DOCSLIB.ORG

Federal Taxation in America: a History: Third Edition W

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Federal Taxation in America: a History: Third Edition W Cambridge University Press 978-1-107-09976-0 - Federal Taxation in America: A History: Third Edition W. Elliot Brownlee Index More information Index “ability to pay,” 23, 97, 109, 112 American Taxpayer Relief Act (ATRA) of Adams, Thomas S., 105 2012, 284, 285 on income tax, 110 Americans for Tax Reform, 226, 278 on tax expeditures, 168, 231 Anderson, Martin, 178, 185 undistributed-profits tax proposed by, Archer, William, 226–227, 231 130 Armey, Dick, 231, 233, 234 Administration of Justice Act, 18 Arnold, Thurman, 132 Advisory Panel on Tax Reform, 267 Arrears Act (1879), 74 Affordable Care Act, 275–277, 279, 282, Articles of Confederation, 2, 25, 26–27, 49 286 asset state, 27, 32–33, 51. See also modern The Agenda for Progressive Taxation fiscal state and tax state (Vickrey), 169 “The Articles of Confederation and Agricultural Adjustment Act, 121, 129 Perpetual Union,” 22 Alabama, 29 Atkinson, Anthony, 319 alcohol tax, 68, 70, 72, 73, 92, 122. See also excise taxes Baack, Been, 299 Aldrich, Nelson, 87 Baker, James, 188, 193, 197, 205, 212, 213 Alexander, Lamar, 232 Ball, Robert, 161 alternative minimum tax (AMT), 255, 262, Bank, Steven, 67, 134, 311, 316 279, 281 Barbary States of North Africa, 43 Altmeyer, Arthur, 161 Barkley, Alben, 144 American Dream Restoration Act, 227 Barr, Joseph, 171 American Dream Savings Act, 227 “barriers and deterrents,” 109, 110 American Enterprise Institute, 196, 258 Baruch, Bernard, 100, 133, 151 American International Group, 270 base broadening, defined, 169–170 American Reinvestment and Recovery Act Bear Stearns, 270 (ARRA), 274–275 Beard, Charles, 107 American Revolution, 20–25 Beard, May, 107 confiscation in, 22 Becker, Robert A., 310 cost of, 24 Beito, David, 305 and replacement of British tax regime, 2 Bentsen, Lloyd, 217, 225 and rights of colonists, 10 Berkeley, William, 9 as tax revolt, 198–199 Berkowitz, Edward, 314 total debt, 24 Bernanke, Ben, 270, 282, 284 321 © in this web service Cambridge University Press www.cambridge.org Cambridge University Press 978-1-107-09976-0 - Federal Taxation in America: A History: Third Edition W. Elliot Brownlee Index More information 322 Index Biden, Joseph, 263, 280 Omnibus Reconciliation Act of 1987, “Big Budget Bang,” 186 212 Bilmes, Linda J, 269 Omnibus Reconciliation Act of 1989, BIR. See Bureau of Internal Revenue 217 Birnbaum, Jeffrey, 315 Reorganization Act of 1939, 139 Blakey, Gladys, 296, 297 Budget and Accounting Act of 1921, 113 Blakey, Roy G., 295, 297 Budget Control Act (BCA), 280–281 Blinder, Alan, 271 Buenker, John, 311, 313 Blough, Roy, 125, 142 “Buffett Rule,” 283–284 Blueprints for Basic Tax Reform, 174, 180 Buffett, Warren, 256 Board of Tax Appeals, 131 Bullock, Charles J., 86 Boehner, John, 280 Bureau of Internal Revenue (BIR), 90, 100, bonds, U.S. tax on, 52, 90 104, 131, 143, 152–153. See also Bonney, Richard, 310 Internal Revenue Service (IRS) Boren, David, 222 Bureau of Old-Age Benefits, 143 Boulder Dam, 117 Bureau of the Budget, 113, 138, 139 Boutwell, George S., 65 Burgin, Angus, 176 Bowles, Erskine, 276 Bush, George H. W., administration of, Boxer Rebellion, 83 211–212 bracket creep, 156, 166, 172 capital gains tax under, 213 Bradley, Bill, 191, 194, 201–202 “flexible freeze” on public spending Brady, Nicholas, 