DOCSLIB.ORG

Energy Taxation: Statistical Data

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Energy Taxation: Statistical Data [COMMITTEE PRINT] ENERGY TAXATION: STATISTICAL DATA Study No. 2 Prepared for the Use of the COMMITTEE ON WAYS AND MEANS BY THE STAFF OF THE JOINT COMMITTEE ON INTERNAL REVENUE TAXATION FEBRUARY 19, 1974 U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE 28-619 WASHINGTON : 1974 JCS-3-74 TABLE OF CONTENTS List of Tables a. petroleum statistics on demand, production and reserves Table number Page 1. World demand for commercial energy 3 2. World crude oil reserves 3 3. AVorld crude oil production 4 4. Supply and demand for all oils in the United States 5 5. Estimated consumption and imports of petroleum by major area, 1973_ 6 6. Significance of U.S. petroleum imports I 7 B. STATISTICS ON PETROLEUM INDUSTRY INVESTMENTS 7. Petroleum industrj^ investments as of December 31, 1971 11 8. Capital expenditures by American companies in 1971 12 9. Gross investment of American companies as of j^earend 1971 12 10. Net investment of American companies as of yearend 1971 13 11. Oil wells drilled 14 12. Drilling operations, by type of well 14 13. Producing oil wells in the United States 14 14. New field discoveries 14 15. Volumetric statistics, 1971 15 16. Tanker facilities, world—as of }'earend 1971 15 17. Exploration and development expenditures in the United States, 1971- 15 18. Investment plans of major petroleum companies: increase in 1974 over estimated 1973 expenditures 16 C. INCOME AND FOREIGN TAX CREDIT STATISTICS 19. Net income after tax and the rate of return on equity of selected oil companies (1963-73) 19 20. Capital expenditures, net income, and rates of return 21 21. Net income as percent of net worth: Petroleum and other selected industry groups, 1963-72 21 22. Net income after taxes: Petroleum versus total manufacturing, 19()3- 72 22 23. After-tax profits of leading corporations for the 4th quarter, 1973 22 24. Rank in profitability of oil companies among 843 leading corporations surveyed by Forbes magazine 23 25. Estimated profit increases in 1974 that would result from price in- creases "^ 20. Petroleum industry income subject to tax, U.S. tax liability before credits, foreign tax credit claimed and U.S. tax liability after credits, 1963-71 tax years 24 D. REVENUE ESTIMATES AND SUPPORTING DATA 27. Revenue gains from alternative proposals to tax excess profits from oil . 27 28. Estimated prices and output of crude oil, 1973-78 28 List of Charts expenditures, Chart 1. U.S. petroleum exploration and development 1959_71 29 companies Chart 2. Percent of U.S. production by medium and small m 1971 «»" Chart 3. Exploration-development expenditures 30 vs. combmed Chart 4. U.S. exploration and development expenditures price of oil and gas 1-4, fi, 7 and U-U: Injernational Eoononiic Source of laWes- Standard & Poor's Industrial Survey-Tables Prontability, data eompi led by the statT of he Pena e R.port of he Preside 1974-Table o: Oil Compaay Capital Invesinients of the AVorld FiiaucVcommttT Tables 17-19, 21-24; the Chase Manhattan Bank, Joint Coraniitlee on Internal Revenue Taxation, PetrolounVlZJstry 1971, Tables 8-10, and 15-17; Staff, Tal)les 2o-28. (ra) PRODUCTION, k. PETROLEUM STATISTICS ON DEMAND, AND RESERVES (1) I ( I I TABLE 1.