DOCSLIB.ORG

Report No. 82-156 Gov Major Acts of Congress And

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
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)................................... 17 11th (May 22, 1809-March 3, 1811)...................................... 18 12th (November 4, 1811-March 3, 1813)................................... 19 13th (May 24, 1813-March 3, 1815)...................................... 20 14th (December 4, 1815-March 3, 1817).................... ............... 21 15th (December 1, 1817-March 3, 1819)................................... 22 16th (December 6, 1819-March 3, 1821)................................. 23 17th (December 3, 1821-March 3, 1823), and 18th (December 1, 1823-March 3, 1825)................................... 24 19th (December 5, 1825-March 3, 1827), and 20th (December 3, 1827-March 3, 1829)................................... 25 21st (December 7, 1829-March 3, 1831).................................. 26 22nd (December 5, 1831-March 2, 1833)................................... 27 23rd (Deceaber 2, 1833-March 3, 1835), and 24th (December 7, 1835-March 3, 1837)................................... 29 25th (September 4, 1837-March 3, 1839), and 26th (December 2, 1839-March 3, 1841)................................... 30 27th (May 31, 1841-March 3, 1843)....................................... 31 28th (December 4, 1843-March 3, 1845)................................... 32 29th (December 1, 1845-March 3, 1847)................................... 33 30th (December 6, 1847-March 3, 1849)...... ........ *..............**... 34 31st (December 3, 1849-March 3, 1851), and 32nd (December 1, 1851-March 3, 1853)................................... 35 33rd (December 5, 1853-March 3, 1855)................................... 37 CRS-v 34th (December 3, 1855-March 3, 1857)................................... 39 35th (December 7, 1857-March 3, 1859), and 36th (December 5, 1859-March 3, 1861)................................... 40 37th (July 4, 1861-March 3, 1863).***********........*******............ 42 38th (December 7, 1863-March 3, 1865)................................... 45 39th (December 4, 1865-March 3, 1867)................................... 47 40th (March 4, 1867-March 3, 1869)..................................... 49 41st (March 4, 1869-March 3, 1871).................................... 51 42nd (March 4, 1871-March 3, 1873)...*...*............................. 53 43rd (December 1, 1873-March 3, 1875)................................... 55 "44th (December 6, 1875-March 3, 1877)................................... 57 45th (October 15, 1877-March 3, 1879), and 46th (March 18, 1879-March 3, 1881).................................... 59 47th (December 5, 1881-March 3, 1883).................................. 61 48th (December 3, 1883-March 3, 1885)................................... 63 49th (December 7, 1885-March 3, 18 87 )............................... 64 50th (December 5, 1887-March 3, 1889)................................... 66 51st (December 2, 1889-March 3, 1891).................................. 67 52nd (December 7, 1891-March 3, 1893)................................... 69 53rd (August 7, 1893-March 3, 1895), and 54th (December 2, 1895-March 3, 1897)................................... 70 55th (March 15, 1897-March 3, 1899).................................... 72 56th (December 4, 1899-March 3, 1901)................................ 74 57th (December 2, 1901-March 3, 1903), and 58th (November 9, 1903-March 3, 1905)................................. 76 59th (December 4, 1905-March 3, 1907), and 60th (December 2, 1907-March 3, 1909)................................ 79 61st (March 15, 1909-March 3, 1911)...............a..................... 81 62nd (April 4, 1911-March 3, 1913)...................................... 83 63rd (April 7, 1913-March 3, 1915)................................... 85 64th (December 6, 1915-March 3, 1917)............. ....... .... 87 65th (April 2, 1917-March 3, 1919)...................................... 90 66th (May 19, 1919-March 3, 1921)....................................... 93 67th (April 11, 1921-March 3, 1923)....0............................... 95 68th (December 3, 1923-March 3, 1925)................................... 98 69th (December 7, 1925-March 3, 1927).................................. 100 70th (December 5, 1927-March 3, 1929)................................... 102 71st (April 15, 1929-March 3, 1931).................................... 104 72nd (December 7, 1931-March 3, 1933).................................. 106 73rd (March 9, 1933-June 18, 1934)...................................... 108 74th (January 3, 1935-June 20, 1936)................................... 115 75th (January 5, 1937-June 16, 1938)................................... 119 76th (January 3, 1939-January 3, 1941)................................. 122 77th (January 3, 1941-December 16, 1942).................................. 124 78th (January 6, 1943-December 19, 1944)................................ 127 79th (January 3, 1945-August 2, 1946).................................. 129 80th (January 3, 1947-December 31, 1948)............................... 132 CRS-vi 81st (February 3, 1949-January 2, 1951)................................. 135 82nd (January 3, 1951-July 7, 1952)..................................... 138 83rd (January 3, 1953-December 2, 1954)................................. 140 84th (January 5, 1955-July 27, 1956)................................... 144 85th (January 3, 1957-August 24, 1958)............................ ... 147 86th (January 7, 1959-September 1, 1960).............................. 150 87th (January 3, 1961-October 13, 1962)................................. 