DOCSLIB.ORG

State Tax Notes (C) Tax Analysts 2016

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
State Tax Notes (C) Tax Analysts 2016 state tax notes (C) Tax Analysts 2016. All rights reserved. does not claim copyright in any public domain or third party content. Volume 80, Number 1 April 4, 2016 Working With New York’s New Combined Reporting Rules New York Corporate Tax Reform: An Investment Fund Perspective Ohio’s Business Income Deduction: Boon or Boondoggle? How Mississippi ‘Invented’ the Sales Tax If I Were a Rich Man Evolutionary Nexus For more State Tax Notes content, please visit www.taxnotes.com. (C) Tax Analysts 2016. All rights reserved. does not claim copyright in any public domain or third party content. For more State Tax Notes content, please visit www.taxnotes.com. CONTENTS (C) Tax Analysts 2016. All rights reserved. does not claim copyright in any public domain or third party content. state tax notes™ Volume 80 Number 1 ON THE COVER Florida 33 Working With New York’s 14 Governor Courts Yale University New Combined Reporting Rules To Relocate New York Corporate Tax Reform: 41 Georgia An Investment Fund Perspective 15 Lawmakers Fail to Agree on 47 Ohio’s Business Income Deduction: Income Tax Cuts Before Session Ends Boon or Boondoggle? 51 How Mississippi ‘Invented’ the Sales Tax Indiana 57 If I Were a Rich Man 16 Governor Approves Bill Calling for Study Of Combined Reporting 59 Evolutionary Nexus Iowa Cover photo: iqoncept/Bigstock.com 17 State’s Reduced Job Creation Credits Would Offset Biochemical Credits FROM THE EDITOR Kansas 5 The Wonder Years 18 Legislature Leaves New Revenue by Jéanne Rauch-Zender Out of Latest School Funding Bill STATE TAX NEWS AND ANALYSIS Kentucky Featured News 19 Senate Committee Considers Local Option Sales Tax Bill 7 Unclaimed Property Statute Not a Ponzi Scheme, Oklahoma Supreme Court Holds Louisiana by Stephanie Cumings 19 State Businesses and DOR Scramble 8 Quill Continues to Shape Field To Comply With Sales Tax Changes Of State Taxation by Amy Hamilton Maine Alaska 20 Taxwriters Reject Repeal of Exemption For Conservation Lands 10 Governor Pushes Legislators To Move Forward With Tax Bills Maryland California 21 Manufacturing Tax Credit Bills Stall In Committee 11 Administering Marijuana Taxes Could Be Unduly Burdensome, BOE Says Massachusetts 12 Ruling Could Exempt Tax Ballot Initiatives From Two-Thirds Rule 22 State Appoints New DOR Commissioner 22 State Releases Final Reg Connecticut On Fantasy Sports Websites 13 Sales Tax Exemptions Cost State Billions In Revenue, Group Says State Tax Notes, April 4, 2016 3 For more State Tax Notes content, please visit www.taxnotes.com. Mississippi SALT FROM THE SWING STATE (C) Tax Analysts 2016. All rights reserved. does not claim copyright in any public domain or third party content. 23 House Appropriations Chair to Be 47 Ohio’s Business Income Deduction: State’s Next DOR Chief Boon or Boondoggle? by Mark A. Engel Missouri 24 Kansas City Pushes for Revival STATE TAX MERRY-GO-ROUND Of Missouri Film Incentives 51 How Mississippi ‘Invented’ the Sales Tax by Billy Hamilton Multistate & Federal 24 Minnesota Joins Trend of States THE POLITICS OF STATE TAXATION Proposing Tax Haven Legislation 57 If I Were a Rich Man 26 Refund Interest Rate Bill by David Brunori Sent to Governor THE SALT BOX 27 States Largely Ignored in Federal Tax Reform Plans, Panel Says 59 Evolutionary Nexus by Roxanne Bland Nevada 28 State Approves $9 Million in Tax Breaks VIEWPOINT For Hyperloop Project 63 A Property Tax Book Worth Reading by David Brunori New York 28 New York City’s First Taxpayer Advocate TAX HUMOR Stepping Down 65 State Tax Auditors Descend on Corporations With Novel Conclusions Oregon by Arthur R. Rosen 29 Initiative Would Privatize Liquor 67 Tax Agency Reminds Taxpayers: Distribution, Cut State Revenues ‘Make Up Your Damned Minds’ by Billy Hamilton Washington 68 Kranz Rookie Card Fetches $500 on eBay 30 DOR Can’t Ignore Its Own Rules, by Doug Sheppard COST Argues 70 State Quotes of Note West Virginia 71 CALENDAR 31 Higher