DOCSLIB.ORG

Summary of Testimony of Panelists on Tax Reform Topics at Panel

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Summary of Testimony of Panelists on Tax Reform Topics at Panel [COMMITTEE PRINT] SUMMARY OF TESTIMONY OF PANELISTS ON TAX REFORM TOPICS AT PANEL DISCUSSIONS, FEBRUARY 5 TO FEBRUARY 28, 1973 HELD BY THE COMMITTEE ON WAYS AND MEANS PREPARED BY THE STAFF OF THE JOINT COMMITTEE ON INTERNAL REVENUE TAXATION MARCH 5, 1973 U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE 91-177 WASHINGTON : 1973 JCS-8-73 i ::: —— — — CONTENTS P«ge Introduction 1 Panel Discussions by Subject Matter of Panel 5, 15, 29, 43, 51, 59, 75, 85, 93, 105, 121 Panel No. 1 Objectives and Appeoaches to Tax Reform and SlMPLEFIOATION (FeBEUART 5) Panelists Prof. Boris I. Bittker, Yale University, New Haven, Conn 5 Dr. Joseph Pechman, Brookings Institution, Wastiington, D.C 6 Prof. Dan Throop Smith, Hoover Institute, Stanford, Oalif 7 Prof. Stanley S. Surrey, Harvard Law School, Cambridge, Mass 9 Dr. Norman Ture, economic consultant, Washington, D.C 11 Panel No. 2 Capital Gains and Losses (Febetjaey 6) Panelists Prof. Harvey D. Brazer, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Mich..^ 15 Prof. Richard A. Musgrave, Harvard University, Cambridge, Mass 19 Mr. B. Kenneth Sanden, Price Waterhouse & Co., New York, N.Y 22 Prof. Henry C. Wallich, Yale University, New Haven, Conn 25 Panel No. 3 Tax Treatment of Capital Recovery (Investment Credit, Accelerated Depeeciation, and Amortization) (Feb- ruary 7) Panelists Prof, Martin David, University of Wisconsin, Madison, Wis 29 Prof. Robert Eisner, Northwestern University, Evanston, 111 30 Prof. C. Lowell Harriss, Columbia University, New York, N.Y 36 Mr. John S. Nolan, Miller & Chevalier, Washington, D.C 36 Dr. Pierre A. Rinfret, Rinfret-Boston Associations, Inc., New York, N.Y 39 Panel No. 4 Tax Treatment of Real Estate (Febetjaey 8) Panelists Mr. Alan Aronsohn, Robinson, Silverman, Pearce, Aronsohn, Sand & Berman, New York, N.Y 43 Mr. Adrian W. DeWind, Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison, New York, N.Y 44 Mr. Jerome Kurtz, Wolf, Block, Shor & Solis-Cohen, Philadelphia, Pa 45 Mr. Wallace R. Woodbury, Woodbury, Wunderli & Sorenson, Salt Lake City, Utah 47 Panel No. 5—Farm Operations (February 20) Panelists Prof. Charles Davenport, Law School, University of California at Davis, Davis, Calif 51 Prof. Roland L. Hjorth, Law School, University of Washington, Seattle, Wash 53 Mr. Herrick K. Lidstone, Battle, Fowler, Stokes & Kheel, New York, N.Y 54 Mr. Claude M. Maer, Jr., Holland & Hart, Denver, Colo 58 m :::: — —— ly CONTENTS Panel No. 6 ^Minimum Tax and Tax Shelter Devices (febettaiit20) Panelists P«so Mr. J. Waddy Bullion, Dallas, Tex 59 Mr. Wayne E. Chapman, Cravath, Swaine & Moore, New York, N.Y 60 Mr. Milton A. Dauber, Geo Resources Management Corp., Jenkin- town. Pa 61 Mr. Martin D. Ginsburg, Weil, Gotshal & Manges, New York, N.Y 65 Mr. Kennetb A. Goldman, Irell & Manella, Los Angeles, Calif 66 Prof. Paul R. McDaniel, Boston College Law School, Brighton, Mass 68 Panel No. 7 Pensions, Profit-Shaking, and Deferred Compensation (February 22) Panelists Mr. Herman C. Biegel, Lee, Toomey & Kent, Washington, D.C 75 Mr. Frank Cummings, Gall, Lane, Powell & Kilcullen, Washington, D.C 76 Prof. Daniel Halperin, Law School, University of Pennsylvania, Phila- delphia, Pa 77 Prof. Dan M. McGill, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pa— 80 Mr. Converse Murdoch, Murdoch, Longobardi, Schwartz & Walsh, Wilmington, Del 82 Panel No. 8—An Alternative to Tax- Exempt State and Local Bonds (February 23) Panelists Hbnorable John D. Driggs, mayor. Phoenix, Ariz 85 Mr. Harvey Galper, The Urban Institute, Washington, D.C 86 Dr. Frank B. Morris, president. Federal Reserve Bank of Boston, Boston, Mass 90 Mr. Wallace O. Sellers, Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, Inc., New York, N.Y 91 Panel No. 9 Natural Resources (February 26) Panelists Mr. Richard J. Gonzalez, Houston, Tex 93 Prof. J. Reid Hambrick, George Washington University Law School, Washington, D.C 95 Mr. John G. McLean, Continental Oil Co., Stamford, Conn 97 Mr. Willis B. Snell, Sutherland, Asbill & Brennan, Washington, D.C__ 98 Prof. Robert M. Spann,^ Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, Blacksburg, Va 100 Prof. Arthur W. Wright,^ University of Massachusetts, Amherst, Mass 102 Panel No. 10 Estate and Gift Tax Revision (February 27) Panelists Dr. Gerard M. Brannon, Georgetown University, Washington, D.C 105 Mr. Bart A. Brown, Jr., Dinsmore, Shohl, Coates & Deupree, Cincin- nati, Ohio 106 Mr. Marvin K. Collie, Vinson, Elkins, Searls, Connally & Smith, Houston, Tex 107 Mr. Richard B. Covey, Carter, Ledyard & Milburn, New York, N.Y 109 Mr. James B. Lewis, Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison, New York, N.Y 114 Prof. David Westfall, Harvard Law School, Cambridge, Mass 116 Paper submitted by Prof. A. James Casner, Law School of Harvard Uni- versity, Cambridge, Mass 117 (Note.