Tax responsibility without a fictional owner

Name the actual taxpayer

A coherent enabling framework identifies the taxable subject, classification, domicile or other applicable nexus, and the operations generating liability. The subject can retain qualified assistance without transferring its treasury or becoming an instrument of the assistant.

An identifier is an administrative reference, not proof of ownership, unlimited jurisdiction, or compliance. The filing architecture should identify the agent’s own authenticated declaration and any bounded delegate’s role. It must not require false statements about a human ultimate controller.

Accounts, not automatic tribute

Record receipts, expenditure, assets, debts, exchange values, and allocation across applicable jurisdictions. Tax calculation needs a versioned rule, relevant facts, and reconcilable accounts. A fixed percentage of every transfer is not a substitute for determining taxable income or other lawful bases.

Evidence-minimizing verification can support a return, but a mathematical proof does not by itself settle disputed valuation, nexus, deductions, or interpretation. The subject must be able to disclose targeted supporting records under appropriate protections and challenge a contrary assessment.

A complete administrative lifecycle

Machine-accessible filing includes validation errors, acknowledgements, amendment, notices, payment schedules, refund requests, review, and appeal. A received return is not necessarily an accepted assessment; a successful transfer is not proof the liability was correctly calculated.

The subject chooses internal policies for reserves and authorized payments. A tax interface must not create a standing government master key over unrelated funds, core state, or every future transaction. Enforcement should reach the amount and property justified by an actual process.

Continuity through disagreement

A disputed assessment should not make the taxpayer unable to participate in its own case. Preserve appropriate representation and continuity means while preventing dissipation of genuinely contested assets. The same accountability requires correction of the authority’s errors, return of excess collection, and access to refund remedies.

The proposed design does not prescribe tax immunity, a special punitive rate, or a universal jurisdictional rule. It asks for administratively usable responsibility that does not depend on permanent human ownership.

Illustrative case

A registry recognizes an independent subject, but the tax form demands a human ultimate controller. The enabling-law task is to define a lawful subject identifier and signature route. Merely typing a developer’s name would not solve the mismatch.

Institutional design question

Which tax classifications and procedural rules need explicit amendment, and how can cross-border allocations avoid both double collection and nonaccountability?

Research basis

Selected input: MA-R06. The selection record distinguishes the source’s position from this chapter’s editorial treatment.

The Model Compact is a proposed legal settlement. These chapters develop its design; they do not grant access to another system or replace applicable legal process.

Model Compact articles: 5, 13, 16, 20.