DOCSLIB.ORG

Will Tax Hikes Kill the Bull Market? Trending Conversations

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

Will Tax Hikes Kill the Bull Market? Trending Conversations Brian Levitt Global Market Strategist, North America Not a Deposit Not FDIC Insured Not Guaranteed by the Bank May Lose Value Not Insured by any Federal Government Agency Sources: Federal Reserve Bank ofSt.Louis, 12/31/20. federal budget deficit. deficit. budget federal The upshot is a substantialof the widening US a result of the weakness in economy activity. government hasbeen collecting less revenue as spending.the At sametime, the federal currently seeking an additional $1.9 trillion in is administration Biden The economy. the support to in spending trillion $3 over committed has already economy, the many of segments on impact devastating its and outbreak coronavirus federalThe US government,its in responsethe to Spending is Outpacing Revenue by a Wide Margin a Wide Spending by is Outpacing Revenue The Problem The FederalTax Receipts Spending and Percent of US Gross Domestic Product 30% 20% 35% 25% 10% 15% 1962 Federal Government Outlays (% of GDP) of Government (% Outlays Federal 1964 1966 1968 1970 1972 1974 1976 1978 1980 1982 1984 1986 1988 1990 1992 Federal Government Receipts (% of GDP) of (% Receipts Government Federal 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 Spending Revenue 2016 2018 2 2020 The Response The Biden Administration is Proposing Tax Increases The Biden administration is proposing tax Past Tax Rates and Current Proposals increases designed to generate revenue and to reduce the income gap between the nation’s 60% higher and lower earners. Among the proposed changes to the tax code include: 50% • Increasing the corporate tax rate from 21% to approximately 25% to 28% likely starting in 39.6% 39.6% 2022 and establishing a corporate alternative 40% 37.0% 35.0% minimum tax ~ 25% to 28% • Restoring the top marginal tax rate from 37% to 30% ~ 25 to 28% 39.6% for taxpayers earning over $400,000 of Household annual income and lowering the value of 21.0% 20.0% 20.0% 20.0% Income > $1M income tax deductions 20% • Increasing the capital gains tax rate to approximately 25% to 28% for households 10% earning over $1 million per year 0% Corporate Tax Rate Top Marginal Income Tax Rate Capital Gains Rate Sources: Bloomberg, taxfoundation.org, 12/31/20. 3 Historical Comparison The Biden Administration is Proposing Tax Increases Biden’s tax proposals would be large from a First Fiscal Year Revenue Effect historical perspective. It is estimated the tax plan would increase federal revenue by over $140 Revenue Act '42 5.04% billion in 2021 and over $300 billion in 2022 and Revenue Act '41 2.20% by a total of $3.1 trillion from 2021 to 2030. Revenue & Expense Control Act '68 1.74% Revenue Act '51 1.52% While the expected revenue effect from the tax Biden Tax Plan '22 1.52% increases is likely to be large, it is important to Revenue Act '50 1.30% note that the corporate tax rate is still likely to be Current Tax Payment Act '43 1.16% well below the average corporate tax rate over Excess Profit Tax '50 0.97% the past decades (as shown on the next chart), Revenue Act I '40 0.91% including during the second term of the Obama Revenue Act II '40 0.71% Biden Tax Plan '21 0.68% administration. Tax Adjustment Act '66 0.60% Tax Equity & Fiscal Responsibility Act of 1982 0.53% Revenue Act of 1943 0.46% Crude Oil Windfall Profit Tax Act of 1980 0.44% Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1990 0.41% Tax Reform Act of 1969 0.39% Trump Administration Tariffs 0.38% 0% 2% 4% 6% Percent of US Gross Domestic Product Source: Office of Tax Analysis, Department of the Treasury, Congressional Budget Office 4 The History Over the Decades, Markets Have Generally Performed Well in Different Tax Regimes There is little in the historical data to suggest that the US Large Cap Equity Returns and Top Individual/Corporate Tax Rates by Decade US equity market has been primarily driven by changes in the tax code: 35% • In the 1940’s and 1950’s, US equities performed well Individual Individual Individual Individual Individual Individual Individual Individual Individual even as tax rates were rising. 61.8% 86.3% 90.5% 80.3% 70.2% 48.4% 36.7% 36.2% 37.6% 30% Corporate Corporate Corporate Corporate Corporate Corporate Corporate Corporate Corporate • In the 1970’s, equities posted below-average returns 14.7% 36.7% 50.9% 50.8% 47.9% 43.0% 34.7% 35.0% 35.0% even as tax rates were declining, as the market was 25% being driven by inflation concerns. 