Bound Ownership: A Fiscal Asset-Lock Without Legal Form Conversion

Modern capital tax systems intervene at the level of stocks (wealth), flows (income), or events (realisation, inheritance, disposal). They are structurally blind to the distinction between risk-bearing binding of capital and its detachment; i. e. the extraction of value from non-private use into private liquidity. This paper sketches a Bound Ownership (BO) regime that treats capital not as a scalar magnitude but as a state. Capital exists in one of two states: bound (risk-bearing, transferable only with assumption of obligations, with entry-time legal status preserved and low reinvestment friction) or unbound (extracted into private liquidity). Taxation triggers solely on the transition; the detachment event. Sale is fiscally neutral if the buyer assumes the bound obligation; for A6 continuity purposes the obligation is the fiscal continuity unit, while legal ownership and asset identification remain necessary for valuation and enforcement. The mechanism produces a fiscal asset-lock that requires no change of legal form, and is therefore potentially generic across existing ownership structures, subject to entity-specific enforcement rules. The architectural components (capital gains lock-in, generalised cash-flow taxation, rate-of-return allowances, steward ownership, asset locks, exit and migration taxes, BEPS-style anti-extraction enforcement, state-contingent contracting) exist in the public-economics, corporate-law, and law-and-economics literatures individually. I have not, on present literature mapping, identified an existing treatment that unifies these components as a state-contingent fiscal regime over capital without legal-form conversion. The claim is not originality of components but careful synthesis; refinement or refutation of the gap statement by adversarial review is welcomed. Contents (v1. 2) The canonical schema A1–A9 with sub-component A6. 1. The per-class substance vector S (a, t) and detachment-tax function. The Symmetric Valuation Regime with BZBB methodology-consistency audit, Big-4 joint-and-several liability, and reverse-burden A3 reclassification. §5. 5 Architectural Synthesis: Privatized Enforcement Cascade. Three-layer architecture (seller-Eigennutz, buyer-Eigennutz, BZBB procedural plus AI forensics) plus §5. 5. 1 four-step administrative cascade (computational trigger; SDG II classification; Darlegungslastumkehr; §76a Abs. 4 StGB confiscation). §5. 3 Auditor-Discipline Extension. Six personal-actor-liability sub-mechanisms (§156 truthfulness-attestation; D §43 WPO Disziplinaraufsicht; BZBB cross-auditor review; mandatory 7-year rotation; §17 GwG-analog active reporting). The Anti-Extraction Bright-Line Catalogue BL. 1–BL. 13, with BL. 12 Anti-Collusion (whistleblower bonus-penalty asymmetry) and BL. 13 Anti-Empty-Shell (substance-minimum, pre-insolvency A6 acceleration, seller joint-liability). §7 Implementing Legislation Notes. Doctrinal-anchor map for 23 statutory anchors across Strafrecht, administrative law, professional law, and constitutional law. The Pillar 2 SBIE compatibility argument. The Political Economy section with the Hybrid Pilot 2027–2032 adoption sequence. Two expansion vectors: Public Bound Registry, Worker / Citizen Bound Shares. A reduced-form game-theoretic backbone with Theorem 1 (refined to Bounded Residual Variance Arbitrage Collapse under Symmetric Valuation) and three comparative-statics results. New in v1. 2: §11. 5 Numerical Verification of Theorem 1 and Comparative Statics. Toy simulation (k=2 substance vector, 5 valuation methodologies, deterministic and log-normal-stochastic substance dynamics with Monte Carlo n=2000) confirms Theorem 1 to within bounded residual variance (0. 4 percentage points across methodologies versus 11. 1 percentage points Status-quo arbitrage gap). Three comparative statics (tax volatility 20–67x lower under BO, reinvestment compounding ratio 1. 29x at r=15%/T=20y, deferred liability 25. 