Show simple item record

dc.contributor.authorGraetz, Michael
dc.date2021-11-25T13:34:18.000
dc.date.accessioned2021-11-26T11:36:25Z
dc.date.available2021-11-26T11:36:25Z
dc.date.issued1985-01-01T00:00:00-08:00
dc.identifierfss_papers/1629
dc.identifier.contextkey1760470
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/20.500.13051/870
dc.description.abstractIn three prior articles, I considered transitional problems of changes the tax law. My general analysis and its specific application to the adoption of a consumption tax were criticized last year in this journal by Avishai Shachar. By taking liabilities explicitly into account in considering tax transition rules, Shachar extended the fundamental principles generated by my theory of legal transitions. Shachar, however, misunderstood or mischaracterized much of my earlier work. In this comment, I respond briefly to Shachar's criticisms. In Part I, I set out the context and conclusions of my general theory and suggest that Shachar agrees with its principal insights. In Part II, I show that, although Shachar correctly suggests that a comprehensive analysis of transitional rules must take liabilities into account, his central analytical premise—that "[e]ach increase in the price of an asset has an equal and offsetting impact on the 'burden' of a liability"—is surely wrong. I also demonstrate in that Part several difficulties with Shachar's general approach to transitional problems. Finally, in Part III, I comment briefly on his specific recommendations for transition to a consumption tax.
dc.titleRetroactivity Revisited
dc.source.journaltitleFaculty Scholarship Series
refterms.dateFOA2021-11-26T11:36:25Z
dc.identifier.legacycoverpagehttps://digitalcommons.law.yale.edu/fss_papers/1629
dc.identifier.legacyfulltexthttps://digitalcommons.law.yale.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2628&context=fss_papers&unstamped=1


Files in this item

Thumbnail
Name:
Retroactivity_Revisited.pdf
Size:
1.433Mb
Format:
PDF

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record