- TABLE 3.—WORLD CRUDE OIL PRODUCTION [In thousands of barrels per day] North America 11,324 ii,212 United States! 9, 537 9 463 Canada 1 200 1,323 Mexico 487 '427 South America .._ _... 4500 4 486 Argentina '393 '423 Pi^a^i'v.-- -— 164 172 Columbia .. 200 204 Venezuela 3 708 3549 Western Europe 325 '296 West Germany 151 148 Africa 1.[^\[\" 6,050 5,788 Algeria . 1_022 794 Egypt 327 294 Gabon. 109 115 Libya > 001 o 7(-i Middle East :.:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: lioi) leisse ,3f tast... g37 Oceania 1 220 1,394 Total world 37,856 40,483 1 Including Alaska and Hawaii. Source: World Oil. 1-:> 00 I c;, r,.... -I it -;) TABLE 4.- SUPPLY AND DEMAND FOR ALL OILS (In thousands of barrels) Natural Domestic gasoline Ref;ned Changes Domestic Domestic Domestic All other crude oil and benzol Crude oil products in all crude di reet gasoline demand, all domestic Crude oil All other Total Year production production imports imports stocks dem and demand fuel oils 1 demand exports exports 2 consumption 197L ______ _ 3,459,052 632,879 811,135 924,121 -84,968 10,907 2,350,405 1, 991,696 1,643,512 187 81 , 281 6, 071,722 197L _______ 3,453,914 617,815 613,417 319,463 +26,086 10,551 2,213,163 1,809,361 1,530,031 503 81,342 5,638,853 ~., 197L ___ ~ ___ 3,517,450 605,916 483,293 764,769 + 37,738 9,388 2,131 , 252 1,731,499 1, 501,722 4, 991 89,467 5,463,259 1969 _________ 3,37 t, 751 580,241 514, 114 641,437 -17, 449 9, 229 2,042, 546 1,622,186 1,495, 198 1,436 83,449 5,249,056 1908 _____ ____ 3,329,042 553,688 472,323 557,046 +55,451 9,118 1,956, 000 1,542,778 1,393, 027 1,802 82,742 4, 990,467 1967 _________ 3,215,742 514,455 411,649 514,342 +63,006 7,677 1,842,686 1,470,035 1, 160,812 326,541 85,519 4,593,270 196L ______ _ 3,027,763 468,635 447,120 492, 042 + 38,121 8,111 1,793,381 1,423,810 1,099,767 1,477 70,923 4,397,469 196L _____ __ 2,848,514 441,556 452,040 448,732 -2,891 8, 383 1,750, 028 1,362,825 1,004,222 1,097 67,191 . 4,193,746 19j4 _________ 2,786,822 422,500 438,643 388, 093 +3, 676 8,077 1,685,457 1,305,005 959, %4 1,363 72,516 4,032,382 1963 _________ 2,752,723 400,966 412,660 362,053 + 1,2ti3 7,683 1,632, 103 1,280, 178 925,261 1,698 74,216 3,927,139 1 I ncludin g fuel oil laden on vessels in foreign trade. 3 Reflects Middle East crisis. 2 I ncluding exports of benzol as such. Sources: Bureau of Mines, AmNica n Petroleum Institute. TABLE 5.-ESTIMATED CONSUMPTION AND IMPORTS OF PETROLEUM BY MAJOR AREA 1- 1973 [I n thousand barrels per day and percent of consumption) Origin of imports Arab countries Total con- Total Total Saudi Abu Other Vene- Indo- sum ption imports Arab Arabia Kuwait Libya Iraq Dhabi Algeria Arab Iran zuela nesia Canada Nigeria Other s TotaL __________ 58, 000 33,000 17,850 7, 500 3,000 2,100 1,800 1, 300 1,000 1,150 5,600 3,100 1,200 1,100 1,900 2,250 PercenL ___ 100 56.9 30.8 12.9 5.2 3.6 3.1 2.2 1.7 2.0 9.7 5.3 2.1 1.9 3.3 3.9 United StateL _______ _ 17,300 6,200 1,590 590 160 350 50 160 140 140 420 1,840 250 1,100 550 450 Percen L.