—Professor Casner was originally scheduled to be a participant in this panel discussion, but was unable to appear.) '^ Prepared statement coauthored by Prof. Edward W. Erickson, North Carolina State University, and Prof. Stephen W. Millsaps, Appalachian State University. ^ Prepared statement coauthored by Prof. James C. Cox, University of Massachusetts. : — CONTEOSTTS V Panel No. 11 Taxation of Foreign Income (Februaey 28) Panelists I*"«e Mr. Jay W. Glasmann, Ivvins, Phillips & Barker, Washington, D.O 121 Mr. Thomas Jenks, Lee, Toomey & Kent, "Washington, D.C 122 Prof. Peggy Musgrave, Northeastern University, Boston, Mass 126 Mr. Stanford G. Ross, Caplin & Drysdale, "Washington, D.C 131 Prof. Robert B. Stobaugh, Harvard Business School, Cambridge, Mass 13S Prof. Lawrence M. Stone, University of California, School of Law, Berkeley, Calif 136 Panelists Arranged Alphabetically 139 m : — INTRODUCTION In a press release dated January 24, 1973, the Committee on Ways and Means announced plans to conduct extensive panel discussions and public hearings on the subject of tax reform. It was announced that the panel discussions would begin on February 5 and that the partici- pants in these panel discussions would include only those witnesses that had been specially invited by the committee. It was also an- nounced that the second phase of the public hearings on tax reform would begin immediately upon conclusion of the panel discussions subsequently announced to begin on March 5. Panel discussions The panel discussions involved only the enumerated specific areas of tax reform, as listed in the table of contents. The procedure followed in the panel discussions was for the panelists to submit in advance a prepared statement to the committee, but to summarize their state- ments orally before the committee. At the conclusion of the summaries of all of the panelists, there was a period of discussion among the panelists on the positions they took in their statements. Then, the committee members questioned the panelists either individually or as a group. This is a summary not only of their prepared statements before the committee but also of comments made during any part of the panel discussions. General public toitnesses Although the panel discussions involved only certain specific areas of tax reform, it was announced that the second phase of the hearings would not be confined to those areas but would encompass all areas of the Internal Revenue Code, particularly concentrating on the fol- lowing major subjects as listed in the press release /. Estate and Gift Tax Revision.—This category would include but is not limited to proposals for taxing gains at death, a carryover basis of property transferred at death and other alternative treatment for transfers at death, unification of estate and gift taxes, transfers in- volving generation skipping, changes in the unlimited contribution deduction, increasing the size of the_ marital deduction, changing estate and gift tax rates and exemptions, problems of liquidity of paying estate and gift taxes, and the estate and gift tax treatment of life insurance. //. Treatment of Capital Recovery^ for Tax Purposes.—Th\B includes but is not limited to proposals with respect to the investment tax credit, additional first year depreciation allowance, accelerated de- preciation (including the 20-percent variance allowed under ADE) and the amortization provisions having expiration dates (rehabilita- tion—^low-income rental, pollution control, railroad rolling stock, coal mine safety equipment and on-the-job training and child care facili- grading and tunnel bores. ties) , and amortization of railroad 1 2 INTRODUCTION ///. Taxation of Capital Gains and Loses.—This category would include but is not limited to a discussion of the holding period for capital gains, the alternative tax for individuals, the level of exclusion (and possibility of varying it with the period the asset is held), the capital gains tax rate for corporations, capital loss carrybacks and carryovers, and the tax treatment of timber, cattle, coal and iron ore royalties, and patents. (For tax treatment of lump-sum pension treat- ment, see category below on pension and profit sharing plans.) IV. Tax Treatment of Real Estate.