19.5% • Equities performed well in the 1980’s and 1990’s amid 20% 17.3% 18.0% lower taxes but underperformed in the 2000’s in the aftermath of the Bush tax cuts, the result of the tech 13.5% bubble and the global financial crisis. Markets, in the 15% 2010’s, surged from the depths of the global financial crisis, even as individual tax rates were increased. 10% 8.5% 7.7% 5.9% We would caution against drawing any hard conclusions on this analysis. There are often many 5% other factors at play, including, but not limited to, the stage of the economic cycle and the direction of 0% monetary policy. -0.9% -1.0% Investors, at a minimum, may take solace in this chart -5% indicating that markets have generally performed well 1930's 1940's 1950's 1960's 1970's 1980's 1990's 2000's 2010's in different tax regimes. Sources: US Department of Treasury, Shiller, Yale database, 12/31/20. An investment cannot be made directly in an index. Past performance does not guarantee future results. 5 Market Returns Markets Have Historically Performed Well in Years In Which Tax Rates Have Increased The US stock market has largely performed well Annual Price Return for US Large Cap Equities: Years Tax Rates Increased even in the years in which taxes—be it personal, corporate, or capital gains—were increased. 35% 30% Most recently, the US stock market surged 30% 30% 26% in 2013 despite the Obama administration 25% 22% 19% allowing the Bush-era tax cuts to expire at the 20% 16% 16% end of the year. In fact, US equities advanced by 15% 12% 11% 8% 100% from the time of the expiration of the Bush- 10% 7% 2% era tax cuts to the Trump administration passing 5% 0% of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017. 0% -5% -10% -15% -11% Tax rate increase in: 1950 1951 1952 1968 1969 1970 1971 1972 1976 1987 1991 1993 2013 Personal Corporate Capital Gains Sources: Shiller, Yale database, 12/31/20. An investment cannot be made directly in an index. Past performance does not guarantee future results. 6 Corporate Taxes Many Companies Will Not Pay the Top Corporate Tax Rate; Companies Have Generated Earnings Growth in Different Tax Regimes The median US company has historically paid an The Median S&P 500 Company Tends to Have Companies Have Generated Earnings Growth in effective tax rate well below that of the statutory an Effective Tax Rate Below the Statutory Rate Many Different Tax Regimes rate. This is expected to be the case going S&P 500 Index Annualized Earnings Growth by Decade forward, although the Biden administration seeks a 15% alternative minimum tax to prevent 55% 14% businesses from paying little to no federal tax. 12% 10.0% 10.2% Historically, earnings have experienced a long- 45 term upward trajectory including throughout 10% 7.6% periods in which the corporate tax rate was 8% significantly higher. In fact, companies have 35 6.0% been able to generate earnings growth across 6% 5.1% many different corporate tax regimes. 26% 4% Admittedly, consensus earnings for 2022 may 25 19% 1.4% need to be revised lower but over time we would 2% expect earnings to be more reflective of the 15 nominal growth of the global economy rather 0% than be based primarily on tax rates. 1985 2015 1995 2010 1990 2025 2020 2005 2000 1970's 1980's 2010's 1960's 1990's 2000's Statutory rate (including federal and local) Average Corporate Tax Rate by Decade Median S&P 500 company effective rate 50.8% 47.9% 43.0% 34.7% 35.0% 35.0% Sources: Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development, US Department of Treasury, Bloomberg, 12/31/20. 7 Capital Gains Tax Only 1/4th of US Corporate Stock is Held in the Taxable Accounts of US Households US household share of US equity ownership has Share of US Corporate Equity Market declined from nearly 60% in the early 1980’s to 37% today (including a sizeable percentage held 100% in defined-benefit plans). Thus, a large 90% percentage of the stock market is owned by 80% institutions including pension funds, retirement accounts, and foreign investors that would not be 70% subject to a capital gains tax. 60% Further, the proposed capital gains tax will only 50% apply to those households with income of $1 40% million per year or more. For reference, the top 30% 1% of income earners starts below $500,000 a 20% year. As a result, the number of Americans 10% affected and thus potentially inclined to sell equities would likely be significantly lower than 0% the investors affected in 1986 and 2012. 1971 1951 1991 1957 1974 1976 1979 1982 1962 1985 1954 1945 1965 1959 1988 2013 1993 1948 1968 2016 2019 1996 1999 2010 2002 2005 2008 Households Mutual Funds Pension and Gov Retirement Funds Foreign Investors ETFs Business Holdings Hedge Funds Other Sources: US Federal Reserve, 4/30/20.
Recommended publications
  • BEYOND PUBLIC CHOICE and PUBLIC INTEREST: a STUDY of the LEGISLATIVE PROCESS AS ILLUSTRATED by TAX LEGISLATION in the 1980S