Taxes Could Ease State’s Budget Shortfall, Report Says IN THE WORKS IN THE TRENCHES 9 A look ahead to planned commentary and analysis 33 Working With New York’s New Combined Reporting Rules by Peter L. Faber CROSSWORD PUZZLE 74 April 2016 Tax VIEWPOINT Crossword Puzzle by Myles Mellor 41 New York Corporate Tax Reform: An Investment Fund Perspective by Dale Y. Kim 4 State Tax Notes, April 4, 2016 For more State Tax Notes content, please visit www.taxnotes.com. FROM THE EDITOR (C) Tax Analysts 2016. All rights reserved. does not claim copyright in any public domain or third party content. state tax notes™ The Wonder Years by Jéanne Rauch-Zender Decades of research have demonstrated what happens to children during the critically important early years impacts not only their future success, but also the future economic strength and well-being of our communities and our state. — Samuel J. Meisels, Buffett Early Childhood Institute, University of Nebraska Nebraskans are shedding light on an issue that is critical to every state — investment in early childhood care and education. The state ranked the issue second among its educational priorities, just behind public schools, in a statewide survey conducted by Gallup and the University of Nebraska’s Buffett Early Childhood Institute. While the survey didn’t specifi- cally address taxes, it addressed funding, finding that nearly all the residents surveyed want more taxes, private funding, and business support to improve early childhood care and What happens to education in the state. children during The institute studies the first eight years of children’s lives, with a focus on children living the critically in poverty or with developmental challenges, in an effort to prepare them for school. important early Although experts argue that the most formative years of life — when we acquire language years impacts the skills, form relationships for the first time, build character, and develop cognitive skills — are future economic from birth to age 8, most Nebraska residents think the state is not doing enough to ensure that strength and early childhood care and education are available and affordable to every family in the state. well-being of our Experts argue that without that preparation, children will continue to miss out on the state. opportunities and experiences afforded to their financially secure and socially stable class- mates. According to the institute, 42 percent of children in Nebraska grow up in poverty. Its goal is to be a voice for them. Statewide partnerships between universities, schools, governments, businesses, and citizens are needed to assist in eliminating this gap among children in Nebraska. Commentary Highlights On p. 33, Peter Faber of McDermott Will & Emery examines New York’s new combined reporting rules as presented in statutes, frequently asked questions from the Department of Taxation and Finance, and draft regulations. Mark Engel of Bricker & Eckler LLP discusses the effect of Ohio’s myriad income tax changes over the past decade on business taxpayers, focusing on the small business deduction and its effect on the private sector (p. 47). On p. 57, Deputy Publisher David Brunori discusses taxing the rich, as well as recent developments concerning tax incentives. Roxanne Bland addresses the advancement of nexus, as states continue to explore every possible way to raise the revenue needed to provide services to their residents (p. 59). ✰ State Tax Notes, April 4, 2016 5 For more State Tax Notes content, please visit www.taxnotes.com. state tax notes (C) Tax Analysts 2016. All rights reserved. does not claim copyright in any public domain or third party content. Copyright 2016, Tax Analysts ISSN 1057-8404 President and Publisher: Christopher Bergin Deputy Publisher: David Brunori Editor in Chief: Jeremy Scott Editor in Chief: Cara Griffith Deputy Editor in Chief: Chuck O’Toole Editor: Jéanne Rauch-Zender Chief Correspondent: Amy Hamilton Deputy Editor: Jennifer Carr Reporters: Brian Bardwell, Stephanie Cumings, Jennifer DePaul, Paul