Which makes sense for owners of multiple dwellings , but I've read plenty on the subject and still find the explanation a far reach.
The basic idea of if you and I both owned a house and rented it to each other is crazy. It would never happen, and is a hypothetical invented to extract taxes.
One of the key concerns with income taxes is minimizing economic distortion. That happens when you tax some activities more than others. If you get rid of imputed rent taxes, you have to raise taxes on everyone else to make the same revenue. If you do that, are you artificially subsidizing home ownership and causing more than the economically efficient balance between owning and renting?
I think the key difference is whether the distortion is intentional or just incidental. All things being equal, we'd prefer fewer incidental distortions of smaller impact.
As for intentional distortions, I think the idea goes that they're all harmful in some way (some more than others) but that the benefit of behavioural change can outweigh the cost. I don't think that would be a terribly controversial statement among economists.
The basic idea of if you and I both owned a house and rented it to each other is crazy. It would never happen, and is a hypothetical invented to extract taxes.