________ _· 100 35.8 9.2 3.4 0.9 3.0 0.3 0.9 0.8 0.8 2.4 10.6 1.4 6.4 3.2 2.6 ~ Western Europe ______ _ 15,400 15, 200 10,600 4,000 1,750 1, 590 1,220 600 670 770 1,900 440 (2) __________ 1,130 1,130 PercenL _________ 100 98.7 68.8 26.0 11.4 10.3 7.9 3.9 4.4 5.0 12.3 2.9 (2) ---------- 7.3 7.3 J a pa n ________________ 5,400 5, 400 2,390 1,240 540 20 (2) 430 __________ 160 1,730 10 840 _____ _____ 100 330 PercenL _________ 100 100 44.3 23.0 10.0 0.4 (2) 8.0 ____ ______ 3.0 32.0 0.2 15.6 _______ ___ 1.9 6.1 Canada ___________ ____ 1,800 1,000 220 80 (2) 40 20 60 _________ _ 20 180 470 (2) _______ ___ 80 50 PercenL ___ ______ 100 55.6 12.2 4.4 (2) 2.2 1.1 3.3 __________ 1.1 10.0 26.1 (2) _________ _ 4.4 2.8 Communist areL _____ 9,100 500 400 __________________ __ 100 200 (2) 50 50 100 __________________________________________________ PercenL _______ __ 100 5.5 4.4 ___________________ _ 1.1 2.2 (2) 0.5 0.5 1. 1 __________________________________________________ OtherL ____________ _ 9, 000 4,700 2,650 1,590 550 ( 2) 310 50 140 10 1,270 340 110 __________ 40 290 PercenL ________ _ 100 52.2 29.4 17.7 6.1 (2) 3.4 0.6 1.6 0.1 14.1 3.8 1. 2 ____ ____ __ 0.4 3.2 I This table allocates imports on a direct and indirect basis-Le., refined products from export Source: International Economic Report of the President, transmitted to the Congress February 1974, refineries are traced to the source of the crude oil. p. 107. 2 Negligible. TABLE 6—SIGNIFICANCE OF U.S. IMPORTS [In thousands of barrels per day] Imports of Imports refined Total Domestic products imports product Refined as percent of as percent of demand Crude products Total demand demand Year: 1972. 16, 354 1971, 1970. 1969- 1968. 1967. 1966. 1965. 1964. 1963. B. STATISTICS ON PETKOLEUM INDUSTEY INVESTMENTS CJ) TABLE 7.-PETR0LEUiVl INDUSTRY INVESTIVIENTS [In properties, plant and equipment.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • The Joint Committee on Taxation and Codification of the Tax Laws
    The Joint Committee on Taxation and Codification of the Tax Laws George K. Yin Edwin S. Cohen Distinguished Professor of Law and Taxation University of Virginia Former Chief of Staff, Joint Committee on Taxation February 2016 Draft prepared for the United States Capitol Historical Society’s program on The History and Role of the Joint Committee: the Joint Committee and Tax History Comments welcome. THE UNITED STATES CAPITOL HISTORICAL SOCIETY THE JCT@90 WASHINGTON, DC FEBRUARY 25, 2016 The Joint Committee on Taxation and Codification of the Tax Laws George K. Yin* February 11, 2016 preliminary draft [Note to conference attendees and other readers: This paper describes the work of the staff of the Joint Committee on Internal Revenue Taxation (JCT)1 that led to codification of the tax laws in 1939. I hope eventually to incorporate this material into a larger project involving the “early years” of the JCT, roughly the period spanning the committee’s creation in 1926 and the retirement of Colin Stam in 1964. Stam served on the staff for virtually this entire period; he was first hired (on a temporary basis) in 1927 as assistant counsel, became staff counsel in 1929, and then served as Chief of Staff from 1938 until 1964. He is by far the longest‐serving Chief of Staff the committee has ever had. The conclusions in this draft are still preliminary as I have not yet completed my research. I welcome any comments or questions.] Possibly the most significant accomplishment of the JCT and its staff during the committee’s “early years” was the enactment of the Internal Revenue Code of 1939.
