Alex Zhang (Emory; Google Scholar) presents The Other Taxation at Missouri today as part of its Tax Policy Colloquium hosted by David Gamage:

Native Americans pay taxes. The territories do not. Both live with the legacy of American imperialism. Both seek the elusive fiscal self-governance and autonomy promised by Congress. The Supreme Court—through preemption, the plenary-power doctrine, and tax interpretive principles—has hollowed out the Native tax base, forcing tribes to compete fiercely with Congress, states, and localities for revenue. By contrast, territorial residents pay no federal or state taxes by edicts of Congress and geography. This Article argues that the conceptual underpinnings of the divergent tax treatment of tribes and territories are unsound. Under a more robust vision of fiscal autonomy, judicial limits on Native tax sovereignty are misguided. The territories’ wide latitude in designing revenue streams merits heightened scrutiny. While imperfect, a uniform, nonrefundable federal income-tax credit for tribal and territorial taxes paid is a promising path forward. This Article thus provides the first systematic study of subfederal taxation beyond states and localities—the “other” American taxation often overlooked in scholarship.

Kathleen DeLaney Thomas (North Carolina; Google Scholar) presents Tax and the Myth of the Family Farm, 110 Iowa L. Rev. ___ (2024), at Duke tomorrow as part of its Tax Policy Seminar hosted by Larry Zelenak:

With income and wealth inequality at historically high levels, policymakers have looked to the tax system as a potential road to reform. Specifically, new taxes on wealth or inheritances could raise much needed revenue and reduce intergenerational wealth disparities. Yet looming behind recent proposals to strengthen the progressivity of the tax system is the specter of taxing family farms out of existence.

In the minds of voters, the family farmer is a sympathetic taxpayer who is cash poor but holds valuable property. Federal taxes that are based upon property values (like a wealth tax or an estate tax), rather than on cash income, appear to pose a risk that the family farm would have to be sold to fund such a tax. Yet, there is no empirical evidence that any family farm has ever been sold in the United States to fund federal taxes. Further, recent proposals to enact progressive tax reforms go out of their way to exempt farms, making the risk of taxing the family farm out of existence virtually zero.

This Article proposes that the threat of taxing family farms out of existence is a myth, but one worth exploring. It is the first to offer a comprehensive account of the outsized role that family farms play in shaping tax policy. In the end, the story of taxing the family farm is not a story about farmers at all. Rather, the family farm reflects our collective unease with the idea of taxing “paper gains”—that is, taxing the value in assets before they are sold, such as through a wealth tax or an estate tax. Arguably, no one better represents the pitfalls of taxing paper gains than a farmer holding valuable land that has been appreciating for decades.

When viewed in this light, the family farm narrative is not just an interesting story, but also symbolizes a fundamental crossroads in U.S. tax policy. Voters express strong support for higher taxes on the wealthy, yet do not appear to support specific tax policies (like a wealth tax) that would achieve more redistribution. Policymakers interested in reducing inequality must reckon with the fact that even the most progressive voters may resist taxes on anything but income. To that end, the Article concludes by offering concrete reform proposals that account for the myth of the family farm.

Heather Evans (Canadian Tax Foundation), Tim Fitzsimmons (Fasken, Ontario) & Josh Jones (Blakes, Toronto) presents Clearing Skies in the Forecast: Is Tax Administration the Road to Simplification? at Toronto today as part of its James Hausman Tax Law and Policy Workshop Series hosted by Ben Alarie:

This issue of Perspectives explores realistic approaches to tax simplification. We proceed from two assumptions: (1) the complexity in our tax system is a problem that needs to be addressed, and (2) a pragmatic approach is required to address the problem effectively.

In my view, a pragmatic approach would focus on simplifying tax compliance and administration before attempting to simplify tax law or policy. My rationale for this view, explained more fully below, is twofold. First, there is a general alignment of interests among stakeholders on simplifying compliance and administration, increasing the odds of success. Second, success in the administrative context could lay the groundwork for broader simplification initiatives.

Editor's Note:  If you would like to receive a daily email with links to tax posts on TaxProf Blog, email me here.