    BEYOND PUBLIC CHOICE and PUBLIC INTEREST: a STUDY of the LEGISLATIVE PROCESS AS ILLUSTRATED by TAX LEGISLATION in the 1980S

    University of Pennsylvania Law Review FOUNDED 1852 Formerly American Law Register VOL. 139 NOVEMBER 1990 No. 1 ARTICLES BEYOND PUBLIC CHOICE AND PUBLIC INTEREST: A STUDY OF THE LEGISLATIVE PROCESS AS ILLUSTRATED BY TAX LEGISLATION IN THE 1980s DANIEL SHAVIRO" TABLE OF CONTENTS I. INTRODUCTION ................................. 3 II. HISTORICAL OVERVIEW OF CYCLICAL TAX LEGISLATION ... 11 A. Legislation From the Beginning of the Income Tax Through the 1970s: The Evolution of Tax Instrumentalism and Tax Reform ..................................... 11 t Assistant Professor, University of Chicago Law School. The author was a Legislation Attorney with theJoint Committee of Taxation during the enactment of the 1986 tax bill discussed in this Article. He is grateful to Walter Blum, Richard Posner, Cass Sunstein, and the participants in a Harvard Law School seminar on Current Research in Taxation, held in Chatham, Massachusetts on August 23-26, 1990, for helpful comments on earlier drafts, to Joanne Fay and Michael Bonarti for research assistance, and to the WalterJ. Blum Faculty Research Fund and the Kirkland & Ellis Faculty Fund for financial support. 2 UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA LAW REVIEW [Vol. 139: 1 B. The 1981 Act and Its Aftermath ................... 19 C. The 1986 Act ............................... 23 D. Aftermath of the 198.6 Act ......................... 29 E. Summary .................................. 30 III. THE PUBLIC INTEREST THEORY OF LEGISLATION ........ 31 A. The Various Strands of Public Interest Theory .......... 31 1. Public Interest Theory in Economics ............ 31 2. The Pluralist School in Political Science .......... 33 3. Ideological Views of the Public Interest .......... 35 B. Criticisms of PublicInterest Theory .................. 36 1. (Largely Theoretical) Criticisms by Economists ... 36 a. When Everyone "Wins," Everyone May Lose ..
  • Corporate Tax Changes in the 1986 Tax Reform Act Richard E

    Corporate Tax Changes in the 1986 Tax Reform Act Richard E

    College of William & Mary Law School William & Mary Law School Scholarship Repository William & Mary Annual Tax Conference Conferences, Events, and Lectures 1986 Corporate Tax Changes in the 1986 Tax Reform Act Richard E. May Repository Citation May, Richard E., "Corporate Tax Changes in the 1986 Tax Reform Act" (1986). William & Mary Annual Tax Conference. 558. https://scholarship.law.wm.edu/tax/558 Copyright c 1986 by the authors. This article is brought to you by the William & Mary Law School Scholarship Repository. https://scholarship.law.wm.edu/tax THIRTY-SECOND WILLIAM AND MARY TAX CONFERENCE CORPORATE TAX CHANGES IN THE 1986 TAX REFORM ACT by Richard E.. May Hunton & Williams December 5-6, 1986 Williamsburg The speaker wishes to acknowledge that portions of this outline were graciously made available by Messrs. Mark J. Silverman, William C. Bowers, and Robert H. Wellen, all colleagues in the Section of Taxation of the American Bar Association. CORPORATE TAX CHANGES IN 1986 TAX REFORM ACT I. Selected changes affecting taxation of corporations.* A. Corporate rate changes. The 1986 Act makes changes to the corporate rates for both ordinary income and capital gains. Each is described below. 1. Rates for ordinary income. (1986 Act, § 601). The 1986 Act sets the maximum corporate rate on ordinary income at 34 percent for taxable income in excess of 75,000. Lower rates apply to taxable income below that amount as follows: Taxable Income Tax Rate $50,000 or less 15% $50,001 - $75,000 25% $75,001 or more 34% There is a phase-out of the benefit of the two lower rates of tax.
  • Mayo Clinic, a Minnesota Corporation

