DOCSLIB.ORG

Congressional Record—House H15368

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Congressional Record—House H15368 H15368 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE December 12, 2007 Wamp Westmoreland Wilson (SC) Gonzalez Mahoney (FL) Royce NOT VOTING—12 Weldon (FL) Wicker Young (AK) Goodlatte Maloney (NY) Ruppersberger Carson Jindal Neugebauer Gordon Manzullo Rush Cubin Marshall Paul NOT VOTING—12 Granger Marchant Ryan (OH) Hooley Matheson Spratt Carson Hunter Neugebauer Graves Matsui Ryan (WI) Hunter Miller, Gary Tancredo Cubin Jindal Paul Green, Al McCarthy (CA) Salazar Gohmert Matheson Spratt Green, Gene McCarthy (NY) Sali ANNOUNCEMENT BY THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE Hooley Miller, Gary Tancredo Hall (NY) McCaul (TX) Sa´ nchez, Linda Hall (TX) McCollum (MN) T. The SPEAKER pro tempore (during ANNOUNCEMENT BY THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE Hare McCotter Sanchez, Loretta the vote). Members are advised 2 min- The SPEAKER pro tempore (during Harman McCrery Sarbanes utes remain in this vote. the vote). Members are advised 2 min- Hastings (FL) McHenry Saxton Hastings (WA) McHugh Schiff utes remain in this vote. Hayes McIntyre Schmidt b 1655 Heller McKeon Schwartz b 1647 Hensarling McMorris Scott (GA) Messrs. DAVIS of Illinois, FATTAH, GEORGE MILLER of California and Mr. MARCHANT changed his vote Herger Rodgers Scott (VA) Herseth Sandlin McNerney Sessions DEFAZIO changed their vote from from ‘‘aye’’ to ‘‘no.’’ Higgins McNulty Sestak ‘‘yea’’ to ‘‘nay.’’ Mr. GOODLATTE changed his vote Hill Meek (FL) Shadegg So the conference report was agreed from ‘‘no’’ to ‘‘aye.’’ Hinojosa Melancon Shays Hirono Mica Shea-Porter to. So the bill was passed. Hobson Miller (FL) Sherman The result of the vote was announced The result of the vote was announced Hodes Miller (MI) Shimkus as above recorded. as above recorded. Hoekstra Miller (NC) Shuler A motion to reconsider was laid on A motion to reconsider was laid on Holden Mitchell Shuster Holt Mollohan Simpson the table. the table. Honda Moore (KS) Sires Stated for: Hoyer Moran (KS) Skelton f Hulshof Moran (VA) Slaughter Mr. MARSHALL. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall CONFERENCE REPORT ON H.R. 1585, Inglis (SC) Murphy (CT) Smith (NE) No. 1151, H.R. 1585, The National Defense Inslee Murphy, Patrick Smith (NJ) Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008, In in- NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZA- Israel Murphy, Tim Smith (TX) TION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2008 Issa Murtha Smith (WA) advertently failed to record my vote. But for Jefferson Musgrave Snyder this oversight, I would have voted ‘‘yea.’’ The SPEAKER pro tempore. The un- Johnson (GA) Myrick Solis finished business is on agreeing to the Johnson (IL) Nadler Souder f conference report on the bill (H.R. Johnson, E. B. Napolitano Space Johnson, Sam Neal (MA) Stearns 1585), on which the yeas and nays were Jones (NC) Nunes Stupak MESSAGE FROM THE PRESIDENT ordered. Jordan Oberstar Sullivan A message in writing from the Presi- The Clerk read the title of the bill. Kagen Obey Sutton Kanjorski Ortiz Tanner dent of the United States was commu- The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Kaptur Pascrell Tauscher nicated to the House by Ms. Wanda question is on agreeing to the con- Keller Pearce Taylor Evans, one of his secretaries. ference report. Kennedy Pence Terry This will be a 5-minute vote. Kildee Perlmutter Thompson (CA) Kilpatrick Peterson (MN) Thompson (MS) f The vote was taken by