Leo P. Martinez

A Critique of Critical Tax Policy Critiques (Or, You've Got to Speak Out Against the Madness)

Critical tax scholarship is not universally embraced. This is a surprising observation given that the premise underlying critical tax scholarship is simple, and— if one aspires to intellectual honesty—should be uncontroversial. The premise is that subpopulations of taxpayers are treated differently. This raises a significant impediment toward achieving distributional equity. If distributional equity is a worthy goal, then the question posed by critical tax scholars is whether the Internal Revenue Code, in whole or by operation of individual provisions, achieves that salutary purpose. In this piece, I map out some of the critiques of critical tax theory. My primary aim is to encourage a more thoughtful dialogue with respect to how we view taxes and how taxes affect significant subpopulations of taxpayers. At a minimum, this article will argue that there are inherent inequities in the Code that deserve our attention. My secondary aim is that in mapping out the flaws in the critiques of critical tax theory, those who pursue critical tax theory will be amply prepared to respond to their critics. DOI: https://doi.org/10.15779/Z38QJ77Z3F ∗ The reference, for those who are not aging rockers (or fans of folk-rock), is from Crosby, Stills & Nash’s album by the same name. David Crosby, Long Time Gone, on Crosby, Stills, & Nash (Atlantic Records 1969). ∗∗ Albert Abramson Professor of Law, U.C., Hastings College of the Law. I am grateful to Professor Neil H. Buchanan of The George Washington University School of Law for his invitation to present this paper at the June 2017 Law & Society Annual Meeting in Mexico City and I am grateful for the constructive comments made by the participants in that meeting. In particular, I want to thank Professor Heather Field, Professor Michael Olivas, Dean Kevin Johnson, Dean Nancy Staudt, Professor Gregg D. Polsky, Professor Anthony C. Infanti, and Professor Alice G. Abreu for their collective wisdom in shaping this article. I am also grateful for the able research assistance of Nicole L. Bizzarri (U.C. Hastings, Class of 2019) and Karl Johnston (U.C. Hastings, Class of 2019). Finally, I am grateful for the sharp editorial eye of Andrew Palma (U.C. Hastings, Class of 2018). Despite the valuable help, errors creep in. Those are mine.A second acknowledgement is apt. My career was guided by the sage advice and friendship of Professor Miguel Angel Mendez Longoria who passed away much too soon on May 25, 2017. His voice is reflected in this piece just as it was in our joint work in this Journal in Toward A Statistical Profile of Latinos in the Legal Profession, 13 La Raza L.J. 59 (2002), which we presented at the U.C. Berkeley, School of Law in October 2001. As he always said “I am often asked for a word of advice by my Latino students and other students of color. My reply over the years has been the same. We are overrepresented only among the poor and the incarcerated. Whatever you choose to do with your law degree, just make sure that you leave the door you enter through a little wider for those who follow.” My hope is that I have captured his spirit in this article. 50 BERKELEY LA RAZA LAW JOURNAL [Vol. 28:49 ABSTRACT .............................................................................................................. 49 INTRODUCTION ..................................................................................................... 50 I. WHY THIS DESERVES OUR ATTENTION ...................................................... 51 A. Basic Justice .......................................................................................... 51 B. The Foundation of This Discussion ....................................................... 53 II. CRITIQUES OF CRITICAL TAX THEORY AND THEIR SHORTCOMINGS ........................................................................................ 55 A. All Taxpayers are Treated Fairly and Alike........................................... 55 B. The Progressive Rate Structure Cures All ............................................. 57 C. Selection Bias in the Choice of Code Sections Examined ..................... 58 D. The Earned Income Credit Cures All ..................................................... 59 E. The Case for Disparate Impact Is Weak ................................................ 62 F. The Code is Too Complex to Address the Problem ............................... 62 G. No Solutions Are Proposed .................................................................... 63 III. POSSIBLE APPROACHES ................................................................................ 64 A. Is the Code Progressive Enough? .......................................................... 65 B. Shortcomings of a Progressive Tax System ........................................... 65 C. Target Individual Code Provisions ........................................................ 66 D. Start From Scratch ................................................................................. 69 CONCLUSION ......................................................................................................... 69............................................................................................................. 49 INTRODUCTION ..................................................................................................... 50 I. WHY THIS DESERVES OUR ATTENTION ...................................................... 51 A. Basic Justice .......................................................................................... 51 B. The Foundation of This Discussion ....................................................... 53 II. CRITIQUES OF CRITICAL TAX THEORY AND THEIR SHORTCOMINGS ........................................................................................ 55 A. All Taxpayers are Treated Fairly and Alike........................................... 55 B. The Progressive Rate Structure Cures All ............................................. 57 C. Selection Bias in the Choice of Code Sections Examined ..................... 58 D. The Earned Income Credit Cures All ..................................................... 59 E. The Case for Disparate Impact Is Weak ................................................ 62 F. The Code is Too Complex to Address the Problem ............................... 62 G. No Solutions Are Proposed .................................................................... 63 III. POSSIBLE APPROACHES ................................................................................ 64 A. Is the Code Progressive Enough? .......................................................... 65 B. Shortcomings of a Progressive Tax System ........................................... 65 C. Target Individual Code Provisions ........................................................ 66 D. Start From Scratch ................................................................................. 69 CONCLUSION ......................................................................................................... 69