Policy Forum: Judicial Line Drawing and Implications for Tax Avoidance

Ivan Ozai ()
Additional contact information
Ivan Ozai: Osgoode Hall Law School, York University, Toronto

Canadian Tax Journal, 2023, vol. 71, issue 4, 1053-1068

Abstract: The choice between a bright line and a nuanced approach is one of the cornerstones of judicial law making. Yet the nature and implications of this choice remain to be fully understood. The term "bright line" is often used ambiguously to refer to two distinct line-drawing techniques. The first construal of the term refers to the variability in determining the circumstances that qualify the facts for the application of the law (the legal rule's antecedent), where the choice ranges between a bright-line rule, characterized by simplicity and unambiguity, and a multifold rule, which involves a complex, multifactor analysis. The second construal concerns the variability in the legal consequences assigned to these circumstances (the legal rule's consequent), where the choice is between a bright-line rule, leading to binary consequences, and a multifold rule, allowing for multiple possible consequences. Considerations about fairness and efficiency in the use of bright-line rules will be distinct, depending on whether the term is used in the first sense (a bright-line antecedent) or the second (a bright-line consequent). Variability in the antecedent affects the accuracy of the circumstances under which the rule applies: a bright-line antecedent provides greater simplicity at the cost of accuracy, whereas a multifold antecedent results in a more accurate determination at the potential expense of greater complexity. Variability in the consequent affects the granularity of the consequences of the rule: a bright-line consequent will have an all-or-nothing legal result, whereas a multifold consequent will have a more nuanced legal result. This article argues that the role of bright-line rules in encouraging tax-avoidance behaviour has been significantly neglected in the literature and case law. The poor understanding of how bright lines interact with the different components of legal rules has led to an underappreciation of the advantages and pitfalls of bright-line rules. This confusion has caused courts to mistakenly conflate this legal design choice with the distinction between legal form and economic substance. The article demonstrates the consequences of misinterpreting multifold rules, as shown by the Canadian courts' approach to defining "use" in interest expense deductibility, inadvertently facilitating prevalent tax-avoidance strategies.

Keywords: Tax avoidance; choices; decision making; interest deductibility (search for similar items in EconPapers)
Date: 2023
References: Add references at CitEc
Citations:

Downloads: (external link)
https://www.ctf.ca/EN/Publications/CTJ_Contents/2023CTJ4.aspx (text/html)

Related works:
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:ctf:journl:v:71:y:2023:i:4:p:1053-1068

Ordering information: This journal article can be ordered from
Canadian Tax Foundation, 145 Wellington Street West, Suite 1400, Toronto, Ontario, Canada M5J 1H8
https://www.ctf.ca/E ... ns_ListingBooks.aspx

DOI: 10.32721/ctj.2023.71.4.pf.ozai

Access Statistics for this article

Canadian Tax Journal is currently edited by Kim Brooks, Kevin Milligan, and Daniel Sandler

More articles in Canadian Tax Journal from Canadian Tax Foundation Canadian Tax Foundation, 145 Wellington Street West, Suite 1400, Toronto, Ontario, Canada M5J 1H8.
Bibliographic data for series maintained by Jim Lyons ().