213, 215 under, 214–215 Breaux, John, 222, 267 Social Security system under, 215 Brewer, John, 3, 310 Bush, George W., administration of, 205, Brinner, Roger, 227 248 British fiscal-military state, 3 administration of, tax revenues under, British North America, 1 265 British taxation of colonies, 2–9 campaign strategy of, 245–248, 250 American Revolution and, 20–25 corporate tax under, 265 customs duties, 4 criticism of tax cuts of, 257–258 Dutch merchants, 5 deficits under, 263, 271 duties, 6 economic slump during (2004–2008), excise taxes, 4 266–272 external, 1–2 job losses during, 271 fiscal autonomy of colonies to 1763, recession and, 253–254 9–13 Social Security system under, 262, 267 revenues, 3–4 tax cuts under, 245–252, 255–256, and revolutionary crisis (1763–1775), 258–260 13–19 tax issues as campaign strategy, 245–248 wars and, 7–8 tax reform under, 252–253, 256–257, British thermal unit (BTU) tax, 222 267–268 Brookings Institution, 196, 274 Brown, Roger, 27, 310 Calhoun, John C., 305 Bryan, William Jennings, 73, 90 California, 85 budget acts Proposition 13, 178–179 Budget and Accounting Act of 1921, taxpayer’s revolt, 178 113 Calleo, David, 304 Congressional Budget Act of 1974, 173 Canals, 42, 48, 54, 75 Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of Cantor, Eric, 280 1990, 219 capital gains taxation, 108, 119, 128, 133, Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 134, 142, 159, 162, 165, 172, 180, 1993, 222–223, 236 186, 204, 213, 241, 254, 263, 265 © in this web service Cambridge University Press www.cambridge.org Cambridge University Press 978-1-107-09976-0 - Federal Taxation in America: A History: Third Edition W. Elliot Brownlee Index More information Index 323 in 1913, 90 colonial merchants, 3–4 in World War I and 1920s, 97, 108, 110 Commission on Economy and Efficiency, under the New Deal, 121, 128, 133, 134 113 from World War II through the Reagan Committee for Economic Development administration, 142n31, 159n13, (CED), 153, 169 162n17, 165, 168, 172, 180, 186, 204 Compromise of 1790, 39 under the Bush (G. H. W.) and Clinton Confederacy, 21n18, 24n22, 58, 61n4, 64, administrations, 213, 216, 217, 218, 65, 74n25 220, 227, 233, 238, 241 confiscation, 22, 98 under the Bush (G. W.) and Obama Congressional Budget Act of 1974, 173 administrations, 252, 254, 263, 265, Congressional Budget Office, 173, 285 274, 283, 285 Connecticut, 12, 26, 85 Capital Issues Committee, 104 Constitution, U.S., 28, 30, 31, 33 capitalists, 301–303 Article I, Section 8, 33, 36, 62 capitalist-state theorists, 301–303 Article I, Section 9, 34, 36 “capitalizing patriotism” strategy, 102 Sixteenth Amendment, 87–89 carbon tax, 288 consumer taxes, 136 Carnegie, Andrew, 83 consumption tax, 62, 64, 70–75. See also carriage tax, 12–13 excise taxes, sales tax, tariffs Carter, Jimmy, administration of, 174, Continental Congress, 20, 24, 38 180 Continental dollar, 21–22 Cato Institute, 175 Contract with America, 226–227, 236 CEA. See Council of Economic Advisers Cooke, Jay, 66 (CEA) Coolidge, Calvin, 109, 114 CED. See Committee for Economic Corcoran, William W., 47 Development (CED) Corn Laws, 46 Central Pacific Railroad, 75 corporate liberalism, defined, 86–87 Chafee, John, 229 corporate income tax. See also Chapoton, John E., 195 excess-profits tax Chase, Salmon P., 61, 64, 66 and New Deal programs, 133, 134 Cheney, Dick, 257, 259 post–World War I, 97 Chicago school of economics, 