Document Type



Comprehensive Income Taxation: A Response, 81 Harvard Law Review 1032 (1968)


In an earlier article, Professor Bittker argued that the Haig-Simons
economic definition of income would not be a useful basis for income
tax reform because it yields no help in dealing with many of the
most vexing problems, because its "no preference" approach would
lead to sweeping changes which would be unacceptable even to its
advocates, and because it gives no assistance in determining the
merits of suggested "preferences" or "exceptions" to its sweeping
inclusions. Professor Musgrave and Dr. Pechman in the November
issue, and Dean Galvin in this issue, defended the concept
as a useful basis for tax reform, rejecting Professor Bittker's ad hoc
approach. This is Professor Bittker's answer to their challenges.

Date of Authorship for this Version


Included in

Law Commons