DOCSLIB.ORG

Economic and U.S. Income Tax Issues Raised by Sovereign Wealth Fund Investment in the United States

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Economic and U.S. Income Tax Issues Raised by Sovereign Wealth Fund Investment in the United States ECONOMIC AND U.S. INCOME TAX ISSUES RAISED BY SOVEREIGN WEALTH FUND INVESTMENT IN THE UNITED STATES Prepared by the Staff of the JOINT COMMITTEE ON TAXATION June 17, 2008 JCX-49-08 CONTENTS Page INTRODUCTION ....................................................................................................................... 1 I. U.S. CROSS-BORDER TRANSACTIONS AND INVESTMENTS ................................ 3 A. Trade Deficits and Cross-Border Capital Flows......................................................... 3 B. Trends in the U.S. Balance of Payments................................................................... 10 C. Trends in the U.S. Financial Account....................................................................... 13 D. Summary and Implications for Discussion of SWFs................................................ 19 II. SOVEREIGN WEALTH FUNDS.................................................................................... 21 A. Background Information........................................................................................... 21 B. Recent Prominent SWF Investments in the United States........................................ 27 C. Non-Tax Policy Concerns Raised by SWFs ............................................................. 30 D. Non-Tax Policy Responses....................................................................................... 33 III. CURRENT U.S. INCOME TAX RULES ........................................................................ 37 A. U.S. Income Taxation of Foreign Persons................................................................ 37 B. U.S. Income Taxation of Foreign Governments....................................................... 41 C. Application of Income Tax Treaties to Foreign Governments and SWFs................ 56 IV. TECHNIQUES USED BY SWFs TO INVEST IN UNITED STATES .......................... 63 A. Mandatory Convertible Securities ............................................................................ 63 B. Common and Convertible Preferred Stock............................................................... 69 C. Other Investment Strategies...................................................................................... 71 V. POLICY CONSIDERATIONS REGARDING THE CURRENT TAX TREATMENT OF U.S. INVESTMENT BY FOREIGN GOVERNMENTS .......................................... 73 A. Economic Policy Considerations .............................................................................. 73 B. Tax Policy Considerations........................................................................................ 73 VI. COMPARISON WITH FOREIGN LAW ........................................................................ 77 APPENDIX ONE: FOREIGN LAW TAX TREATMENT OF GOVERNMENT INVESTMENT........................................................................................................................... A-1 i INTRODUCTION This document,1 prepared by the Staff of the Joint Committee on Taxation, describes the economic and U.S. income tax issues raised by sovereign wealth fund (“SWF”) investment in the United States. The United States has been a net importer of goods and services since 1982. Whenever a country imports more than it exports, the currency that its residents use to purchase those imports must ultimately return to that country, either as payment for that country’s exports or to purchase that country’s assets. Because the United States has been a net importer of goods and services for the last quarter century, this economic principle means that U.S. dollars that are used to purchase foreign goods and services (net of payments received for exports) must return to the United States to purchase U.S. assets. In fact, the relative share of U.S. assets owned by foreign investors has steadily increased during the last 25 years, indicating not only that dollars paid for net imports have been recycled into purchases of U.S. assets, but also that the rate of investment in the U.S. economy by foreign investors has grown in relation to the rate of investment by domestic investors. Recently, attention has focused on a particular source of cross-border investment in the United States—SWFs. In general, SWFs are actively managed, government-owned pools of capital originating in foreign exchange assets. SWFs are currently estimated to manage total assets of $3 trillion or more, with significant growth anticipated in the next five to 10 years. The largest SWFs are controlled by countries with substantial commodity exports or large current account surpluses. The increasing prominence of SWFs in global finance has raised some policy concerns, such as their perceived lack of transparency and the possibility that they may have political objectives. At the same time, SWFs are generally recognized as playing a useful role in the world economy. International organizations in which the United States participates are developing “best practices” guidelines for both SWFs and countries that are the recipients of SWF investments. In the United States, SWFs may benefit from a long-standing exemption from U.S. income tax that applies to certain passive income received by foreign governments. This exemption does not apply to income related to commercial activity. The exemption is not specifically directed at SWFs, and, in fact, first became part of the U.S. income tax laws in 1917, long before the first SWFs were created. In addition to existing law’s statutory (and, in respect of some sovereigns, treaty) exemption for passive income earned by foreign governments, the United States