DOCSLIB.ORG

European Parliament Resolution of 26 March 2019 on Financial Crimes, Tax Evasion and Tax Avoidance (2018/2121(INI)) (2021/C 108/02)

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

C 108/8 EN Official Journal of the European Union 26.3.2021 Tuesday 26 March 2019 P8_TA(2019)0240 Report on financial crimes, tax evasion and tax avoidance European Parliament resolution of 26 March 2019 on financial crimes, tax evasion and tax avoidance (2018/2121(INI)) (2021/C 108/02) The European Parliament, — having regard to Articles 4 and 13 of the Treaty on European Union (TEU), — having regard to Articles 107, 108, 113, 115 and 116 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU), — having regard to its decision of 1 March 2018 on setting up a special committee on financial crimes, tax evasion and tax avoidance (TAX3), and defining its responsibilities, numerical strength and term of office (1), — having regard to its TAXE committee resolution of 25 November 2015 (2) and its TAX2 committee resolution of 6 July 2016 (3) on tax rulings and other measures similar in nature or effect, — having regard to its resolution of 16 December 2015 with recommendations to the Commission on bringing transparency, coordination and convergence to corporate tax policies in the Union (4), — having regard to the results of the Committee of Inquiry into money laundering, tax avoidance and tax evasion, which were submitted to the Council and the Commission on 13 December 2017 (5), — having regard to the Commission’s follow-up to each of the above-mentioned Parliament resolutions (6), — having regard to the numerous revelations by investigative journalists, such as the LuxLeaks, the Panama Papers, the Paradise Papers and, more recently, the cum-ex scandals, as well as the money laundering cases involving, in particular, banks in Denmark, Estonia, Germany, Latvia, the Netherlands and the United Kingdom, — having regard to its resolution of 29 November 2018 on the cum-ex scandal: financial crime and loopholes in the current legal framework (7), (1) Decision of 1 March 2018 on setting up a special committee on financial crimes, tax evasion and tax avoidance (TAX3), and defining its responsibilities, numerical strength and term of office, Texts adopted, P8_TA(2018)0048. (2) Resolution of 25 November 2015 on tax rulings and other measures similar in nature or effect, OJ C 366, 27.10.2017, p. 51. (3) Resolution of 6 July 2016 on tax rulings and other measures similar in nature or effect, OJ C 101, 16.3.2018, p. 79. (4) OJ C 399, 24.11.2017, p. 74. (5) Recommendation of 13 December 2017 to the Council and the Commission following the inquiry into money laundering, tax avoidance and tax evasion, OJ C 369, 11.10.2018, p. 132. (6) The joint follow-up of 16 March 2016 on bringing transparency, coordination and convergence to corporate tax policies in the Union and TAXE 1 resolutions, the follow-up of 16 November 2016 to the TAXE 2 resolution and the follow-up to the PANA resolution of April 2018. (7) Texts adopted, P8_TA(2018)0475. 26.3.2021 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 108/9 Tuesday 26 March 2019 — having regard to its resolution of 19 April 2018 on protection of investigative journalists in Europe: the case of Slovak journalist Ján Kuciak and Martina Kušnírová (1), — having regard to the studies prepared by the European Parliamentary Research Service on ‘Citizenship by investment (CBI) and residency by investment (RBI) schemes in the EU: state of play, issues and impacts’, ‘Money laundering and tax evasion risks in free ports and customs warehouses’ and ‘An overview of shell companies in the European Union’ (2), — having regard to the study on ‘VAT fraud: economic impact, challenges and policy issues’ (3), the study on ‘Cryptocurrencies and blockchain — Legal context and implications for financial crime, money laundering and tax evasion’ and the study on the ‘Impact of Digitalisation on International Tax Matters’ (4), — having regard to the Commission studies on ‘aggressive tax planning indicators’ (5), — having regard to the evidence collected by the TAX3 committee in its 34 hearings with experts or exchanges of views with Commissioners and Ministers and during the missions to Washington, Riga, the Isle of Man, Estonia and Denmark, — having regard to the modernised and more robust corporate tax framework introduced during this legislative term, notably the Anti-Tax Avoidance Directives (ATAD I (6) and ATAD II (7)) and the reviews of the Directive on Administrative Cooperation in taxation (DAC) (8), (1) Texts adopted, P8_TA(2018)0183. (2) Scherrer A. and Thirion E., Citizenship by Investment (CBI) and Residency by Investment (RBI) schemes in the EU, EPRS, PE 627.128, European Parliament, October 2018; Korver R., Money laundering and tax evasion risks in free ports, EPRS, PE 627.114, European Parliament, October 2018 and Kiendl Kristo I. and Thirion E., An overview of shell companies in the European Union, EPRS, PE 627.129, European Parliament, October 2018. (3) Lamensch M. and Ceci, E., VAT fraud: Economic impact, challenges and policy issues, European Parliament, Directorate-General for Internal Policies, Policy Department A — Economic, Scientific and Quality of Life