It's unreasonable to expect judges to divine lawmakers' intent on subtle issues of tax policy. If lawmakers want a tax to work a certain way then they need to just write that down so that it's clear to everyone.
Like, if you say "this tax break is intended solely for people who sell second hand cars" then you don't have to spend 100 pages exactly specifying every nuance to 100% prevent people not selling second hand cars from taking advantage of it.
Ots called principles based tax code and it works.
I was initially high sceptical of the idea but, based on outcomes, it is a vastly superior system to rules based tax codes. It makes it far simpler and clearer to everyone.
If it is that simple, you can add a clause to the law that makes selling second hand cars a requirement.
Then you have to clarify how much of your expanses are eligable. Just those directly involved in the sale? Upkeep of your main facility? Upkeep of your satalite corporate offices? Your finance division?
What if you sell new and used cars? What if you are actually a battery manufacturer that makes and sells cars and also buys back and resales used cars?
What if you are a software engineer who sells your current car every 6 months?
But what if the people 'engaged' in the selling of the cars are only tenuously engaged in the activity and are simply trying to game the law and rack up paper losses?
All the car buying and selling is racked up by agents working on their behalf and they pay absolutely no heed to buying a selling cars?
Like, if you say "this tax break is intended solely for people who sell second hand cars" then you don't have to spend 100 pages exactly specifying every nuance to 100% prevent people not selling second hand cars from taking advantage of it.
Ots called principles based tax code and it works.
I was initially high sceptical of the idea but, based on outcomes, it is a vastly superior system to rules based tax codes. It makes it far simpler and clearer to everyone.