. at 949.

(3) See Joel Slemrod & Shlomo Yitzhaki, The Costs of Taxation and the Marginal Efficiency Cost of Funds, 43 IMF STAFF PAPERS 172, 182 (1996).

(4) See Joel Slemrod & Wojiech Kopczuk, The Optimal Elasticity of Taxable Income, 84 J. PUB. ECON. 91 (2002).

(5) See, e.g., David A. Weisbach, Ten Truths About Tax Shelters, 55 TAX L. REV. 201, 231-41 (2002).

(6) Curry, Hill & Parisi, supra note 1, at 949.

(7) Id. at 950.

(8) Slemrod & Yitzhaki, supra note 3, at 172.

(9) Curry, Hill & Parisi, supra note 1, at 953.

(10) State Street Bank & Trust Co. v. Signature Financial Group, Inc., 149 F.3d 1368 (Fed. Cir. 1998).

(11) Curry, Hill & Parisi, supra note 1, at 953.

(12) Id. at 961.

(13) Id.

(14) Id. at 962.

(15) Id. at 963.

(16) Id. at 964.


1  2  3  
COPYRIGHT 2007 Virginia Tax Review Reproduced with permission of the copyright holder. Further reproduction or distribution is prohibited without permission.
Copyright 2007, Gale Group. All rights reserved. Gale Group is a Thomson Corporation Company.
NOTE: All illustrations and photos have been removed from this article.


Browse by Journal Name:
Today on Entrepreneur
Related Video

e-Business & Technology
Franchise News
Business Book Sampler
Starting a Business
Sales & Marketing
Growing a Business
E-mail*:
Zip Code*: