DOCSLIB.ORG

Vol. 6, No. 2: Full Issue

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

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. Provisions in the Tax Reform Act of 1976, recent public disclosure requirements, and sections of the Export Administration Act of 1977 all aim to discourage U.S. exporters from taking boycott-related action. The dilemma facing the U.S. taxpayer in attempting to comply with these legislative enactments is presented, along with a discussion of the advisabil- ity of even having such legislation. THE TAX REFORM ACT OF 1976: TREATMENT OF FOREIGN INCOME AND EFFECTS ON U.S. DEVELOPMENT OF FOREIGN MINERAL RESOURCES .................................. William J. Nolan, Jr. 635 The author discusses the significance of the extensive legislative changes embodied in the Tax Reform Act of 1976, as applied to U.S. mineral resource corporations. Many of the changes will result in a substantial increase of overseas business costs through repeal or modification of tax credits and the elimination of certain positive incentives. The loss of special treatment for capital invested in less developed countries and treatment of certain foreign capital gains as domestic will tend to discourage the development of foreign mineral resources and lessen the ability to compete in foreign markets. IMPACT OF THE TAX REFORM ACT OF 1976 ON AMERICANS WORKING ABROAD ........................................... Marianne Burge 647 Section 911 of the Internal Revenue Code dealing with the exclusion granted to U.S. citizens for income earned abroad was substantially altered by the 1976 Tax Reform Act. Burge discusses the changes and analyzes their addi- tional cost impact on taxpayers and employers' tax reimbursement plans. She cites particularly the virtual repeal of the exclusion, the increased costs to employers of doing business abroad, and the problem of making a tax- saving election under section 911 for employees who may be transferred to other locations. TAX REFORM ACT OF 1976: CONTROLLED FOREIGN CORPORATIONS ...................................... Richard W Graham 661 The author focuses on those sections of the Tax Reform Act of 1976 which affect subpart F and section 1248 of the Internal Revenue Code. The 1976 Act has changed some of the rules for taxing a U.S. shareholder's foreign earnings from a Controlled Foreign Corporation. He discusses the changes in the treatment of year-to-year income from shipping, insurance, earnings invested in U.S. property, and Export Trade Corporations. He also explains how the 1976 Act has broadened the powers, described in section 1248, for taxing the disposition of a U.S. citizen's foreign corporation stock as if it were a repatriation of tax deferred earnings. FOREIGN SITUS TRUSTS ...... ......... ......................... M ark S. C aldwell Peter B. Nagel 675 Recent amendments to the Internal Revenue Code culminate longstanding efforts by Congress to curtail the use of foreign situs trusts. Provisions of the Tax Reform Act of 1976 deem income earned by a foreign trust with U.S. beneficiaries to be earned currently by those persons who transfer property to such a trust. Changes in the throwback rules, including the possible impo- sition of a nondeductible interest charge, now render foreign trusts consider- ably less attractive than their domestic counterparts. Finally, the section 1491 excise tax provisions now impose a maximum capital gains rate tax on the transfer of appreciated property to a foreign trust. STUDENT COMMENTS PARENS PATRIAE ANTITRUST SUITS BY FOREIGN NATIONS ......................................... R ussell L . Cap lan 705 The author explores the parenspatriae suit as an alternative means by which foreign governments can bring antitrust actions on behalf of their citizens in United States courts. The historical development of parens patriaeis traced to show the legitimacy of this type of action. The author proceeds to discuss the problems encountered by a foreign government in its efforts to sue Ameri- can antibiotic manufacturers. The conclusion is that a parens patriae suit is the most effective means by which a foreign country can prosecute its action. THE PITFALLS OF ACT OF STATE ANALYSIS IN THE ANTITRUST CONTEXT: A CRITIQUE OF HUNT V. MOBIL OIL ......................................... D avid K . Pansius 749 International antitrust issues pose perhaps the greatest challenge to the act of state doctrine. On the one hand, courts are understandably reluctant to prosecute complaints alleging restraints on U.S. foreign commerce when the acts of foreign sovereigns are integral elements of the cause of action. On the other hand, a blanket refusal to investigate antitrust claims when sovereign acts are involved will unduly preclude review of illegal private conspiracies. Much of this tension arises from the mistaken notion that courts cannot investigate private acts motivating a sovereign's anticompetitive determina- tions - the act of state doctrine grants no such immunity from review. Rather, the act of state doctrine only protects private anticompetitive acts compelled by the sovereign himself. Consequently, barring an exception such as the Noerr doctrine, a private actor will be liable for conspiracies to force government action injurious to his competitors. BOOK NOTES 777 Denver Journal OF INTERNATIONAL LAW AND POLICY Taxing Boycotts and Bribes* G.C. HUFBAUER** J.G. TAYLOR*** I. LEGISLATIVE HISTORY A. The Setting Between October 1973 and January 1974 the Mideast oil cartel raised the posted price of petroleum from $3.00 to $11.65 per barrel. In February 1975, Eli Black, President of United Brands, jumped to his death in mid-Manhattan. These seem- ingly unrelated events coalesced in the Tax Reform Act of 1976. Among other provisions, the Act contains severe tax penalties for U.S. persons who agree to participate in or cooperate with an international boycott or who bribe foreign officials. The Arab boycott of Israel can be traced to 1946 when the Arab League declared that products of Palestinian Jews were to be considered undesirable in Arab countries. The year 1948 witnessed the creation of Israel, a de jure state of war between Israel and the Arab nations, and the Arab boycott office. All three still exist today. Until recently, however, the boycott was honored in the breach. With the quadrupling of oil prices and the multiplication of Arab economic power, boycott practices which previously existed mainly on paper were suddenly imple- mented and became a matter of concern-to Arab nations, to Israel, and to the United States Congress.' * The authors are associated with the United States Treasury Department. The views expressed are opinions of the authors and should not be construed to reflect the views of the Treasury Department. ** Deputy Assistant Secretary for Trade and Investment Policy, United States Deparment of the Treasury. Formerly Director, International Tax Staff, United States Department of the Treasury. *** Economist, Office of International Monetary Affairs, United States Depart- ment of the Treasury. Formerly Economist, International Tax Staff, United States Department of the Treasury. 1. Wall St. J., June 25, 1976, at 1, col. 6. 590 JOURNAL OF INTERNATIONAL LAW AND POLICY VOL. 6:589 Overseas bribery, like the boycott, has existed for many years. Boycott concern was triggered not by sensational new bribes, but by front page revelation of longstanding practices.' Two bills were introduced during the second session of the 94th Congress to deal with these problems. On March 15, 1976, Senator Ribicoff and others introduced S. 3138, specifically aimed at the boycott of Israel. On March 16, 1976, Senator Harry Byrd, Jr., introduced S. 3150, aimed at the bribery of foreign officials. Over the serious misgivings of Senator Long, the two bills were melded together and included in the Senate Finance Committee version of H.R. 10612. 3 They passed the Senate essentially unchanged on August 6, 1976. Since the House had enacted no legislation on bribes or boycotts, the issues went to conference. Bills were also introduced by Senators Stevenson and Wil- liams,4 and by Representatives Koch and Bingham5 to address the boycott problem through tighter language in the Export Administration Act.' Among other features, these bills would have mandated disclosure of corporate boycott reports by the Commerce Department; prohibited U.S. firms from furnishing information pursuant to a boycott request on the firm's direc- tors, officers, shareholders, or employees; and prohibited a re- fusal to deal with other U.S.
Recommended publications
  • BEYOND PUBLIC CHOICE and PUBLIC INTEREST: a STUDY of the LEGISLATIVE PROCESS AS ILLUSTRATED by TAX LEGISLATION in the 1980S

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

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

    Mayo Clinic, a Minnesota Corporation

    United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit ___________________________ No. 19-3189 ___________________________ Mayo Clinic, a Minnesota Corporation lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellee v. United States of America lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellant ____________ Appeal from United States District Court for the District of Minnesota ____________ Submitted: October 20, 2020 Filed: May 13, 2021 ____________ Before SMITH, Chief Judge, LOKEN and GRUENDER, Circuit Judges. ____________ LOKEN, Circuit Judge. Mayo Clinic (“Mayo”), a Minnesota nonprofit corporation, oversees healthcare system subsidiaries and operates the Mayo Clinic College of Medicine and Science (“Mayo College”). Mayo is a tax-exempt organization under Section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code (IRC), 26 U.S.C. § 501(c)(3).1 After an audit in 2009, the Internal Revenue Service concluded that Mayo owed unrelated business income tax (“UBIT”) on certain investment income it received from the investment pool it manages for its subsidiaries. The IRS issued a Notice of Proposed Adjustment and reaffirmed its position in a 2013 Technical Advice Memorandum. At issue is $11,501,621 in UBIT for tax years 2003, 2005-2007, and 2010-2012. Mayo2 paid the tax and brought this refund action. The issue, briefly stated, is whether Mayo is a “qualified organization” exempted from paying UBIT on “unrelated debt-financed income” under IRC § 514(c)(9)(C)(i). Qualified organizations include “an organization described in section 170(b)(1)(A)(ii) . .” Section 170(b)(1)(A)(ii) describes “an educational organization which normally maintains a regular faculty and curriculum and normally has a regularly enrolled body of pupils or students in attendance at the place where its educational activities are regularly carried on.” The IRS denied Mayo the exemption because it is not an “educational organization” as defined in 26 C.F.R.
  • Report No. 82-156 Gov Major Acts of Congress And

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

    REPORT NO. 82-156 GOV MAJOR ACTS OF CONGRESS AND TREATIES APPROVED BY THE SENATE 1789-1980 Christopher Dell Stephen W. Stathis Analysts in American National Governent Government Division September 1982 CONmGHnItNA^l JK 1000 B RE filmH C SE HVICA^^ ABSTRACT During the nearly two centuries since the framing of the Constitution, more than 41,000 public bills have been approved by Congress, submitted to the President for his approval and become law. The seven hundred or so acts summarized in this compilation represent the major acts approved by Congress in its efforts to determine national policies to be carried out by the executive branch, to authorize appropriations to carry out these policies, and to fulfill its responsibility of assuring that such actions are being carried out in accordance with congressional intent. Also included are those treaties considered to be of similar importance. An extensive index allows each entry in this work to be located with relative ease. The authors wish to credit Daphine Lee, Larry Nunley, and Lenora Pruitt for the secretarial production of this report. CONTENTS ABSTRACT.................................................................. 111 CONGRESSES: 1st (March 4, 1789-March 3, 1791)..................................... 3 2nd (October 24, 1791-March 2, 1793)................................... 7 3rd (December 2, 1793-March 3, 1795).................................. 8 4th (December 7, 1795-March 3, 1797).................................. 9 5th (May 15, 1797-March 3, 1799)....................................... 11 6th (December 2, 1799-March 3, 1801)................................... 13 7th (December 7, 1801-Marh 3, 1803)................................... 14 8th (October 17, 1803-March 3, 1805)....... ........................... 15 9th (December 2, 1805-March 3, 1807)................................... 16 10th (October 26, 1807-March 3, 1809)..................................
  • America's Economic Way Of

    America's Economic Way Of

    |America’s Economic Way of War How did economic and financial factors determine how America waged war in the twentieth century? This important new book exposes the influence of economics and finance on the questions of whether the nation should go to war, how wars would be fought, how resources would be mobilized, and the long-term consequences for the American economy. Ranging from the Spanish–American War to the Gulf War, Hugh Rockoff explores the ways in which war can provide unique opportunities for understanding the basic principles of economics as wars produce immense changes in monetary and fiscal policy and so provide a wealth of infor- mation about how these policies actually work. He shows that wars have been more costly to the United States than most Americans realize as a substantial reliance on borrowing from the public, money creation, and other strategies to finance America’s war efforts have hidden the true cost of war. hugh rockoff is a professor of Economics at Rutgers, the State University of New Jersey, and a research associate of the National Bureau of Economic Research. His publications include numerous papers in professional journals, The Free Banking Era: A Re-examination (1975), Drastic Measures: A History of Wage and Price Controls in the United States (1984), and a textbook, History of the American Economy (2010, with Gary Walton). NEW APPROACHES TO ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL HISTORY series editors Nigel Goose, University of Hertfordshire Larry Neal, University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign New Approaches to Economic and Social History is an important new textbook series published in association with the Economic History Society.
  • Summary of the Tax Reform Act of 1976, H.R. 10612, 94Th Congress

