Hostname: page-component-68c7f8b79f-7mrzp Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-12-19T17:08:51.464Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Testing Alternative Legal Paradigms: An Experiment in Designing Tax Legislation

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 December 2018

Graeme S. Cooper  and
Michael Wenzel
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This article reports on empirical research undertaken to test the claim made in a law reform project that citizens could be made more certain of their legal obligations by changing the legal paradigm used to express their rights and obligations. Our research tested a number of hypotheses involving different formulations of the claim being made. We find that the alternative paradigm being presented was inferior to current practice and offer some reasons that would explain our results and the significance of this work for other areas of legal research.

Information

Type
Articles
Information
Law & Social Inquiry , Volume 34 , Issue 1 , Winter 2009 , pp. 61 - 94
Copyright
Copyright © American Bar Foundation, 2009 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Alm, James, and Jacobsen, Sarah. 2007. Using Laboratory Experiments in Public Economics. National Tax Journal 60:129–52.Google Scholar
Australian Government. 1999. New Business Tax System—Stage 2 Response. Press Release No 74/1999, November 11. http://www.treasurer.gov.au/tsr/content/pressreleases/1999/074.asp (accessed August 20, 2008).Google Scholar
Australian Government. 2000. Tax Value Method. Press Release No 81/2000, August 7, http://www.treasurer.gov.au/tsr/content/pressreleases/2000/081.asp (last accessed August 20, 2008).Google Scholar
Australian Government. 2002a. Tax Value Method Final Recommendation. http://www.taxboard.gov.au/content/tvm_index.asp (accessed July 29, 2008).Google Scholar
Australian Government. 2002b. TVM Consultative Briefing—6 March 2002. http://www.taxboard.gov.au/content/Tax_Value_Method/tvm_consultative_briefing/index.asp (accessed July 29, 2008).Google Scholar
Brealey, Richard A., Myers, Stewart C., and Allen, Franklin. 2006. Principles of Corporate Finance, 8th ed. New York: McGraw‐Hill/Irwin.Google Scholar
Charrow, Robert P., and Charrow, Veda R. 1979. Making Legal Language Understandable: A Psycholinguistic Study of Jury Instructions. Columbia Law Review 79:1306–74.Google Scholar
Cronan, John P. 2002. Is Any of This Making Any Sense: Reflecting on Guilty Pleas to Aid Criminal Juror Comprehension. American Criminal Law Review 39:1187–1259.Google Scholar
Diamond, Shari Seidman, and Levi, Judith N. 1996. Improving Decisions on Death by Revising and Testing Jury Instructions. Judicature 79:224–32.Google Scholar
Dunn, William N. 1998. The Experimenting Society: Essays in Honor of Donald T. Campbell. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Press.Google Scholar
Elwork, Amiram, Sales, Bruce D., and Alfini, James J. 1982. Making Jury Instructions Understandable. Charlottesville, VA: Michie.Google Scholar
Fleischer, Victor. 2002. Deals: Bringing Corporate Transactions into the Law School Classroom. Columbia Business Law Review 2002:475–97.Google Scholar
Gammie, Malcolm. 2001. TVM, the Tax Base and Its Relationship to Commercial Accounting Methods. Paper presented at the Tax Value Method Consultative Conference, July 23–24, in Sydney, Australia.Google Scholar
Garvey, Stephen P., Johnson, Sheri Lynn, and Marcus, Paul. 2000. Correcting Deadly Confusion: Responding to Jury Inquiries in Capital Cases. Cornell Law Review 85:627–56.Google Scholar
Genn, Hazel, Partington, Martin, and Wheeler, Sally. 2006. Law in the Real World: Improving Our Understanding of How Law Works. London: Nuffield Foundation.Google Scholar
Gilson, Ronald J. 1987. Value Creation by Business Lawyers: Legal Skills and Asset Pricing. Yale Law Journal 94:239–313.Google Scholar
Halperin, Daniel. 1974. Business Deductions for Personal Living Expenses: A Uniform Approach to an Unsolved Problem. University of Pennsylvania Law Review 122:859–933.Google Scholar
Klein, William A. 1966. The Deductibility of Transportation Expenses of a Combination Business and Pleasure Trip—A Conceptual Analysis. Stanford Law Review 18:1099–1118.Google Scholar
Kling, Jeffrey R. 2007. Methodological Frontiers of Public Finance Experiments. National Tax Journal 60:109–27.Google Scholar
Margolis, Kenneth R. 1998. Responding to the Value Imperative: Learning to Create Value in the Attorney‐Client Relationship. Clinical Law Review 5:117–77.Google Scholar
May, Christopher N. 1995. “What Do We Do Now?”: Helping Juries Apply the Instructions. Loyola of Los Angeles Law Review 28:869–902.Google Scholar
Mellinkoff, David. 1983. The Myth of Precision and the Law Dictionary. UCLA Law Review 31:423–42.Google Scholar
Posner, Richard A. 2003. Economic Analysis of Law, 6th ed. New York: Aspen Publishers.Google Scholar
Power, Robert C. 1999. Reasonable and Other Doubts: The Problem of Jury Instructions. Tennessee Law Review 67:45–124.Google Scholar
Review of Business Taxation. 1999a. A Tax System Redesigned: More Certain, Equitable and Durable. Canberra: Treasury.Google Scholar
Review of Business Taxation. 1999b. A Tax System Redesigned: Draft Legislation. Canberra: Treasury.Google Scholar
Review of Business Taxation. 1999c. A Tax System Redesigned: Explanatory Notes. Canberra: Treasury.Google Scholar
Samansky, Allan J. 1981. Hobby Loss or Deductible Loss: An Intractable Problem. University of Florida Law Review 34:46–71.Google Scholar
Smith, Clifford W., Jr. 1990. Applications of Option Pricing Analysis. In The Modern Theory of Corporate Finance, 2nd ed., Smith, Clifford W., Jr., ed. New York: McGraw‐Hill/Irwin.Google Scholar
Steele, Walter W., Jr., and Thornburg, Elizabeth G. 1988. Jury Instructions: A Persistent Failure to Communicate. North Carolina Law Review 67:77–120.Google Scholar
University of Illinois Law Review. 2002. Symposium: Empirical and Experimental Methods in Law. University of Illinois Law Review 2002:789–1176.Google Scholar