176 post–World War II, 150 child tax credit, 227, 228, 237, 246, 247, under Reagan, 194 251, 263, 286 Council of Economic Advisers (CEA), 153, cigarette tax, 225, 226, 239 187, 256, 260–261 Citizens for a Sound Economy, 279 Crimean War (1853–1856), 63 Citizens for Tax Justice, 194 Cummings, Homer, 132 Civil War, 59–69 Current Tax Payment Act of 1943, 144 Clinton, Bill, administration of, 211–212 customs duties, 4 deficit reduction under, 222, 224 progressivism versus Contract with Dallas, Alexander J., 44 America, 221–244 D’Amato, Alfonse, 229 tax cuts under, 228, 238–239 Daniels, Mitchell, 258 tax increases under, 222–224 Darman, Richard, 192, 193, 195, 212, tax reform under, 234 213, 216 Clinton, Hillary, 222, 225, 288 Daschle, Tom, 255 cockets, 15 Daughters of Liberty, 16 Coercive Acts, 14, 18 debt. See national debt Cohen, Wilbur, 161 Declaratory Act of 1766, 16 Colfax, Schuyler, 62 defense spending, 158, 159, 186, 215 collection at the source, 67, 143 Deficit Reduction Act of 1984 (DEFRA), Collector v. Day (1870), 90 190, 194, 197, 209, 214, 237 © in this web service Cambridge University Press www.cambridge.org Cambridge University Press 978-1-107-09976-0 - Federal Taxation in America: A History: Third Edition W. Elliot Brownlee Index More information 324 Index deficit spending, 122, 155 Drew, Elizabeth, 214 deficits Dukakis, Michael, 214 under Bush (George H. W.), 214–215 Dutch merchants, 5 under Bush (George W.), 263, 271 Dutch Wars, 5 under Clinton, 222, 224 under Obama, 277 Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC), 160, under Reagan, 215–217 202, 206, 219, 243–244 under Roosevelt, 122, 188 East India Company, 17 deflation, 28, 34, 35, 53, 72, 73, 154 Eastwood, Clint, 214 Delaware, 12 Eccles, Marriner, 130, 138, 141 democratic institutionalists, 307–316 Economic Growth and Tax Relief Democratic Party’s tax stand Reconciliation Act of 2001, 250–251 deficit reduction and, 215–216 The Economic Report of the President, in Great Depressions, 118–119 153 post–Civil War, 77–83 Economic Recovery Tax Act of 1981 post–World War II, 150–152 (ERTA), 186, 188, 199, 210, 252 Southern Democrats and “soak the rich” Economic Stimulus Act of 2008, 270, 273 taxation, 151 Edling, Max, 311 tax cuts, 186 Einhorn, Robin L., 310, 311 tax reform, 180, 233 Eisenhower, Dwight, administration of, war tax proposal in 2007, 268 154–155, 158, 170 World War I, 94, 96–100 Eisenstein, Louis, 109 democratic statism, 106–117 Ely, Richard T., 83 Department of Commerce, 138 Employment Act of 1946, 153 Dependent Pension Act (1890), 74 English Civil Wars in 1642, 1 Derthick, Martha, 303 Enron, 254 direct taxes, 31, 39, 41, 44, 62, 78, 82, 93, “enumerated items,” 5, 6 97. See also income tax, property tax Erie Canal, 52 disability benefits, 74 ERTA. See Economic Recovery Tax Act of discretionary spending, 236, 238, 239, 1981 244, 250, 252, 266 estate tax Disney, Walt, 146 under Bush (George W.), 246, 247, 249, dividends, taxes on 251, 255, 256 during Civil War, 67, 90 under Clinton, 238 during World War I, 97, 104 in Democratic tax program of 1916, during New Deal, 121, 126, 130, 134 97–99 from World War II through Clinton, duty on probates, 1797, 41 174–175, 231–232, 233 Mellon and Republicans dealing with, under Bush (G.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • A Brief Description of Federal Taxes