Policies, 15 October 2018. (4) Houben R. and Snyers A, Cryptocurrencies and blockchain, European Parliament, Directorate-General for Internal Policies, Policy Department A — Economic, Scientific and Quality of Life Policies, 5 July 2018 and Hadzhieva E., Impact of Digitalisation on International Tax Matters, , European Parliament, Directorate-General for Internal Policies, Policy Department A — Economic, Scientific and Quality of Life Policies, 15 February 2019. (5) ‘Study on Structures of Aggressive Tax Planning and Indicators — Final Report’ (Taxation paper No 61, 27 January 2016), ‘The Impact of Tax Planning on Forward-Looking Effective Tax Rates’ (Taxation paper No 64, 25 October 2016) and ‘Aggressive tax planning indicators — Final Report’ (Taxation paper No 71, 7 March 2018). (6) Council Directive (EU) 2016/1164 of 12 July 2016 laying down rules against tax avoidance practices that directly affect the functioning of the internal market, OJ L 193, 19.7.2016, p. 1. (7) Council Directive (EU) 2017/952 of 29 May 2017 amending Directive (EU) 2016/1164 as regards hybrid mismatches with third countries, OJ L 144, 7.6.2017, p. 1. (8) Relating respectively to the automatic exchange of tax rulings (Council Directive (EU) 2015/2376 of 8 December 2015 amending Directive 2011/16/EU as regards mandatory automatic exchange of information in the field of taxation, OJ L 332, 18.12.2015, p. 1, DAC3), exchange of country-by-country reports between tax authorities (Council Directive (EU) 2016/881 of 25 May 2016 amending Directive 2011/16/EU as regards mandatory automatic exchange of information in the field of taxation, OJ L 146, 3.6.2016, p. 8, DAC4), access to anti-money-laundering information by tax authorities, beneficial ownership and other customer due diligence (Council Directive (EU) 2016/2258 of 6 December 2016 amending Directive 2011/16/EU as regards mandatory automatic exchange of information in the field of taxation, OJ L 342, 16.12.2016, p. 1, DAC5), mandatory automatic exchange of information in the field of taxation in relation to reportable cross-border arrangements (Council Directive (EU) 2018/822 of 25 May 2018 amending Directive 2011/16/EU as regards mandatory automatic exchange of information in the field of taxation, OJ L 139, 5.6.2018, p. 1, DAC6). C 108/10 EN Official Journal of the European Union 26.3.2021 Tuesday 26 March 2019 — having regard to the Commission proposals pending for adoption, in particular on the CC(C)TB (1), the digital taxation package (2) and public country-by-country reporting (CBCR) (3), as well as Parliament’s position on these proposals, — having regard to the resolution of the Council and the Representatives of the Governments of the Member States of 1 December 1997 on a Code of Conduct Group on Business Taxation (CoC Group), and to this Group’s regular reports to the ECOFIN Council, — having regard to the Council list of non-cooperative jurisdictions for tax purposes adopted on 5 December 2017 and amended on the basis of the ongoing monitoring of third country commitments, — having regard to the Commission communication of 21 March 2018 on new requirements against tax avoidance in EU legislation governing in particular financing and investment operations (C(2018)1756), — having regard to the ongoing modernisation of the VAT framework, in particular the VAT definitive regime, — having regard to its resolution of 24 November 2016 on towards a definitive VAT system and fighting VAT fraud (4), — having regard to the recently adopted new EU anti-money laundering framework, in particular after the adoption of the fourth (AMLD4) (5) and fifth (AMLD5) (6) reviews of the Anti-Money Laundering Directive, — having regard to the infringement procedures initiated by the Commission against 28 Member States for having failed to properly transpose AMLD4 into national law, — having regard to the Commission Action Plan of 2 February 2016 on strengthening the fight against terrorist financing (COM(2016)0050) (7), — having regard to the Commission communication of 12 September 2018 on strengthening the Union framework for prudential and anti-money laundering supervision (COM(2018)0645), — having regard to its resolution of 14 March 2019 on the urgency for an EU blacklist of third countries in line with the Anti-Money Laundering Directive (8), (1) Proposal of 25 October 2016 for a Council Directive on a Common Corporate Tax Base (CCTB), COM(2016)0685 and of 25 October 2016 on a Common Consolidated Corporate Tax Base (CCCTB), COM(2016)0683. (2) The package consists of the Commission communication of 21 March 2018 entitled ‘Time to establish a modern, fair and efficient taxation standard for the digital economy’ (COM(2018)0146), the proposal of 21 March 2018 for a Council directive laying down rules relating to the corporate taxation of a significant digital presence (COM(2018)0147, the proposal of 21 March 2018 for a Council directive on the common system of a digital services tax on revenues resulting from the provision of certain digital services (COM(2018)0148, and the Commission recommendation of 21 March 2018 relating to the corporate taxation of a significant digital presence (C(2018)1650).
Recommended publications
  • Taxation: State and Local Ronald H