153 88th (January 9, 1963-October 3, 1964).................................. 158 89th (January 4, 1965-October 22, 1966)................................. 161 90th (January 10, 1967-October 14, 1968)................................ 167 91st (January 3, 1969-January 2, 1971)................................. 173 92nd (January 21, 1971-October 18, 1972)................................ 179 93rd (January 3, 1973-December 20, 1974)............................... 183 94th (January 14, 1975-October 1, 1976)................................. 189 95th (January 4, 1977-October 15, 1978)................................. 196 96th (January 15, 1979-December 16, 1980)............................... 205 SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHY................................................. 215 IND X......... ............................................................ 218 INTRODUCTION On November 15, 1777, a year and a half after the Declaration of Independence was signed, the Continental Congress adopted the Articles of Confederation. Ratification of the Articles, the first effort by Americans to provide a written constitution for "the United States of America," was finally completed early in 1781. Under the Articles the States retained control over most essential governmental functions, and Congress-in which each State had an equal vote-was the sole organ of central government. In their attempt to avoid anything like the centralized system under which Great Britain had ruled her colonies, however, the colonists left their own government too weak to perform its necessary functions and duties. Almost from the outset, this loose confederation of thirteen States was beset with serious problems. These for the most part resulted from basic defects in the Articles themselves which failed to give Congress control over taxation and trade, made no provisions for a Federal executive or judiciary, and avoided any sanctions which would have made possible enforcement of its decisions. Even when the inadequacies of the Articles became glaringly apparent, unanimous consent for amendments was impossible to obtain. As a consequence the States found it necessary
Load more

Recommended publications
  • A Brief Description of Federal Taxes
    A BRIEF DESCRIFTION OF FEDERAL TAXES ON CORPORATIONS SINCE i86i WMUAu A. SU. ND* The cost to the federal government of financing the Civil War created a need for increased revenue, and Congress in seeking new sources tapped theretofore un- touched corporate and individual profits. The Act of July x, x862, amending the Act of August 5, x86i, is the first law under which any federal income tax was collected and is considered to be largely the basis of our present system of income taxation. The tax acts of the Civil War period contained provisions imposing graduated taxes upon the gain, profits, or income of every person2 and providing that corporate profits, whether divided or not, should be taxed to the stockholders. Certain specified corporations, such as banks, insurance companies and transportation companies, were taxed at the rate of 5%, and their stockholders were not required to include in income their pro rata share of the profits. There were several tax acts during and following the War, but a description of the Act of 1864 will serve to show the general extent of the coiporate taxes of that period. The tax or "duty" was imposed upon all persons at the rate of 5% of the amount of gains, profits and income in excess of $6oo and not in excess of $5,000, 7Y2/ of the amount in excess of $5,ooo and not in excess of -$o,ooo, and io% of the amount in excess of $Sxooo.O This tax was continued through the year x87i, but in the last two years of its existence was reduced to 2/l% upon all income.
    [Show full text]
  • 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 ..
    [Show full text]
  • History of Agricultural Price-Support and Adjustment Programs, 1933-84
    legislation covered the 1953 and 1954 crops of basic commodities if the producers had not disapproved marketing quotas and also extended, through 1955, the requirement that the effective parity price for the basic commodities should be the parity price computed under the new or the old formula, whichever was higher. Extra-long staple cotton was made a basic commodity for price support purposes. TOWARD FLEXIBLE PRICE SUPPORTS At the end of the Korean War in 1953, the specter of surpluses once again dominated agricultural policymaking. The debate over levels of support (high and fixed versus a flexible scale) was renewed. The administration of Secretary Ezra Taft Benson increasingly favored flexible supports which would drop as supplies increased. Most Congressmen from agricultural districts, on the other hand, wanted to continue fixed supports. A growing number of agricultural economists moved from their near unanimous preference for flexible supports in the late 1940s to a belief that only strong production controls and high price supports could assure acceptable farm income in a period of growing productivity. For the immediate postwar period, USDA commodity programs continued much as before. Support levels for basic crops remained at 90 percent of parity for 1953 and 1954. Secretary Benson proclaimed marketing quotas for the 1954 wheat and cotton crops on June 1, 1953, and October 9, 1953, respectively. The major types of tobacco and peanuts continued under marketing quotas. Quotas were not imposed on corn but corn acreage allotments were reinstated in 1954 for the first time since before World War II (with the brief exception of 1950).
    [Show full text]
  • 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.