    A BRIEF DESCRIFTION OF FEDERAL TAXES ON CORPORATIONS SINCE i86i WMUAu A. SU. ND* The cost to the federal government of financing the Civil War created a need for increased revenue, and Congress in seeking new sources tapped theretofore un- touched corporate and individual profits. The Act of July x, x862, amending the Act of August 5, x86i, is the first law under which any federal income tax was collected and is considered to be largely the basis of our present system of income taxation. The tax acts of the Civil War period contained provisions imposing graduated taxes upon the gain, profits, or income of every person2 and providing that corporate profits, whether divided or not, should be taxed to the stockholders. Certain specified corporations, such as banks, insurance companies and transportation companies, were taxed at the rate of 5%, and their stockholders were not required to include in income their pro rata share of the profits. There were several tax acts during and following the War, but a description of the Act of 1864 will serve to show the general extent of the coiporate taxes of that period. The tax or "duty" was imposed upon all persons at the rate of 5% of the amount of gains, profits and income in excess of $6oo and not in excess of $5,000, 7Y2/ of the amount in excess of $5,ooo and not in excess of -$o,ooo, and io% of the amount in excess of $Sxooo.O This tax was continued through the year x87i, but in the last two years of its existence was reduced to 2/l% upon all income.
    [Show full text]
  • The Disclosure of State Corporate Income Tax Data: Turning the Clock Back to the Future Richard Pomp University of Connecticut School of Law
    University of Connecticut OpenCommons@UConn Faculty Articles and Papers School of Law Spring 1993 The Disclosure of State Corporate Income Tax Data: Turning the Clock Back to the Future Richard Pomp University of Connecticut School of Law Follow this and additional works at: https://opencommons.uconn.edu/law_papers Part of the Taxation-Federal Commons, and the Taxation-State and Local Commons Recommended Citation Pomp, Richard, "The Disclosure of State Corporate Income Tax Data: Turning the Clock Back to the Future" (1993). Faculty Articles and Papers. 121. https://opencommons.uconn.edu/law_papers/121 +(,121/,1( Citation: 22 Cap. U. L. Rev. 373 1993 Content downloaded/printed from HeinOnline (http://heinonline.org) Mon Aug 15 17:19:23 2016 -- Your use of this HeinOnline PDF indicates your acceptance of HeinOnline's Terms and Conditions of the license agreement available at http://heinonline.org/HOL/License -- The search text of this PDF is generated from uncorrected OCR text. -- To obtain permission to use this article beyond the scope of your HeinOnline license, please use: https://www.copyright.com/ccc/basicSearch.do? &operation=go&searchType=0 &lastSearch=simple&all=on&titleOrStdNo=0198-9693 THE DISCLOSURE OF STATE CORPORATE INCOME TAX DATA: TURNING THE CLOCK BACK TO THE FUTURE RICHARD D. POMP* INTRODUCTION .............................................. 374 I. THE DISCLOSURE OF INCOME TAX INFORMATION AT THE FEDERAL LEVEL: AN HISTORICAL PERSPECTIVE .......... 378 A. The Civil War Income Taxes: 1861-1872 ............... 379 B. The 1894 Income Tax ................................ 384 C. The Tariff Act of 1909 ............................... 386 D . 1913-1923 .......................................... 389 E. The 1924 and 1926 Acts ............................... 391 F. The Pink Slip Provisions: 1934-1935 ................
