1) I'm sure you'll notice most of the cards in the topic paper are from law reviews and other peer reviewed sources. I didn't research any books, but the corporate tax policies outlined have been around since the last tax major corporate tax reform, which was in 1986. Some of them were created when the Bush tax cuts passed in 03. Scholarly work is abundant and I'm sure there are plenty of books as well.
2) Advantage cps-it really depends on the aff (as always). I think you are talking about CPs to just fund whatever social spending cuts the aff staves off; there are a few ways the aff can approach this. Broadly, the aff will have access to other advantage areas that cp doesn't solve (consistency/efficiency of tax code, offshoring, trade distortions, economic inequality). Specifically, assuming the aff is talking about budget deficits, the neg can't just fund social services and claim to decrease deficits.
Presumably (this is the shell game I believe PJ refers to), the negative will specify a program they cut to make up for the revenue the aff generates with their tax reform. First, I think this is a higher burden for the negative than many think. Tax reform means the revenue is permanent, and also related to growth (when the economy goes up companies make more money, paying more taxes). The spending cut would have to prove it can sustain at the same levels and with the same consistency as the tax increase. Second, since the spending cut would have to be something that is 'guaranteed funding' over many years, it greatly limits the parts of the budget the neg can use for this cp. Third, any deficit or social spending advantage area will be directly tied to the debate about economic inequality. These counterplans would have a hard time solving these arguments because rather than increasing revenue, they are decreasing spending, which is still the concept of transferring money between programs that the middle/lower class pay for.
Next is the net benefit to these cps. It can't be the other program they cut bc the aff can permute that. I think it's fair to say it can't be politics, either, because even if the neg can win there's no PC lost with their cp (because the program they cut is unpopular), the part of the aff they are solving is politically contentious. So, I assume the net benefit would just be the tax loopholes are good, which all the advantage arguments mentioned above answer.
I'd also like to point out that the above two paragraphs are probably more confusing than anything you'll read on the tax topic.
3) yes, affs will be able to generate 'no links' and 'link turns' against the politics disad, because rare is the topic where you can't. I'll get into a bit more detail. Members of the far left want revenue positive reform-get rid of the loopholes and use the money to pay down the deficit and prevent social spending cuts. Members in the moderate left (Obama) definitely want the loopholes closed, and would like to use that money to lower the corporate tax rate. Members of the moderate right want the tax rates down-the loopholes they care about but not as much as everyone else. Members of the far want the rates down and most of the loopholes closed. Of course there is some divergence in each of those groups like always. But the point is there are big chunks of the topic that are popular with various members, so your typical politics debate about who has more influence on what agenda items and who is needed to pass them will be robust.
4) Bonus Answer- as for A, i don't quite think it just becomes a probabilistic solvency question, but the answer is still strongly B. You describe two PICs- out of revenue neutral, or revenue positive.
So if the aff is revenue neutral, they close loopholes but lower taxes. If the neg lowers taxes but doesn't close loopholes, they are revenue negative. It basically means they are defending a cp to take 100s of billions of dollars out of government funding every single year. there is evidence that says lowering the rate while keeping all the deferrals in place would bleed the gov dry. The other cp, to close the loopholes but leave tax rates high means the aff can leverage their offshoring/competitiveness arguments against the neg. "you increase tax revenue, but with no loopholes AND this super high tax rate, no one will invest in america etc etc"
If the aff is revenue positive, they expand the tax base and use the money to pay down the deficit/fund the budget. CP options are more limited here (as far as your PIC goes). You can't really pic out of the part where the aff uses the money to pay down the deficit etc, because the aff doesn't fiat that, it's just something they lead to. I'm sure there are ways around this for the neg. I'll think on it more. Thanks for the questions-it's great to get a lot of these issues figured out.
Long post. I plan on writing a post soon about how awesome the cp debates on tax reform are-much better than some of the other topics IMO.