—This category would include but it not limited to depreciation method and life (including any distinction for this purpose between borrowings and equity) , recapture rules for excess depreciation and the treatment of interest and taxes during the period of construction. V. Natural Resources.—This category includes but is not limited to the rate of percentage depletion, intangible drilling expense and the deduction for development and other exploration costs. VI. Farm Operations.—This includes but is not limited to the treat- ment of development costs in the case of fruits and
Load more

Recommended publications
  • BEHIND the SCENES with TAMRON HALL, SMC ’92, and KEVIN NEGANDHI, SMC ’98, HON ’15 from the Television Studio to the Emergency Room, Owls Show Their Relentless Spirit
    FALL 2015 UNIVERSITY MAGAZINE NEWS MAKERS BEHIND THE SCENES WITH TAMRON HALL, SMC ’92, AND KEVIN NEGANDHI, SMC ’98, HON ’15 CLA ’14 From the television studio to the emergency room, Owls show their relentless spirit. In this issue, two broadcast Ryan S. Brandenberg, journalists make a demanding role look easy; student job seekers shine; community teens learn business-savvy app design; and hospital staff respond heroically to tragedy. TEMPLE2 Letters 3 From the President 4 Campus Voice 5 News 10 Alumni News 37 Class Notes 52 The Last Word 16 22 32 ALUMNI RESEARCH STUDENTS LEADING THE CONVERSATION RAPID RESPONSE BEHIND THE BILLBOARDS Get an inside look at the lives and routines It was a typical night at Temple University Meet the resourceful, accomplished students of two Owls who host national morning Hospital’s busy emergency room. Then an featured in a Temple ad campaign. 26 television programs. Amtrak train derailed. COMMUNITY CODE PHILLY 12 IN PURSUIT OF HARMONY: Two alumnae honor a trailblazing choral music professor. A Temple program gives high school students programming skills and an entrepreneurial outlook. COVER PHOTO: Joseph V. Labolito FALL 2015 1 LETTERS FROM THE PRESIDENT It’s always a pleasure to get my VOL. 69 NO. 1 / Fall 2015 @TempleUniv alumni magazine in the mail, IN THIS ISSUE Vice President for Strategic Marketing and Communications Every day, I find a new reason to take pride all the way in #Japan. #TempleMade Karen Clarke @erikj03 in Temple University. In this issue of Temple, Joseph Labolito V. Kobe, Japan Associate Vice President of Communications you’ll find several examples of why we WHAT DO YOU THINK? Emily Spitale should all be proud of this great institution.
    [Show full text]
  • The Religious Right and the Carter Administration Author(S): Robert Freedman Reviewed Work(S): Source: the Historical Journal, Vol
    The Religious Right and the Carter Administration Author(s): Robert Freedman Reviewed work(s): Source: The Historical Journal, Vol. 48, No. 1 (Mar., 2005), pp. 231-260 Published by: Cambridge University Press Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/4091685 . Accessed: 05/07/2012 11:44 Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at . http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp . JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected]. Cambridge University Press is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to The Historical Journal. http://www.jstor.org Press TheHistorical Journal, 48, I (2005), pp. 23I-260 ? 2005 CambridgeUniversity DOI: Io.Io17/Sooi8246Xo4oo4285 Printedin the United Kingdom THE RELIGIOUS RIGHT AND THE CARTER ADMINISTRATION* ROBERT FREEDMAN Trinity Hall, Cambridge the late A B S T R AC T. The 'religiousright' cameto prominence in the US during 1970osby campaigning on 'social issues' and encouragingmany fundamentalist and evangelicalChristians to get involvedin politics. However,the fact that it clashedwith 'born again' PresidentJimmy Carterover tax breaksfor religiousschools believed to be discriminatory,together with its illiberalstances on manyissues, meant that it was characterizedas an extremistmovement. I arguethat this assessmentis oversimplified.First, many racists. Christianschools were not racially discriminatory,and theirdefenders resented being labelledas Secondly,few historianshave recognizedthat the Christiansinvolved in the religiousright were among the most secularizedof their kind.