electronic de- Kind Peterson (PA) Thornberry vice, and there were—yeas 370, nays 49, King (IA) Pickering Tiahrt AMT RELIEF ACT OF 2007 not voting 12, as follows: King (NY) Pitts Tiberi Kingston Platts Tsongas [Roll No. 1151] Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, pursuant Kirk Poe Turner to House Resolution 861, I call up the YEAS—370 Klein (FL) Pomeroy Udall (CO) Kline (MN) Porter Udall (NM) bill (H.R. 4351) to amend the Internal Abercrombie Broun (GA) Davis, Lincoln Knollenberg Price (GA) Upton Ackerman Brown (SC) Davis, Tom Revenue Code of 1986 to provide indi- Kuhl (NY) Price (NC) Van Hollen viduals temporary relief from the al- Aderholt Brown, Corrine Deal (GA) LaHood Pryce (OH) Visclosky Akin Brown-Waite, DeGette Lamborn Putnam Walberg ternative minimum tax, and for other Alexander Ginny Delahunt Lampson Radanovich Walden (OR) purposes, and ask for its immediate Allen Buchanan DeLauro Langevin Rahall Walsh (NY) consideration. Altmire Burgess Dent Lantos Ramstad Walz (MN) Andrews Burton (IN) Diaz-Balart, L. Larsen (WA) Rangel Wamp The Clerk read the title of the bill. Arcuri Butterfield Diaz-Balart, M. Larson (CT) Regula Wasserman The text of the bill is as follows: Baca Buyer Dicks Latham Rehberg Schultz H.R. 4351 Bachmann Calvert Dingell LaTourette Reichert Watt Bachus Camp (MI) Donnelly Levin Renzi Waxman Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Rep- Baird Campbell (CA) Doolittle Lewis (CA) Reyes Weiner resentatives of the United States of America in Baker Cannon Doyle Lewis (KY) Reynolds Weldon (FL) Congress assembled, Barrett (SC) Cantor Drake Linder Richardson Weller SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE, ETC. Barrow Capito Dreier Lipinski Rodriguez Westmoreland Bartlett (MD) Capps Edwards LoBiondo Rogers (AL) Wexler (a) SHORT TITLE.—This Act may be cited as Barton (TX) Cardoza Ehlers Loebsack Rogers (KY) Whitfield the ‘‘AMT Relief Act of 2007’’. Bean Carnahan Ellsworth Lofgren, Zoe Rogers (MI) Wicker (b) REFERENCE.—Except as otherwise ex- Becerra Carney Emanuel Lowey Rohrabacher Wilson (NM) pressly provided, whenever in this Act an Berkley Carter Emerson Lucas Ros-Lehtinen Wilson (OH) amendment or repeal is expressed in terms of Berman Castle Engel Lungren, Daniel Roskam Wilson (SC) Berry Castor English (PA) an amendment to, or repeal of, a section or E. Ross Wolf other provision, the reference shall be con- Biggert Chabot Eshoo Lynch Rothman Young (AK) Bilbray Chandler Etheridge Mack Roybal-Allard Young (FL) sidered to be made to a section or other pro- Bilirakis Clay Everett vision of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986. Bishop (GA) Clyburn Fallin NAYS—49 (c) TABLE OF CONTENTS.—The table of con- Bishop (NY) Coble Farr tents for this Act is as follows: Bishop (UT) Cohen Feeney Baldwin Jackson (IL) Payne Sec. 1. Short title, etc. Blackburn Cole (OK) Ferguson Capuano Jackson-Lee Petri Blumenauer Conaway Flake Clarke (TX) Schakowsky TITLE I—INDIVIDUAL TAX RELIEF Blunt Cooper Forbes Cleaver Jones (OH) Sensenbrenner Sec. 101. Extension of alternative minimum Boehner Costa Fortenberry Conyers Kucinich Serrano tax relief for nonrefundable per- Bonner Costello Fossella Davis (IL) Lee Stark Bono Courtney Foxx DeFazio Lewis (GA) sonal credits. Tierney Sec. 102. Extension of increased alternative Boozman Cramer Franks (AZ) Doggett Markey Towns Boren Crenshaw Frelinghuysen Duncan McDermott minimum tax exemption Vela´ zquez Boswell Crowley Gallegly Ellison McGovern Waters amount. Boucher Cuellar Garrett (NJ) Fattah Meeks (NY) Watson Sec. 103. Increase of AMT refundable credit