    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.
  • Table of Contents

    Table of Contents

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

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

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

    International Tax Policy for the 21St Century

    NFTC1a Volume1_part2Chap1-5.qxd 12/17/01 4:23 PM Page 147 The NFTC Foreign Income Project: International Tax Policy for the 21st Century Part Two Relief of International Double Taxation NFTC1a Volume1_part2Chap1-5.qxd 12/17/01 4:23 PM Page 148 NFTC1a Volume1_part2Chap1-5.qxd 12/17/01 4:23 PM Page 149 Origins of the Foreign Tax Credit Chapter 1 Origins of the Foreign Tax Credit I. Introduction The United States’ current system for taxing international income was creat- ed during the period from 1918 through 1928.1 From the introduction of 149 the income tax (in 1913 for individuals and in 1909 for corporations) until 1918, foreign taxes were deducted in the same way as any other business expense.2 In 1918, the United States enacted the foreign tax credit,3 a unilat- eral step taken fundamentally to redress the unfairness of “double taxation” of foreign-source income. By way of contrast, until the 1940s, the United Kingdom allowed a credit only for foreign taxes paid within the British 1 For further description and analysis of this formative period of U.S. international income tax policy, see Michael J. Graetz & Michael M. O’Hear, The ‘Original Intent’ of U.S. International Taxation, 46 DUKE L.J. 1021, 1026 (1997) [hereinafter “Graetz & O’Hear”]. The material in this chapter is largely taken from this source. 2 The reasoning behind the international tax aspects of the 1913 Act is difficult to discern from the historical sources. One scholar has concluded “it is quite likely that Congress gave little or no thought to the effect of the Revenue Act of 1913 on the foreign income of U.S.
  • Reactions of High-Income Taxpayers to Major Tax Legislation

    Reactions of High-Income Taxpayers to Major Tax Legislation

    National Tax Journal, December 2016, 69 (4), 935–964 https://doi.org/10.17310/ntj.2016.4.10 REACTIONS OF HIGH-INCOME TAXPAYERS TO MAJOR TAX LEGISLATION Gerald Auten, David Splinter, and Susan Nelson This paper examines how high-income taxpayers reacted to major tax legislation that affected incentives for realizations of capital gains, the form of compensation, type of investments, and the choice of organizational form for businesses. The Tax Reform Act of 1969, the Tax Reform Act of 1986, the Omnibus Budget Reconcili- ation Act of 1993, and the American Taxpayer Relief Act of 2012 are considered. The paper summarizes prior research and provides new evidence of short-term and longer-term responses of high-income taxpayers. The analysis uses individual and business tax return information to examine some of the most salient features of each of these laws. Examining the responses to prior reforms can inform discussion of the effects of future tax reform proposals. Keywords: tax reform, tax avoidance, income shifting JEL Codes: H24, H25, H26 I. INTRODUCTION ver the last 50 years, several landmark tax laws targeted high-income taxpayers in Oways that affected incentives for earning and realizing income. Some of these laws raised tax rates for high-income taxpayers while others reduced them. Some broadened the tax base by repealing tax expenditures or loopholes that fostered tax avoidance, while others narrowed it by creating new or more generous deductions and exclusions. Top tax rates on ordinary income changed significantly seven times over this 50-year period (Figure 1). Top tax rates on long-term capital gains changed even more often.
  • Subject Index

    Subject Index

    SUBJECT INDEX A Construction of facilities, research and Page Page development, etc., appropriation Accounts, Bureau of, appropriation for 385, authorization. 368 399, 872 Western Interstate Nuclear Board, Adams, President John Quincy, bust of, cooperation 986 loan to Smithsonian Institution 2192 Aeronautics and Space Administration Administrative Conference of the United Authorization Act, 1970, National, States, appropriation for 878 Amendment, employees and former Adoption of Child, District of Columbia, employees, reporting requirements.- 373 consent of natural father 1086 Aeronautics and Space Administration Adult Education, National Advisory Authorization Act, 1971, National— 368 Council on, establishment 163 Aeronautics and Space Council, National, Adult Education Act: appropriation for 388, 1454 Amendment, allocation of funds, new Aeronautical and Space Sciences Com­ formula 1669 mittee, hearings on space program Appropriation for effecting provisions 35, benefits, printing of additional copies. 2186 36, 802 African Countries, sale of military equip­ Citation of title 159 ment to, ceiling 2053 National Advisory Council on Adult Age, minimum voting 318 Education, establishment 163 Age, Voting, Virgin Islands, establishment. 978 Secondary school curiiculum, addition Age Discrimination in Employment Act of to program 160 1967, appropriation for effecting pro­ Adult Education Act of 1966, appropria­ visions 25 tion for effecting provisions 35, 36, 802 Aged: Advisory Commission on Intergovern­ Food stamp program, delivered pre­ mental
  • A History of Controlled Foreign Corporations and the Foreign Tax Credit by Melissa Redmiles and Jason Wenrich