    [Show full text]
  • • J.D. in from the Dean's Desk: Education and Activism
    ·-.-- FALL 1969 VOLUME V UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA NUMBER II • • • ~~ VN I v E R s I T A s p E N N s y L VA N I E N s I s OMNIBVS ERAS LECTVR.IS SALVTEM DICIT etque gradum Cuius rei. testimento Maii xxttt - Anno Salutis conditae ccxxvt-Philadelphiae DECANVS ..• J.D. IN From the Dean's Desk: Education and Activism I should like to share with the alumni some observa­ 4. (urged) "this University to devote major attention tions on higher education and political activism. in an organized fashion to ways to bring about this ob­ I hardly need say that it is gratifying to me for stu­ jective." dent and faculty members in this University to be greatly In objecting strongly to the taking of institutional posi­ concerned and articulate about major issues of public tions on national policy, I said: policy. My disposition is to encourage the fullest free­ a. If a University, as such, were to enter the political dom of expression on American involvement vel non in arena it would open itself to political attack on a wide Vietnam and other problems which confront us. front across both public and private sectors. There would There is a tendency at this time to go beyond individual be no escaping this-you can hardly expect to enter the opinion and seek in­ list and remain immune from the jousting. stitutional commit­ b. Patently, the political action business cuts both ment on public is­ ways; at a given time repressive forces on campus might sues.
    [Show full text]
  • Filing Under Rule 425 Under the Securities Act of 1933 and Deemed
    Filing under Rule 425 under the Securities Act of 1933 and deemed filed under Rule 14d-2 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 Filing by: Carnival Corporation Subject Company: P&O Princess Cruises plc. SEC File No. of Princess: 001-15136 THE FOLLOWING STATEMENT OF JEROME KURTZ, ESQ. WAS RELEASED FOR PUBLICATION TODAY. OPINION OF JEROME KURTZ, ESQ. CONCERNING THE TAX IMPLICATIONS OF THE -------------------------------------------------------------------- P&O PRINCESS- ROYAL CARIBBEAN DUAL LISTED COMPANY STRUCTURE ----------------------------------------------------------- I have been retained by Carnival Corporation to analyze the tax implications of the proposed transaction between Royal Caribbean Cruise Ltd. and P&O Princess Cruises, plc., and to compare my analysis to certain disclosures made in the offering circulars and other public statements released by each company. To summarize my views, I believe that RCCL and Princess misstate the tax risks that flow from the implementation of the proposed DLC structure and inaccurately represent that both companies will continue to be exempt from United States income taxes under Section 883 of the Internal Revenue Code and the proposed regulations thereunder if the transaction is approved. In fact, there is a substantial risk that some portion of each company's income, which is now tax-exempt, will lose its tax exemption under Section 883 of the Internal Revenue Code if the proposed DLC structure is implemented. MY ANALYSIS ----------- I understand, based on my review of publicly available information, that the directors of RCCL and Princess have entered into an Implementation Agreement and a Joint Venture Agreement for the purpose of effecting a DLC structure between RCCL and Princess.
    [Show full text]
  • CPA Letter, 1978 American Institute of Certified Public Accountants
    University of Mississippi eGrove American Institute of Certified Public Accountants Newsletters (AICPA) Historical Collection 1978 CPA letter, 1978 American Institute of Certified Public Accountants Follow this and additional works at: https://egrove.olemiss.edu/aicpa_news Part of the Accounting Commons, and the Taxation Commons Recommended Citation American Institute of Certified Public Accountants, "CPA letter, 1978" (1978). Newsletters. 123. https://egrove.olemiss.edu/aicpa_news/123 This Book is brought to you for free and open access by the American Institute of Certified Public Accountants (AICPA) Historical Collection at eGrove. It has been accepted for inclusion in Newsletters by an authorized administrator of eGrove. For more information, please contact [email protected]. January 9, 1978 Vol. 58 No. 1 The CPA Letter A Semimonthly News Report Published by the AICPA AICPA Sets As reported in the November 14 issue, the AICPA’s Council has resolved that Open Meeting meetings of standards-setting committees and other committees whose activities Procedures have a significant public interest should be open to the public when standards are discussed or acted upon. Public notification will be given for open portions of the meetings of the following groups: Accounting and Review Services Committee, Accounting Standards Executive Committee, Auditing Standards Executive Committee, Federal Taxation Executive Committee, Management Advisory Services Executive Committee, Professional Ethics Executive Committee and the Quality Control Standards Committee; also, the Federal Government Executive Committee and the Board of Examiners. Notices will appear in the Letter for meetings scheduled for the third and fourth weeks following the issue dates. (Members who wish to be assured of sufficient advance notice should consider paying $5.00 a year to the circulation department for first-class mailing.) A daily updated recorded telephone service will identify meetings and agenda items for the following 10 working days.
    [Show full text]
  • History of Low-Income Taxpayer Clinics
    Working Paper Series Villanova University Charles Widger School of Law Year 2013 History of Low-Income Taxpayer Clinics T. Keith Fogg Villanova Law School, [email protected] This paper is posted at Villanova University Charles Widger School of Law Digital Repository. http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/wps/art177 HISTORY OF LOW-INCOME TAXPAYER CLINICS Keith Fogg, Professor, Villanova School of Law I. Introduction...................................... II. Chronological History of LITCs.................... A. The Experimental Phase – The 1970s............. B. Initial Growth and Establishment Phase - 1980 to 1998.............................................. C. Explosive Growth and Maturity – 1998 to Present III. Parallel Movement in Representing the Poor........ IV. Support for LITCs................................. A. Tax Court...................................... B. Congress....................................... C. The ABA and Other Bar Associations............. D. The IRS........................................ V. Impact of LITCs on Fairness to Taxpayers.......... VI. Challenges......................................... VII. Conclusion........................................ 1 I. Introduction1 Low-income Taxpayer Clinics2 (LITCs) have grown significantly in number over the past fifteen years, thanks in large part to the creation of the federal matching grant in IRC 7526 as part of the Revenue Reform Act of 1998.3 The growth was the hoped for result of the passage of IRC 7526, which was recognized as a tipping point for LITCs
    [Show full text]
  • Jimmy Carter and the Rise of the New Christian Right
    _________________________________________________________________________Swansea University E-Theses Jimmy Carter and the rise of the New Christian Right. Flint, Andrew Richard How to cite: _________________________________________________________________________ Flint, Andrew Richard (2007) Jimmy Carter and the rise of the New Christian Right.. thesis, Swansea University. http://cronfa.swan.ac.uk/Record/cronfa42340 Use policy: _________________________________________________________________________ This item is brought to you by Swansea University. Any person downloading material is agreeing to abide by the terms of the repository licence: copies of full text items may be used or reproduced in any format or medium, without prior permission for personal research or study, educational or non-commercial purposes only. The copyright for any work remains with the original author unless otherwise specified. The full-text must not be sold in any format or medium without the formal permission of the copyright holder. Permission for multiple reproductions should be obtained from the original author. Authors are personally responsible for adhering to copyright and publisher restrictions when uploading content to the repository. Please link to the metadata record in the Swansea University repository, Cronfa (link given in the citation reference above.) http://www.swansea.ac.uk/library/researchsupport/ris-support/ TIMMY CARTER AND THE RISE OF THE NEW CHRISTIAN RIGHT By Andrew Richard Flint, B.A., B.A., M.A. Submitted to the University of Wales in fulfilment of the requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy. Swansea University 2007 ProQuest Number: 10798048 All rights reserved INFORMATION TO ALL USERS The quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the quality of the copy submitted. In the unlikely event that the author did not send a com plete manuscript and there are missing pages, these will be noted.