Boustany Culberson Gerlach Filner Michaud amount for individuals with Boyd (FL) Cummings Giffords Frank (MA) Miller, George Welch (VT) Boyda (KS) Davis (AL) Gilchrest Goode Moore (WI) Woolsey long-term unused credits for Brady (PA) Davis (CA) Gillibrand Grijalva Olver Wu prior year minimum tax liabil- Brady (TX) Davis (KY) Gingrey Gutierrez Pallone Wynn ity, etc. Braley (IA) Davis, David Gohmert Hinchey Pastor Yarmuth Sec. 104. Refundable child credit. VerDate Aug 31 2005 06:48 Dec 13, 2007 Jkt 069060 PO 00000 Frm 00050 Fmt 7634 Sfmt 0655 E:\CR\FM\A12DE7.041 H12DEPT1 bajohnson on PROD1PC71 with HOUSE December 12, 2007 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE H15369 TITLE II—REVENUE PROVISIONS ment of this subsection which is attributable ‘‘(i) the amount of interest determined Subtitle A—Nonqualified Deferred Com- to the application of section 56(b)(3) for any under paragraph (2), and pensation From Certain Tax Indifferent taxable year ending before January 1, 2007 ‘‘(ii) an amount equal to 20 percent of the Parties (and any interest or penalty with respect to amount of such compensation. such underpayment which is outstanding on Sec. 201. Nonqualified deferred compensa- ‘‘(2) INTEREST.—For purposes of paragraph such date of enactment), is hereby abated. tion from certain tax indif- (1)(B)(i), the interest determined under this No credit shall be allowed under this section ferent parties. paragraph for any taxable year is the with respect to any amount abated under amount of interest at the underpayment rate Subtitle B—Codification of Economic this paragraph. under section 6621 plus 1 percentage point on Substance Doctrine ‘‘(2) INCREASE IN CREDIT FOR CERTAIN INTER- the underpayments that would have occurred Sec. 211. Codification of economic substance EST AND PENALTIES ALREADY PAID.—Any in- had the deferred compensation been includ- doctrine. terest or penalty paid before the date of the ible in gross income for the taxable year in Sec. 212. Penalties for underpayments. enactment of this subsection which would which first deferred or, if later, the first tax- Subtitle C—Other Provisions (but for such payment) have been abated able year in which such deferred compensa- Sec. 221. Delay in application of worldwide under paragraph (1) shall be treated for pur- tion is not subject to a substantial risk of allocation of interest. poses of this section as an amount of ad- forfeiture. justed net minimum tax imposed for the tax- Sec. 222. Modification of penalty for failure ‘‘(d) OTHER DEFINITIONS AND SPECIAL to file partnership returns. able year of the underpayment to which such RULES.—For purposes of this section— Sec. 223. Penalty for failure to file S cor- interest or penalty relates.’’. ‘‘(1) SUBSTANTIAL RISK OF FORFEITURE.— poration returns. (c) EFFECTIVE DATE.— ‘‘(A) IN GENERAL.—The rights of a person to Sec. 224. Increase in minimum penalty on (1) IN GENERAL.—Except as provided in compensation shall be treated as subject to a failure to file a return of tax. paragraph (2), the amendments made by this substantial risk of forfeiture only if such Sec. 225. Time for payment of corporate esti- section shall apply to taxable years begin- person’s rights to such compensation are mated taxes.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • The Dangers of Symbolic Legislation: Perceptions and Realities of the New Burden-Of-Proof Rules