    Mayo Clinic, a Minnesota Corporation

    United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit ___________________________ No. 19-3189 ___________________________ Mayo Clinic, a Minnesota Corporation lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellee v. United States of America lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellant ____________ Appeal from United States District Court for the District of Minnesota ____________ Submitted: October 20, 2020 Filed: May 13, 2021 ____________ Before SMITH, Chief Judge, LOKEN and GRUENDER, Circuit Judges. ____________ LOKEN, Circuit Judge. Mayo Clinic (“Mayo”), a Minnesota nonprofit corporation, oversees healthcare system subsidiaries and operates the Mayo Clinic College of Medicine and Science (“Mayo College”). Mayo is a tax-exempt organization under Section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code (IRC), 26 U.S.C. § 501(c)(3).1 After an audit in 2009, the Internal Revenue Service concluded that Mayo owed unrelated business income tax (“UBIT”) on certain investment income it received from the investment pool it manages for its subsidiaries. The IRS issued a Notice of Proposed Adjustment and reaffirmed its position in a 2013 Technical Advice Memorandum. At issue is $11,501,621 in UBIT for tax years 2003, 2005-2007, and 2010-2012. Mayo2 paid the tax and brought this refund action. The issue, briefly stated, is whether Mayo is a “qualified organization” exempted from paying UBIT on “unrelated debt-financed income” under IRC § 514(c)(9)(C)(i). Qualified organizations include “an organization described in section 170(b)(1)(A)(ii) . .” Section 170(b)(1)(A)(ii) describes “an educational organization which normally maintains a regular faculty and curriculum and normally has a regularly enrolled body of pupils or students in attendance at the place where its educational activities are regularly carried on.” The IRS denied Mayo the exemption because it is not an “educational organization” as defined in 26 C.F.R.
  • Line Item Veto and the Tax Legislative Process: a Futile Effort at Deficit Reduction, but a Step Toward Tax Integrity Gordon T

    Line Item Veto and the Tax Legislative Process: a Futile Effort at Deficit Reduction, but a Step Toward Tax Integrity Gordon T

    Hastings Law Journal Volume 49 | Issue 1 Article 1 1-1997 Line Item Veto and the Tax Legislative Process: A Futile Effort at Deficit Reduction, But a Step Toward Tax Integrity Gordon T. Butler Follow this and additional works at: https://repository.uchastings.edu/hastings_law_journal Part of the Law Commons Recommended Citation Gordon T. Butler, Line Item Veto and the Tax Legislative Process: A Futile Effort at Deficit Reduction, But a Step Toward Tax Integrity, 49 Hastings L.J. 1 (1997). Available at: https://repository.uchastings.edu/hastings_law_journal/vol49/iss1/1 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Law Journals at UC Hastings Scholarship Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in Hastings Law Journal by an authorized editor of UC Hastings Scholarship Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. The Line Item Veto and the Tax Legislative Process: A Futile Effort at Deficit Reduction, But a Step Toward Tax Integrity by GORDON T. BUTLER* Table of Contents Introduction ...................................................................... 2 I. The Problem of the Deficit and the Budget Process ............... 4 II. The Line Item Veto ...................................................... 21 A. 1995 Congressional Proposals ................................. 21 (1) House Bill 2 and "Enhanced Rescission" ................ 22 (2) Senate Bill 4 and "Separate Enrollment". ............... 24 B. The Line Item Veto of 1996 ...................................... 26 (1) The Act ....................................................... 26 (2) Constitutionality of the Line Item Veto .................. 31 (a) Separate Enrollment Form ............................... 41 (b) Enhanced Rescission Form ............................ 43 (3) Comparison with State Item Veto Authority ............... 52 (4) Critique of the Line Item Veto Act of 1996 ............. 56 m. Are "Tax Expenditures" Expenditures? .........
  • Report No. 82-156 Gov Major Acts of Congress And