    Taxation: State and Local Ronald H

    Loyola University Chicago Law Journal Volume 18 Article 15 Issue 2 Winter 1986 1985-1986 Illinois Law Survey 1986 Taxation: State and Local Ronald H. Jacobson Follow this and additional works at: http://lawecommons.luc.edu/luclj Part of the Taxation-State and Local Commons Recommended Citation Ronald H. Jacobson, Taxation: State and Local, 18 Loy. U. Chi. L. J. 767 (1986). Available at: http://lawecommons.luc.edu/luclj/vol18/iss2/15 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by LAW eCommons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Loyola University Chicago Law Journal by an authorized administrator of LAW eCommons. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Taxation: State and Local Ronald H. Jacobson* TABLE OF CONTENTS I. INTRODUCTION .................................... 767 II. INCOME TAXATION ................................ 768 A. Unitary Taxation .............................. 768 B. Tax-Exempt Financing......................... 771 C. Interest on Federally GuaranteedBonds ........ 773 III. PROPERTY TAXATION .............................. 776 A. Charitableand EducationalExemptions ........ 776 B. Condominium Assessment Classifications ....... 778 IV. SALES TAXATION - USE TAX EXEMPTION ........ 780 V. TAX PROTESTING .................................. 782 A . Property Tax .................................. 782 B. Retaliatory Tax ................................ 784 VI. LOCAL GOVERNMENT TAXING POWERS ............ 786 A. County Tax Penalty Retention ................. 786 B. Taxation by Home Rule Units ................
  • Creating Market Incentives for Greener Products Policy Manual for Eastern Partnership Countries

    Creating Market Incentives for Greener Products Policy Manual for Eastern Partnership Countries

    Creating Market Incentives for Greener Products Policy Manual for Eastern Partnership Countries Creating Incentives for Greener Products Policy Manual for Eastern Partnership Countries 2014 About the OECD The OECD is a unique forum where governments work together to address the economic, social and environmental challenges of globalisation. The OECD is also at the forefront of efforts to understand and to help governments respond to new developments and concerns, such as corporate governance, the information economy and the challenges of an ageing population. The Organisation provides a setting where governments can compare policy experiences, seek answers to common problems, identify good practice and work to co-ordinate domestic and international policies. The OECD member countries are: Australia, Austria, Belgium, Canada, Chile, the Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Iceland, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Japan, Korea, Luxembourg, Mexico, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Poland, Portugal, the Slovak Republic, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Turkey, the United Kingdom and the United States. The European Union takes part in the work of the OECD. Since the 1990s, the OECD Task Force for the Implementation of the Environmental Action Programme (the EAP Task Force) has been supporting countries of Eastern Europe, Caucasus and Central Asia to reconcile their environment and economic goals. About the EaP GREEN programme The “Greening Economies in the European Union’s Eastern Neighbourhood” (EaP GREEN) programme aims to support the six Eastern Partnership countries to move towards green economy by decoupling economic growth from environmental degradation and resource depletion. The six EaP countries are: Armenia, Azerbaijan, Belarus, Georgia, Republic of Moldova and Ukraine.
  • Alternative Approaches to Designing Financial Incentives