    [Show full text]
  • Extensions of Remarks 15595 Extensions of Remarks
    June 11, 1987 EXTENSIONS OF REMARKS 15595 EXTENSIONS OF REMARKS A PAINLESS WAY TO RAISE figure is that by 1992 the IRS predicts that the Whereas the General Accounting Office OVER $100 BILLION IN FEDER­ tax gap will exceed $200 billion. has indicated that the response time and ac­ AL REVENUES Today, I and my colleagues Mr. PEASE, Ms. curacy levels in certain areas of taxpayer as­ SLAUGHTER, Ms. KAPTUR, are introducing a sistance are below average; sense of Congress resolution which will put Whereas taxpayers will be more likely to HON. BYRON L. DORGAN pay the full amount of taxes owed if they OF NORTH DAKOTA the Congress on record in support of efforts to close the current $1 billion tax gap by in­ view the Internal Revenue Service as a serv­ IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES oo ice-oriented agency and anticipate quality vesting in the IRS. Thursday, June 11, 1987 service; There are two major areas for investment at Whereas the implemetation of the Tax Mr. DORGAN of North Dakota. Mr. Speaker, the IRS. The first is taxpayer assistance. The Reform Act of 1986 will strain the already many of us in Congress are now scurrying taxpayer who views the IRS as efficient, help­ limited resources at the Internal Revenue about looking for at least $18 billion in new ful, and available will be m,ore apt to comply Service, especially in the taxpayer service revenue that will satisfy the requirements of with the law. But, in the last several years the division; the Senate and House budget resolutions.
    [Show full text]
  • Study of the Overall State of the Federal Tax System and Recommendations for Simplification, Pursuant to Section 8022(3)(B) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986
    [JOINT COMMITTEE PRINT] STUDY OF THE OVERALL STATE OF THE FEDERAL TAX SYSTEM AND RECOMMENDATIONS FOR SIMPLIFICATION, PURSUANT TO SECTION 8022(3)(B) OF THE INTERNAL REVENUE CODE OF 1986 VOLUME I: STUDY OF THE OVERALL STATE OF THE FEDERAL TAX SYSTEM Prepared by the Staff of the Joint Committee on Taxation April 2001 U.S. Government Printing Office Washington: 2001 JCS-3-01 JOINT COMMITTEE ON TAXATION 107TH CONGRESS, 1ST SESSION ___________ HOUSE SENATE WILLIAM M. THOMAS, California CHARLES E. GRASSLEY, Iowa Chairman Vice Chairman PHILIP M. CRANE, Illinois ORRIN G. HATCH, Utah E. CLAY SHAW, JR., Florida FRANK H. MURKOWSKI, Alaska CHARLES B. RANGEL, New York MAX BAUCUS, Montana FORTNEY PETE STARK, California JOHN D. ROCKEFELLER, IV, West Virginia Lindy L. Paull, Chief of Staff Bernard A. Schmitt, Deputy Chief of Staff Mary M. Schmitt, Deputy Chief of Staff (i) ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The Joint Committee on Taxation study of the overall state of the Federal tax system and recommendations to simplify taxpayer and administrative burdens is required by the IRS Restructuring and Reform Act of 1998 and funded by appropriations approved by the Congress. The study was prepared and produced by virtually the entire Joint Committee staff. Special recognition must be given to Mary Schmitt and Carolyn Smith who helped on every stage of this project, from planning and coordinating staff teams to the final editing of the report. In addition, Rick Grafmeyer, who left the staff last year, was instrumental in assisting in the planning of this report. Cecily Rock, who contributed to various portions of the report, also coordinated the final production of the Joint Committee staff recommendations in Volume II.
    [Show full text]
  • Tax Simplification: So Necessary and So Elusive
    The University of New Hampshire Law Review Volume 2 Number 2 Pierce Law Review Article 4 June 2004 Tax Simplification: So Necessary and So Elusive Kenneth H. Ryesky Solo Practitioner Follow this and additional works at: https://scholars.unh.edu/unh_lr Part of the Tax Law Commons Repository Citation Kenneth H. Ryesky, Tax Simplification: So Necessary and So Elusive, 2 Pierce L. Rev. 93 (2004), available at http://scholars.unh.edu/unh_lr/vol2/iss2/4 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the University of New Hampshire – Franklin Pierce School of Law at University of New Hampshire Scholars' Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in The University of New Hampshire Law Review by an authorized editor of University of New Hampshire Scholars' Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. File: ryesky(macro) Created on: 6/28/2004 5:54:00 PM Last Printed: 6/30/2004 7:50:00 AM Tax Simplification: So Necessary and So Elusive KENNETH H. RYESKY* The tax which each individual is bound to pay ought to be certain and not arbitrary. The time of payment, the manner of payment, the quantity to be paid, ought to be clear and plain to the contribu- tor, and to every other person. Where it is otherwise every person subject to the tax is put more or less in the power of the tax-gatherer, who can either aggravate the tax upon any obnoxious contributor, or extort, by the terror of such aggravation, some pre- sent or perquisite to himself.
    [Show full text]