    [Show full text]
  • 56392 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 216 / Wednesday, November 8, 1995 / Rules and Regulations
    56392 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 216 / Wednesday, November 8, 1995 / Rules and Regulations DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE result of comments that were made, omitted. This authority formerly was revisions were made in the following exercised by the Assistant Secretary for Office of the Secretary sections: Administration. Section 2.7. The term ``administrative Section 2.42(a)(28)(i). This paragraph 7 CFR Part 2 rules and regulations'' is changed to is revised to parallel the revision made ``administrative directives'' to clarify to section 2.16(a)(2)(i)(A). The proposal Revision of Delegations of Authority that the authority delegated is to be exercised in accordance with applicable excepts from the authority delegated to AGENCY: Department of Agriculture. the Administrator, Farm Service ACTION: Final rule. internal directives. The term ``in this part or elsewhere'' is changed to ``in this Agency, the authority to administer SUMMARY: This document revises the part'' to clarify that agency heads section 303(a) (2) and (3) of the Con Act, delegations of authority from the delegated authority in this regulation relating to real estate loans for Secretary of Agriculture and general report to a general officer. recreation and non-farm purposes. It has officers of the Department due to a Section 2.16(a)(2)(i)(A). The proposal been determined that the authority to reorganization. excepts from the authority delegated to administer section 303(a) (2) and (3) of EFFECTIVE DATE: November 8, 1995. the Under Secretary for Farm and the Con Act should have been included in the Administrator's delegation. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Foreign Agricultural Services, the Accordingly, the provision is deleted Robert L.
    [Show full text]
  • 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? .........
    [Show full text]
  • More Than 50 Years of Trade Rule Discrimination on Taxation: How Trade with China Is Affected
    MORE THAN 50 YEARS OF TRADE RULE DISCRIMINATION ON TAXATION: HOW TRADE WITH CHINA IS AFFECTED Trade Lawyers Advisory Group Terence P. Stewart, Esq. Eric P. Salonen, Esq. Patrick J. McDonough, Esq. Stewart and Stewart August 2007 Copyright © 2007 by The Trade Lawyers Advisory Group LLC This project is funded by a grant from the U.S. Small Business Administration (SBA). SBA’s funding should not be construed as an endorsement of any products, opinions or services. All SBA-funded projects are extended to the public on a nondiscriminatory basis. MORE THAN 50 YEARS OF TRADE RULE DISCRIMINATION ON TAXATION: HOW TRADE WITH CHINA IS AFFECTED TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY.............................................................................................. iv INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................ 1 I. U.S. EXPORTERS AND PRODUCERS ARE COMPETITIVELY DISADVANTAGED BY THE DIFFERENTIAL TREATMENT OF DIRECT AND INDIRECT TAXES IN INTERNATIONAL TRADE .............................................. 2 II. HISTORICAL BACKGROUND TO THE DIFFERENTIAL TREATMENT OF INDIRECT AND DIRECT TAXES IN INTERNATIONAL TRADE WITH RESPECT TO BORDER ADJUSTABILITY................................................................. 21 A. Border Adjustability of Taxes ................................................................. 21 B. 18th and 19th Century Examples of the Application of Border Tax Adjustments .........................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Administration's Fiscal Year 2014 Revenue Proposals
    General Explanations of the Administration’s Fiscal Year 2014 Revenue Proposals Department of the Treasury April 2013 General Explanations of the Administration’s Fiscal Year 2014 Revenue Proposals Department of the Treasury April 2013 This document is available online at: http://www.treasury.gov/resource-center/tax-policy/Documents/General-Explanations-FY2014.pdf TABLE OF CONTENTS ADJUSTMENTS TO THE BALANCED BUDGET AND EMERGENCY DEFICIT CONTROL ACT (BBEDCA) BASELINE .......................................... 1 Permanently Extend Increased Refundability of the Child Tax Credit ............................... 2 Permanently Extend Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC) for Larger Families and Married Couples ................................................................................................................... 4 Permanently Extend the American Opportunity Tax Credit (AOTC) ................................. 6 RESERVE FOR REVENUE-NEUTRAL BUSINESS TAX REFORM ............. 9 INCENTIVES FOR MANUFACTURING, RESEARCH, CLEAN ENERGY, AND INSOURCING AND CREATING JOBS ............................................................................. 10 Provide Tax Incentives for Locating Jobs and Business Activity in the United States and Remove Tax Deductions for Shipping Jobs Overseas ........................................... 10 Provide New Manufacturing Communities Tax Credit .................................................... 12 Enhance and Make Permanent the Research and Experimentation (R&E) Tax Credit ... 13 Extend Certain Employment Tax
    [Show full text]
  • 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.