    Florida State University College of Law Scholarship Repository Scholarly Publications 3-1999 The Dangers of Symbolic Legislation: Perceptions and Realities of the New Burden-of-Proof Rules Steve R. Johnson Florida State University College of Law Follow this and additional works at: https://ir.law.fsu.edu/articles Part of the Law Commons Recommended Citation Steve R. Johnson, The Dangers of Symbolic Legislation: Perceptions and Realities of the New Burden-of- Proof Rules, 84 IOWA LAW REVIEW 413 (1999), Available at: https://ir.law.fsu.edu/articles/253 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by Scholarship Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in Scholarly Publications by an authorized administrator of Scholarship Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. The Dangers of Symbolic Legislation: Perceptions and Realities of the New Burden-of-Proof Rules Steve R. Johnson* There is a growing political science and legal literature on the use of symbolism in the political and legislative process.' Tax law is a natural arena for such inquiry as tax law touches virtually every type of human in- teraction, is heavily value-driven, and is a perennial political battleground.' This article examines a recent tax law change-the enactment of new bur- den-of-proof rules in the summer of 1998--concluding that it is a perni- cious exercise in symbolic legislation. Burden-of-proof rules determine how much evidence a party must in- troduce at trial in order to prevail. In theory, a dispute-resolution system could operate without established burden-of-proof rules, but such a system would impose greater demands of perspicacity on its triers of fact and likely would be less predictable as to its outcomes? Thus, discussion and debate about what burden-of-proof rules should prevail have been part of our legal *Associate Professor of Law, Indiana University School of Law-Bloomington.
    [Show full text]
  • An Updated Analysis of the 2008 Presidential Candidates’ Tax Plans: Revised August 15, 2008
    An Updated Analysis of the 2008 Presidential Candidates’ Tax Plans: Revised August 15, 2008 Len Burman Surachai Khitatrakun Greg Leiserson Jeff Rohaly Eric Toder Bob Williams* Revised August 15, 2008 Updated September 12, 2008 The current revision (8/15/08) reflects modifications to Senator Obama’s tax proposals announced on August 14, 2008. See http://origin.barackobama.com/taxes/. This version (9/12/08) incorporates updated budget projections from the Congressional Budget Office (http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/97xx/doc9706/09-08-Update.pdf), corrects some typos, and includes editorial changes. However, we have not yet revised our revenue estimates to take account of CBO’s latest economic projections. * Tax Policy Center and Urban Institute. We are grateful to Katie Lim for research assistance and to Aviva Aron- Dine, Linda Blumberg, Bill Gale, Bo Garrett, John Holahan, and Kim Rueben for helpful advice and comments, and to Doug Holtz-Eakin of the McCain campaign and Jason Furman, Austan Goolsbee, and Jeff Liebman of the Obama campaign for many hours of work in explaining and fleshing out details of their candidate’s plans. Joy Falzarano and Julianna Koch assisted in preparing the document for publication. The analysis is based on campaign aides’ descriptions of the plans, candidates’ statements and web sites, and our assumptions about essential details unspecified by the campaigns. We will update the analysis as new information becomes available. Some interim updates and discussion will also be posted on the Tax Policy Center blog, TaxVox, which is available at www.taxpolicycenter.taxvox.org. The Tax Policy Center is nonpartisan and none of the authors are affiliated with any presidential campaign.