    Alternative Approaches to Designing Financial Incentives

    OECD PROJECT ON FINANCIAL INCENTIVES AND RETIREMENT SAVINGS POLICY BRIEF N°3 DECEMBER 2018 Alternative approaches to designing financial incentives The most common type of financial incentive savings are taxed upon withdrawal. In contrast, used by governments to promote savings for individuals would be better-off paying taxes retirement, is to defer taxation by taxing upfront when they expect tax rates during individuals only on their pension benefits retirement will be greater than when they are (“EET”). Governments are alternatively using working. other approaches to providing financial In the long run, upfront taxation may translate incentives, either through the tax system (e.g. into a higher fiscal cost than taxation upon upfront taxation or tax credits) or outside the tax withdrawal. Figure 2 compares the yearly fiscal system (e.g. matching contributions and fixed effects of the two tax regimes. It shows that, in nominal subsidies). the short term, upfront taxation leads to a lower Taxing retirement savings upfront or upon fiscal cost than taxation upon withdrawal. Taxing withdrawal only withdrawals and thus deferring tax collection, brings the full cost of tax revenues Taxing retirement savings upfront (i.e. taxing forgone on contributions upfront. With upfront only contributions, “TEE”) is often seen as an taxation, the fiscal cost is just equal to tax equivalent approach to taxing retirement savings revenues forgone on returns. In the long term, upon withdrawal (“EET”). Both tax regimes do once the two systems reach maturity, the fiscal indeed provide the same overall tax advantage to impact is reversed with taxation upon withdrawal individuals when their income is subject to the leading to a lower annual fiscal cost than upfront same marginal tax rate throughout working and taxation.
  • Download Article (PDF)

    Download Article (PDF)

    5th International Conference on Accounting, Auditing, and Taxation (ICAAT 2016) TAX TRANSPARENCY – AN ANALYSIS OF THE LUXLEAKS FIRMS Johannes Manthey University of Würzburg, Würzburg, Germany Dirk Kiesewetter University of Würzburg, Würzburg, Germany Abstract This paper finds that the firms involved in the Luxembourg Leaks (‘LuxLeaks’) scandal are less transparent measured by the engagement in earnings management, analyst coverage, analyst accuracy, accounting standards and auditor choice. The analysis is based on the LuxLeaks sample and compared to a control group of large multinational companies. The panel dataset covers the years from 2001 to 2015 and comprises 19,109 observations. The LuxLeaks firms appear to engage in higher levels of discretionary earnings management measured by the variability of net income to cash flows from operations and the correlation between cash flows from operations and accruals. The LuxLeaks sample shows a lower analyst coverage, lower willingness to switch to IFRS and a lower Big4 auditor rate. The difference in difference design supports these findings regarding earnings management and the analyst coverage. The analysis concludes that the LuxLeaks firms are less transparent and infers a relation between corporate transparency and the engagement in tax avoidance. The paper aims to establish the relationship between tax avoidance and transparency in order to give guidance for future policy. The research highlights the complex causes and effects of tax management and supports a cost benefit analysis of future tax regulation. Keywords: Tax Avoidance, Transparency, Earnings Management JEL Classification: H20, H25, H26 1. Introduction The Luxembourg Leaks (’LuxLeaks’) scandal made public some of the tax strategies used by multinational companies.
  • Imports in GST Regime (Goods & Services Tax)

    Imports in GST Regime (Goods & Services Tax)

