The Tax Code Debate

I typically do not carry on debates on this blog because the statistics show that my readers are looking for topical issues rather than debates. But I think many readers would enjoy this debate. So I will say a few more things about the tax code debate.

First, Mr. Maule, it was not my intent to “attack” anyone. When a reader pointed out that my post might be construed as an attack, I decided to post Mr. Levine’s article over mine. That seemed like the right thing to do. Anyway, please accept my apology if you felt “attacked,” as that was not my intent.

But let’s explore the issue some more. Perhaps you felt the post was an “attack” because it introduced a new element into the debate. That element is tax scholarship and the way tax law is taught. Surprisingly, based on your latest response, I think we might be on the same side of a lot of these issues (perhaps I will have to read some of your work). However, let me say a few things here. It is related. I will connect it up, so please bear with me.

I face one major obstacle in my practice on an ongoing basis (actually I face several obstacles, but this one bothers me the most). Namely, taxpayers believing that they are helpless when faced with a tax dispute with the IRS. It has been my experience that this view almost always comes from a belief that the IRS uses a complex weapon called the tax code to destroy taxpayers’ lives. As I wrote my last post I had just concluded a meeting with a taxpayer who held this view.

The particular taxpayer had worried about his tax problem so much that it compromised his health. The stress almost killed him - literally. At the beginning of that meeting I handed the taxpayer a copy of the Code. I told the taxpayer that the index was in the front and I asked the taxpayer to try to find the applicable code section. The taxpayer did so. I then asked the taxpayer to read the section and tell me what it said. The taxpayer did so. The taxpayer then asked, “is that it?” and, “is that what I have been worried about?” My answer was “yes” and “yes.” I then showed the taxpayer the applicable procedural code sections. The taxpayer laughed and then cried.

You see Mr. Maule, this taxpayer (along with many other taxpayers that I have represented) was under the belief that the tax code was undecipherable and that his life was going to be destroyed by it. In his case the belief turned out to be false, yet it still did great harm to the taxpayer. The same belief has harmed many of my other clients — although the harm is often not as direct. I have seen the belief destroy marriages. I have seen the belief separate parent and child and turn friends and partners against each other.

I personally feel that this belief harms society as well. So you may ask why this is relevant to our discussion of tax scholarship. Let me explain. When I asked that taxpayer why he held this belief the taxpayer related that his nephew is in law school. Apparently his nephew’s tax professor had impressed this view upon his student. This case only involved one law professor and one law student. Three weeks before it was one accounting professor and one accounting student. Years before that it was my very own tax professors.

So do I have some negative opinions of how tax law is taught and about tax scholarship? Yes, I suppose I do. At some level you understand, and I am sure you would agree, that a professors words and beliefs shape the views of the next generation of tax practitioners and, indirectly, our societies beliefs about our tax system. As a professor your beliefs do the same. So Mr. Maul, you can continue to tell your students and others that the tax code is hopelessly complex. That is your right.

All I intended by my post was to let others know that that is not the only view out there. Perhaps I did that in-artful way and for that I am sorry. As you can see I take this issue a little personally. So I hope there are no hard feelings. I didn’t mean to “attack” your or anyone else. Mr. Maule I truly wish you the best. As an aside, this debate has destroyed a post I was writing on why it is better to study tax law than classic literature (oh well, maybe I can post that piece after the readers have forgotten about this debate).

Related Posts: