DOCSLIB.ORG

Taxing Energy Use 2018 Canada

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Taxing Energy Use 2018 Canada Canada – 1 Taxing Energy Use 2018 Canada This note describes the taxation of energy use in Canada. It contains the country’s energy tax profiles, followed by country-specific information to complement the general discussion in Taxing Energy Use 2018 (OECD, 2018). The note contains four energy tax profiles for Canada: Figure 1: Effective tax rates on energy use in national currency and EUR/GJ, 2015, including electricity output taxes and energy use from biomass Figure 2: Effective tax rates on energy use in national currency and EUR/tCO2, 2015, including electricity output taxes and energy use from biomass Figure 3: Effective tax rates on energy use in national currency and EUR/tCO2, 2015, excluding taxes on electricity output, including carbon emissions from biomass Figure 4: Effective tax rates on energy in national currency and EUR/tCO2, 2015, excluding taxes on electricity output and carbon emissions from biomass The main insights from the second vintage of the Taxing Energy Use database, including a systematic comparison of patterns of the taxation of energy use across countries, sectors and fuels are available in Taxing Energy Use 2018 (OECD, 2018) at: http://oe.cd/TEU2018. TAXING ENERGY USE 2018 © OECD 2018 TAXING ENERGY USE 2018 © OECD 2018 OECD © 2018 USE ENERGY TAXING 1. Energy tax Canada Energy profiles 1. for T a 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 x r 0 a t Biofuels, natural gas and LPG e – C A D pe R Gasoline r G O J A D T a x Diesel O FF 2 Figure 400 - Oil products R O A 00 Biofuels and natural gas D 0 1. 1. F Effective tax rates energy on use in national currency and EUR/GJ, 2015, ue including electricity output taxes and energy use from biomass l Other oil products t a x c r ed i t o r t a x I NDU e x pen 4 S 800 T d R i Natural gas t u Y r 00 e 0 Coal, coke and coal gases S t a Biomass, waste and renewables t e r a t Oil products (predominantly), natural gas AGRICULTURE & FISHING es 7 : Oil products R C 200 ES O Alberta MM I D 00 E E N 0 RC T Natural gas I A + I A L British Columbia L & Biomass, waste and renewables Coal, coke and coal gases Natural gas ⬦ Ontario 9 Hydro 600 E L 00 E Quebec C 0 Oil products T R I C I Coal, coke and coal gases TY T a x E r a ne Biomass, waste and other renewables t e r g – y E u UR s e pe – 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 i n r G TJ J 2 anada C – TAXING ENERGY USE 2018 © OECD 2018 OECD © 2018 USE ENERGY TAXING T a 10 12 x 2 4 6 8 r 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 a t e 0 – Biofuels, natural gas and LPG C A D pe r t onne Gasoline R o O T f A a C x D O Figure 127 Diesel 10 2. 0 including electricity output taxes and carbon emissions from biomass Effective tax rates energy on use in national currency and EUR/tCO F ue Oil products l t OFF-ROAD a x Biofuels and natural gas c r ed i t o r t a Oil products x e x pen 254 d i t u 20 r e 0 I NDU Natural gas S T R Y S t a t e r a t es 381 : 30 Coal, coke and coal gases Alberta 0 + Biomass and waste British Columbia Oil products (predominantly) AGRICULTURE & FISHING Oil products R C ES O ⬦ MM I D C Ontario E 508 a E N 2 r RC T , 2015, , 2015, bon Natural gas I 40 A I A L 0 e L & m Quebec i ss i on Biomass and waste T s a f x r o Natural gas E r m a L t Oil products E e en C – e T E r R g UR I y C u I TY s Coal, coke and coal gases pe e r – t onne i n 1 00 o 0 0 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 f t 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 C C O O 3 – – anada C TAXING ENERGY USE 2018 © OECD 2018 OECD © 2018 USE ENERGY TAXING T a 10 12 x 2 4 6 8 r 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 a t e 0 – Biofuels, natural gas and LPG C A D pe r t onne Gasoline R o O T f A a C x D O Figure 127 excluding taxes electricity on output, including carbon emissions from biomass Diesel 10 3. 3. 0 Effective tax rates energy on use in national currency and EUR/tCO F ue Oil products l t OFF-ROAD a x Biofuels and natural gas c r ed i t o r t a Oil products x e x pen 254 d i t u 20 r e 0 I NDU Natural gas S T R Y S t a t e r a t es 381 : 30 Coal, coke and coal gases Alberta 0 + Biomass and waste British Columbia Oil products (predominantly) AGRICULTURE & FISHING Oil products R C ES O ⬦ MM I D C Ontario E 508 a E N 2 r RC T , 2015, , 2015, bon Natural gas I 40 A I A L 0 e L & m Quebec i ss i on Biomass and waste T s a f x r o Natural gas E r m a L t Oil products E e en C – e T E r R g UR I y C u I TY s Coal, coke and coal gases pe e r – t onne i n 1 00 o 0 0 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 f t 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 C C O O 4 anada C – TAXING ENERGY USE 2018 © OECD 2018 OECD © 2018 USE ENERGY TAXING T a 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 x 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 r a t e 0 – C A D pe r t onne Gasoline R o O T f a C A x O D Figure 114 90 Diesel excluding taxes electricity on output and carbon emissions from biomass 4. 4. 0 Effective tax rates energy on use in national currency and EUR/tCO F O ue FF l t - R Oil products a x O c A r D Natural gas ed i t o r t a x e Oil products x pen 229 d i t 80 u r e 0 I NDU S T R Y S t Natural gas a t e r a t es 344 : 70 Alberta 0 Coal and coke (predominantly), non-renewable waste + British Columbia Oil products (predominantly), natural gas AGRICULTURE & FISHING Oil products R C ES O MM I ⬦ D E C Ontario 459 E N a RC T 2 r I , 2015, , 2015, bon A 60 Natural gas (predominantly), coal and coke I A L L 0 & e m Quebec i ss i on T s a f x r E o L r m a E t C e en Coal, coke and coal gases T – e R E r I g C UR y I TY u s pe e r – t Natural gas onne i n 1 00 Oil products (predominantly), non-renewable waste o 0 0 5 4 3 2 1 f t 0 0 0 0 0 C C O O 5 – – anada C 6 – Canada 2. Country-specific notes This note describes the taxation of energy use in Canada. It contains the country’s energy tax profiles, accompanied by country-specific information to complement the general discussion in Taxing Energy Use 2018 (OECD, 2018). Tax rates are those applicable in April 2015, energy use data are for 2014. The data shown in the energy tax profiles is from the OECD’s Taxing Energy Use (TEU) Database. More detail on the TEU Database, the calculation of effective tax rates on energy use and the interpretation of the energy tax profiles can be found in Taxing Energy Use 2018 (OECD, 2018). Emissions trading systems1 (ETS) are not shown in the energy tax profiles. Energy and carbon taxes In Canada, at the federal level, an excise tax applies to gasoline and diesel, with no distinction made by sector. These federal rates are included in the energy tax profiles of Canada, and they translate into effective tax rates on energy use and carbon emissions from energy use, as described below. Since provinces impose their own specific taxes on energy use, federal taxes represent only a portion of total energy taxes in Canada. In most instances, the provincial taxes on energy use are higher than the excise tax levied at national level. To illustrate the important role of the taxation of energy use at provincial level, provincial tax rates of the four most populous provinces (Alberta, British Columbia, Ontario and Quebec) are marked in the energy tax profiles. Since the Taxing Energy Use database only includes federal rates, these rates do not enter the effective tax rates calculated for Canada at the federal level. A brief overview of the structure of these subnational taxes is given in the text below. Effective tax rates on energy use for different fuels and users The tax rates on different fuels and uses are linked to Canada’s energy use2 to calculate effective tax rates on energy use (in EUR/TJ and CAD/TJ) or CO2 emissions from energy use (in EUR/tCO2 and CAD/tCO2).
Load more

Recommended publications
  • AASHTO Matrix of Surface Transportation Revenue Options
    MatrixMatrix ofof lllustrativelllustrative SurfaceSurface TransportationTransportation RevenueRevenue OptionsOptions JanuaryJanuary 20192019 Matrix of Illustrative Surface Transportation Revenue Options Illustrative $ in Billions Existing Highway Trust Fund Rate or Total Fore- Definition of Mechanism/Increase Assumed Funding Mechanisms Percentage cast Yield 2018 Yield* Increase 2019–2023 Existing HTF Funding Mechanisms Diesel Excise Tax 20.0¢ ¢/gal increase in current rate $8.8 $42.2 Gasoline Excise Tax 15.0¢ ¢/gal increase in current rate $21.8 $102.1 Motor Fuel Tax Indexing of Current Rate to CPI (Diesel) -- ¢/gal excise tax $3.7 Motor Fuel Tax Indexing of Current Rate to CPI (Gas) -- ¢/gal excise tax $8.8 Truck and Trailer Sales Tax 20.0% increase in current revenues, structure not defined $0.6 $4.2 Truck Tire Tax 20.0% increase in current revenues, structure not defined $0.1 $0.5 Heavy Vehicle Use Tax 20.0% increase in current revenues, structure not defined $0.2 $1.2 Other Existing Taxes Minerals Related Receipts 25.0% increase in/reallocation of current revenues, structure not defined $0.6 $3.4 Harbor Maintenance Tax 25.0% increase in/reallocation of current revenues, structure not defined $0.4 $1.9 Customs Revenues 5.0% increase in/reallocation of current revenues, structure not defined $1.9 $10.3 Income Tax - Personal 0.5% increase in/reallocation of current revenues, structure not defined $5.3 $28.4 Income Tax - Business 1.0% increase in/reallocation of current revenues, structure not defined $1.7 $8.9 License and Registration
    [Show full text]
  • Commonwealth of Virginia Current Taxation of Fuels Motor Fuels (Gasoline, Diesel, Blended Fuel, Aviation Fuel) Virginia Motor Fu
    Commonwealth of Virginia Current Taxation of Fuels Motor Fuels (Gasoline, Diesel, Blended Fuel, Aviation Fuel) Virginia Motor Fuel Tax Rates Gasoline and Gasoline Blends – 17.5 cents per gallon Gasohol – 17.5 cents per gallon Diesel and Diesel Blends – 17.5 cents per gallon Aviation Gasoline – 5 cents per gallon Aviation Jet Fuel – 5 cents per gallon Aviation Jet Fuel Used by Licensed Aviation Consumer – 5 cents per gallon on first 100,000 gallons; ½ cent per gallon over 100,000 gallons Storage Tank Fee – .6 cent per gallon (applied to gasoline, aviation gasoline, diesel fuel, dyed diesel fuel, blended fuel, heating oil) Point at Which Virginia Tax Levied on Motor Fuels Removed from a refinery or a terminal Imported by a system transfer to a refinery or a terminal Imported by a means of transfer outside the terminal transfer system for sale, use or storage in Virginia If the fuel is gasohol, removed from a terminal or distribution facility except by a supplier for subsequent sale, If the fuel is gasohol, imported into Virginia outside the terminal transfer system by means other than a marine vessel, transport truck or railroad tank car Alternative Fuels (Combustible Gas, Liquid or Other Energy Source that Generates Power to Operate a Highway Vehicle) Virginia Alternative Fuel Tax Rates 17.5 cents per Gasoline Gallon Equivalent (GGE) Compressed Natural Gas (CNG): 126.67 cubic feet equals one gallon of gasoline Liquid Natural Gas (LNG): 1.52 gallons equal one gallon of gasoline Propane (LPG): 1.35 gallons equal one gallon of gasoline Electricity: 33.56 kilowatt hours equal one gallon of gasoline Electric Motor Vehicle -- $50 annual license tax collected at time of vehicle registration Point at Which Virginia Tax Levied on Alternative Fuels Tax on alternative fuels is collected from whoever is responsible for selling or using the fuel for highway purposes.