also exempts from income tax, or taxes at reduced rates, many important types of income earned by nongovernmental foreign investors. To the extent that a foreign government recognizes income 1 This document may be cited as follows: Joint Committee on Taxation, Economic and U.S. Income Tax Issues Raised by Sovereign Wealth Fund Investment in the United States (JCX-49-08), June 17, 2008. This document can also be found on the internet at www.jct.gov. 1 that is not exempt from U.S. income tax under the exception for passive income received by foreign sovereigns, the foreign government is treated as a corporate resident of its own country. As a result, the U.S. income tax treatment of foreign governments in many cases is similar to the U.S. income tax treatment of foreign persons generally. In each case, for example, portfolio interest income paid by U.S. obligors generally is exempt from U.S. income tax. Both foreign sovereigns and foreign private investors are subject to U.S. net income tax on commercial activities conducted directly in the United States. Moreover, the exception for passive income earned by foreign sovereigns is not available to a foreign government with respect to income that it derives from a controlled subsidiary conducting a commercial business in the United States. In that case, the foreign government must rely on the same statutory and treaty rules as would apply to a private foreign investor holding the same investment. In practice, some of the most important statutory U.S. income tax advantages that a foreign sovereign investor enjoys over a foreign private investor are: exemption from U.S. withholding tax on all U.S. source dividends paid by noncontrolled corporations; exemption from U.S. withholding tax on interest paid by a corporation where the foreign sovereign owns at least 10 percent (so the general “portfolio interest” exemption is not available) but less than 50 percent (so the payor is not “controlled” by the foreign sovereign) of the payor; and exemption from U.S. tax on certain gains from real estate transactions. The economic analysis presented here suggests that investment in the United States by foreign sovereigns, like that of investment by foreign private investors, is a necessary and desirable consequence of the long-term trade deficit position of the United States. As noted earlier, investments by SWFs or foreign governments more generally raise nontax policy concerns, but these fall largely outside the expertise of the Staff of the Joint Committee on Taxation. Tax policy considerations addressed in this document include consistency between a foreign government’s exemption from U.S. income tax and a foreign country’s immunity from the jurisdiction of U.S. courts, the scope of the difference in the U.S. income tax treatment between foreign governments and other investors in the United States, and certain issues specific to the technical terms of the U.S. income tax exemption for foreign governments. 2 I. U.S. CROSS-BORDER TRANSACTIONS AND INVESTMENTS SWFs purchase U.S. assets (including stock of U.S. corporations) and make loans to U.S. owners of assets. They also may purchase U.S. government bonds. Each of these activities is a form of foreign investment in the United States. Such cross-border investment cannot be examined without also examining cross-border trade in goods and services and the domestic savings rate, as these economic activities are all interrelated. This section discusses the economic relationship between trade deficits, capital inflows, investment, and savings in the economy. In doing so, it also presents background data relating to the scope of the international trade sector in the United States economy, and briefly reviews trends in both the current account (the trade surplus or deficit) and the financial account (U.S. investment abroad and foreign investment in the United States).2 A. Trade Deficits and Cross-Border Capital
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Keeping the Government Whole: the Impact of a Cap-And-Dividend
    RESEARCH INSTITUTE POLITICAL ECONOMY Keeping the Government Whole: The Impact of a Cap-and-Dividend Policy for Curbing Global Warming on Government Revenue and Expenditure James K. Boyce & Matthew Riddle November 2008 Gordon Hall 418 North Pleasant Street Amherst, MA 01002 Phone: 413.545.6355 Fax: 413.577.0261 [email protected] www.peri.umass.edu WORKINGPAPER SERIES Number 188 KEEPING THE GOVERNMEGOVERNMENTNT WHOLE: The Impact of a CapCap----andandand----DividendDividend Policy for Curbing Global Warming on Government Revenue and Expenditure James K. Boyce & Matthew Riddle Political Economy Research Institute University of Massachusetts, Amherst November 2008 ABSTRACT When the United States puts a cap on carbon sure that additional revenues to government emissions as part of the effort to address the compensate adequately for the additional costs problem of global climate change, this will in- to government as a result of the carbon cap. We crease the prices of fossil fuels, significantly compare the distributional impacts of two policy impacting not only consumers but also local, alternatives: (i) setting aside a portion of the state, and federal governments. Consumers can revenue from carbon permit auctions for gov- be “made whole,” in the sense that whatever ernment, and distributing the remainder of the amount the public pays in higher fuel prices is revenue to the public in the form of tax-free recycled to the public, by means of a cap-and- dividends; or (ii) distributing all of the carbon dividend policy: individual households will come revenue to households as taxable dividends. out ahead or behind in monetary terms depend- The policy of recycling 100% of carbon revenue ing on whether they consume above-average or to the public as taxable dividends has the below-average amounts of carbon.
