Spurred on by reading a stimulating and engaging paper by Jeremy Bearer-Friend (in which the author considers means by which non-cash payments could discharge tax liability), I have begun to muse on the idea of tax being a civic right and responsibility, like voting. Now the parameters for exercising the “right” to pay tax may not be as broad as the right to vote (though cf. compulsory voting), in that one cannot choose whether they must pay tax (if it is due). There is nevertheless some scope for choice: even before considering whether individuals should choose a less or more favourable interpretation of ambiguous statutory language, there are a range of express options available to taxpayers in the tax code which they may legitimately choose (e.g. capital allowances; loss-relief etc). The responsibility to pay tax, when viewed as a civic right, is one which is principally collective in nature – like the responsibility to vote. It is an instance where “we all must play our part” for the benefit of the community in which we find ourselves.

When viewed in this light, the civic right to pay tax is justified on the basis of the benefit principle – the idea being that tax must be paid as a result of the benefit that one has drawn from being a member of the community. That is lesson number 1.

Lesson number 2 is that the right can find its origin in something inherent – such as nationality or citizenship – or it can be acquired – through some relevant link such as economic nexus or time spent.

When these two lessons are applied to cross-border activities, it helps us to understand that it is no defence to double taxation to suggest that one should be taxed in only one place – at the margins there will be instances where one has the right to vote in more than one place, just like the right to pay tax. That does not of course detract from the fact that double taxation can be condemned for other reasons – such as that it is discriminatory, or it may result in disproportionate taxation when totalled up, or that it can disincentivise investment. But is cannot be condemned on the basis of the benefit principle.

These lessons help to articulate also why tax avoidance, and even more so tax evasion, are deemed to be undesirable activities in principle as they undermine the responsibilities that are owed to the collective. Few would be surprised by this revelation, but we can have more fun with the lessons than that. A parallel can be drawn between those who seek to manipulate the way in which people vote through targeted, misleading ads and the advisors who mislead unsophisticated taxpayers into engaging in tax schemes. For the same reasons and with the same force that we criticise organisations like Cambridge Analytica, we can condemn these advisors.

These lessons can be applied more generally in terms of understanding the relationship between the taxpayer and the State at a national level – illuminating issues such as privacy over one’s tax affairs – and it seems to me to be an avenue worth exploring in more detail with reference to more substantive case studies. It is certainly worth more musing when I have the time.