    [Show full text]
  • STATEMENTS of SUPPORT for a FINANCIAL TRANSACTION TAX (FTT) Updated July 2013
    STATEMENTS OF SUPPORT FOR A FINANCIAL TRANSACTION TAX (FTT) Updated July 2013 Religious and Opinion Leaders Kofi Annan, former Secretary-General of the United Nations I support innovative financing solutions, such as a fair maritime bunker fuel tax, a levy on airline tickets, or the Financial 1 Transaction Tax. Boston Globe editorial board As Obama and other policymakers contemplate far-reaching changes to entitlements such as Medicare and Social Security, a financial transaction tax — which would simultaneously raise money and deter another crisis — has to be part 2 of the discussion. Al Gore, former U.S. Vice President We need policy changes, we need a tax on carbon and we need a tax on global transactions.3 Bob Herbert, former columnist at The New York Times While the fees would be a trivial expense for what the general public tends to think of as ordinary traders – people investing in stocks, bonds or other assets for some reasonable period of time – they would amount to a much heavier lift 4 for speculators, the folks who bring a manic quality to the markets, who treat it like a casino. Van Jones, author and President of Rebuild the Dream The Wall Street Tax… is common sense… Congress is about to face a telling choice. Will they vote to tax Wall Street gamblers in the 1%, or cut the Social Security checks of senior citizens in the 99%?5 Nicholas Kristof, columnist at The New York Times Impose a financial transactions tax. This would be a modest tax on financial trades, modeled on the suggestions of James Tobin, an American economist who won a Nobel Prize.
    [Show full text]
  • Jobs, Taxes & Investments
    JOBS, TAXES & INVESTMENTS: How Biden’s Made in America Tax Plan raises taxes on corporations to invest in the American Jobs Plan President Biden wants to invest $2.3 trillion creating millions of new jobs by rebuilding roads and bridges, creating a green energy economy, making housing more affordable, promoting domestic manufacturing, ensuring quality care for elderly and disabled people, and more. He would do this by making corporations pay their fair share of taxes—raising at least $2 trillion (see next page). ($ billions) Infrastructure, Transportation, Green Energy: $802 Billion, 35% Electric vehicles $174 Highways, roads, bridges $115 Clean drinking water $111 Electrical infrastructure $100 Public transit $85 Passenger/freight rail $80 Infrastructure resilience $50 Transportation inequities $45 Airports, waterways, ports $42 R&D, Workforce Development & Manufacturing: $580 Billion, 26% Manufacturing & small business $300 Research & development $180 Workforce development $100 Housing & Community Infrastructure: $478 Billion, 21% Affordable & sustainable housing $213 Public schools, community college, childcare centers $137 High-speed broadband $100 VA hospitals & federal buildings $28 Caring Economy: $400 Billion, 18% Home & community-based care for elderly & disabled people $400 Source: Tthe White House, “FACT SHEET: The American Jobs Plan,” March 31, 2021 JOBS, TAXES & INVESTMENTS: How Biden’s Made in America Tax Plan raises taxes on corporations to invest in the American Jobs Plan President Biden wants to make corporations pay their fair share of taxes, which would raise at least $2 trillion over 10 years (and more than $2.5 trillion over 15), creating millions of new jobs and rebuilding our economy and communities (see previous page). Raise the domestic corporate tax rate to 28%: The current top tax rate of 21% was the result of a radical cut from 35% under the Trump-GOP tax cuts.
    [Show full text]
  • Canada: Inventory of Estimated Budgetary Support and Tax Expenditures for Fossil-Fuels
    CANADA: INVENTORY OF ESTIMATED BUDGETARY SUPPORT AND TAX EXPENDITURES FOR FOSSIL-FUELS Energy resources and market structure Canada has substantial and diversified fossil-energy resources, and the energy sector makes a significant contribution to the economy. It is a net exporter of oil, natural gas and coal, as well as uranium (being the world’s largest producer) and electricity (the majority of it hydropower-based). Canada has the third-largest proven oil reserves in the world, most of which are in oil sands. Production from oil sands has grown rapidly in recent years, broadly offsetting a decline in output of conventional oil. Proven natural gas reserves have risen in the last few years, mainly thanks to shale gas and other unconventional types of gas, though overall production and exports (entirely to the United States) have declined. Oil and gas together account for two-thirds of the country’s primary energy use, with hydro-based electricity (12%) and nuclear power (9%) accounting for most of the rest. Overall, Canada exports about one-third of its energy production. Canadian energy policy relies on competitive markets for determining supply, demand, prices and trade. The federal government no longer has any ownership stake in any major energy company, other than Atomic Energy of Canada Limited (AECL) — a Crown corporation responsible for managing Canada’s national nuclear-energy research and development programme. The privatisation of Petro-Canada, previously the main state-owned energy company, was completed in 2004. By contrast, all but one of the ten provinces still have Crown corporations in energy, notably in hydropower production.