    [Show full text]
  • Environmental Taxes and the Double-Dividend Hypothesis: Did You Really Expect Something for Nothing?
    View metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.uk brought to you by CORE provided by Research Papers in Economics Environmental Taxes and the Double-Dividend Hypothesis: Did You Really Expect Something for Nothing? by Don Fullerton Department of Economics University of Texas Austin, TX 78712-1173 and NBER [email protected] and Gilbert E. Metcalf Department of Economics Tufts University Medford, MA 02155 and NBER [email protected] August 1997 This paper was prepared for a "Symposium on Second-Best Theory" to appear in the Chicago- Kent Law Review. We are grateful for helpful comments and suggestions from Charles Ballard, Larry Goulder, Ian Parry and Kerry Smith. The first author is grateful for financial support from a grant of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA R824740-01-0), and the second author is grateful for financial support from a grant of the National Science Foundation to the National Bureau of Economic Research (NSF SBR-9514989). This paper is part of NBER's research program in Public Economics. Any opinions expressed are those of the authors and not those of the EPA, the NSF, or the National Bureau of Economic Research. Environmental Taxes and the Double-Dividend Hypothesis: Did You Really Expect Something for Nothing? ABSTRACT The "double-dividend hypothesis" suggests that increased taxes on polluting activities can provide two kinds of benefits. The first dividend is an improvement in the environment, and the second dividend is an improvement in economic efficiency from the use of environmental tax revenues to reduce other taxes such as income taxes that distort labor supply and saving decisions.
    [Show full text]
  • Seigniorage and Fixed Exchange Rates: an Optimal Inflation Tax Analysis
    NBER WORKING PAPER SERIES SEIGNIORAGEANDFIXED EXCHANGERATES: ANOPTIMALINFLATION TAX ANALYSIS Stanley Fischer Working Paper No. 783 NATIONALBUREAUOF ECONOMIC RESEARCH 1050 Massachusetts Avenue Cambridge MA 02138 October 1981 The research reported here is part of the NBER's research program in Economic Fluctuations and International Studies. Any opinions expressed are those of the author and not those of the National Bureau of Economic Research. NBER Working Paper #783 October 1981 Seigniorage and Fixed Exchange Rates: An Optimal Inflation Tax Analysis ABSTRACT A country that decides to fix its exchange rate thereby gives up control over its own inflation rate and the determination of the revenue received from seigniorage. If the country goes further and uses a foreign money, it loses all seigniorage. This paper uses an optimal inflation tax approach to analyze the consequences for optimal rates of income taxation and welfare of the alternative exchange rate and monetary arrangements. From the viewpoint of seigniorage, a system in which the country is free to determine its own rates of inflation is optimal; fixed exchange rates are second best, and the use of a foreign money is worse. The paper notes that seigniorageis only one of the factors determining the choice of op- timalexchange rate regime, but also points out that rates of seigniorage collection are high, typically accounting for five or more percent of government revenue. StanleyFischer Hoover Institution Stanford University Stanford, CA 94305 (415)497—9175 Fischer September 1981 Seigniorage and Fixed Exchange Rates: An Optimal Inflation Tax Analysis Stanley Fischer* In choosing fixed over flexible exchange rates, a country gives up the right to determine its own rate of inflation, and thus the amount of revenue collected by the inflation tax.
