Simplify Laws

SIMPLIFIED LAWS AND THE FLAT TAX: 

          A) Whenever legislators express a desire to simplify the tax code, I assume it’s only posturing.  My assumption is supported by Section 2038 of the code, an estate tax section.  It is long, clearly twice as long as it need be, because no one in Congress thought to amend it.

SEC. 2038.  REVOCABLE TRANSFERS.

  (a) In General.--The value of the gross estate shall include the value of all property--

  (1) Transfers after June 22, 1936.--To the extent of any interest therein of which the decedent has at any time made a transfer (except in case of a bona fide sale for an adequate and full consideration in money or money’s worth), by trust or otherwise, where the enjoyment thereof was subject at the date of his death to any change through the exercise of a power (in whatever capacity exercisable) by the decedent alone or by the decedent in conjunction with any other person (without regard to when or from what source the decedent acquired such power), to alter, amend, revoke, or terminate, or where any such power is relinquished during the 3-year period ending on the date of the decedent’s death.

  (2) Transfers on or before June 22, 1936.--To the extent of any interest therein of which the decedent has at anytime made a transfer (except in case of a bona fide sale for an adequate and full consideration in money or money’s worth), by trust or otherwise, where the enjoyment thereof was subject at the date of his death to any change through the exercise of a power, either by the decedent alone or in conjunction with any person, to alter, amend, or revoke, or where the decedent relinquished any such power during the 3-year period ending on the date of the decedent’s death. Except in the case of transfers made after June 22, 1936, no interest of the decedent of which he has made a transfer shall be included in the gross estate under paragraph (1) unless it is includible under this paragraph.

          Note that a power to terminate is specified as a one that makes includible transfers made after a certain date, which is the date the law was amended to close a possible loophole, namely that the Supreme Court might not consider a power to terminate to be a power to alter, amend, or revoke.  Subsequently the Supreme Court said that of course the power to terminate is a power to alter, amend, or revoke.  After that decision the section has been amended, but no one thought to shorten the code by eliminating the distinction based on a meaningless date.

B) Laws can be simplified: What makes laws hard to understand is not what is put in them but what is left out.  If a law said “there shall be a $25 fine for spitting in public places” several questions come to mind.  Is a privately owned store a “public place”?  It’s privately owned and open to the public. What of a governor’s mansion, which is publicly owned but not open to the public?  What of spitting into the commode of a public bath room?  What of spitting caused an illness?  If you have been convicted ofspitting have you committed a crime or an offense, which might disqualify you for certain jobs?  Courts may decide these questions after spending much time.  Afterwards, finding the latest and the most authoritative of these cases would be time consuming, even if books of legal codes had annotations after each law section.  It would be much simpler if the statute spelled out these things in the first place.  One disadvantage of spelling things out is that legislators seem to like complex sentences, which are the notorious examples of laws that are hard to understand.  I prefer the following:

Section 1, SPITTING IN PUBLIC PLACES.  Spitting in public places is illegal and shall be subject to a $25 fine.

|  Add to del.icio.us |  digg this