    A History of Controlled Foreign Corporations and the Foreign Tax Credit by Melissa Redmiles and Jason Wenrich

    A History of Controlled Foreign Corporations and the Foreign Tax Credit by Melissa Redmiles and Jason Wenrich Figure A s U.S. corporations have expanded their busi- nesses overseas in the last several decades, the Corporate Foreign Tax Credit, in Constant 2004 United States Tax Code has been modified to Dollars, Selected Tax Years 1925-2002 [1] A [Money amounts are in millions of dollars] account for increasingly complex international cor- porate structures and transactions. Two important U.S. income tax Foreign tax Tax year Percentage international tax concepts that have emerged over before credits credit the years are the corporate foreign tax credit and (1) (2) (3) controlled foreign corporations. The corporate for- 1925..................... 12,629 216 1.7 eign tax credit was created to alleviate the burden of 1930..................... 8,054 328 4.1 1940..................... 28,929 783 2.7 double taxation. The income of controlled foreign 1950..................... 123,757 3,637 2.9 corporations has become increasingly subject to U.S. 1960..................... 139,544 7,811 5.6 tax after initially presenting a potential tax deferral 1970..................... 160,414 22,147 13.8 advantage over foreign branches. A brief history of 1980..................... 238,030 57,037 24.0 the foreign tax credit and controlled foreign corpora- 1990..................... 172,617 36,115 20.9 292,106 53,210 18.2 1 2000..................... tions is presented below. 2004..................... 299,555 56,872 19.0 [1] For comparability, money amounts have been adjusted for inflation to 2004 constant Corporate Foreign Tax Credit dollars. The United States generally taxes U.S.
  • Tax Reform and Capital Gains: the Aw R Against Unfari Taxes Is Far from Over Richard A

    Tax Reform and Capital Gains: the Aw R Against Unfari Taxes Is Far from Over Richard A

    Journal of Legislation Volume 14 | Issue 1 Article 1 1-1-1987 Tax Reform and Capital Gains: The aW r against Unfari Taxes Is Far from Over Richard A. Gephardt Michael R. Wessel Follow this and additional works at: http://scholarship.law.nd.edu/jleg Recommended Citation Gephardt, Richard A. and Wessel, Michael R. (1987) "Tax Reform and Capital Gains: The aW r against Unfari Taxes Is Far from Over," Journal of Legislation: Vol. 14: Iss. 1, Article 1. Available at: http://scholarship.law.nd.edu/jleg/vol14/iss1/1 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Journal of Legislation at NDLScholarship. It has been accepted for inclusion in Journal of Legislation by an authorized administrator of NDLScholarship. For more information, please contact [email protected]. TAX REFORM AND CAPITAL GAINS: THE WAR AGAINST UNFAIR TAXES IS FAR FROM OVER Richard A. Gephardt* with Michael R. Wessel** INTRODUCTION In the fall of 1986, Congress completed the process of fundamen- tally reforming the U.S. Tax Code. The House of Representatives passed a comprehensive tax reform bill late in December 1985.1 The bill underwent radical change in the Senate Finance Committee. 2 Pres- ident Reagan signed the Tax Reform Act of 19861 on October 22, 1986. The U.S. Tax Code has grown from eighty-nine pages in 19134 to thousands of pages in 1987. Additionally, the regulations and case law needed to interpret the Code require analysis of volumes of reference materials.' The Deficit Reduction Act of 19846 alone topped 1,300. pages.