    [Show full text]
  • Ways and Means Committee's Request for the Former President's
    (Slip Opinion) Ways and Means Committee’s Request for the Former President’s Tax Returns and Related Tax Information Pursuant to 26 U.S.C. § 6103(f )(1) Section 6103(f )(1) of title 26, U.S. Code, vests the congressional tax committees with a broad right to receive tax information from the Department of the Treasury. It embod- ies a long-standing judgment of the political branches that the tax committees are uniquely suited to receive such information. The committees, however, cannot compel the Executive Branch to disclose such information without satisfying the constitutional requirement that the information could serve a legitimate legislative purpose. In assessing whether requested information could serve a legitimate legislative purpose, the Executive Branch must give due weight to Congress’s status as a co-equal branch of government. Like courts, therefore, Executive Branch officials must apply a pre- sumption that Legislative Branch officials act in good faith and in furtherance of legit- imate objectives. When one of the congressional tax committees requests tax information pursuant to section 6103(f )(1), and has invoked facially valid reasons for its request, the Executive Branch should conclude that the request lacks a legitimate legislative purpose only in exceptional circumstances. The Chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee has invoked sufficient reasons for requesting the former President’s tax information. Under section 6103(f )(1), Treasury must furnish the information to the Committee. July 30, 2021 MEMORANDUM OPINION FOR THE ACTING GENERAL COUNSEL DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY The Internal Revenue Code requires the Department of the Treasury (“Treasury”) and the Internal Revenue Service (“IRS”) to keep tax returns and related information confidential, 26 U.S.C.
    [Show full text]
  • Federal Income Tax Returns--Confidentiality Vs
    Federal Income Tax Returns--Confidentiality vs. Public Disclosure* by Boris I. Bittker* * I. INTRODUCTION This article will examine the relationship between the individual's interest in privacy, reflected in such recent statutes as the Privacy Act of 1974, I and the public's right to know, which underlies legislation like the Freedom of Information Act. 2 The subject is of intrinsic impor­ tance, but it is particularly appropriate for an article in this lecture se­ ries, since privacy3 and disclosure4 were values of special interest to Justice Douglas. Neither the individual's right to privacy5 nor the pub­ lic's right to know6 is explicitly protected by the Constitution, but both do have constitutional overtones, and both are protected by various statutory provisions. Using federal income tax returns as the centerpiece of the discus­ sion, I propose to show how privacy and disclosure can come into con­ flict-a possibility that has been insufficiently recognized by the courts and the commentators. The leading treatise on political and civil rights,7 for example, treats the two subjects in separate chapters with virtually no acknowledgement that they are related, let alone that they • Copyright 1981 by Boris I. Bittker. •• Sterling Professor of Law. Yale University. This article is the modified text of a speech delivered at the Fifth Annual William O. Douglas Lecture Series. October 30. 1980. I. Pub. L. No. 93-579, § 3, 88 Stat. 1897 (amended 1975 & 1977) codified at 5 U.S.C § 552a (1976». 2. Pub. L. No. 89-554, 80 Stat. 383 (1966) (amended 1967, 1974, 1976 & 1978) (codified at 5 U.S.C § 552 (1976».
    [Show full text]
  • RESTORING the LOST ANTI-INJUNCTION ACT Kristin E
    COPYRIGHT © 2017 VIRGINIA LAW REVIEW ASSOCIATION RESTORING THE LOST ANTI-INJUNCTION ACT Kristin E. Hickman* & Gerald Kerska† Should Treasury regulations and IRS guidance documents be eligible for pre-enforcement judicial review? The D.C. Circuit’s 2015 decision in Florida Bankers Ass’n v. U.S. Department of the Treasury puts its interpretation of the Anti-Injunction Act at odds with both general administrative law norms in favor of pre-enforcement review of final agency action and also the Supreme Court’s interpretation of the nearly identical Tax Injunction Act. A 2017 federal district court decision in Chamber of Commerce v. IRS, appealable to the Fifth Circuit, interprets the Anti-Injunction Act differently and could lead to a circuit split regarding pre-enforcement judicial review of Treasury regulations and IRS guidance documents. Other cases interpreting the Anti-Injunction Act more generally are fragmented and inconsistent. In an effort to gain greater understanding of the Anti-Injunction Act and its role in tax administration, this Article looks back to the Anti- Injunction Act’s origin in 1867 as part of Civil War–era revenue legislation and the evolution of both tax administrative practices and Anti-Injunction Act jurisprudence since that time. INTRODUCTION .................................................................................... 1684 I. A JURISPRUDENTIAL MESS, AND WHY IT MATTERS ...................... 1688 A. Exploring the Doctrinal Tensions.......................................... 1690 1. Confused Anti-Injunction Act Jurisprudence .................. 1691 2. The Administrative Procedure Act’s Presumption of Reviewability ................................................................... 1704 3. The Tax Injunction Act .................................................... 1707 B. Why the Conflict Matters ....................................................... 1712 * Distinguished McKnight University Professor and Harlan Albert Rogers Professor in Law, University of Minnesota Law School.