    [Show full text]
  • Taxes, Investment, and Capital Structure: a Study of U.S
    Taxes, Investment, and Capital Structure: A Study of U.S. Firms in the Early 1900s Leonce Bargeron, David Denis, and Kenneth Lehn◊ August 2014 Abstract We analyze capital structure decisions of U.S. firms during 1905-1924, a period characterized by two relevant shocks: (i) the introduction of corporate and individual taxes, and (ii) the onset of World War I, which resulted in large, transitory increases in investment outlays by U.S. firms. Although we find little evidence that shocks to corporate and individual taxes have a meaningful influence on observed leverage ratios, we find strong evidence that changes in leverage are positively related to investment outlays and negatively related to operating cash flows. Moreover, the transitory investments made by firms during World War I are associated with transitory increases in debt, especially by firms with relatively low earnings. Our findings do not support models that emphasize taxes as a first-order determinant of leverage choices, but do provide support for models that link the dynamics of leverage with dynamics of investment opportunities. ◊ Leonce Bargeron is at the Gatton College of Business & Economics, University of Kentucky. David Denis, and Kenneth Lehn are at the Katz Graduate School of Business, University of Pittsburgh. We thank Steven Bank, Alex Butler, Harry DeAngelo, Philipp Immenkotter, Ambrus Kecskes, Michael Roberts, Jason Sturgess, Mark Walker, Toni Whited and seminar participants at the 2014 SFS Finance Cavalcade, the University of Alabama, University of Alberta, University of Arizona, Duquesne University, University of Kentucky, University of Pittsburgh, University of Tennessee, and York University for helpful comments. We also thank Peter Baschnegal, Arup Ganguly, and Tian Qiu for excellent research assistance.
    [Show full text]
  • Oil Industry Financial Performance and the Windfall Profits Tax
    Oil Industry Financial Performance and the Windfall Profits Tax Updated July 13, 2011 Congressional Research Service https://crsreports.congress.gov RL34689 Oil Industry Financial Performance and the Windfall Profits Tax Summary Over the past 13 years, surging crude oil and petroleum product prices have increased oil and gas industry revenues and generated record profits, particularly for the top five major integrated companies, ExxonMobil, Royal Dutch Shell, BP, Chevron, and ConocoPhillips. These companies, which reported a predominant share of those profits, generated more than $104 billion in profit on nearly $1.8 trillion of revenues in 2008, before declining as a result of the recession and other factors. From 2003 to 2008, revenues increased by 86%; net income (profits) increased by 66%. Oil output by the five major companies over this time period declined by more than 7%, from 9.85 million to 9.12 million barrels per day. In 2010 the companies’ oil production was 9.4 million barrels per day. Being largely price-driven, with no accompanying increase in output resulting from increased investment in exploration and production, some believe that a portion of the increased oil industry income over this period represents a windfall and unearned gain. A windfall income is not earned as a result of additional production effort on the part of the firms, but due primarily to record crude oil prices, which are set in the world oil marketplace. Since the 109th Congress, numerous bills have been introduced seeking to impose a windfall profits tax (WPT) on oil. An excise-tax based WPT would tax only domestic production and, like the one in effect from 1980-1988, would increase marginal oil production costs.