Jones, Maria Koklanaris, Eric Yauch Commentary Editors: Sonya Harmon Holtar, Doug Sheppard Managing Editor: Russell A. Cox III Copy Chief: Betsy Sherman Assistant Editor: Quintin J. Simmons Editorial Staff: Zachary Abate, Monica Anderson, Joe Aquino, Contributing Editor: Roxanne Bland Julie Brienza, Amanda Chan, Patrice Gay, Eben Halberstam, James Hebblethwaite, Mick Heller, Andrew Hellerstein, Chief Economist: Martin A. Sullivan Sarah Karney, Jenny Nguyen, Jessica Pritchett, Kristen Rethy, Tom Rowe, Bill Rozday, Andy Sheets, Aimee Smith, Acquisitions Editor: Jasper Smith Taraneh Taghizadeh, Emily Vanderweide, Shannon Yen Associate Acquisitions Editor: Steph Tomlinson Production Director: Stephanie Wynn State Tax Today Editor: Henry J. Reske Production Manager: Michelle Smith Production Staff: Gary Aquino, José Carrasquillo, News Editors: Mark Abbott, Donnabel C. Blazejewski, Stephanie Hench Isabel Church, Paul Doster, Diana Duvall, Nikki Ebert, Alice Haar, Donna Katac, Kathryn Norseth, Soledad Olivera, Associate Editor: Jennifer Throm William Patterson, Nayareh Rooholamini, Debbie Sittnick, Faith Smalls, Kindra Thomas, Steve Torregrossa, Editorial Assistants: Marco Guzman, Melanie Simon, Mary-Elise Sheets Tiffany Volanakis CUSTOMER SERVICE SUBSCRIPTIONS, ADDRESS CHANGES: FREQUENCY: State Tax Notes is published 800.955.2444 Change of address notices, subscriptions, 51 weeks of the year by Tax Analysts. 703.533.4400* and requests for back issues should be Canada: 800.955.3444 sent to the Customer Service Department, DELIVERY: State Tax Notes is delivered U.K.: 800.89.8901 Tax Analysts, 400 S. Maple Ave., by first-class mail, hand delivery, or *Within the continental U.S. Suite 400, Falls Church, VA 22046 USA, international air mail, without additional FAX: 703.533.4444 or e-mailed to customer.service charge. @taxanalysts.org. www.taxanalysts.com FORM OF CITATION: Articles appearing in REFUND POLICY: All Tax Analysts State Tax Notes may be cited by reference CORRESPONDENCE: Correspondence products and services are subject to a to the date of the publication and page, regarding editorial matters and submis- full money-back guarantee within the first thus: State Tax Notes, Mar.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • TALES from the KPMG SKUNK WORKS: the BASIS-SHIFT OR DEFECTIVE-REDEMPTION SHELTER by Calvin H
    (C) Tax Analysts 2005. All rights reserved. does not claim copyright in any public domain or third party content. TALES FROM THE KPMG SKUNK WORKS: THE BASIS-SHIFT OR DEFECTIVE-REDEMPTION SHELTER By Calvin H. Johnson Table of Contents Calvin H. Johnson is professor of law at the Uni- versity of Texas at Austin. This report arises out of his I. Was FLIP/OPIS Fair Game? ............433 testimony before the U.S. Senate Permanent Subcom- A. Description of the FLIP/OPIS Basis-Shift mittee on Investigation hearings on the role of profes- Shelter ........................ 433 sionals in the U.S. tax shelter industry. Prof. Johnson has agreed to serve as an expert for plaintiffs who B. The Heart of the Shelter ............ 435 bought KPMG shelters and seek recovery of costs. He C. The Paramount Substance-Over-Form thanks James Martens and Samuel Buell for comments Doctrines ....................... 438 on an earlier draft, but acknowledges responsibility II. FLIP/OPIS and Professional Standards ... 440 for errors. A. The One-in-Three Chance Test ........ 440 In this report, Johnson argues that the basis-shift or B. One-in-Three Applied to Outcomes .... 441 defective-redemption shelter, called FLIP or OPIS by III. Concluding Remarks ................ 442 KPMG, was an early product of KPMG’s endeavor to develop complete tax packages that could be sold for KPMG, the fourth largest accounting firm, is negoti- multimillion-dollar fees to many customers. The ating with the Justice Department over the terms by which it might avoid criminal indictment for its conduct FLIP/OPIS shelter gives a rare opportunity, he says, to 1 see both KPMG internal deliberations and also the arising out of its tax shelters.
