Paul L. Caron
Dean





Tuesday, August 16, 2011

Shu-Yi Oei: Stakeholder Dynamics and the Offer-in-Compromise Procedure

Shu-Yi Oei (Tulane) has posted Getting More by Asking Less: The Role of Stakeholder Dynamics in Reforming Tax Law's Offer-in-Compromise Procedure, 160 U. Pa. L. Rev. ___ (2012), on SSRN. Here is the abstract:

The Offer in Compromise (“OIC”) is a procedure by which distressed taxpayers may be able to get a portion of their tax liability forgiven by the IRS. This Article proposes a framework for evaluating the effectiveness of any proposed reforms of the procedure. It presents four arguments that support the forgiveness of tax debts through devices like the OIC procedure. These arguments are rooted in revenue-raising, fairness, rehabilitative, socio-economic, and jurisprudential considerations. Unfortunately, an analysis of the procedure's recent history shows that it is structured in a way that tends to undermine its effectiveness. The power to effectuate the procedure is dispersed among four players with divergent interests: (1) Congress, (2) the IRS, (3) the taxpayer, and (4) financial and other supporters of the taxpayer. Each of these players has conflicting and contradictory interests in OIC procedure outcomes. And, over time, the actions and decisions of each player lead to conflicting and counterproductive behaviors and responses by other players, such that overall program effectiveness is undermined. Given this dynamic between stakeholders, reforms that minimize or eliminate such downward-spiraling interactions of divergent interests should be adopted. On the other hand, reforms likely to provoke or exacerbate such interactions should be dismissed. This Article provides examples of each type of reform.

https://taxprof.typepad.com/taxprof_blog/2011/08/shu-yi-oei-.html

Scholarship, Tax | Permalink

TrackBack URL for this entry:

https://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d8341c4eab53ef0154348e633f970c

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Shu-Yi Oei: Stakeholder Dynamics and the Offer-in-Compromise Procedure:

Comments