    [Show full text]
  • Simplification of Federal Tax Laws Randolph E
    Cornell Law Review Volume 29 Article 5 Issue 3 March 1944 Simplification of Federal Tax Laws Randolph E. Paul Follow this and additional works at: http://scholarship.law.cornell.edu/clr Part of the Law Commons Recommended Citation Randolph E. Paul, Simplification of Federal Tax Laws, 29 Cornell L. Rev. 285 (1944) Available at: http://scholarship.law.cornell.edu/clr/vol29/iss3/5 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Journals at Scholarship@Cornell Law: A Digital Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in Cornell Law Review by an authorized administrator of Scholarship@Cornell Law: A Digital Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. CORNELL LAW QUARTERLY VOLUME XXIX MARCH, 1944 NUMBER 3 SIMPLIFICATION OF FEDERAL TAX LAWSt RANDOLPH E. PAUL A spirit of humility is not amiss in dealing with the problem of simplifica- tion of our tax laws. The subject is vast.' Many have tried and no one has conquered. The job is interminable. It spreads octopus-like in all directions. One does well to take with him as he starts out on the long journey toward simplification the message given to Everyman, in the old play, by Knowledge, the sister of Good Deeds: "I will go with thee, and be thy guide, In thy most need to go by thy side." Our difficulties with simplification begin with its place in the pattern of taxation. It is not a thing in vacuo. It does not stand alone like a pyramid in the desert. To mix metaphors, it is but one strand of' a thread which is woven into an intricate design.
    [Show full text]
  • Antitrust Laws with Amendments
    ANTITRUST LAWS WITH AMENDMENTS 1 8 9 0 — 1 9 5 6 v 1. Sherman A ct 2. C layton A ct 3. F ederal T rade Commission A ct & Admendments 4. E xport T rade A ct 5. B anking C orporations A uthorized to do Foreign Banking Business 6. N ational Industrial R ecovery A ct 7. P rice D iscrimination Compiled By GILMAN G. UDELL, Superintendent D o c u m e n t R o o m , H o u s e o f R epresentatives UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE WASHINGTON : 1957 For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U. S. Government Printing Office Washington 25, D. C. - Pricc 35 cents Digitized for FRASER http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis CONTENTS Public Law No. 190, approved July 2, 1890 (1st seas. 51st Cong., U. S. Stat. L., vol. 26, p. 209) (Sherman Antitrust Act)____________________ Public Law No. 227, became a law August 27, 1894 (2d sess. 53d Cong., U. S. Stat. L., vol. 28, p. 570) (antitrust amendments to Wilson Tariff Act)______________________________________________________________ Public Law No. 11, approved July 24, 1897 (1st sess. 55th Cong., U. 8. Stat. L., vol. 28, p. 213) (antitrust amendments to Dingley Tara Act). Publio Law No. 82, approved February 11, 1903 (2d sess. 57th Cong^ U. S. Stat. L.f vol. 32, p. 823) (suits in equity)______________________ Public Law No. 87, approved February 14, 1903 (2d sess. 57th Cong., U. S. Stat. L., vol. 32, pp. 827, 828) (extract from the act establishing Department of Commerce)_________________________________________ Publio Resolution No.
    [Show full text]
  • Covid-19 and Us Tax Policy: What Needs to Change?
    PUBLIC LAW AND LEGAL THEORY RESEARCH PAPER SERIES PAPER NO. 679 LAW & ECONOMICS RESEARCH PAPER SERIES PAPER NO. 20-015 APRIL 2020 COVID-19 AND US TAX POLICY: WHAT NEEDS TO CHANGE? REUVEN S. AVI-YONAH THE SOCIAL SCIENCE RESEARCH NETWORK ELECTRONIC PAPER COLLECTION: HTTP://SSRN.COM/ABSTRACT=3584330 FOR MORE INFORMATION ABOUT THE PROGRAM IN LAW AND ECONOMICS VISIT: HTTP://WWW.LAW.UMICH.EDU/CENTERSANDPROGRAMS/LAWANDECONOMICS/PAGES/DEFAULT.ASPX Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3584330 DRAFT 4/30/20 COVID-19 AND US TAX POLICY: WHAT NEEDS TO CHANGE? Reuven S. Avi-Yonah THe University of MicHigan 1. Introduction THe COVID-19 Pandemic already feels like a Historical turning point akin to Word Wars I and II and the Great Depression. It may signal the end of the second period of globalization (1980-2020) and a cHange in the relative positions of the US and CHina. It could also lead in the US to significant cHanges in tax policy designed to bolster the social safety net wHicH was revealed as very porous during the pandemic. In wHat follows I will first discuss some sHort-term effects of the pandemic and then some potential longer-term effects on US tax policy. 2. Short-Term CHanges THe CARES act, wHicH passed unanimously througH Congress in MarcH, enacted some significant modifications in tax policy. In particular, the CARES act relaxed limits on the use of net operating losses by individuals and corporations, permitting 2020 losses to offset 2015 to 2019 profits.1 It also relaxed the limits on interest deductibility.2 It remains to be seen wHether these cHanges will become permanent.