    [Show full text]
  • Publication 3079, Tax-Exempt Organizations and Gaming
    TAX-EXEMPT ORGANIZATIONS AND GAMING Publication 3079 (Rev. 10-2018) Catalog Number 25706L Department of the Treasury Internal Revenue Service www.irs.gov Introduction Saturday night bingo in the church hall, one-armed bandits in the social club, video lottery at the veterans’ club, poker night at the fraternal lodge – these are ex- amples of gaming1 – sometimes called gambling – by organizations exempt from federal income tax. For many years now, exempt organizations have operated these and many other types of games as a part of their activities. Why do organizations “game”? Probably the number one reason is to raise funds – either to help cover the cost of running their organizations or to support worthy causes. For some organizations, gaming also permits its members to socialize with each other and fosters fellowship. Whatever the reason, an organization conducting any type of gaming should understand the relationship between that activity and its exempt purposes, and how the activity can impact its federal tax-exempt status. An organization engaged in gaming activities also needs to understand its tax and informa- tion reporting responsibilities. This publication provides an exempt organization with the information it needs to engage in gaming activities in a manner that will not jeopardize its exempt status or lead to unexpected tax liabilities, whether the organization is currently running games or is considering whether to start. Note: Many states and localities regulate gaming by exempt organizations. This publication does not address state or local gaming licensing requirements. For licensing requirements, please consult the appropriate agencies in your locale. 1 Gaming includes (but is not limited to): bingo, pull-tabs/instant bingo (including satellite and internet bingo), Texas Hold-Em poker and other card games, raffles, scratch-offs, charitable gaming tickets, break-opens, hard cards, banded tickets, jar tickets, pickle cards, Lucky Seven cards, Nevada Club tickets, casino nights, Las Vegas nights and coin-op- erated gambling devices.
    [Show full text]
  • Reforming the Tax Code &
    BACK IN BLACK | 1 REFORMING TAX EXPENDITURES & ENDING SPECIAL INTEREST GIVEAWAYS From teens with summer jobs to multi-billion dollar corporations, taxpayers across the country sent $2.16 trillion to Washington last year.1 Most Americans agree the tax code is confusing and unfair, making it even more frustrating to hand Uncle Sam nearly twenty five percent of their monthly paycheck. The tax code is long overdue for comprehensive restructuring. Yet, instead of considering broad reform to simplify the code and lower rates, Washington continues to make the problem worse— doling out new tax breaks and subsidies in the form of tax credits to well-connected companies and special interests with powerful lobbyists who seem to have more influence than most members of Congress. The result is a complex tax structure that benefits only a few, hinders economic growth and drives up costs and taxes for many working families and businesses across the country.2 In part, the complexity of the tax code arises from the countless spending programs hidden within it. Masquerading as tax cuts, many of these programs are no different from any other federal program that spends taxpayer money. Cleaning up the code by eliminating the most egregious tax giveaways will pave the way to reducing tax rates for all Americans and small businesses. The need for fundamental tax reform is clear: as government has grown so has the tax code. It was designed to collect from citizens only those resources truly needed to fund basic federal functions, but has become the latest playground for Washington politicians to hand out benefits to their favorite special interests.
    [Show full text]
  • Why Americans Are Proud to Pay Taxes
    © Copyright, Princeton University Press. No part of this book may be distributed, posted, or reproduced in any form by digital or mechanical means without prior written permission of the publisher. INTRODUCTION All accumulation . of personal property, beyond what a man’s own hands produce, is derived to him by living in society; and he owes on every principle of justice, of gratitude, and of civilization, a part of that accumulation back again to society from whence the whole came. —American revolutionary Thomas Paine, 1797 Woman now holds a vast amount of the property in the country, and pays her full proportion of taxes, revenue included. On what principle, then, do you deny her representation? — National Women’s Rights Convention, 1866 Since the founding of the country, Americans have talked about taxes as a debt owed to one’s fellow countrymen.1 As Thomas Paine argued, the whole of one’s livelihood, beyond the meager life an individual could secure in a state of na- ture, is due to the society in which one lives. Taxes are how one pays one’s community back for making a civilized life possible, he argued. The sentiment was echoed a century later by Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr., who wrote, “[T]axes are what we pay for civilized society.”2 But responsibility does not run only from taxpayer to community; taxpayers also make claims upon government. [ 1 ] For general queries, contact [email protected] © Copyright, Princeton University Press. No part of this book may be distributed, posted, or reproduced in any form by digital or mechanical means without prior written permission of the publisher.