    [Show full text]
  • Tax 'Societal Ills'
    COMMENT Tax ‘societal ills’ to save the planet Funding is a major stumbling block for environmental initiatives, says Edward Barbier. Taxing financial transactions or trade in arms, tobacco and fuel might help. n June, the United Nations Conference on Sustainable Development, ‘Rio+20’, MONEY MAKERS Possible funds from taxation and the nancial sector vastly exceed Committed funds (total) will aim to green the world economy present sources of money for sustainable development. Iand, at the same time, eradicate poverty. But Possible funds (per year) progress at Rio+20 is likely to falter over a Adaptation Fund $12.6 million familiar stumbling block: financing. REDD+ deforestation fund $118 million Green Climate Fund $2.5 billion Negotiations at conferences such as these Millennium Development Goals assistance $6.6 are often focused on setting targets for action Global Environmental Facility BILLION or making financial commitments, without Energy development assistance total $. Global arms-trade tax $5 billion negotiating the mechanisms by which those International Finance Facility $10 billion TRILLION per year funds will be raised. This has resulted in large Tobacco tax $10.8 billion gaps between intended actions and actual Global aviation-fuel tax Shipping-fuel tax funds, on the order of hundreds of billions 1% of G20 sovereign-wealth funds of dollars. Financial-transaction tax Three revenue-raising mechanisms are Currency-transaction tax (Tobin tax) often proposed: funds, global markets for Carbon tax carbon and ecosystem services, and revenues 0 100 200 300 400 500 Billions of dollars (US) from global trade. The first two don’t seem to hold much promise for generating the hundreds of billions of dollars needed.
    [Show full text]
  • Academic Distress Commission, 301–302 Accountability, 81 for Expenditure of State Funds, 171 Financial Control For, 143 Formal
    Index Note: Italic t following a page number indicates a table. Italic f following a page number indicates a figure. A cutback management, 155, 156 Academic Distress Commission, 301–302 duplication within/among, 86 Accountability, 81 economic conditions and budget requests, 8 for expenditure of state funds, 171 executive-legislative politics, 123–127 financial control for, 143 federal funds spending, 161 formal mechanisms for, 162 installment contracts of, 11 to governor’s strategic vision, 83 involved in revenue forecasting, 58 Public Integrity Assurance Team, 166 justification for funding, 5, 6, 68, 79 in results-based budgeting, 172 lease-purchase agreements, 12 Accounting, 172 mission, goals, and objectives, 75 changes in, 208 performance audits, 7–8 changes in practices, 86–87 performance measures produced by, 82–83 to disguise expenditures/revenues, 125 performance reviews, 177 financial, 145 policy set by, 116 for receipts, 151 program ideas of, 115 in results-based budgeting, 172 questioning requests from, 74 Achievement Everywhere, 288, 300 receipt deposits by, 151 Across-the-board cuts, 154–155 Redbooks and Greenbooks on, 8 Activity and Expenditure Reports, 131 revenue receipts, 27–28, 151 Addiction treatment services, 277 salaries payment by, 210 Add-on requests, 147 special audits of, 165 Admissions taxes, 42 target amounts for, 6 Adoption expense credit, 32 Agency-by-agency analysis, 155 Adult Basic Literacy Education (ABLE), 302 Aging is Everybody’s Business, 274 Adult corrections expenditures, 192 Aging population, 24, 190,
    [Show full text]
  • Transport Taxes and Charges in Europe an Overview Study of Economic Internalisation Measures Applied in Europe
    Transport taxes and charges in Europe An overview study of economic internalisation measures applied in Europe BY: Arno Schroten (CE Delft), Peter Scholten (CE Delft), Lisanne van Wijngaarden (CE Delft), Huib van Essen (CE Delft), Marco Brambilla (TRT), Marco Gatto (TRT), Silvia Maffii (TRT), Frank Trosky (Planco), Holger Kramer (ISL), Reinhard Monden (ISL), Damaris Bertschmann (INFRAS), Maura Killer (INFRAS), Anne Greinus (INFRAS), Vitalie Lambla (PMR), Kareen El Beyrouty (Ricardo), Sofia Amaral (Ricardo), Tom Nokes (Ricardo), Ancelin Coulon (Ricardo) March - 2019 EUROPEAN COMMISSION Directorate-General for Mobility and Transport Directorate A — Policy Coordination Unit