Weekly SSRN Tax Article Review And Roundup: Scharff Reviews Satterthwaite's Smallness And The VAT

This week, Erin Scharff (Arizona State) reviews a new article by Emily Ann Satterthwaite (Toronto), On the Threshold: Smallness and the Value-Added Tax, 9 Colum. J. Tax L. ___ (2018):

Emily Satterthwaite’s latest article explores the ways tax law should reflect the needs (and especially the relatively high-compliance costs) of small businesses. Her focus is on Value-Added Taxes (VATs) and, in particular, on the VAT exemption threshold.  

Though there is widespread expert agreement that VATs should exempt small firms, there is significant variation in the VAT thresholds, particularly among developing countries. Further, exemption thresholds are often set much lower than what VAT experts have recommended for optimal efficiency. Satterthwaite’s article argues that this expert recommendation not only advances efficiency goals, but would also improve distributional equity.

Satterthwaite does yeomen’s work in making her argument accessible, particularly to U.S. readers who might be less familiar with the way VATs operate, and the first part of her article is an excellent and highly accessible introduction to VATs and its relative advantages over cascading turnover taxes and retail sales taxes. 

Continue reading

60 Tax Profs File Amicus Brief Urging Supreme Court To Overrule Quill v. North Dakota

Sixty tax law professors and economists filed an amicus brief at the Supreme Court Monday urging the Justices to overrule the Dormant Commerce Clause holding of Quill Corp. v. North Dakota, 504 U.S. 298 (1992), which bars states from enforcing sales taxes against retailers who lack a "physical presence" in the state. From the brief:

In Quill Corp. v. North Dakota, the Court emphasized that its dormant Commerce Clause analysis was based on “structural concerns about the effect of state regulation on the national economy.” 504 U.S. 298, 312 (1992). The Court was especially concerned about the effect of taxation on the mail-order industry, and it believed that maintaining the physical presence rule would “foster[] investment by businesses and individuals.” Id. at 315-18. It also believed that its rule would reduce compliance costs for businesses and individuals engaged in commerce across state lines. See id. at 313 n.6. For those reasons, the Court reaffirmed the physical presence rule first announced in National Bellas Hess, Inc. v. Department of Revenue of Illinois, 386 U.S. 753 (1967).

Continue reading