    [Show full text]
  • A Closer Look the Super Committee: Where They Stand on Medicaid, Medicare, and the Affordable Care Act
    A Closer Look The Super Committee: Where They Stand on Medicaid, Medicare, and The Affordable Care Act Families USA • August 2011 Introduction As part of the deal to raise the debt ceiling and avoid a U.S. default on our obligations, Congressional leadership appointed a “super committee” of 12 members of Congress – six Democrats and six Republicans. They have been tasked with reducing the deficit by $1.5 trillion over the next 10 years. The super committee must present its plan to Congress by Thanksgiving. This piece profiles the members of that committee, providing information about their stance on Medicaid, Medicare, and the Affordable Care Act, as well as where they stand regarding the inclusion of revenue as part of a debt reduction plan. Members of the committee are listed in alphabetical order by party affiliation, with the House members listed first. If one of the super committee members represents you, it’s important For more information that you contact him or her, particularly at key points during this on key points in the process. Even if none of the super committee members represent process, see this Debt Deal and Budget you, your voice is still critical. You should contact the 12 members Timetable. and share your opinions. After all, they are making decisions that affect you. It is also crucial that you tell your Senators and Representatives what you think. The super committee members are their colleagues; they can communicate your message. Furthermore, in December Congress will have to vote on the super committee’s plan, so it is important that your Senators and Representatvies know where you—one of their constituents—stand.
    [Show full text]
  • Radical Tax Reform, Municipal Finance, and the Conservative Agenda Eric J
    Western New England University School of Law Digital Commons @ Western New England University School of Law Faculty Scholarship Faculty Publications 2004 Radical Tax Reform, Municipal Finance, and the Conservative Agenda Eric J. Gouvin Western New England University School of Law, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.wne.edu/facschol Part of the Law Commons Recommended Citation 56 Rutg. L. Rev. 409 (2004) This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Faculty Publications at Digital Commons @ Western New England University School of Law. It has been accepted for inclusion in Faculty Scholarship by an authorized administrator of Digital Commons @ Western New England University School of Law. For more information, please contact [email protected]. RADICAL TAX REFORM, MUNICIPAL FINANCE, AND THE CONSERVATIVE AGENDA Eric J. Gouvin* Proponents ofa consumption tax system to replace the federal income tax typically couch their support for radical tax reform in the language of traditional tax policy goals. They claim that their reform plans promote the goals of simplicity, economic efficiency, stability, and equity. This Article examines how well the proposed tax reforms will achieve those goals in the context oftheir anticipated impact on state and local finance. The effects on state and local governments of a flattened-rate income tax, flat tax, or a broad federal consumption tax could be enormous and devastating. The Article finds that all of the reform proposals fall far short of achieving the traditional goals of tax policy in the context ofstate and local finance. This Article develops an alternative explanation for why the radical tax proposals are currently under serious consideration.
    [Show full text]
  • The Urban–Brookings Tax Policy Center 2006 Annual Report
    The Urban–Brookings Tax Policy Center 2006 Annual Report Independent, timely and accessible analyses of current and emerging tax policy issues The Urban Institute, 2100 M Street, N.W., Washington, DC 20037 The Brookings Institution, 1775 Massachusetts Ave., N.W., Washington, DC 20036 http://www.taxpolicycenter.org MESSAGE FROM THE DIRECTOR AND CODIRECTORS January 2007 Five years ago this April, the Tax Policy Center (TPC) opened its doors as a joint project of the Urban Institute and the Brookings Institution with a mission of providing clear, accessible tax policy analysis to the press, policymakers, and the public. We are meeting those goals and more. The TPC has become a widely recognized source of credible, unbiased, and comprehensible tax policy information. From a staff of a few part-time analysts at both institutions, the TPC has grown to 11 full-time researchers and numerous adjuncts who contribute analysis of tax policy along with their research in related areas. Our web site now includes more than 1,000 dis- tributional tables, revenue estimates, and other estimates and more than 700 publications on a wide range of tax topics. In 2006, we produced the first Tax Facts CD, including more than 300 tables with information about aspects of the U.S., state, and world tax sys- tems. We created several new state and local research tools and launched an ambitious new research program in this area. In 2006 alone, we produced 52 publications and commentaries and 324 tables, expanded our model to allow analysis of a wider range of tax reform options, and e- mailed 20 issues of our electronic newsletter to more than 3,000 subscribers.
