Full Text:


Legal indeterminacy comes in a variety of forms identified here as: (i) general legal indeterminacy; (ii) factual indeterminacy; and (iii) Mach/Feyerabend factual indeterminacy. The concept of general “legal indeterminacy” refers to problems in legal interpretation and has been extensively studied. “Factual indeterminacy” refers to the indeterminacy of facts as a matter of tax law when derived from separately indeterminate fields of law. “Mach/ Feyerabend factual indeterminacy” refers to fact words as derived from legal theory which provide the content for legal interpretation. The “facts” in tax law are not transcendent to law; in addition, the “fact” words of tax law cannot be simply imported from the field of economics. The incremental question of the origins of theory (as discussed by Karl Popper and Albert Einstein) is also analyzed here. The theory of tax law originates with “sympathy with experience” or “intellectual love” (tr. Einfühlung) of tax law by lawyers as reflected in the special heuristics and practices of the profession. Legal theory accordingly functions in similar fashion to scientific theory where a particular legal theory can be falsified (qua Popper) or understood in pluralistic terms by incorporating auxiliary ideas.

About the Author

B. Bogenschneider
University of Surrey
United Kingdom

Lecturer in Taxation & Ethics, Faculty of Law, 

Guildford, GU2 7XH


1. Антонов М.В. Осистемности права и «системных» понятиях в правоведении, 1 Известия высших учебных заведений. Правоведение 24 (2014) [Antonov M.V. On Systemacity of Law and on “Systemic” Notions in Legal Science, 1 News of Higher Educational Institutions. Legal Studies 24 (2014)].

2. Avery Jones J. Tax Law: Rules or Principles? 6 British Tax Review 580 (1996).

3. Antonov M.V. Systemacity of Law: A Phantasm? 3(3) Russian Law Journal 110 (2015).

4. Bacon F. Novum Organum (J. Devey, ed., 1902).

5. Bernstorff J. von & Dunlap T. The Public International Law Theory of Hans Kelsen (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2011).

6. Bogenschneider B. Wittgenstein on Why Tax Law is Comprehensible, 252(2) British Tax Review 252 (2015).

7. Bogenschneider B. Manufactured Factual Indeterminacy and the Globalization of Tax Jurisprudence, 4(2) Univ. College London J. Law & Juris. 250 (2015).

8. Bogenschneider B. Foucault and Tax Jurisprudence, 8(1) Wash. U. Juris. Rev. 59 (2015).

9. Camp B. Tax Administration as Inquisitorial Process and the Partial Paradigm Shift in the IRS Restructuring and Reform Act of 1998, 56(1) Florida L. Rev. 1 (2004).

10. Cook N. Law as Science: Revisiting Langdell’s Paradigm in the 21st Century, 88(1) N. Dak. L. Rev. 21 (2012).

11. Dworkin R. Law’s Empire (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1986).

12. Edmundson W. The Antinomy of Coherence and Determinacy, 82 Iowa L. Rev. 1 (1996).

13. Einstein A. Mein Weltbild (Amsterdam 1934) [= The World as I see It (A. Harris, tr., London: Lane, 1935)].

14. Fennelly N. Legal Interpretation at the European Court of Justice, 20(3) Fordham Int’l L. J. 656 (1996).

15. Feyerabend P. Realism, Rationalism and Scientific Method: Philosophical Papers Volume 1 (Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press, 1981).

16. Feyerabend P. Knowledge, Science and Relativism: Philosophical Papers Volume 3 (J. Preston, ed., Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press, 1999).

17. Fitzmaurice G.G. Vae Victis or Woe to the Negotiators! Your Treaty or Our Interpretation of It, 65(2) American J. Int’l L. 372 (1971).

18. Fitzmaurice M. Review of Recent Books on International Law (R.B. Bilder, ed.), 104(2) American J. Int’l L. 329 (2010).

19. Fitzmaurice M. Book Review: Richard Gardiner, Treaty Interpretation, 20 European J. Int’l L. 952 (2009).

20. Freedman J. Interpreting Tax Statutes: Tax Avoidance and the Intention of Parliament, 123 Law Quart. Rev. 53 (2007).

21. Freedman J. Improving (Not Perfecting) Tax Legislation: Rules and Principles Revisited, 6 British Tax Review 718 (2010).