    [Show full text]
  • Private Enterprises As Major Source of Government Revenue
    A change of perspective Private enterprises as major source of government revenue How the private sector delivers on SDG 17 This report is a result of DEG’s evaluation work regarding development effectiveness. DEG's monitoring and evaluating team checks at regular intervals whether the transactions it co-finances help to achieve sustainable development successes and points to ways of making further improvements for DEG and its customers. To ensure the independence of evaluation results, external consultants regularly support the work of the team. This study was prepared by DEG: Dr. Clemens Domnick, Dr. Julian Frede, Leoni Kaup, Mirjam Radzat. June 2020 Title picture produced by DEG based on open source data by WorldDataBank DEG – Deutsche Investitions- und Entwicklungsgesellschaft mbH Kämmergasse 22 50676 Cologne Phone 0221 4986-0 Fax 0221 4986-1290 [email protected] www.deginvest.de A change of perspective 1 Executive Summary Sustainable Development Goal 17 (SDG) states that governments and their budgets play a crucial role in reaching the global SDG targets and to boost human development. When discussing government revenue and revenue creation, the role of the private sector is often underestimated. In this context, most discussions focus exclusively on the role of corporate income tax – a tax that is levied on a company’s profits – and often include the negative impact of tax optimizing structures on government revenues in Emerging Markets. While this discussion is important, there exist various other linkages between the private sector and government revenues that are rarely taken into account. This paper discusses how private sector contributes through different linkages to govern- ment revenue.
    [Show full text]
  • Financing Green Urban Infrastructure
    Financing Green Urban Infrastructure Merk, O., Saussier, S., Staropoli, C., Slack, E., Kim, J-H (2012), ―Financing Green Urban Infrastructure‖, OECD Regional Development Working Papers 2012/10, OECD Publishing; http://dc.doi.org/10.1787/5k92p0c6j6r0-en OECD Regional Development Working Papers 2012/10 ABSTRACT This paper presents an overview of practices and challenges related to financing green sustainable cities. Cities are essential actors in stimulating green infrastructure; and urban finance is one of the promising ways in which this can be achieved. Cities are key investors in infrastructure with green potential, such as buildings, transport, water and waste. Their main revenue sources, such as property taxes, transport fees and other charges, are based on these same sectors; cities thus have great potential to ―green‖ their financial instruments. At the same time, increased public constraints call for a mobilisation of new sources of finance and partnerships with the private sector. This working paper analyses several of these sources: public-private partnerships, tax-increment financing, development charges, value-capture taxes, loans, bonds and carbon finance. The challenge in mobilising these instruments is to design them in a green way, while building capacity to engage in real co-operative and flexible arrangements with the private sector. Keywords: infrastructure finance, urban infrastructure, urban development, urban finance, private finance, public-private partnerships, green growth 2 FOREWORD This paper was produced in co-operation with la Fabrique de la Cité/ The City Factory (VINCI) and was approved by the 14th session of the OECD Working Party on Urban Areas, 6 December 2011. The report has been produced and co-ordinated by Olaf Merk, under responsibility of Lamia Kamal-Chaoui (Head of OECD Urban Unit) and Joaquim Oliveira Martins (Head of OECD Regional Development Policy Division).
    [Show full text]
  • Public Revenue Reporting and Monitoring
    Category: Public Expenditure & Budgets 1 Tool: Public Revenue Reporting and Monitoring Public Revenue Reporting and Monitoring Carmen Malena& Mahi Khallaf CIVICUS Tool summary Public revenue reporting serves to inform the citizens of the sources and amounts of government revenue and how it is proposed to be utilized. The public disclosure of such information is necessary for citizens to understand the financial resources that government has at its disposal, thereby supporting their engagement with the government on issues of public finance. Public revenue reporting also forms the basis for public revenue monitoring which aims to ensure public revenues are properly managed. By complementing the task of tracking public budgets and expenditure, public revenue reporting and monitoring plays a crucial role in holding the government accountable for its decisions and actions. What is it? A government‟s income or revenue determines the quantum of funds available for it to spend on the implementation of public policies, programmes and services. Access to public revenue information is beginning to gain ground as an implicit public right. Accessing information about public revenues is a key step for citizens and civil society organizations (CSOs) to effectively engage with governments and hold them accountable for the management of public funds. Therefore, It is important for CSOs and the public at large to know about the sources and amounts of public revenues. Armed with information on public revenues, the CSOs can then initiate the monitoring of public revenues which involves: identifying and analysing sources and amounts of government revenues like taxes, income from natural resources, loans and grants; and assessing the fairness and efficiency of revenue generation such as for e.g.