    [Show full text]
  • Double Taxation of Corporate Income in the United States and the OECD
    Double Taxation of Corporate Income in the United States and the OECD FISCAL Taylor LaJoie Elke Asen FACT Policy Analyst Policy Analyst No. 740 Jan. 2021 Key Findings • The Tax Cuts and Jobs Act lowered the top integrated tax rate on corporate income distributed as dividends from 56.33 percent in 2017 to 47.47 percent in 2020; the OECD average is 41.6 percent. • Joe Biden’s proposal to increase the corporate income tax rate and to tax long-term capital gains and qualified dividends at ordinary income rates would increase the top integrated tax rate on distributed dividends to 62.73 percent, highest in the OECD. • Income earned in the U.S. through a pass-through business is taxed at an average top combined statutory rate of 45.9 percent. • On average, OECD countries tax corporate income distributed as dividends at 41.6 percent and capital gains derived from corporate income1 at 37.9 percent. • Double taxation of corporate income can lead to such economic distortions as reduced savings and investment, a bias towards certain business forms, and debt financing over equity financing. • Several OECD countries have integrated corporate and individual tax codes to eliminate or reduce the negative effects of double taxation on corporate The Tax Foundation is the nation’s income. leading independent tax policy research organization. Since 1937, our research, analysis, and experts have informed smarter tax policy at the federal, state, and global levels. We are a 501(c)(3) nonprofit organization. ©2021 Tax Foundation Distributed under Creative Commons CC-BY-NC 4.0 Editor, Rachel Shuster Designer, Dan Carvajal Tax Foundation 1325 G Street, NW, Suite 950 Washington, DC 20005 202.464.6200 1 In some countries, the capital gains tax rate varies by type of asset sold.
    [Show full text]
  • Tax Strategies for Selling Your Company by David Boatwright and Agnes Gesiko Latham & Watkins LLP
    Tax Strategies For Selling Your Company By David Boatwright and Agnes Gesiko Latham & Watkins LLP The tax consequences of an asset sale by an entity can be very different than the consequences of a sale of the outstanding equity interests in the entity, and the use of buyer equity interests as acquisition currency may produce very different tax consequences than the use of cash or other property. This article explores certain of those differences and sets forth related strategies for maximizing the seller’s after-tax cash flow from a sale transaction. Taxes on the Sale of a Business The tax law presumes that gain or loss results upon the sale or exchange of property. This gain or loss must be reported on a tax return, unless a specific exception set forth in the Internal Revenue Code (the “Code”) or the Treasury Department’s income tax regulations provide otherwise. When a transaction is taxable under applicable principles of income tax law, the seller’s taxable gain is determined by the following formula: the “amount realized” over the “adjusted tax basis” of the assets sold equals “taxable gain.” If the adjusted tax basis exceeds the amount realized, the seller has a “tax loss.” The amount realized is the amount paid by the buyer, including any debt assumed by the buyer. The adjusted tax basis of each asset sold is generally the amount originally paid for the asset, plus amounts expended to improve the asset (which were not deducted when paid), less depreciation or amortization deductions (if any) previously allowable with respect to the asset.