    [Show full text]
  • Mpifg Working Paper 06/1, S. Ganghof: the Politics of Tax Structure
    MPIfG Working Paper 06/1, January 2006 The Politics of Tax Structure Steffen Ganghof ([email protected]), Max Planck Institute for the Study of Societies Cologne An earlier version of this paper was presented at the Yale Conference on Distributive Politics, April 29-30, 2005. The paper is now under review for an edited volume to be published by Cambridge University Press. I would like to thank the conference participants, especially Kathleen McNamara and Michael Wallerstein, as well as the in-house referees, Andreas Broscheid and Armin Schäfer, for helpful comments and discussions. All remaining errors are mine. Abstract Governments that wish to redistribute through budgetary policy do so mostly on the spending side, not on the taxation side of the budget. The taxation side is nevertheless important, partly because less efficient tax structures seem to be associated with lower taxation and spending levels. Hence political conflicts over spending levels may partly be fought as conflicts over tax structure. The paper provides a coherent perspective on the politics of tax structure. Specific topics include the (ir-)relevance of tax mixes, policy change in income taxation, the importance of tax competition, and the role of political institutions. Zusammenfassung Wenn der staatliche Haushalt zur Umverteilung genutzt wird, so geschieht dies vor allem auf der Ausgabenseite und nicht auf der Einnahmenseite. Die Einnahmeseite ist trotzdem bedeutsam, weil es offenbar einen Zusammenhang gibt zwischen der Effizienz der Steuerstruktur und dem Steuerniveau. Daraus folgt, dass politische Auseinandersetzungen über Ausgabenniveaus teilweise als Auseinandersetzungen über die Steuerstruktur geführt werden können. Das Papier entwickelt eine kohärente Perspektive zur Analyse von Steuerstrukturpolitik.
    [Show full text]
  • Jlegtsfattfe ^Journal
    COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA Jlegtsfattfe ^Journal TUESDAY, JUNE 24, 2003 SESSION OF 2003 187TH OF THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY No. 45 SENATE COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE GOVERNOR TUESDAY, June 24,2003 NOMINATIONS REFERRED TO COMMITTEE The Senate met at 1 p.m., Eastern Daylight Saving Time. The PRESIDENT laid before the Senate the following com­ munications in writing from His Excellency, the Governor of the The PRESIDENT (Lieutenant Governor Catherine Baker Commonwealth, which were read as follows and referred to the Knoll) in the Chair. Committee on Rules and Executive Nominations: PRAYER MEMBER OF THE INDUSTRIAL BOARD The Chaplain, Reverend EDWARD PECK, of St. Andrew's Episcopal Church, Shippensburg, offered the following prayer: June 24, 2003 I invite those who desire to join me in prayer. To the Honorable, the Senate Let us pray. of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania: O God, the fountain of all wisdom, whose will is good and gracious and whose law is truth, we commend this Common­ In conformity with law, I have the honor hereby to nominate for the wealth to Your merciful care, that being guided by Your provi­ advice and consent of the Senate, Gilbert L. Snyder, 6308 Blue Ridge Avenue, Harrisburg 17112, Dauphin County, Fifteenth Senatorial Dis­ dence we may dwell secure in Your peace. trict, for reappointment as a member of the Industrial Board, to serve Grant to the Governor, the Members of this legislature, those until the third Tuesday of January 2007, and until his successor is ap­ who serve in this Senate, and all who hold authority, the knowl­ pointed and qualified.