    [Show full text]
  • The Joint Committee on Taxation and Codification of the Tax Laws
    The Joint Committee on Taxation and Codification of the Tax Laws George K. Yin Edwin S. Cohen Distinguished Professor of Law and Taxation University of Virginia Former Chief of Staff, Joint Committee on Taxation February 2016 Draft prepared for the United States Capitol Historical Society’s program on The History and Role of the Joint Committee: the Joint Committee and Tax History Comments welcome. THE UNITED STATES CAPITOL HISTORICAL SOCIETY THE JCT@90 WASHINGTON, DC FEBRUARY 25, 2016 The Joint Committee on Taxation and Codification of the Tax Laws George K. Yin* February 11, 2016 preliminary draft [Note to conference attendees and other readers: This paper describes the work of the staff of the Joint Committee on Internal Revenue Taxation (JCT)1 that led to codification of the tax laws in 1939. I hope eventually to incorporate this material into a larger project involving the “early years” of the JCT, roughly the period spanning the committee’s creation in 1926 and the retirement of Colin Stam in 1964. Stam served on the staff for virtually this entire period; he was first hired (on a temporary basis) in 1927 as assistant counsel, became staff counsel in 1929, and then served as Chief of Staff from 1938 until 1964. He is by far the longest‐serving Chief of Staff the committee has ever had. The conclusions in this draft are still preliminary as I have not yet completed my research. I welcome any comments or questions.] Possibly the most significant accomplishment of the JCT and its staff during the committee’s “early years” was the enactment of the Internal Revenue Code of 1939.
    [Show full text]
  • Measuring Tax Burden: a Historical Perspective
    This PDF is a selection from an out-of-print volume from the National Bureau of Economic Research Volume Title: Fifty Years of Economic Measurement: The Jubilee of the Conference on Research in Income and Wealth Volume Author/Editor: Ernst R. Berndt and Jack E. Triplett, editors Volume Publisher: University of Chicago Press Volume ISBN: 0-226-04384-3 Volume URL: http://www.nber.org/books/bern91-1 Conference Date: May 12-14, 1988 Publication Date: January 1991 Chapter Title: Measuring Tax Burden: A Historical Perspective Chapter Author: B. K. Atrostic, James R. Nunns Chapter URL: http://www.nber.org/chapters/c5981 Chapter pages in book: (p. 343 - 420) 11 Measuring Tax Burden: A Historical Perspective B. K. Atrostic and James R. Nunns 11.1 Introduction 11.1.1 Overview Measures of tax burden are indicators of how well tax policy meets one of its primary goals, equitably raising the revenues needed to run government. Equity has two aspects. The first, vertical equity, concerns the way taxes are distributed among taxpayers with different abilities to pay. The second, hori- zontal equity, concerns the way taxes are distributed among taxpayers with the same ability to pay. Tax burden measures thus answer broad economic and social questions about the effect of tax policy on the distribution of income and wealth. The history of these measures incorporates the histories of economic and world affairs, major tax and economic policy legislation, intellectual and so- cial movements, and data and technological innovation in the fifty years since the first meeting of the Conference on Research in Income and Wealth.