    [Show full text]
  • October 2015 INDICTMENT and INFORMATION FORMS
    INDICTMENT AND INFORMATION FORMS (REVISED) 26 U.S.C. § 7201 ............................................................................................................................ 1 Individual Taxes – Evasion (Assessment) – False Return as Only Affirmative Act .................. 1 Joint Taxes – Evasion (Assessment) – False Return as Only Affirmative Act .......................... 2 Individual Taxes – Evasion (Assessment) – False Return and Other Affirmative Acts ............. 3 Joint Taxes – Evasion (Assessment) – False Return and Other Affirmative Acts ..................... 4 Individual Taxes – Evasion (Assessment) – Spies Evasion........................................................ 5 Individual Taxes – Evasion (Payment) ....................................................................................... 7 Corporation Taxes – Evasion (Assessment) – False Return as Only Affirmative Act ............... 8 Corporation Taxes – Evasion (Assessment) – False Return and Other Affirmative Acts .......... 9 Corporation Taxes – Evasion (Assessment) – Spies Evasion ................................................... 10 Corporation Taxes – Evasion (Payment) .................................................................................. 12 Last Updated: October 2015 26 U.S.C. § 7201 Form 1 Individual Taxes – Evasion (Assessment) – False Return as Only Affirmative Act THE [GRAND JURY/UNITED STATES ATTORNEY] CHARGES: From in or about [Month Year] through in or about [Month Year], in the [_____________] District of [_____________] and elsewhere,
    [Show full text]
  • Getting Acquainted with VAT (C) Tax Analysts 2011
    Introduction: Getting Acquainted With VAT (C) Tax Analysts 2011. All rights reserved. does not claim copyright in any public domain or third party content. By Martin A. Sullivan Martin A. Sullivan is a contributing editor to Tax Analysts. Until recently, most talk about a value added tax in the United States was an academic exercise. Policy experts kept telling anyone who would listen that we could boost our competitive- ness if some form of a VAT was used to replace all, or at least the worst parts, of our clunky income tax. But there was no pressing need for a VAT and no political incentive to undertake the arduous task of orchestrating a major tax reform. But times are changing. Between the 2007 and 2010 fiscal years, the national debt increased from 36 percent to 62 percent of gross national product. And matters are only getting worse. America is relentlessly moving toward the edge of a fiscal abyss. In Wash- ington, while our leaders may talk tough, they are not taking action. To avoid upsetting voters, they are careful not to even hint at spending cuts or tax increases of the size needed to make a real dent in the problem. With no limit on the national credit card, the daily push and pull of politics continues unhindered by the impending crisis. Our system of checks and balances and the usual political gridlock are partly to blame. Also part of the mix is our national mental block about the federal debt. The tough choices that must be made are outside the scope of current political discourse.
    [Show full text]
  • Overview of the Tax Treatment of Corporate Debt and Equity
    OVERVIEW OF THE TAX TREATMENT OF CORPORATE DEBT AND EQUITY Scheduled for a Public Hearing Before the SENATE COMMITTEE ON FINANCE on May 24, 2016 Prepared by the Staff of the JOINT COMMITTEE ON TAXATION May 20, 2016 JCX-45-16 CONTENTS Page INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY ........................................................................................... 1 I. PRESENT LAW ....................................................................................................................... 4 A. General Rules ...................................................................................................................... 4 1. Issuer treatment of debt and equity ............................................................................... 4 2. Holder treatment of debt and equity ............................................................................. 7 3. Acquisitions and dispositions ..................................................................................... 12 B. Distinguishing Between Debt and Equity ......................................................................... 13 1. In general .................................................................................................................... 13 2. Regulatory authority pursuant to section 385 ............................................................. 15 C. Rules to Address Stripping of U.S. Corporate Tax Base in the Case of Nontaxed Holders .............................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Journal of Accountancy Business Tax Quick Guide — Tax Year 2018