    Imports in GST Regime (Goods & Services Tax) Introduction Under the GST regime, Article 269A constitutionally mandates that supply of goods, or of services, or both in the course of import into the territory of India shall be deemed to be supply of goods, or of services, or both in the course of inter-State trade or commerce. So import of goods or services will be treated as deemed inter-State supplies and would be subject to Integrated tax. While IGST on import of services would be leviable under the IGST Act, the levy of the IGST on import of goods would be levied under the Customs Act, 1962 read with the Custom Tariff Act, 1975. The importer of services will have to pay tax on reverse charge basis. However, in respect of import of online information and database access or retrieval services (OIDAR) by unregistered, non-taxable recipients, the supplier located outside India shall be responsible for payment of taxes (IGST). Either the supplier will have to take registration or will have to appoint a person in India for payment of taxes. Supply of goods or services or both to a Special Economic Zone developer or a unit shall be treated as inter-State supply and shall be subject to levy of integrated tax. Directorate General of Taxpayer Services CENTRAL BOARD OF EXCISE & CUSTOMS www.cbec.gov.in Imports in GST Regime (Goods & Services Tax) Importer Exporter Code (IEC): As per DGFT’s Trade Notice No. 09 The taxes will be calculated as under: dated 12.06.2017, the PAN of an entity would be used as the Import Particulars Duty Export code (IEC).
  • Which Tax Havens Are the Most Central? Applying Social Network Analysis to Understand Firm Service Interactions

    Which Tax Havens Are the Most Central? Applying Social Network Analysis to Understand Firm Service Interactions

    Financial Geography Working Paper Series – ISSN 2515-0111 Which tax havens are the most Financial Working Geography Paper central? Applying social network analysis to understand firm service interactions Rory Crofts & Thomas Sigler School of Earth and Environmental Sciences, The University of Queensland, [email protected], [email protected] November 2018 # 20 1 Financial Geography Working Paper Series – ISSN 2515-0111 Which tax havens are the most central? Applying social network analysis to understand firm service interactions Abstract Tax havens play an increasingly important role in the global financial system. Recent scholarship has focused on a number of interrelated aspects of tax havens, including the drivers of their formation, firm and industry based perspectives on taxation, corporate structures, and their geographical position within the global economy. This paper adopts a network-based approach to tax havens, focusing on the ‘interlocking’ services provided by local firms. It focuses specifically on how law firms in 15 global tax havens are networked through common tax-related legal services. The analysis suggests that there is a ‘rich club’ of jurisdictions whose tax-related services are broad and central to firm activity, namely in the European core of the Netherlands, Ireland and Luxembourg. Relating to the rich core are a number of cliques, including the ‘Bermuda Triangle’ of Bermuda, Cayman Island, and British Virgin Islands; the crown dependencies of Isle of Man, Jersey, and Guernsey; and Asian hubs of Singapore, Mauritius and Hong Kong. Ship registry hubs such as Panama, Liberia, and Cyprus were somewhat more peripheral to the network as specialization reduces the number of common services.
  • Child Tax Credit & Credit for Other Dependents

    Child Tax Credit & Credit for Other Dependents

    Child Tax Credit & Credit for Other Dependents Introduction The child tax credit is unique because if a taxpayer cannot benefit from the nonrefundable credit, the taxpayer may be able to qualify for the refundable additional child tax credit on Schedule 8812, Additional Child Tax Credit. In this chapter, we will learn about both credits and their relationship to each other. Some taxpayers may not be aware of these credits. Your time, effort, and understanding of this credit may result in a lower tax for the taxpayer. The child tax credit, credit for other dependents, and the additional child tax credit are entered on Form 1040. The intake and interview sheet, along with the Volunteer Resource Guide, Tab G, Nonrefundable Credits are critical tools needed to determine eligibility for the credit. Don’t confuse these credits with the child and dependent care credit! Objectives What do I need? At the end of this lesson, using your resource materials, you will be able to: □ Form 13614-C • Determine the taxpayer’s eligibility for the credit(s) □ Publication 4012 □ Publication 17 • Determine which taxpayer can claim the credits □ Publication 972 □ Schedule 8812 What is the child tax credit? Optional: The child tax credit is a nonrefundable credit that allows taxpayers to □ Form 1040 Instructions claim a tax credit of up to $2,000 per qualifying child, which reduces their □ Schedule 8812 Instructions tax liability. What is the additional child tax credit? Taxpayers who are not able to claim the full amount of the child tax credit may be able to take the refundable additional child tax credit.
  • The Financial Secrecy Index: Shedding New Light on the Geography of Secrecy