    [Show full text]
  • Accounts Committee, 70. 186 Adams. Abigail, 56 Adams, Frank, 196
    Index Accounts Committee, 70. 186 Appropriations. Committee on (House) Adams. Abigail, 56 appointment to the, 321 Adams, Frank, 196 chairman also on Rules, 2 I I,2 13 Adams, Henry, 4 I, 174 chairman on Democratic steering Adams, John, 41,47, 248 committee, 277, 359 Chairmen Stevens, Garfield, and Adams, John Quincy, 90, 95, 106, 110- Randall, 170, 185, 190, 210 111 created, 144, 167. 168, 169, 172. 177, Advertisements, fS3, I95 184, 220 Agriculture. See also Sugar. duties on estimates government expenditures, 170 Jeffersonians identified with, 3 1, 86 exclusive assignment to the, 2 16, 32 1 prices, 229. 232, 261, 266, 303 importance of the, 358 tariffs favoring, 232, 261 within the Joint Budget Committee, 274 Agriculture Department, 303 loses some jurisdiction, 2 10 Aid to Families with Dependent Children members on Budget, 353 (AFDC). 344-345 members on Joint Study Committee on Aldrich, Nelson W., 228, 232. 241, 245, Budget Control, 352 247 privileged in reporting bills, 185 Allen, Leo. 3 I3 staff of the. 322-323 Allison, William B., 24 I Appropriations, Committee on (Senate), 274, 352 Altmeyer, Arthur J., 291-292 American Medical Association (AMA), Archer, William, 378, 381 Army, Ci.S. Spe also War Department 310, 343, 345 appropriation bills amended, 136-137, American Newspaper Publishers 137, 139-140 Association, 256 appropriation increases, 127, 253 American Party, 134 Civil War appropriations, 160, 167 American Political Science Association, Continental Army supplies, I7 273 individual appropriation bills for the. American System, 108 102 Ames, Fisher, 35. 45 mobilization of the Union Army, 174 Anderson, H. W., 303 Arthur, Chester A,, 175, 206, 208 Assay omces, 105, 166 Andrew, John, 235 Astor, John Jacob, 120 Andrews, Mary.
    [Show full text]
  • Historical Perspective on the Corporate Interest Deduction
    Do Not Delete 10/13/2014 2:28 PM Historical Perspective on the Corporate Interest Deduction Steven A. Bank* INTRODUCTION One of the so-called “Pillars of Sand” in the American business tax structure is the differential treatment of debt and equity.1 Corporations may deduct interest payments on their debt, but may not deduct dividend payments on their equity. This “ancient and pernicious” feature is criticized because it distorts corporate financing choices and inevitably leads to line drawing problems as the government engages in a futile chase to catch up with the latest financial innovation.2 In the past few years, both the Obama administration and new Senate Finance Committee Chairman Ron Wyden have proposed capping or substantially reshaping the deductibility of corporate interest to “reduce incentives to overleverage and produce more stable business finances.”3 * Paul Hastings Professor of Business Law, UCLA School of Law. 1 DANIEL N. SHAVIRO, DECODING THE CORPORATE TAX 44, 48 (2009); Alvin C. Warren Jr., The Corporate Interest Deduction: A Policy Evaluation, 83 YALE L.J. 1585, 1585 (1974). 2 Ilan Benshalom, How to Live with a Tax Code with Which You Disagree: Doctrine, Optimal Tax, Common Sense, and the Debt-Equity Distinction, 88 N.C. L. REV. 1217, 1219 (2010); SHAVIRO, supra note 1, at 48–49. The controversy over the differential treatment of debt and equity is long-standing. See, e.g., M. L. Seidman, Deductions for Interest and Dividends, in HOW SHOULD CORPORATIONS BE TAXED? 130 (1947); NAT’L INDUS. CONFERENCE BD., 2 THE SHIFTING AND EFFECTS OF THE FEDERAL CORPORATION INCOME TAX 138–41 (1930).
