OK, this is a self-referential post. I suspect I am like most bloggers--partly obsessed, partly possessed. Blogging is a means of communication with a vast world of others who share common interests or radically opposing positions. We bloggers enjoy blogging, I suspect, for the same reason that we enjoy a conversation over a slow meal with people who are lively, informed, and articulate. It is one more way, ultimately, both to keep ourselves informed, to learn, and to share that learning with others.
Of course, in the tax/economics/democratic institutions area of the law that I deal with in this blog, there is a substantial amount of technical jargon that can be offputting to anyone who is not an expert in the area. So there are choices about style and tone that sometimes appear to demand both consistency and its opposite. Do I cover a court decision dealing with an obtuse quirk of the reorganization provisions? Likely only my fellow tax practitioners will read or understand that one, so I tend to limit those to the ones that are more than just technical details without much overlap with questions of ethics, institutional roles, or tax policy. Do I provide yet another blogger's description of financial regulatory or health care proposals? Given the breadth of coverage of these issues elsewhere, I tend to do this when I think I have some slightly different take on the issue that can pull information together in a way that will be both interesting and novel. I am particularly interested, in my scholarly life, in norms of behavior for taxpayers and tax advisers, so I tend to cover anything in that area more assiduously--misbehavior by tax lawyers promoting tax shelters, the role of banks as accommodation parties in tax shelters, new regulations about tax shelters, corporate cases applying judicial doctrines (whichever way they come out), and the ongoing back-and-forth about the advantages and disadvantages of potential codification of the economic substance doctrine (I still oppose codification--I tend to think this judicial doctrine belongs in the courts, where it can be adapted in small and nuanced ways from case to case by case, and where the uncertainty of its potential application can throw a wrench--or at least the fear of the IRS "god"--in those greedy taxpayers who scheme to avoid paying their fair share of the tax burden). I am also fascinated by the intersection of patent law and tax law, and have written several articles about the problematic emergence of tax strategy patents. You can bet i'll cover Bilski when the Supreme Court hears the case and when it issues its opinion. I'll probably even share more of my own speculation about the appropriate response of the Supreme Court well before then.
Sometimes when I read tax postings by other bloggers, I realize how easy it is for us to leave out aspects of the tax law that are obvious to us but that may not be so obvious to readers. ( For example, we sometimes cover cancellation of debt income, telling readers that there are bankrupcty and insolvency exceptions, but that the general rule is that they will have to pay tax on the debt that is cancelled. That is all fine and good, but it leaves out a critical piece that probably should be included anytime the subject is discussed--the "why" of the matter, which is dealt with in introductory tax texts in discussing key cases, like Kirby Lumber, a corporation that borrowed money (say $1 Million) by issuing bonds, and then was able to repurchase those bonds for less money (say $.8 million), resulting in cancellation of debt income (here, $200,000). If you borrow money today and use it to purchase a car, under an obligation to pay it back, the income tax doesn't treat that as income (an ideal consumption tax would--you've used it so you have consumed rather than saved, so it is income). But if the obligation to repay vanishes, then suddenly it is income--you essentially have a windfall that you didn't earn that has increased your assets and should be taxable. )
So here's the punch line--what do you, the readers, like most about ataxingmatter? least? what would you like to see covered that I tend not to cover? what do you like to see covered that I tend to cover? Any suggestions welcome. I'm very curious what readers think.....
Recent Comments