    The Financial Secrecy Index: Shedding New Light on the Geography of Secrecy

    The Financial Secrecy Index: Shedding New Light on the Geography of Secrecy Alex Cobham, Petr Janský, and Markus Meinzer Abstract Both academic research and public policy debate around tax havens and offshore finance typically suffer from a lack of definitional consistency. Unsurprisingly then, there is little agreement about which jurisdictions ought to be considered as tax havens—or which policy measures would result in their not being so considered. In this article we explore and make operational an alternative concept, that of a secrecy jurisdiction and present the findings of the resulting Financial Secrecy Index (FSI). The FSI ranks countries and jurisdictions according to their contribution to opacity in global financial flows, revealing a quite different geography of financial secrecy from the image of small island tax havens that may still dominate popular perceptions and some of the literature on offshore finance. Some major (secrecy-supplying) economies now come into focus. Instead of a binary division between tax havens and others, the results show a secrecy spectrum, on which all jurisdictions can be situated, and that adjustment lfor the scale of business is necessary in order to compare impact propensity. This approach has the potential to support more precise and granular research findings and policy recommendations. JEL Codes: F36, F65 Working Paper 404 www.cgdev.org May 2015 The Financial Secrecy Index: Shedding New Light on the Geography of Secrecy Alex Cobham Tax Justice Network Petr Janský Institute of Economic Studies, Faculty of Social Sciences, Charles University in Prague Markus Meinzer Tax Justice Network A version of this paper is published in Economic Geography (July 2015).
  • Publication 517, Social Security

    Publication 517, Social Security

    Userid: CPM Schema: tipx Leadpct: 100% Pt. size: 8 Draft Ok to Print AH XSL/XML Fileid: … tions/P517/2020/A/XML/Cycle03/source (Init. & Date) _______ Page 1 of 18 11:42 - 2-Mar-2021 The type and rule above prints on all proofs including departmental reproduction proofs. MUST be removed before printing. Publication 517 Cat. No. 15021X Contents Future Developments ............ 1 Department of the Social Security What's New .................. 1 Treasury Internal Reminders ................... 2 Revenue and Other Service Introduction .................. 2 Information for Social Security Coverage .......... 3 Members of the Ministerial Services ............. 4 Exemption From Self-Employment Clergy and (SE) Tax ................. 6 Self-Employment Tax: Figuring Net Religious Earnings ................. 7 Income Tax: Income and Expenses .... 9 Workers Filing Your Return ............. 11 Retirement Savings Arrangements ... 11 For use in preparing Earned Income Credit (EIC) ....... 12 Worksheets ................. 14 2020 Returns How To Get Tax Help ........... 15 Index ..................... 18 Future Developments For the latest information about developments related to Pub. 517, such as legislation enacted after this publication was published, go to IRS.gov/Pub517. What's New Tax relief legislation. Recent legislation pro- vided certain tax-related benefits, including the election to use your 2019 earned income to fig- ure your 2020 earned income credit. See Elec- tion to use prior-year earned income for more information. Credits for self-employed individuals. New refundable credits are available to certain self-employed individuals impacted by the coro- navirus. See the Instructions for Form 7202 for more information. Deferral of self-employment tax payments under the CARES Act. The CARES Act al- lows certain self-employed individuals who were affected by the coronavirus and file Schedule SE (Form 1040), to defer a portion of their 2020 self-employment tax payments until 2021 and 2022.
  • Flat Tax: an Overview of the Hall-Rabushka Proposal

