Horrible Pain

What is the term for when a purpose behind a regulation is not at all clear?

I was doing my taxes and calculating my Education Property Tax Credit. One aspect of this irks me. It explicitly states on the form that, “If you shared accommodation … only one of you can claim an education property tax credit …”

I have a room-mate, so one of us claims the credit and we split the results.

But I’ll explain the math with as little math as possible. The credit you are allowed is the lower of two numbers. One number is based on the amount you’ve paid in rent. (20% of rent, minus $250) The other is inversely based on your income. (one percent of income subtracted from $675)

Suppose you have three people, each making $20 000 a year. One of them rents a bachelor apartment for $303 per month, and the other two share a $606 per month two-bedroom apartment. The first will get a $475 tax credit to himself, the last two will have the same amount split between them.

It seems kind of arbitrary to me why there would be this disparity based on whether or not someone has a room-mate. The tax forms, of course, don’t explain if there’s a reason we can’t just each claim half the rent.

For another example of byzantine and arbitrary regulations, see the Liquor Control Act.

Here’s a table:

But the trouble is that the reasons behind these rules are not clear. Why does a vendor need to be on the premises of a hotel? Why does a cabaret have a higher minimum size than any other license? Why does a “Beverage Room” have different Sunday hours than a “Cocktail Lounge?”

As a rule, any rule should be able to justify itself.

I’ve restarted my site. I hadn’t updated in ages, so I needed to change something.