    [Show full text]
  • LEGISLATIVE RECOMMENDATIONS: Introduction
    Most Serious Legislative Most Litigated Case Advocacy Appendices Problems Recommendations Issues LEGISLATIVE RECOMMENDATIONS: Introduction Section 7803(c)(2)(B)(ii)(VIII) of the Internal Revenue Code (IRC) requires the National Taxpayer Advocate to include in her Annual Report to Congress, among other things, legislative recommendations to resolve problems encountered by taxpayers. The chart immediately following this Introduction summarizes congressional action on recommendations the National Taxpayer Advocate proposed in her 2001 through 2012 Annual Reports.1 The National Taxpayer Advocate places a high priority on working with the tax-writing committees and other interested parties to try to resolve problems encountered by taxpayers. In addition to submitting legislative propos- als in each Annual Report, the National Taxpayer Advocate meets regularly with members of Congress and their staffs and testifies at hearings on the problems faced by taxpayers to ensure that Congress has an opportunity to receive and consider a taxpayer perspective. The following discussion details recent developments relating to the National Taxpayer Advocate’s proposals. REAL TIME TAX SYSTEM In the 2012 and 2011 Annual Report to Congress, the National Taxpayer Advocate recommended that the IRS provide taxpayers with electronic access to third-party data to assist taxpayers in return prepara- tion and that the IRS develop a pre-populated return option for taxpayers.2 On April 15, 2013, Senator Shaheen introduced the Simpler Tax Filing Act of 2013, requiring the Secretary of the Treasury to study the feasibility of providing certain taxpayers with an optional, pre-prepared tax return.3 The bill also requires the Secretary of the Treasury, in consultation with the Taxpayer Advocate Service (TAS), to report to the House Ways and Means Committee and the Senate Finance Committee on actions necessary to achieve the goal of offering pre-prepared tax returns by tax year 2018.
    [Show full text]
  • T07-0344 H.R. 3818, the Republican Study Committee Taxpayer Choice Act Impact on Individual Income Tax Revenue with Behavioral Response ($ Billions), 2008-181
    21-Dec-07 PRELIMINARY RESULTS http://www.taxpolicycenter.org T07-0344 H.R. 3818, The Republican Study Committee Taxpayer Choice Act Impact on Individual Income Tax Revenue with Behavioral Response ($ billions), 2008-181 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2008-18 Fiscal Year Revenue2 Assuming tax units choose the system with less tax each year -224.4 -319.7 -346.2 -484.5 -552.0 -585.4 -622.3 -661.2 -702.1 -745.7 -791.7 -6,035 Assuming all tax units switch to the alternative tax system -150.3 -219.1 -241.4 -402.9 -476.8 -507.8 -542.5 -579.0 -617.3 -658.1 -701.6 -5,097 Calendar Year Liability Assuming tax units choose the system with less tax each year -299.2 -326.5 -352.7 -528.4 -559.9 -593.9 -631.7 -671.0 -712.5 -756.7 -803.4 -6,236 Assuming all tax units switch to the alternative tax system -200.4 -225.3 -246.7 -455.0 -484.0 -515.8 -551.4 -588.2 -626.9 -668.4 -712.7 -5,275 Source: Urban-Brookings Tax Policy Center Microsimulation Model (version 1006-1) and TPC calculations. (1) Proposal is effective 01/01/08. Baseline is current law. Proposal repeals the individual alternative minimum tax; makes permanent the 2003 rate cuts for capital gains and dividends; and allows taxpayers an election between the current tax system and an alternative tax system that denies adjustments to income, itemized deductions, and tax credits and that has a standard deduction of $12,500 ($25,000 for joint returns), personal exemptions of $3,500, and rates of 10% up to $50,000 ($100,000 for joint returns) and 25% above that level.
    [Show full text]