Abstract
This paper attempts to use the theory of legal autopoiesis to understand the struggle the courts have experienced when asked to decide tax cases involving the capital/revenue distinction, which is a distinction that could not be determined by any criteria. The theory of legal autopoiesis, as propounded by Niklas Luhmann, posits that the legal system, as an autopoietic system within society, produces and reproduces its own elements self-referentially and recursively. The legal system operates according to its code, which comprises the values 'legal/illegal'. The code is complemented and filled by programmes, which must be suitable and help to allocate the values in particular situations. However, if there are no programmes, how does the legal system allocate the values? The lack of a definite set of rules that can be used in tax cases to determine whether an item is capital or revenue in nature means that there is no programme according to which the legal system can allocate the values. This lack exposes a critical weakness in Luhmann's theory of legal autopoiesis.
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