    [Show full text]
  • Summary of the Tax Reform Act of 1976, H.R. 10612, 94Th Congress
    ^/i I O I M T C M \ ENACTEi:: q4.T^ JOIN'- SUMMARY OF THE TAX REFORM ACT OF 1976 (H.R. 10612, 94TH CONGRESS, PUBLIC LAW 94-455) PREPARED BY THE STAFF OF THE JOINT COMMITTEE ON TAXATION OCTOBER 4, 1976 U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE 77-889 O WASHINGTON : 1976 JC8-31-76 For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office Washington, D.C. 20402 - Price $1.65 CONGRESS OF THE UNITED STATES (94th Cong., 2d sess.) Joint Committee on Taxation Senate House RUSSELL B. LONG, Louisiana, Cliainnan AL ULLMAN, Oregon, Vice Chairman HERMAN E. TALMADGE, Georgia JAMES A. BURKE, Massaciiusetts VANCE R. HARTKE, Indiana DAN ROSTENKOWSKI, IlUnois CARL T. CURTIS, Nebraska HERMAN T. SCHNEEBELI, Pennsylvania PAUL J. FANNIN, Arizona BARBER B. CONABLE, Jr., New York Laurence N. Woodworth, Chief of Staff Herbert L. Cuabot, Assistant Chief of Staff Bernard M. Shatiro, Assistant Chief of Staff (n) LETTER OF TRANSMITTAL October 4, 1976. Hon. Russell B. Long, Chairman, Hon. Al Ullman, Vice Chairman, Joint Committee on Taxation, U.S. Congress, Washington, D.C Dear Messrs. Chairmen: Immediately following the passage of the conference report by the House and the Senate on the Tax Reform Act of 1976 (H.R. 10612), the House and Senate also passed a House Concurrent Resolution (H. Con. Res. 751), rearranging the section numbers of the bill in a more logical sequence. In addition, the House Concurrent Resolution made corrections of printing, clerical, and technical errors. Primarily because of the rearrangement of the section numbers, the Public Law (P.L.
    [Show full text]
  • United States Tax Treaty Policy: an Overview H
    University of Miami Law School University of Miami School of Law Institutional Repository Articles Faculty and Deans 1981 United States Tax Treaty Policy: An Overview H. David Rosenbloom Stanley Langbein University of Miami School of Law, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://repository.law.miami.edu/fac_articles Part of the Taxation-Transnational Commons, and the Tax Law Commons Recommended Citation H. David Rosenbloom and Stanley Langbein, United States Tax Treaty Policy: An Overview, 19 Colum. J. Transnat'l L. 359 (1981). This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Faculty and Deans at University of Miami School of Law Institutional Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in Articles by an authorized administrator of University of Miami School of Law Institutional Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. United States Tax Treaty Policy: An Overview* H. DAVID ROSENBLOOMt AND STANLEY I. LANGBEINt EDITOR'S NoTE: The following is a slightly revised transcriptof an April 29, 1980 statement by the then-International Tax Counsel of the Department of the Treasury before the Subcommittee on Oversight of the House Ways and Means Committee. Except for some minor stylistic changes and non-substantive abridgements, it conforms to the Department of the Treasury News release of April 29, 1980, which originally reported the testimony. In the view of the Journal, the discussion of tax treaty policy and provi- sions appearing in the statement - which has not received wide dissemination - merits its inclusion in this InternationalTax Is- sue. Permission to reprint the statements was secured from the authors.
    [Show full text]
  • Economic Mobility Behaviors Due to Earned Income Tax Credit Policy: a Case Study of a Southern California Population
    Pepperdine University Pepperdine Digital Commons Theses and Dissertations 2013 Economic mobility behaviors due to earned income tax credit policy: a case study of a southern California population Eugene J. Anton Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.pepperdine.edu/etd Recommended Citation Anton, Eugene J., "Economic mobility behaviors due to earned income tax credit policy: a case study of a southern California population" (2013). Theses and Dissertations. 415. https://digitalcommons.pepperdine.edu/etd/415 This Dissertation is brought to you for free and open access by Pepperdine Digital Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Theses and Dissertations by an authorized administrator of Pepperdine Digital Commons. For more information, please contact [email protected], [email protected], [email protected]. i Pepperdine University Graduate School of Education and Psychology ECONOMIC MOBILITY BEHAVIORS DUE TO EARNED INCOME TAX CREDIT POLICY: A CASE STUDY OF A SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA POPULATION A dissertation submitted in partial satisfaction of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Education in Organizational Leadership by Eugene J. Anton November, 2013 Kent Rhodes, Ed.D. – Dissertation Chairperson ii This dissertation, written by Eugene J. Anton under the guidance of a Faculty Committee and approved by its members, has been submitted to and accepted by the Graduate Faculty in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF EDUCATION Doctoral Committee: Kent Rhodes, Ed.D., Chairperson Leo Mallette, Ed.D. James Dellaneve, Ed.D. iii © Copyright by Eugene J. Anton (2013) All Rights Reserved iv TABLE OF CONTENTS Page TABLE OF CONTENTS ............................................................................................................... iv LIST OF TABLES ........................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]