    [Show full text]
  • Misc Publications MP-02
    TAX FOUNDATION, INC. 50 Rockefeller Plaz a New York, N. Y. August 15, 1940 1 FORMM This conrpilation and bibliography are presented in th e hone that they will contribute to a fuller understanding of a difficult and at times controversial subject . In selecting the materials included an effort was made to obtain a cross section of opinions cnnd points of view . Attention is directed to the bibliograpay of periodical and special materials on war, profit s and excess profits thxation issued from 1916 to 1940. In the light of recent event s, the body of literature developed as P. result of our experience with those forms of taxation during and immodiately after the War of 1914--1919 has assumed anew significance . August 15, 1940 xA FOUIMATION 0 At Page Current Proposals 1 Some Aspects of the Profit-Tax Bill 2 The Excess-Profits Tart 3 Taxation and National Defense 4 Holding Up Defense 5 Excess-Profit Tax Hinges on Business 6 The Revenue Angle 7 The Basis 11or An Excess-Profits Tax 9 The Valuation cf Business Investments 9 Effects of Excess Profits Taxes 1 0 Excess Profits Tax : A Wartime Measure 11 Excess Profits Taxes, 1933 o 1940 1 2 The World War and Postwar Pederal :Taxation 1 3 Wartime Taxes on Profits 14 LIST OF TABLE S National Defense Expenditures, Fiscal Years 1928-1941 15 Taxes, Not Income and Dividends of All Activ e Corporations in the United States 16 Effects of Tax Increases 1 7 Table Showing 7,899 Representative Corporations Classified According to Amount of Invested Capital and R :titio of Net Income to Invested Capital During tho Taxable Year 18 Excess-Profits Taxes of Twelve Coal Companies 19 BIBLIOGRAPHY :Bibliographer on Par Profits and Excoss Profits Taxos 20 1 .
    [Show full text]
  • The Background of the Revenue Act of 1937
    THE BACKGROUND OF THE REVENUE ACT OF 1937 RANDOLPzH E. PAUL* O N AUGUST 28, 1894, Congress enacted what was then considered a drastic income tax statute.' It carried a rate of 2%. The stat- ute was regarded by many with horror. Mr. Joseph H. Choate, then a leader of the New York bar, called the act "communistic in its pur- poses and tendencies," and confiscatory. 3 Words momentarily failed even Mr. Choate before the Supreme *Court, but he managed to label the prin- ciples upon which the tax was defended in that court as "communistic, socialistic-what shall I call them-populistic4 as ever have been ad- dressed to any political assembly in the world." s No attempt was made to circumvent this outrageous "direct" tax upon property. None was ever necessary. A direct frontal attack was made in the famous Pollock case and was successful by the recently noteworthy margin of five to four. Th6 decision, dose as it was, "forcibly interred"6 the contested statute and the nineteenth century had a peaceful ending. Taxpayers were safe until orderly constitutional process made the six- teenth Amendment effective on February 25, I913 Jand "direct" income taxation was possible without the impossible8 apportionment requirement. On this day the peace won by Mr. Choate proved merely a truce, and war was declared. In the beginning it was a quiet, good-natured conflictY It * Member of the New York bar. '28 Stat. 553 (1894), 31 U.S.C.A., § 372 (1929). 2 Pollock v. Farmers' Loan & Trust Co., 157 U.S. 429, 532 (1895).
