Thursday, March 13, 2014
Susan C. Morse (Texas) presents The Development of Tax Anti-Avoidance Law in Australia and the United States (with Robert Deutsch (University of New South Wales)) at Indiana-Bloomington today as part of its Tax Policy Colloquium Series hosted by Leandra Lederman
The different approaches to the development of tax anti-abuse law in Australia and the United States share the same basic building blocks: administrative leadership, legislative change, and the development of judicial case law. For reasons including path dependence and the degree of difficulty of the path to enacting a legislative change favored by the administration, statutory change is favored in Australia relative to the United States. In the U.S., administrators faced with a tough tax avoidance problem favor a strategy that combines strong elements of litigation strategy and regulatory and other guidance, as well as proposals for statutory amendment. But the differences are differences of degree, since tax administrators in both countries use all of these elements and operate in a way that acknowledges all branches of government when seeking to develop and change applicable tax anti-abuse law. In addition, based on this case study evidence, the substantive differences in Australian and U.S. anti-abuse law cannot be directly traced to institutional choice issues.