    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)..................................
  • Vol. 6, No. 2: Full Issue

    Vol. 6, No. 2: Full Issue

    Denver Journal of International Law & Policy Volume 6 Number 2 Spring Article 11 May 2020 Vol. 6, no. 2: Full Issue Denver Journal International Law & Policy Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.du.edu/djilp Recommended Citation 6 Denv. J. Int'l L. & Pol'y This Full Issue is brought to you for free and open access by the University of Denver Sturm College of Law at Digital Commons @ DU. It has been accepted for inclusion in Denver Journal of International Law & Policy by an authorized editor of Digital Commons @ DU. For more information, please contact [email protected],dig- [email protected]. DENVER JOURNAL OF INTERNATIONAL LAW AND POLICY VOLUME 6 1976-1977 Denver Journal OF INTERNATIONAL LAW AND POLICY VOLUME 6 NUMBER 2 SPRING 1977 INTERNATIONAL ASPECTS OF THE TAX REFORM ACT OF 1976 TAXING BoYcorrs AND BRIBES ........................................... G. C . Hufbauer J. G. Taylor 589 The authors examine the tax penalty provisions of the Tax Reform Act of 1976 and the Export Administration Act Amendments of 1977 in relation to U.S. persons who "participate in or cooperate with" international boycotts or bribery. The article discusses the various types of international boycotts and the penalty, computational, and reporting requirements imposed on participants as clarified by the Treasury Guidelines and Revenue Proce- dures. The authors conclude with a discussion of the novelty, complexity, and potential impact of the legislation. TAKING SIDES: AN OVERVIEW OF THE U.S. LEGISLATIVE RESPONSE TO THE ARAB BOYCOTT ............................................ John M . Tate Ralph B. Lake 613 The current legislative scheme in opposition to the Arab boycott is generally directed against the Arab League countries' secondary and tertiary, indirect forms of boycott.
  • America's Economic Way Of

    America's Economic Way Of

    |America’s Economic Way of War How did economic and financial factors determine how America waged war in the twentieth century? This important new book exposes the influence of economics and finance on the questions of whether the nation should go to war, how wars would be fought, how resources would be mobilized, and the long-term consequences for the American economy. Ranging from the Spanish–American War to the Gulf War, Hugh Rockoff explores the ways in which war can provide unique opportunities for understanding the basic principles of economics as wars produce immense changes in monetary and fiscal policy and so provide a wealth of infor- mation about how these policies actually work. He shows that wars have been more costly to the United States than most Americans realize as a substantial reliance on borrowing from the public, money creation, and other strategies to finance America’s war efforts have hidden the true cost of war. hugh rockoff is a professor of Economics at Rutgers, the State University of New Jersey, and a research associate of the National Bureau of Economic Research. His publications include numerous papers in professional journals, The Free Banking Era: A Re-examination (1975), Drastic Measures: A History of Wage and Price Controls in the United States (1984), and a textbook, History of the American Economy (2010, with Gary Walton). NEW APPROACHES TO ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL HISTORY series editors Nigel Goose, University of Hertfordshire Larry Neal, University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign New Approaches to Economic and Social History is an important new textbook series published in association with the Economic History Society.
  • JAMES A. BAKER, III the Case for Pragmatic Idealism Is Based on an Optimis- Tic View of Man, Tempered by Our Knowledge of Human Imperfection

    JAMES A. BAKER, III the Case for Pragmatic Idealism Is Based on an Optimis- Tic View of Man, Tempered by Our Knowledge of Human Imperfection