    [Show full text]
  • The "Original Intent" of U.S. International Taxation
    Columbia Law School Scholarship Archive Faculty Scholarship Faculty Publications 1997 The "Original Intent" of U.S. International Taxation Michael J. Graetz Columbia Law School, [email protected] Michael M. O'Hear Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarship.law.columbia.edu/faculty_scholarship Part of the International Law Commons, International Trade Law Commons, and the Tax Law Commons Recommended Citation Michael J. Graetz & Michael M. O'Hear, The "Original Intent" of U.S. International Taxation, 46 DUKE L. J. 1021 (1997). Available at: https://scholarship.law.columbia.edu/faculty_scholarship/389 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Faculty Publications at Scholarship Archive. It has been accepted for inclusion in Faculty Scholarship by an authorized administrator of Scholarship Archive. For more information, please contact [email protected]. THE "ORIGINAL INTENT" OF U.S. INTERNATIONAL TAXATION MICHAEL J. GRAETZt MICHAEL M. OHEARtt TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION ............................... 1022 I. WHO WAS T.S. ADAMS, ANYWAY9 . 1028 II. THE ESSENTIAL DILEMMA OF INTERNATIONAL TAXATON .......................... 1033 Ill. THE "ORIGINAL INTENT" OF U.S. TAX LAW GOVERNING INTERNATIONAL TRANSACTIONS .. 1041 A. The Revenue Act of 1918-Enacting the Foreign Tax Credit ........................ 1043 B. The 1921 Act-Limiting the FTC and Enacting Specific Source Rules ................. 1054 C. The Foreign Traders and Possessions Cornorations Provisions of the 1921 Act-Exempting Foreign Source Income ............... 1059 IV. THE LEAGUE OF NATIONS MODEL INCOME TAX TREATY ........................ 1066 A. The Beginning of the Tax Treaty Process: The International Chamber of Commerce . 1066 B. The Torch Passes to the League of Nations .... 1074 t Copyright © 1997 by Michael J.
    [Show full text]
  • Woodrow Wilson, Congress, and the Income Tax by Don
    Woodrow Wilson, Congress, and the Income Tax By Don Wolfensberger An Introductory Essay for the Congress Project Seminar on “Congress and Tax Policy” Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars Tuesday, March 16, 2004 At almost every session Congress has made some effort, more or less determined, towards changing the revenue system in some essential portion; and that system has never escaped radical alteration for ten years together. Had revenue been graduated by the comparatively steady standard of the expenditures, it must have been kept stable and calculable; but depending as it has done on a much debated and constantly fluctuating industrial policy, it has been regulated in accordance with a scheme which has passed through as many phases as there have been vicissitudes and vagaries in the fortunes of commerce and the tactics of parties. – Woodrow Wilson Congressional Government (1885) Introduction The modern American tax system was conceived during the presidency of Woodrow Wilson (1913-1921). The Sixteenth Amendment to the Constitution, empowering Congress “to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived....” was ratified on February 23, 1913, just nine days prior to Wilson’s inauguration as president. One of Wilson’s first acts as president was to call Congress into special session on April 7 for the purpose of legislating lower tariffs and thereby fulfilling one of the campaign pledges of the Democratic Party platform and of Wilson the candidate. The next day, April 8, Wilson traveled to Capitol Hill to deliver his tariff message in person before a joint session of Congress–the first president to do so since John Adams.1 Part of Wilson’s “New Freedom” platform was to dismantle monopolies, and one of the ways of doing so was to take away high protective tariffs which he saw as one of the economic foundations of monopolies.
