One of the first lessons you’ll learn in any microeconomics class is the difference between accounting profit and economic profit. Loosely speaking, accounting profit considers only expenditures as costs, whereas economic profit counts both expenditures and forgone income as costs. The classic example is a sole proprietor who works 60 hours/week running his store. On paper, he might appear to be making a large (accounting) profit. But if you subtracted the income he could have received had he taken a job working the same number of hours for someone else, his (economic) profit would be smaller, maybe even negative.
What I’m wondering is how well tax law deals with this. Here’s a hypothetical: Suppose two men, Mark and Sirajul, are sole proprietors with identical (but independent) businesses. They are both making pre-tax accounting profits of $50,000/year, and also working 60 hours/week. Each man keeps his own accounting profits as his personal income. And then one day, Mark and Sirajul meet, and they come up with a plan. Each man will run the other man’s business, in return for an annual salary of $50,000. They will, in other words, becomes each other’s employees. Each man will receive just as much money as he did before, but now in the form of a paycheck instead of profits. Both businesses will now run an accounting profit of zero, despite being just as profitable as before from an economic perspective. Here’s my question: Will they pay more, less, or the same amount in taxes in comparison to what they paid before? Take into account taxes on both on personal income and business income; ignore complications like health insurance and other benefits. If the answer depends on the state of residence, then narrow the question to federal taxes only (or pick a state whose tax code you know).
Just to be clear, this is a genuine question. I really don’t know the answer.