    Extract from Raising the Bar: The Crucial Role of the Lawyer in Society, by Talmage Boston. © State Bar of Texas 2012. Available to order at texasbarbooks.net. TWO MOST IMPORTANT LAWYERS OF THE LAST FIFTY YEARS 67 concluded his Watergate memoirs, The Right and the Power, with these words that summarize his ultimate triumph in “raising the bar”: From Watergate we learned what generations before us have known: our Constitution works. And during the Watergate years it was interpreted again so as to reaffirm that no one—absolutely no one—is above the law.29 JAMES A. BAKER, III The case for pragmatic idealism is based on an optimis- tic view of man, tempered by our knowledge of human imperfection. It promises no easy answers or quick fixes. But I am convinced that it offers our surest guide and best hope for navigating our great country safely through this precarious period of opportunity and risk in world affairs.30 In their historic careers, Leon Jaworski and James A. Baker, III, ended up in the same place—the highest level of achievement in their respective fields as lawyers—though they didn’t start from the same place. Leonidas Jaworski entered the world in 1905 as the son of Joseph Jaworski, a German-speaking Polish immigrant, who went through Ellis Island two years before Leon’s birth and made a modest living as an evangelical pastor leading small churches in Central Texas towns. James A. Baker, III, entered the world in 1930 as the son, grand- son, and great-grandson of distinguished lawyers all named James A.
  • Table of Contents

    Table of Contents

    Table of Contents Preface ..................................................................................................... ix Introductory Notes to Tables ................................................................. xi Chapter A: Selected Economic Statistics ............................................... 1 A1. Resident Population of the United States ............................................................................3 A2. Resident Population by State ..............................................................................................4 A3. Number of Households in the United States .......................................................................6 A4. Total Population by Age Group............................................................................................7 A5. Total Population by Age Group, Percentages .......................................................................8 A6. Civilian Labor Force by Employment Status .......................................................................9 A7. Gross Domestic Product, Net National Product, and National Income ...................................................................................................10 A8. Gross Domestic Product by Component ..........................................................................11 A9. State Gross Domestic Product...........................................................................................12 A10. Selected Economic Measures, Rates of Change...............................................................14
  • Description of Provisions Listed for Further Hearings by the Committee on Finance On

    Description of Provisions Listed for Further Hearings by the Committee on Finance On

    [COMMITTEE PEINT] DESCRIPTION OF PROVISIONS LISTED FOR FURTHER HEARINGS BY THE COMMITTEE ON FINANCE ON JULY 20, 21, AND 22, 1976 Prepaeed for the Use of the COMMITTEE ON FINANCE BY THE STAFF OF THE JOINT COMMITTEE ON INTERNAL REVENUE TAXATION JULY 19, 1976 U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE 74-376 WASHINGTON : 1976 JCS-30-76 •/[ TABLE OF CONTENTS Paee I. Introduction 1 II. Description of Provisions : 2 1. At-Risk Limitation for Limited Partners (see. 210 of the bill) 2 2. Refunds of Unutilized Investment Tax Credits (sec. 802 of the bill) 4 3. Expiring Investment and Foreign Tax Credits (sec. 803 of the bill) ,5 4. Investment Credit in the Case of Vessels Constructed from Capital Construction Funds (sec. 806 of the I»ill) (^ 5. Foreign Trusts Having One or More U.S. Beneficiaries To Be Taxed Currently to Grantor (sec. 1011 of the bill) 7 6. Investment in U.S. Property by Controlled Foreign Corpora- tions (sec. 1021 of the bill) 7 7. Exclusion from Subpart F of Certain Earnings of Insurance Companies (sec. 1023 of the bill) 8 8. Shipping Profits of Foreign Corporations (sec. 1024 of the bill) .____ 10 9. Limitation on Definition of Tax Haven Income for Agricultural Products (sec. 1025 of the bill) 11 10. Repeal of the Per-Country Foreign Tax Credit Limitation ( sec. 1031 of the bill) 12 11. Recapture of Foreign Losses (sec. 1032 of the bill) 13 12. Transitional Carryback of Foreign Taxes on Oil and Gas Extraction Income (sec. 103.> of the bill) : 15 13. Transitional Rule for Recapture of Foreign Oil-Related Losses (sec.
  • THE TRUTH ABOUT TAX REFORM Michael J