    [Show full text]
  • Note, GRF to Donald Rumsfeld and Bill Walker
    The original documents are located in Box C13, folder “Presidential Handwriting, 2/18/1975” of the Presidential Handwriting File at the Gerald R. Ford Presidential Library. Copyright Notice The copyright law of the United States (Title 17, United States Code) governs the making of photocopies or other reproductions of copyrighted material. Gerald Ford donated to the United States of America his copyrights in all of his unpublished writings in National Archives collections. Works prepared by U.S. Government employees as part of their official duties are in the public domain. The copyrights to materials written by other individuals or organizations are presumed to remain with them. If you think any of the information displayed in the PDF is subject to a valid copyright claim, please contact the Gerald R. Ford Presidential Library. - 2 ~ If. 7J.# ... THE WHIT E HOUSE WASHINGTON • • Digitized from Box C13 of The Presidential Handwriting File at the Gerald R. Ford Presidential Library "" THE WHITE HOUSE \ . & ·--~- - ·- FEB 1 7 1975 THE WHITE HOUSE WASHINGTON . THE WHITE HOUSE WASHINGTON Date _2_1_1_2 _17_s __ TO: DON R UMSFELD FROM: JERRYH•• For your information • • For immediate release: For information,call: William M. Alrich ' (020675) Tel. (215) 243-5742 Will President Ford's energy package send inflation roaring through the U.S. economy again? Twn economists from Wharton Econometric Forecasting Associates, at the University of Pennsylvania have evaluated -- through a large scale computer model of the U.S. economy -- all of the major economic measures proposed by President Ford, including the tariff on oil and other energy-related plans. Professors Lawrence R.
    [Show full text]
  • The Emergence of the Organized Tax Bar and the Dilemmas of Professional Responsibility
    MEHROTRA AND THORNDIKE_PAGINATED (DO NOT DELETE) 5/3/2018 4:34 PM “WHO SPEAKS FOR TAX EQUITY AND TAX FAIRNESS?” THE EMERGENCE OF THE ORGANIZED TAX BAR AND THE DILEMMAS OF PROFESSIONAL RESPONSIBILITY ∗ ∗∗ JOSEPH J. THORNDIKE AND AJAY K. MEHROTRA I INTRODUCTION In 1961, shortly after assuming his new post as Assistant Secretary of the Treasury for Tax Policy, legal scholar Stanley Surrey issued a challenge to his former colleagues in academia and legal practice. The tax system, he said, was urgently in need of both repair and renovation. Existing faults were obvious and future problems certain. The task ahead was clear. “A complex society such as ours, ever growing and changing, must necessarily expect and demand that its tax system also keep pace,” he said.1 Politicians, however, were ill-equipped to confront these looming challenges. Public debate on tax reform was lively, but it was also suffused with motivated and biased reasoning. “Much of the material presented to the Congress and in the public print comes down to an attempt to score debating points,” Surrey complained. “There is a good deal of commotion, but it is all thrust and parry.”2 Compounding the problem, government expertise was in short supply. In recent years, the Treasury Department—traditionally the source for dispassionate fiscal analysis—had retreated from the field of serious tax research. That withdrawal had created a ripple effect in academia where Surrey detected Copyright © 2018 by Joseph J. Thorndike and Ajay K. Mehrotra. This article is also available online at http://lcp.law.duke.edu/. ∗ Director of the Tax History Project and Contributing Editor, Tax Analysts.
    [Show full text]