    Journal of Accountancy Business tax quick guide — tax year 2018 Tear out this quick guide for use during tax season, and look for our quick guide for individual taxpayers in the January 2019 issue. C CORPORATION INCOME TAX ■■■ Credit: Maximum amount of 5.4% for contributions paid to ■■■ Taxable income of a C corporation: Taxed at a flat rate of state unemployment insurance funds. 21%. ESTIMATED TAX QUALIFIED PERSONAL SERVICE CORPORATION TAX ■■■ Corporations owing $500 or more in income tax for the ■■■ Taxable income of a qualified personal service corporation tax year must make estimated tax payments equaling the is no longer subject to tax at a flat rate of 35%, but is taxed lesser of 100% of the prior-year or current-year tax liability. at the regular corporate tax rate of 21%. Large corporations must base the last three payments on the current-year tax liability. ACCUMULATED EARNINGS TAX ■■■ Due on the 15th day of the fourth, sixth, ninth, and 12th ■■■ 20% of accumulated taxable income (in addition to regular months of the corporation’s tax year (April 15, June 15, corporate income tax). Sept. 15, and Dec. 15 for calendar-year corporations). PERSONAL HOLDING COMPANY TAX CORPORATE ALTERNATIVE MINIMUM TAX (AMT) ■■■ ■■■ 20% penalty on undistributed personal holding company Starting in 2018, the AMT no longer applies to corporations. income. ■■■ No foreign tax credit allowed against personal holding company tax. NONRESIDENT AND FOREIGN CORPORATIONS ■■■ Taxed on U.S.-source investment income at 30% (or lower under treaty). SELF-EMPLOYMENT TAX ■■■ Net income effectively connected with a U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • State of Rhode Island and Providence Plantations Rhode Island Department of Revenue Division of Taxation
    State of Rhode Island and Providence Plantations Rhode Island Department of Revenue Division of Taxation Public Notice of Proposed Rule-Making Pursuant to the provisions of Rhode Island General Laws (RIGL) § 42-35-3, which sets forth procedures for the adoption of rules, and in accordance with the Rhode Island Administrative Procedures Act, codified at RIGL § 42-35-1 et seq., the Rhode Island Division of Taxation hereby gives notice of its intent to promulgate a regulation regarding mandatory unitary combined reporting for purposes of the business corporation tax. The purpose of this rule making is to implement RIGL § 44-11-4.1, which involves combined reporting. The proposed regulation and concise summary of non-technical requirements and proposed new rules are available for public inspection at www.tax.ri.gov. They are also available in person at the Rhode Island Division of Taxation, or may be requested from Michael F. Canole by email at: [email protected], or by phone at: (401) 574- 8729. In the development of the proposed regulation, consideration was given to: (1) alternative approaches; (2) overlap or duplication with other statutory and regulatory provisions; and (3) whether the regulation, in and of itself, would have significant economic impact on small business. No alternative approach, duplication, or overlap was identified based upon available information. All interested parties are invited to submit written or oral comments concerning the proposed regulation by December 14, 2015 to Michael F. Canole, Rhode Island Division of Taxation, One Capitol Hill, Providence, R.I. 02908 - telephone number (401) 574- 8729 or via e-mail: [email protected].
    [Show full text]
  • 2011- 2012 Legislative Guide
    ACKNOWLEDGEMENT The Joint Committee on Legislative Management wishes to thank Information Technology employee Robert Caroti for the cover photograph of the State Capitol taken from the Travelers’ tower. Many thanks Bob. LEADERS OF THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY SENATE President Pro Tempore, Donald E. Williams, Jr. Majority Leader, Martin M. Looney Chief Deputy President Pro Tempore and Federal Relations Liaison, Joseph J. Crisco Jr. Deputy President Pro Tempore, Eric D. Coleman Deputy President Pro Tempore, Eileen M. Daily Deputy President Pro Tempore, Toni N. Harp Deputy President Pro Tempore, Gary LeBeau Deputy Majority Leader, Edwin A. Gomes Deputy Majority Leader, John W. Fonfara Deputy Majority Leader, Andrew Maynard Deputy Majority Leader, Andrea L. Stillman Assistant President Pro Tempore, Joan Hartley Assistant President Pro Tempore, Edith G. Prague Assistant Majority Leader, Bob Duff Assistant Majority Leader, Edward Meyer Assistant Majority Leader, Gayle Slossberg Majority Whip, Paul Doyle Majority Whip, Anthony Musto Senate Minority Leader, John McKinney Senate Minority Leader Pro Tempore, Leonard Fasano Deputy Senate Minority Leader Pro Tempore/Minority Caucus Chairman Andrew Roraback Chief Deputy Minority Leader, Tony Guglielmo Chief Deputy Minority Leader, John Kissel Deputy Minority Leader, Antonietta “Toni” Boucher Deputy Minority Leader, Robert Kane Deputy Minority Leader, Kevin Witkos Assistant Minority Leader, L. Scott Frantz Assistant Minority Leader, Michael McLachlan Minority Whip, Kevin Kelly Minority Whip, Jason Welch LEADERS OF THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Speaker of the House, Christopher G. Donovan Majority Leader, J. Brendan Sharkey Deputy Speaker of the House, Emil “Buddy” Altobello Deputy Speaker of the House, Joe Aresimowicz Deputy Speaker of the House, Robert Godfrey Deputy Speaker of the House, Marie Lopez Kirkley-Bey Deputy Speaker of the House, Linda Orange Deputy Speaker of the House, Kevin Ryan Assistant Deputy Speaker of the House, Louis Esposito Jr.