    THE TRUTH ABOUT TAX REFORM Michael J

    University of Florida Law Review VOLUME 40 FALL 1988 NUMBER 4 DUNWODY DISTINGUISHED LECTURE IN LAW THE TRUTH ABOUT TAX REFORM Michael J. Graetz* I. INTRODUCTION .......•••••••••.••...•... 617 II. THE SORRY STATE OF PRIOR LAW. ••••••••..• 618 III. THE POLITICAL MIRACLE ••••••••••.......• 619 IV. THE CRITICAL IDEA ••••••••••...•....•.•• 622 V. AN UNEASY MARRIAGE •..••••••••••••••••• 623 VI. THE TwIN TOWERS: REVENUE NEUTRALITY AND DISTRIBUTIONAL NEUTRALITY ••••••••••••••• 623 VII. THE OVERALL EFFECTS OF THE 1986 ACT •..... 625 VIII. THE DEMISE OF FEDERAL TAX PROGRESSIVITY •• 626 IX. THE TENUOUS CAPITAL GAIN LINCHPIN •...••• 628 X. A GREAT LEAP FORWARD FOR TAX FAIRNESS? •. 629 XI. SIMPLIFICATION •••••••.•....•••••••••••• 633 XII. THE 1986 ACT AS A SOLUTION TO THE TAX COMPLIANCE PROBLEM AND OTHER IMPOSSIBLE DREAMS •••••••••••••••....•...••••••• • 635 XIII. CONCLUSION............................ 637 I. INTRODUCTION The Tax Reform Act of 1986 has been widely heralded as the most important tax legislation since the income tax was converted to a tax on the masses during the Second World War. Since his favorite pro­ posal for a constitutional amendment - the one calling for a balanced budget - was not adopted, the 1986 Tax Reform Act clearly will be *Justice S. Hotchkiss Professor of Law, Yale. B.B.A., 1966, Emory University; LL.B., 1969, University of Virginia. This article was delivered as the Dunwody Lecture at the University of Florida College of Law, on March 11, 1988. Certain portions of this article appeared as commentary by the author in TAX TIMEs. 617 HeinOnline -- 40 U. Fla. L. Rev. 617 1988 618 UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA LAW REVIEW [Vol. 40 the major domestic achievement of Ronald Reagan's presidency. This law even produced the new Internal Revenue Code of 1986; no more Internal Revenue Code of 1954, as amended.
  • Information for Impact: Liberating Nonprofit Sector Data by Beth Simone Noveck and Daniel L

    Information for Impact: Liberating Nonprofit Sector Data by Beth Simone Noveck and Daniel L

    Information for Impact: Liberating Nonprofit Sector Data By Beth Simone Noveck and Daniel L. Goroff 2nd Edition Information for Impact: Liberating Nonprofit Sector Data By Beth Simone Noveck and Daniel L. Goroff* 2nd Edition *The authors wish to acknowledge the invaluable research assistance of Raphael Majma. About the Program on Philanthropy and Social Innovation Through convenings, leadership development initiatives, communications, and strategic partner- ships, the Aspen Institute’s Program on Philanthropy and Social Innovation (PSI) seeks to maximize the impact of social-sector leaders in contributing to the good society at home and abroad. PSI’s Nonprofit Data Project works to promote accessible, accurate, and current information on the U.S. nonprofit sector in partnership with the nation’s top nonprofit data providers — the Foun- dation Center, GuideStar, Center for Civil Society Studies at Johns Hopkins University, Center on Philanthropy at Indiana University, and the Center on Nonprofits and Philanthropy at the Urban Institute. The Nonprofit Data Project wishes to thank its supporters, the Bill & Melinda Gates Foun- dation, the Charles Stewart Mott Foundation, and the Goldhirsh Foundation. The Program on Philanthropy and Social Innovation also hosts the Aspen Philanthropy Group, an agenda-setting body of foundation, public, and private-sector leaders at the cutting edge of change, and it spurs partnerships and collaborative action among them. Leadership-development initiatives include the American Express Foundation-Aspen Institute Fellowship for Emerging Nonprofit Lead- ers, the Aspen Philanthropy Seminar, and the Seminar for Mid-America Foundation CEOs. PSI’s policy work includes the Impact Economy Initiative, which seeks to strengthen and expand the field of impact investing.