[go: up one dir, main page]
IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/bpj/aelcon/v9y2019i2p18n1.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Is a One-book-system Adequate? A Framework for Tax Law Analysis Under Genuine Uncertainty

Author

Listed:
  • Schmiel Ute

    (University of Duisburg-Essen, 45117Essen, Germany)

  • Weitz Alexander

    (University of Duisburg-Essen, 45117Essen, Germany)

Abstract
This paper examines whether a one-book-system that takes the commercial law profit definition as tax base (the so-called authoritative principle) is adequate from an evolutionary point of view. We consider firstly the case that European International Financial Reporting Standards (EU-IFRS) are relevant for all statements with the authoritative principle based on EU-IFRS. Secondly, we examine the fact that EU-IFRS focus on the consolidated annual accounts and that the national accounting principles are relevant for individual statements. Tax law analysis under genuine uncertainty requires a framework and we present such a framework. It entails an interpretation of equality of taxation, a hypothesis on the functioning of markets, an interpretation of realizable and desirable market goals, tax effects hypotheses, and action hypotheses for personal and corporate companies under genuine uncertainty. Contrary to the mainstream of accounting literature, from our evolutionary point of view, the authoritative principle is adequate. The reason is that commercial profit is an adequate instrument to achieving the tax goal equality of taxation in the sense of reducing expectable tax avoidance decisions. This is the case because according to evolutionary action hypotheses as well as tax effects hypotheses, commercial profit can be a subjectively rational decision criterion for personal and corporate companies alike. Equality of taxation is for its part in line with the evolutionarily interpreted social values freedom of choice and equality before the law. Since we focus on the question if the existing commercial profit concept can be an adequate tax base, we do not discuss whether we would have more reasons to take a conservative profit concept as tax base rather than EU-IFRS. Just as little, we analyze whether it is better to take EU-IFRS profit as tax base although national accounting principles are relevant for individual statements.

Suggested Citation

  • Schmiel Ute & Weitz Alexander, 2019. "Is a One-book-system Adequate? A Framework for Tax Law Analysis Under Genuine Uncertainty," Accounting, Economics, and Law: A Convivium, De Gruyter, vol. 9(2), pages 1-18, July.
    • Handle: RePEc:bpj:aelcon:v:9:y:2019:i:2:p:18:n:1
    DOI: 10.1515/ael-2016-0062
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1515/ael-2016-0062
    Download Restriction: For access to full text, subscription to the journal or payment for the individual article is required.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1515/ael-2016-0062?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    ability to pay-principle; authoritative principle; equality of taxation; evolutionary tax effects hypotheses; evolutionary analysis of tax law; horizontal equity; vertical equity;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • B53 - Schools of Economic Thought and Methodology - - Current Heterodox Approaches - - - Austrian
    • K34 - Law and Economics - - Other Substantive Areas of Law - - - Tax Law
    • M48 - Business Administration and Business Economics; Marketing; Accounting; Personnel Economics - - Accounting - - - Government Policy and Regulation

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:bpj:aelcon:v:9:y:2019:i:2:p:18:n:1. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Peter Golla (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.degruyter.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.