Would the tax value method make existing case law and rulings irrelevant?
The argument is that we get an absolute benefit from accumulated judicial analysis of the current law and from the rulings on it. A: • Many cases and rulings would remain relevant because the tax value method would only change some of the current law, not everything. • Many ideas would be re-used. For example, the case law and rulings on the difference between a repair and an improvement would still be useful because the tax value method would re-use that distinction. • Analysis of a system is only useful if the system is retained. To the extent that the tax value method replaces parts of the system with something better, the loss of case law on those parts should not matter. • Any fear that the loss of case law would plunge us into doubt, because there would be less certainty in the law, is unfounded. • The areas most analysed are revenue versus capital issues. While some general conclusions can be drawn from those cases, there is no certainty emerging from them. Issues continue to ar