A3 — Economic analysis and better regulation Contact: Rolf Diemer E-mail: [email protected] European Commission B-1049 Brussels 1 4.K83 - Transport taxes and charges in Europe - March 2019 EUROPE DIRECT is a service to help you find answers to your questions about the European Union Freephone number (*): 00 800 6 7 8 9 10 11 (*) The information given is free, as are most calls (though some operators, phone boxes or hotels may charge you) LEGAL NOTICE This document has been prepared for the European Commission however it reflects the views only of the authors, and the Commission cannot be held responsible for any use which may be made of the information contained therein. More information on the European Union is available on the Internet (http://www.europa.eu). Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union, 2019 ISBN 978-92-79-99561-3 doi: 10.2832/416737
    [Show full text]
  • Faqs on Financial Transaction Tax
    FAQs on Financial Transaction Tax What is a financial transaction tax? A financial transaction tax is a tiny fee – at rates of a fraction of a percent – on trades of financial instruments, such as stocks, bonds, and derivatives.1 Such taxes are promoted as having the dual benefits of discouraging short-term speculation while generating significant revenue. What is the experience with FTT to date? More than 30 countries currently have FTTs on particular asset classes that raise billions of dollars per year. These include many countries with robust and fast-growing financial markets, such as the UK, South Africa, Hong Kong, Singapore, Switzerland, and India. From 1914 to 1966, the United States levied a stock transfer tax, which stood at 0.04% per transaction in 1966. What is the current state of the debate? While the Obama administration is not yet supportive, on January 12, 2015, the Democratic leadership in the U.S. House of Representatives announced support for FTT as a core element of a new tax reform plan. In Europe, 11 governments are moving forward to implement the first regional FTT. In January 2013, they received authorization to form a “coalition of the willing” to implement a coordinated FTT. These countries include: Belgium, Germany, Estonia, Greece, Spain, France, Italy, Austria, Portugal, Slovenia, and Slovakia. The starting point for negotiations was a European Commission proposal for a tax of 0.1% on stock and bond trades and 0.01% on the notional value of derivatives. Trading platforms and clearing houses would collect the taxes and pass on revenue to national tax authorities.
    [Show full text]
  • En En Amendments
    European Parliament 2014-2019 Committee of Inquiry to investigate alleged contraventions and maladministration in the application of Union law in relation to money laundering, tax avoidance and tax evasion 2017/2013(INI) 7.9.2017 AMENDMENTS 1 - 313 Draft report Petr Ježek, Jeppe Kofod (PE604.514v01-00) Report on the inquiry into Money Laundering, Tax Avoidance and Tax Evasion (2017/2013(INI)) AM\1133777EN.docx PE609.630v02-00 EN United in diversity EN AM_Com_NonLegReport PE609.630v02-00 2/179 AM\1133777EN.docx EN Amendment 1 Molly Scott Cato, Eva Joly, Sven Giegold, Pascal Durand, Ernest Urtasun, Heidi Hautala, Michel Reimon, Jordi Solé on behalf of the Verts/ALE Group Motion for a resolution Citation 1 a (new) Motion for a resolution Amendment - having regard to Article 116 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU), Or. en Amendment 2 Miguel Urbán Crespo, Miguel Viegas, Fabio De Masi, Matt Carthy, Marina Albiol Guzmán, Stelios Kouloglou, Takis Hadjigeorgiou, Patrick Le Hyaric, Curzio Maltese Motion for a resolution Citation 3 a (new) Motion for a resolution Amendment - having regard to the revelations of the International Consortium of Investigative Journalists (ICIJ), on the use of offshore companies, which have become known as the ‘Panama Papers’, Or. en Amendment 3 Miguel Viegas, Miguel Urbán Crespo, Fabio De Masi, Matt Carthy, Marina Albiol Guzmán, Stelios Kouloglou, Takis Hadjigeorgiou, Patrick Le Hyaric, Curzio Maltese Motion for a resolution Citation 3 b (new) Motion for a resolution Amendment AM\1133777EN.docx 3/179 PE609.630v02-00 EN - having regard to the resolution adopted by the United Nations General Assembly on 27 July 2015 on the Addis Ababa Action Agenda, Or.