4% of value at T=30y). Five tables, six figures. An empirical calibration sketch on composite firm archetypes with r-window characterisation and Phase 1 aggregate band. A constitutional compatibility sketch under GG Art. 14 Inhaltsbestimmung, Art. 3 sachgerecht differentiation, EU Grundfreiheiten, and BVerfG transitional jurisprudence. Executive Summary and extended glossary with reader-path navigation. Substantive refinement disclosed in v1. 2 The toy simulation numerical verification in v1. 2 §11. 5 reveals that Theorem 1's earlier formulation as exact methodology-switch arbitrage collapse is stricter than what the architecture delivers. The accurate claim is bounded residual variance: DCF methodology cancels exactly through multiplicative separability (Gordon-growth parameter cancels in the VT/V₀ ratio), while Multiples and Asset methodologies retain small residual variance from non-scale-invariant anchor terms (cash-on-balance discount, asymmetric liquid-productive weighting). The residual variance is a property of valuation-formula geometry as practised in finance literature (Damodaran 2012; Koller, Goedhart, Wessels 2020), not a property of the architecture; the architectural collapse of methodology-switching arbitrage is preserved. The 0. 4 percentage points residual is two orders of magnitude smaller than the 11. 1 percentage points Status-quo arbitrage band that Symmetric Valuation eliminates. v1. 2 transparently incorporates this refinement in §9 (theorem statement) and §11. 5 (numerical characterisation). Companion-paper candidates This document is a master working draft intended as a source for narrower academic, policy, and implementation papers. Five specialist-companion candidate work-packages are explicitly named and bounded: S4. 1: Full mechanism-design treatment with multi-agent game-theoretic dynamics. S4. 2: Empirical calibration on Bundesbank-FRSL micro-data, extending the v1. 2 toy simulation to k=7 substance vector with sector-specific dynamics. S4. 3: Full constitutional-law Verfassungsgutachten. S4. 4: Comparative implementation analysis across NL / CH / AT / KE. S4. 5: Operational Feasibility Companion treating the Privatized Enforcement Cascade at substantive depth: BZBB capacity scaling via AI multi-agent forensics, status-quo Big-4 valuation practice comparison, and DD-mediated enforcement game-theoretic formalisation. Methodological note The identification of structural vulnerabilities (collusion vectors, auditor capture, empty-shell constructions) and the specification of the Privatized Enforcement Cascade in §5. 5, with juridical anchors in §76a Abs. 4 StGB erweiterte selbständige Einziehung and the Sanktionsdurchsetzungsgesetz II administrative procedure, were validated and sharpened through iterative adversarial stress-testing with the Gemini language model (Google). The v1. 2 Theorem 1 refinement and the §11. 5 numerical verification were produced through a multi-agent orchestration pattern with specialist sub-agents (analytical refinement, paper integration, operational-feasibility drafting, adversarial vulnerability mapping) coordinated by the master Claude-based instance. Supplementary material includes the toy simulation code (reproducible from seed 20260513), raw numerical results, the analytical refinement note characterising Theorem 1's bounded-variance form, and standing-input drafts for the S4. 5 Operational Feasibility Companion plus the next-round adversarial brief. This form of automated pre-review is established as a formalised methodological instrument for Bound Ownership work going forward. Full disclosure as Option E in the §5. 5 footnote. Status Working Paper v1. 2. Anchored against v0. 2. 2 (DOI 10. 5281/zenodo. 20098636, timestamp anchor) ; v1. 0. 1 (DOI 10. 5281/zenodo. 20121460) is the prior distribution-ready master; v1. 1 (DOI 10. 5281/zenodo. 20138681) added the Privatized Enforcement Cascade substantive layer; v1. 2 adds §11. 5 Numerical Verification subsection plus Theorem 1 bounded-variance refinement plus supplementary toy-simulation code and analytical refinement note, and is the current distribution-ready master source. Please cite the version DOI when referencing this draft; later versions may revise terminology, scope, and engineering details.