22. Freedman J. GAAR as a Process and the Process of Discussing the GAAR, 1 British Tax Review 22 (2012).

23. Gardner J. Legal Positivism: 5½ Myths, 46(1) American J. Juris. 199 (2001).

24. Grey T. Langdell’s Orthodoxy, 45 Pitt. L. Rev. 1 (1983).

25. Hoeflich M.H. Law and Geometry: Legal Science from Leibniz to Langdell, 30 American J. Legal History 95 (1986).

26. Jean-Paul Sartre: Basic Writings (S. Priest, ed., New York: Taylor & Francis, 2001).

27. Kelsen H. The Pure Theory of Law (M. Knight, tr., 2nd ed., Berkeley: University of California Press, 1967).

28. Kelsen H. The Pure Theory of Law and Analytical Jurisprudence, 55 Harv. L. Rev. 44 (1941).

29. Kletzer C. Absolute Positivism, 42(2) Netherlands J. Legal Phil. 89 (2013).

30. Kress K. A Preface to Epistemological Indeterminacy, 85 Nw. Univ. L. Rev. 1340 (1990).

31. Kutz C. Just Disagreement, Indeterminacy and Rationality in the Rule of Law, 103 Yale L. J. 997 (1994).

32. Latham C. A Tax Perspective on the Infrastructure of Regulatory Language and a Principled Response, 1 British Tax Review 65 (2012).

33. Llewellyn K.N. The Bramble Bush: Some Lectures on Law and Its Study (New York: Columbia University Press, 1930).

34. Levit N. Listening to Tribal Legends: An Essay on Law and the Scientific Method, 58(3) Fordham L. Rev. 263 (1989).

35. Linderfalk U. Is Treaty Interpretation an Art or a Science? International Law and Rational Decision Making, 26(1) European J. Int’l L. 169 (2015).

36. MacCormick N. & Weinberger O. An Institutional Theory of Law: New Approaches to Legal Positivism (Boston: D. Reidel Pub., 1986).

37. Mach E. Die Analyse der Empfindungen und das Verhältnis des Physischen zum Psychischen (5th ed., Vein, 1906).

38. Möllers C. Towards aNew Conceptualism in Comparative Constitutional Law,or Reviving the German Tradition of the Lehrbuch, 12(3) Int’l J. Constitutional Law 603 (2014).

39. Mortenson J.D. The Travaux of Travaux: Is the Vienna Convention Hostile to Drafting History? 107 American J. Int’l L. 780 (2013).

40. Nagel E. The Meaning of Reduction in the Natural Sciences in Philosophy of Science (A. Danto & S. Morgenbesser, eds., New York: World Publishing, 1960).

41. Popper K. The Logic of Scientific Discovery (2nd ed., Vienna: Springer, 1935; reprinted: London: Routledge, 2002).

42. Potács M. Legal Theory (Vienna: Kluwer, 2015).

43. Prebble J. Ectopia, Tax Law and International Taxation, 5 British Tax Review 383 (1997).

44. Prebble J. Why is Tax Law Incomprehensible? 4 British Tax Review 380 (1994).

45. Prebble R. & Prebble J. The General Anti-Avoidance Rule and the Rule of Law in Prebble J. Ectopia, Formalism, and Anti-Avoidance Rules in Income Tax Law in Prescriptive Formality and Normative Rationality in Modern Legal Systems (W. Krawietz et al., eds., Berlin: Duncker and Humblot, 1994).

46. Rajkovic N. Rules, Lawyering, and the Politics of Legality: Critical Sociology and International Law’s Rule, 27(2) Leiden J. Int’l L. 331 (2014).

47. Vanistendael F. Judicial Interpretation and the Role of Anti-Abuse Provisions in Tax Law in Tax Avoidance and the Rule of Law (G.S. Cooper, ed., Amsterdam: IBFD, 1997).

48. Waibel M. Demystifying the Art of Interpretation, 22(2) European J. Int’l L. 571 (2011).

49. Waincymer J. The Australian Tax Avoidance Experience and Responses: A Critical Review in Tax Avoidance and the Rule of Law (G.S. Cooper, ed., Amsterdam: IBFD, 1997).

50. Wittgenstein L. Philosophical Investigations 198 (Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell, 2009).

51. Zapf C. & Moglen E. Linguistic Indeterminacy and the Rule of Law: On the Perils of Misunderstanding Wittgenstein, 84 Georgetown L. J. 485 (1996).

Supplementary files

For citation: Bogenschneider B. FACTUAL INDETERMINACY IN INTERNATIONAL TAX LAW. BRICS Law Journal. 2016;3(3):73-102. https://doi.org/10.21684/2412-2343-2016-3-3-73-102

Views: 360


  • There are currently no refbacks.

Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.

ISSN 2409-9058 (Print)
ISSN 2412-2343 (Online)