    [Show full text]
  • Scholars Criticize International Tax
    CURRENT AND QUOTABLE (C) Tax Analysts 2015. All rights reserved. does not claim copyright in any public domain or third party content. tax notes™ Scholars Criticize International profits as a share of GDP — at 9.8% — are nearly at all-time highs.2 Their U.S. taxes as a share of GDP Tax Reform Proposals are just 1.9%, which are near all-time lows.3 [See Figure below] And U.S. corporate taxes as a share of federal revenue have plummeted from 32.1% in This letter to Congress from 24 international tax 4 experts expresses opposition to international tax 1952 to 10.6% last year. Finally, the number of reform proposals under consideration that would cross-border acquisitions involving U.S. and other establish a territorial tax system and a low deemed OECD countries has remained relatively constant repatriation tax rate of 14 percent on $2.1 trillion in over the last decade — U.S. firms acquired 324 existing offshore profits. The letter also summarizes OECD firms in 2006 and 238 in 2014 and OECD research showing that there is no factual basis for firms acquired 311 U.S. firms in 2006 and 226 in the assertion that U.S. multinationals cannot com- 2014.5 pete globally because of the U.S. tax system and U.S. tax rates. There is no factual basis for the assertion that U.S. multinationals cannot compete globally because of the U.S. tax system. The effective tax rates on their Dear Member of Congress: worldwide income, including U.S. taxes, are typi- As legal scholars, economists and practitioners cally far below the 35% statutory rate — at one-half who are experts on international tax issues, we are the 35% rate or even less, according to some esti- writing to express our opposition to current propos- mates.
    [Show full text]
  • The Viability of the Fair Tax
    The Fair Tax 1 Running head: THE FAIR TAX The Viability of The Fair Tax Jonathan Clark A Senior Thesis submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for graduation in the Honors Program Liberty University Fall 2008 The Fair Tax 2 Acceptance of Senior Honors Thesis This Senior Honors Thesis is accepted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for graduation from the Honors Program of Liberty University. ______________________________ Gene Sullivan, Ph.D. Thesis Chair ______________________________ Donald Fowler, Th.D. Committee Member ______________________________ JoAnn Gilmore, M.B.A. Committee Member ______________________________ James Nutter, D.A. Honors Director ______________________________ Date The Fair Tax 3 Abstract This thesis begins by investigating the current system of federal taxation in the United States and examining the flaws within the system. It will then deal with a proposal put forth to reform the current tax system, namely the Fair Tax. The Fair Tax will be examined in great depth and all aspects of it will be explained. The objective of this paper is to determine if the Fair Tax is a viable solution for fundamental tax reform in America. Both advantages and disadvantages of the Fair Tax will objectively be pointed out and an educated opinion will be given regarding its feasibility. The Fair Tax 4 The Viability of the Fair Tax In 1986 the United States federal tax code was changed dramatically in hopes of simplifying the previous tax code. Since that time the code has undergone various changes that now leave Americans with over 60,000 pages of tax code, rules, and rulings that even the most adept tax professionals do not understand.
    [Show full text]
  • AT&T Political Engagement Report
    AT&T Political Engagement Report July 2012-December 2012 1© 2013 AT&T AT&T Inc. Intellectual Property. All rights reserved. AT&T and the AT&T logo are trademarks ofAT&T AT&T PoliticalIntellectual Engagement Property. Report Corporate Governance & Board Oversight Policy AT&T values responsible corporate governance and participates in the political process in an effort to formulate policies that benefit consumers, shareholders and the communities in which we operate. One of the many ways we encourage a all contributions made by the Company. The dynamic public policy debate is by supporting a Committee in turn both provides a full report of wide range of political candidates who are these activities and recommends to the Board addressing the issues of greatest concern to for its approval, a resolution setting the the country. While we do not always agree with maximum amount of political contributions to every position taken by political candidates and be made by the Company. Each year, the political organizations, we do provide support Public Policy and Corporate Reputation where they have significant positions that align Committee recommends and the Board reviews with our company’s core goals. and approves a maximum limit on the aggregate amount of political contributions In making contributions, AT&T is guided by that may be made, and authorizes only political strong corporate governance principles and contributions that are permitted by, and in practices. We are committed to complying with strict compliance with, applicable law. The laws and regulations governing the political AT&T Political Contribution Statement is process including campaign finance and posted externally on AT&T’s public website at disclosure rules.
    [Show full text]