    [Show full text]
  • Revenues Introduction to Revenues
    Revenues Introduction to Revenues .............................................................................................................................. 3 Revenue .................................................................................................................................................... 4 Learning Objective ..................................................................................................................................... 4 Definition of Revenue ................................................................................................................................ 6 Illustrative Example ................................................................................................................................... 7 Types of Revenue ..................................................................................................................................... 8 Recognizing Non-Exchange Transactions .............................................................................................. 10 Accounting for Announcement ................................................................................................................ 12 Discussion and Questions ....................................................................................................................... 13 Review Questions .................................................................................................................................... 14 Answers to Review Questions ................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • SDG Metadata
    Last updated: March 2021 SDG indicator metadata (Harmonized metadata template - format version 1.0) 0. Indicator information 0.a. Goal Goal 17: Strengthen the means of implementation and revitalize the Global Partnership for Sustainable Development 0.b. Target Target 17.1: Strengthen domestic resource mobilization, including through international support to developing countries, to improve domestic capacity for tax and other revenue collection 0.c. Indicator Indicator 17.1.1: Total government revenue as a proportion of GDP, by source 0.d. Series 0.e. Metadata update March 2021 0.f. Related indicators Indicator 17.1.2: Proportion of domestic budget funded by domestic taxes 0.g. International organisations(s) responsible for global monitoring IMF Statistics Department (Government Finance Division) 1. Data reporter 1.a. Organisation IMF Statistics Department (Government Finance Division) 2. Definition, concepts, and classifications 2.a. Definition and concepts Definition: Revenue is defined in Chapter 4 (paragraph 4.23) of GFSM 2014 an increase in net worth resulting from a transaction. It is a fiscal indicator for assessing the sustainability of fiscal activities. General government units have four types of revenue. The major types of revenue are taxes (GFS code 11), social contributions (GFS code 12), grants (GFS code 13), and other revenue (GFS code 14). Of these, compulsory levies and transfers are the main sources of revenue for most general government units. In particular, taxes are compulsory, unrequited amounts receivable by government units from institutional units. Social contributions are actual or imputed revenue receivable by social insurance schemes to make provision for social insurance benefits payable. Grants are transfers receivable by government units from other resident or nonresident government units or international organizations, and that do not meet the definition of a tax, subsidy, or social contribution.
    [Show full text]
  • The Relationship Between Tax Rates and Government Revenue
    This PDF is a selection from an out-of-print volume from the National Bureau of Economic Research Volume Title: A General Equilibrium Model for Tax Policy Evaluation Volume Author/Editor: Charles L. Ballard, Don Fullerton, John B. Shoven, and John Whalley Volume Publisher: University of Chicago Press Volume ISBN: 0-226-03632-4 Volume URL: http://www.nber.org/books/ball85-1 Publication Date: 1985 Chapter Title: The Relationship between Tax Rates and Government Revenue Chapter Author: Charles L. Ballard, Don Fullerton, John B. Shoven, John Whalley Chapter URL: http://www.nber.org/chapters/c11222 Chapter pages in book: (p. 188 - 202) 10 The Relationship between Tax Rates and Government Revenue 10.1 Introduction Since 1974, when Arthur B. Laffer first drew his famous curve on a napkin in a Washington restaurant, there has been considerable public debate about the possibility of an inverse relationship between tax rates and government revenue. Pictured in figure 10.1, the Laffer curve plots total revenue against the tax rate and claims to show that two rates exist at which a given revenue can be collected. The tax rate of figure 10.1 generally refers to any particular tax instrument, while revenues gener- ally refer to total tax receipts. An increase in the payroll tax rate, for example, could affect not only its own revenue, but work effort and thus personal income tax revenues. The upward-sloping portion of the curve is called the "normal" range and the downward-sloping segment is the "prohibitive" range. No ra- tional government would knowingly operate on the latter range in the long run, because the same revenue could be obtained with a lower tax rate.
    [Show full text]
  • Africa's Growing Debt Crisis: Who Is the Debt Owed
    Africa’s growing debt crisis: Who is the debt owed to? October 2018 Summary • African government external debt payments have doubled in two years, from an average of 5.9% of government revenue in 2015 to 11.8% in 2017 • 20% of African government external debt is owed to China • 17% of African government external interest payments are made to China • In contrast, 32% of African government external debt is owed to private lenders, and 35% to multilateral institutions such as the World Bank • 55% of external interest payments are to private creditors 1. Africa debt payments African government external debt payments have increased dramatically in the last few years. Between 2015 and 2017 they doubled, rising from a (mean, unweighted) average of 5.9% of government revenue in 2015, to 11.8% of government revenue in 2017. This means African government debt payments are at the highest level since 2001 (see graph below). Key causes of this dramatic change are increases in lending since 2008 from multiple lenders (see Graph 5 below), followed by falls in commodity prices in mid-2014, and rising US dollar interest rates and the value of the US dollar in recent years. Graph 1. Mean average African government external debt payments as a percentage of revenue, from 1998 to 20171 18.0 16.0 14.0 12.0 10.0 8.0 revenue 6.0 4.0 Percentage Percentage of government 2.0 0.0 2015 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2016 2017 1 Where they are available, for 2016 and 2017, the figures for government external debt payments as a proportion of revenue come from IMF and World Bank Debt Sustainability Assessments conducted for individual countries.