    Flat Tax: an Overview of the Hall-Rabushka Proposal

    . Flat Tax: An Overview of the Hall-Rabushka Proposal James M. Bickley Specialist in Public Finance November 29, 2011 Congressional Research Service 7-5700 www.crs.gov 98-529 CRS Report for Congress Prepared for Members and Committees of Congress c11173008 . Flat Tax: An Overview of the Hall-Rabushka Proposal Summary The President and leading Members of Congress have stated that fundamental tax reform is a major policy objective for the 112th Congress. The concept of replacing individual and corporate income taxes and estate and gift taxes with a flat rate consumption tax is one option to reform the U.S. tax system. The term “flat tax” is often associated with a proposal formulated by Robert E. Hall and Alvin Rabushka (H-R), two senior fellows at the Hoover Institution. In the 112th Congress, two bills have been introduced that included a flat tax based on the concepts of Hall- Rabushka: the Freedom Flat Tax Act (H.R. 1040) and the Simplified, Manageable, and Responsible Tax Act (S. 820). In addition, Republican presidential candidate Herman Cain has proposed a tax reform plan that includes a modified H-R flat tax. This report analyzes the Hall- Rabushka flat tax concept. Although the current tax structure is referred to as an income tax, it actually contains elements of both an income and a consumption-based tax. A consumption base is neither inherently superior nor inherently inferior to an income base. The combined individual and business taxes proposed by H-R can be viewed as a modified value- added tax (VAT). The individual wage tax would be imposed on wages (and salaries) and pension receipts.
  • Anti-Avoidance and Tax Laws: a Case of Fiji

    Anti-Avoidance and Tax Laws: a Case of Fiji

    International Journal of Business and Social Research Volume 09, Issue 03, 2019: 01-20 Article Received: 03-07-2019 Accepted: 28-04-2019 Available Online: 22-07-2019 ISSN 2164-2540 (Print), ISSN 2164-2559 (Online) DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.18533/ijbsr.v9i3.1165 Anti-Avoidance and Tax Laws: A Case of Fiji Shivneil Kumar Raj1, Mohammed Riaz Azam2 ABSTRACT The pervasiveness of tax avoidance is undoubtedly linked to the tax policies of any country. In Fiji, residents for tax purpose have to disclose income from all sources within and outside Fiji whereas non- resident has to disclose income derived from sources in Fiji. Fiji has a comprehensive tax system put in place with tax laws continued to be amended to curb any loopholes in the system so that everyone pays their fair share of tax. Thus, this research paper applied document analysis methodology. The objective of this research was to highlight Fiji’s position on tax avoidance and how has Fiji addressed such issues identified in Base Erosion Profit Shifting (BEPS). Furthermore, the paper has discussed, Fiji’s tax laws relating to anti-avoidance and provide recommendations to further strengthen and protect Fiji’s tax base from being eroded away through various schemes or arrangements that taxpayer’s might indulge into for the purpose of paying less tax or avoiding tax. The findings indicated that Fiji’s position on tax avoidance issues has remained firm, pro-active and have made substantial progress in regulatory framework and in tax compliance culture. Keywords: Tax, Tax Avoidance, Tax Evasion, Anti-Avoidance, BEPS and Fiji Income Tax Act.
  • The Earned Income Tax Credit

    The Earned Income Tax Credit

    The Earned Income Tax Credit The Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC) is a federal tax credit for low- and moderate- income working people. It rewards work as well as offsets federal payroll and income taxes. Twenty-nine states, plus the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico, have established their own EITCs to supplement the federal credit. Who Is Eligible, and for How Much? When filing taxes for 2019 (due in April 2020), working families with children that have annual incomes below about $41,100 to $56,000 (depending on marital status and the number of dependent children) may be eligible for the federal EITC. Also, working-poor people who have no children and have incomes below $15,570 ($21,370 for a married couple) can receive a very small EITC. In the 2018 tax year, over 22 million working families and individuals in every state received the EITC. The amount of EITC depends on a recipient’s income, marital status, and number of children. As the figure shows, workers receive the credit beginning with their first dollar of earned income; the amount of the credit rises with earned income until it reaches a maximum level and then begins to phase out at higher income levels (see the table at the end of this piece for how the EITC is calculated). The EITC is “refundable,” which means that if it exceeds a low-wage worker’s income tax liability, the IRS will refund the balance. During the 2017 tax year, the average EITC was $3,191 for a family with children (boosting wages by about $266 a month), compared with just $298 for a family without children.