The possibility of repeal increases compliance costs AND causes uncertainty.

Critics indict the sunset provisions as “the worst kind of tax policymaking because burdens are placed on taxpayers solely to accommodate political concerns that mean nothing to anybody 2006] SUNSETS AND THE TAX CODE 395 374 Id. 375 See Gale & Orszag, supra note 354, at 1184 (“The extensive use of sunsets creates uncertainty with regard to expectations about future tax policy.”). 376 See Sullivan, supra note 373 (stating that taxpayers faced with uncertain tax laws will fail to take into account possibility of future changes, and that tax cut may be more windfall than incentive to save). 377 See id. (noting that this diminishes potential benefit of tax cut). 378 Of course, one could predict that Congress, if prohibited from using sunsets, would simply shift its revenue games to other techniques, such as phase-ins, which may also negatively alter taxpayer incentives. outside of Washington.”374 The sunset provisions, they argue, create uncertainty.375 Uncertainty hurts economic performance by diminishing the incentive effects of the tax cut.376 In addition, uncertainty creates economic waste by increasing planning, administration, and compliance costs.377 In reality, taxpayers must always discount for the possibility of repeal or other legislative changes. The tax code, after all, is not etched in stone. Nonetheless, an expiration date provides an opportunity for legislators to remove a tax benefit without affirmatively acting and thus may increase the possibility of legislative change. Regardless, it is unarguable that sunset provisions complicate the Code.