    [Show full text]
  • CORPORATE TAX POLICY and the RIGHT to KNOW Improving State Tax Policymaking by Enhancing Legislative and Public Access
    CORPORATE TAX POLICY AND THE RIGHT TO KNOW Improving State Tax Policymaking By Enhancing Legislative and Public Access By Professor Richard D. Pomp Alva P. Loiselle Professor of Law School of Law University of Connecticut for The Fiscal Policy Institute 146 State Street Albany, New York 12207 December 1993 CONTENTS Executive Summary i I. Introduction 1 II. The Disclosure of Income Tax Information at the 4 Federal Level: An Historical Perspective A. The Civil War Income Taxes: 1861-1872 5 B. The 1894 Income Tax 7 C. The Tariff Act of 1909 8 D. 1913 - 1923 10 E. The 1924 and 1926 Acts 11 F. The Pink Slip Provisions: 1934 - 1935 14 G. SEC Disclosure: 1933 - Present 20 H. Citizens for Tax Justice and the Use of SEC-Required Disclosure for Tax Policy Analysis 22 I. Summary 24 III. Disclosure at the State Level 26 A. Massachusetts 26 B. West Virginia 28 C. Arkansas 29 D. Wisconsin 31 E. Lessons to Date 32 IV. Evaluating the Case for State-Level Tax Disclosure by Publicly-Traded Corporations 33 A. Firm-Specific Disclosure is Necessary for Informed Tax Policy 33 B. Firm-Specific Disclosure is Essential to Public Understanding of Corporate Tax Issues 38 C. Sunlight is the Best Disinfectant: Disclosure Would Promote Openness and Accountability 39 D. State-Level Disclosure Will Complement SEC- Mandated Disclosure 40 E. Why Not Disclose Firm-Specific Data Anonymously? 41 F. Will Disclosure Violate a Corporation's Right to Privacy? 43 G. Will Disclosure Reveal Proprietary Information? 43 H. Will Disclosure Discourage the Filing of Accurate Tax Returns? 47 I.
    [Show full text]
  • The Cost and Effectiveness of Policies to Reduce Vehicle Emissions
    JOINT TRANSPORT RESEARCH CENTRE Round Table, 31 January - 1 February 2008, Paris Discussion Paper No. 2008-9 April 2008 The Cost and Effectiveness of Policies to Reduce Vehicle Emissions SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS The Cost and Effectiveness of Policies to Reduce Vehicle Emissions TABLE OF CONTENTS Executive Summary 1. Introduction 2. Effective policy packages to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from road transport 2.1 Marginal external costs and policy design: some clarification 2.2 Economic costs, political expediency, and instrument choice 2.3 Addressing vehicle purchase decisions 2.4 Standards and taxes 3. The design of fuel economy standards 3.1 Goals and characteristics of a standard 3.2 The choice of attributes and the timing of the standard 3.3 The costs of improving fuel economy through standards 3.4 Test cycles and on-road fuel economy 4. Burden sharing 5. Conclusion References List of Participants 2 Summary and Conclusions — Discussion Paper 2008-9 — © OECD/ITF, 2008 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Issues Transport sector policies already contribute to moderating greenhouse gas emissions from road vehicles and are increasingly designed to contribute to overall societal targets to mitigate climate change. The Round Table investigated the effectiveness and costs of various mitigation options. The question of how to decide on the distribution of abatement efforts across sectors of the economy was also discussed. Within the broad topic of addressing greenhouse gas emissions from transport, the Round Table focused on emissions of CO2 from road transport and in particular from light-duty passenger vehicles. Policies that reduce fuel consumption below non-intervention levels are in place in most countries, many adopted for reasons other than reducing CO2 emissions.
    [Show full text]