    [Show full text]
  • Public Revenue Dr.Umang Tandon Department of Commerce Semester V Public Finance Isabella Thoburn College
    PUBLIC REVENUE DR.UMANG TANDON DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE SEMESTER V PUBLIC FINANCE ISABELLA THOBURN COLLEGE CONTENTS Meaning of Public Revenue Characteristics of Public Revenue Classification of Taxes Source of public revenue Tax revenue Meaning of direct tax Merits of direct tax Demerits of direct tax Meaning of indirect tax Merits of indirect tax Demerits of indirect tax Difference between direct & indirect tax Non Tax Revenue Conclusion MEANING OF PUBLIC REVENUE : Government needs to perform political, social and economic duties so as to maximize social and economic welfare. In order to perform these duties and functions government requires large amount of resources . These sources of revenue to the governments, viz. Central, State and Local Governments, are called Public Revenues. THE MAIN CHARACTERISTIC OF A TAX ARE AS FOLLOWS: •A tax is a compulsory payment •There is no direct, quid pro quo between the tax-payers and the public authority. •A tax is levied to meet public spending incurred by the government in the general interest of the nation. •It is a payment for an indirect service to make by the government to the community as a whole. •A tax is payable regularly and periodically as determined by the taxing authority. CLASSIFICATION OF TAXES DIRECT TAX INCOME TAX ON THE BASIS OF ON THE PROPERTY TAX FORM INDIRECT BASIS OF TAXES ON PRODUCTION TAX NATURE TAXES ON CONSUMER GOODS TAX ON CAPITAL GOODS SINGLE TAX ADVOLREM ON TH BASIS ON THE BASIS TAX OF VOLUME MULTIPLE OF ESSENCE TAX SPECIFIC TAX PROPORTIONAL TAX ON THE BASIS PROGRESSIVE TAX OF METHOD REGRESSIVE TAX DEREGRESSIVE TAX SOURCES OF PUBLIC REVENUE The government derives revenue in different ways from the public.
    [Show full text]
  • Taxation, Efficiency, and Economic Growth
    1 TAXATION, EFFICIENCY, AND ECONOMIC GROWTH by Dale W. Jorgenson, Harvard University and Kun-Young Yun, Yonsei University April 2, 2012 Acknowledgements: This paper was prepared for the Handbook of Computable General Equilibrium Modeling, edited by Peter B. Dixon and Dale W. Jorgenson. We are indebted to Peter Dixon for editorial suggestions and Stefan Boeters for detailed comments on an earlier draft. We appreciate the help of Jon Samuels in developing the data set used in the econometric work and the description of the U.S. tax system. We are grateful to Trina Ott for editing and preparing the manuscript. Financial support was provided by the Alliance for Competitive Taxation. The usual disclaimer applies. 2 TABLE OF CONTENTS Abstract 1. Introduction 2. Modeling Economic Growth 2.1 Commodities 2.2 Producer Behavior 2.3 Consumer Behavior 2.4. Government and Rest of the World 2.4.1 Government revenue 2.4.2 Corporate income tax 2.4.3 Individual income tax 2.4.4 Rest of the world 2.4.5 National income and wealth 2.5 Market Equilibrium 3. Modeling Consumer and Producer Behavior 3.1 Consumer Behavior 3.2 Producer Behavior 3.3 Elasticities of Demand and Supply 3.4. Non-Tax Parameters 4. The Economic Impact of Tax Reform 4.1. Perfect Foresight Dynamics 4.2. Comparison of Welfare Levels 4.3. Computational Algorithm 3 5. Income Tax Reform 5.1. Tax Law of 2010 5.2. Elimination of Tax Wedges 5.3. Efficient Taxation of Income 6. Consumption Tax Reform 6.1. Alternative Proposals 6.2.
    [Show full text]