    [Show full text]
  • Report No. 82-156 Gov Major Acts of Congress And
    REPORT NO. 82-156 GOV MAJOR ACTS OF CONGRESS AND TREATIES APPROVED BY THE SENATE 1789-1980 Christopher Dell Stephen W. Stathis Analysts in American National Governent Government Division September 1982 CONmGHnItNA^l JK 1000 B RE filmH C SE HVICA^^ ABSTRACT During the nearly two centuries since the framing of the Constitution, more than 41,000 public bills have been approved by Congress, submitted to the President for his approval and become law. The seven hundred or so acts summarized in this compilation represent the major acts approved by Congress in its efforts to determine national policies to be carried out by the executive branch, to authorize appropriations to carry out these policies, and to fulfill its responsibility of assuring that such actions are being carried out in accordance with congressional intent. Also included are those treaties considered to be of similar importance. An extensive index allows each entry in this work to be located with relative ease. The authors wish to credit Daphine Lee, Larry Nunley, and Lenora Pruitt for the secretarial production of this report. CONTENTS ABSTRACT.................................................................. 111 CONGRESSES: 1st (March 4, 1789-March 3, 1791)..................................... 3 2nd (October 24, 1791-March 2, 1793)................................... 7 3rd (December 2, 1793-March 3, 1795).................................. 8 4th (December 7, 1795-March 3, 1797).................................. 9 5th (May 15, 1797-March 3, 1799)....................................... 11 6th (December 2, 1799-March 3, 1801)................................... 13 7th (December 7, 1801-Marh 3, 1803)................................... 14 8th (October 17, 1803-March 3, 1805)....... ........................... 15 9th (December 2, 1805-March 3, 1807)................................... 16 10th (October 26, 1807-March 3, 1809)..................................
    [Show full text]
  • Real Property Like-Kind Exchanges Since 1921, the Internal Revenue
    Real Property Like-kind Exchanges Since 1921, the Internal Revenue Code has recognized that the exchange of one property held for investment or business use for another property of a like-kind results in no change in the economic position of the taxpayer and therefore should not result in the imposition of tax. This concept is codified today in section 1031 of the Internal Revenue Code with respect to the exchange of real and personal property, and it is one of many nonrecognition provisions in the Code that provide for deferral of gains. The Obama Administration’s fiscal year 2015 budget targets section 1031 by substantially repealing the provision with respect to real property by limiting the amount of gain that may be deferred to $1 million annually. This proposal could have a significant negative impact on the real estate sector with real implications for the broader economy. Background The original like-kind exchange rule goes all the way back to the Revenue Act of 1921 when Congress created section 202(c), which allowed investors to exchange securities and property that did not have a “readily realized market value.” This rather broad rule was eliminated in 1924 and replaced with section 112(b) in the Revenue Act of 1928, which permitted the deferral of gain on the like-kind exchange of similar property. With limited exceptions, generally related to narrowing the provision, Congress has largely left the like-kind rule unchanged since 1928.1 Section 1031 permits taxpayers to exchange assets used for investment or business purposes for other like-kind assets without the recognition of gain.
    [Show full text]
  • Taxes, Investment, and Capital Structure: a Study of U.S
    Taxes, Investment, and Capital Structure: A Study of U.S. Firms in the Early 1900s Leonce Bargeron, David Denis, and Kenneth Lehn◊ August 2014 Abstract We analyze capital structure decisions of U.S. firms during 1905-1924, a period characterized by two relevant shocks: (i) the introduction of corporate and individual taxes, and (ii) the onset of World War I, which resulted in large, transitory increases in investment outlays by U.S. firms. Although we find little evidence that shocks to corporate and individual taxes have a meaningful influence on observed leverage ratios, we find strong evidence that changes in leverage are positively related to investment outlays and negatively related to operating cash flows. Moreover, the transitory investments made by firms during World War I are associated with transitory increases in debt, especially by firms with relatively low earnings. Our findings do not support models that emphasize taxes as a first-order determinant of leverage choices, but do provide support for models that link the dynamics of leverage with dynamics of investment opportunities. ◊ Leonce Bargeron is at the Gatton College of Business & Economics, University of Kentucky. David Denis, and Kenneth Lehn are at the Katz Graduate School of Business, University of Pittsburgh. We thank Steven Bank, Alex Butler, Harry DeAngelo, Philipp Immenkotter, Ambrus Kecskes, Michael Roberts, Jason Sturgess, Mark Walker, Toni Whited and seminar participants at the 2014 SFS Finance Cavalcade, the University of Alabama, University of Alberta, University of Arizona, Duquesne University, University of Kentucky, University of Pittsburgh, University of Tennessee, and York University for helpful comments. We also thank Peter Baschnegal, Arup Ganguly, and Tian Qiu for excellent research assistance.
    [Show full text]