DOCSLIB.ORG

Commissioner of Internal Revenue

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Commissioner of Internal Revenue ANNUAL REPORT OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE FOR TIlE FISCAL YEAR ENDED JUNE 30 1949 UNITED STATES GOVE.RNMENT PRINTING OFFICE WASHINGTON: 1950 "~or sale by the Sup=rinlendcnt of Documcnu.. U. S. Govt.enment Printing Oilier. W...hin~tol' 25. D .. C­ Price SO Gent. (paper cover) CONTENTS Page Introduction 1 General: Internal revenue collections 1 Refunds and repayments 2' Additional tax assessed as a direct result of enforcement efforts 4 Personnel summary Improvements in organization and procedure 15 Cost of administration 7 Conventions affecting the Bureau S Important legislation enacted affecting the Bureau of Internal Revenue & Accounts and Collections Unit: General functions 101 Collectors of internal revenue 11 Supervisors of accounts and collections 11 Processing Division 11 Planning Division 12 Disbursement Accounting Division 12 Employment Tax Unit: General functions 12 Collections 13 TREASURY DEPARTMENT Assessment of employment taxes 13 13 Document No. 3165 Taxes under the Federal Insurance Contributions Act Claims adjusted 14 Internal Revenue Special refunds 14 Offers in compromise 15 Coordination with Social Security Administration 15 Tax under the Federal Unemployment Tax Act 15 Returns received and closed 16 Claims adjusted 17 Offers in compromise 17 Railroad Retirement Tax Act 17 Claims adjusted 113 Coordination with Railroad Retirement Board 13 Income Tax Unit: General functions 15 Collections 15 Returns and declarations filed 19 Preliminary review of income and excess profits tax returns 20 Investigation of tax returns by field offices 29 Revenue results of investigation of income and excess profits tax returns 21 Stage at which additional tax was assessed 22 Tentative LIFO inventory method adjustments 23 Tentative carry-back adjustments 23 Refunds, abatements, and credits 24 Inventory of returns on hand in the field offices 24 Pension trust work 25 Salary stabilization cases 26 Excess Profits Tax Council: Organization of Council 27 Size of job 2S Review of principles 25 Consideration of taxpayer cases 29' Summary of receipts and disposals 29) Miscellaneous Tax Unit: General functions 311 Collections 39 nr CONTENTS V CONTENTS IV Alcohol Tax Unit—Continued Page Miscellaneous Tax Unit—Continued Page Basic permit and trade practice activities— Permits 47 Estate Tax Division— 30 47 General functions 30 Labels Advertising 47 Collections 30 48 Returns Trade practice 31 48 Additional assessments 31 Interlocking directorates Enforcement activities— Claims 48 Tobacco and Capital Stock Tax Division— 32 Seizures General functions Arrests and prosecutions 48 Tobacco taxes— Applications for pardon and parole 48 32 Transportation of liquor into dry territory 48 Collections 33 Accident investigations 48 Claims 49 Capital stuck tax- 33 Firearms program Technical Staff: Colleetions 33 49 - Claims General functions Field operations 50 Sales Tax Division— 34 52 General functions 34 Coordination of field activities Compromise, extension of time and closing agreements 52 Collections " 34 Assessments 34 Office of the Chief Counsel: General functions 53 Field reports 35 53 Claims 35 Chief Counsel's Committee Engineers and Auditors Section 53 Credit cases 35 54 Off erain compromise 35 Alcohol Tax Division Miscellaneous tax field force Appeals Division 54 55 Miscellaneous Division— 35 Civil Division Claims Division 55 General functions 36 56 Collections Interpretative Division Oleomargarine; adulterated, process or renovated butter; and 56 37 Legislation and Regulations Division Penal Division 56 filled cheese 58 Firearms, under the National Firearms Act and the Federal Fire- 37 Review Division Intelligence Unit 59 arms Act 37 59 Silver 37 Conclusion Field and special squad reports 38 Miscellaneous claims 38 STATISTICAL TABLES Miscellaneous credit cases RECEIPTS FROM INTERNAL REVENUE TAXES Alcohol Tax Unit: 39 Table General functions 1. Receipts from specified sources of internal revenue, fiscal year ended Permissive activities— 39 June 30, 1949, by collection districts, States, and Territories 62 Plants and permittees 39 2. Comparative internal revenue collections, fiscal years 1948 and 1949, Collections 40 by collection districts, States, and Territories 106 Production of distilled spirits 41 Tax-paid withdrawals of distilled spirits 3. Summary of internal revenue collections, year ended June 30, 1949, 42 by States and Territories 110 Tax-free withdrawals of distilled spirits 42 Materials used in production of rectified products 4. Summary of monthly internal revenue tax receipts for the fiscal year 42 ended June 30, 1949, by sources 112 Production of rectified products 42 Consumption of distilled spirits 5. Summary of internal revenue collections, years ended June 30, 1948 43 and 1949, by sources 118 Stocks of distilled spirits 43 6. Summary of internal revenue receipts by principal sources, fiscal years Specially denatured rum 43 120 Fermented malt liquors 1916 through 1949 43 7. Total internal revenue collections, years ended June 30, 1863 to 1949_ _ 121 Wines 43 from Puerto Rico, Production of ethyl alcohol 8. Internal revenue tax on manufactured products 43 fiscal years 1948 and 1949, by objects of taxation 122 Tax-free withdrawals of undenatured alcohol 44 Stocks of undenatured alcohol 44 Production of denatured alcohol 44 INCOME TAX AUDIT Production of vinegar 44 Assessments 9. Additional income and profits tax assessments made by the Income Tax Claims for drawback of tax on distilled spirits used in nonbeverage 44 Unit, during the fiscal year 1949, by tax years 122 products 44 10. Tax items appealed to the Tax Court, fiscal year ended June 30, 1949_ _ 128 Claims for remission of taxes on distilled spirits and wines abatement and refund of taxes 44 Claims for redemption of stamps, 44 TOBACCO, CIGARS, CIGARETTES, ETC. Export claims 45 Offers in compromise under internal revenue laws 45 11. Manufactured tobacco: Number of factories operated, leaf tobacco and Offers in compromise under Federal Alcohol Administration Act_ 45 other materials used, calendar year 1948, by collection districts__ 129 Laboratory activities 45 12. Tobacco and snuff manufactured and removed, calendar year 1948, by Field inspections 45 collection districts 130 Other statistics 46 Administrative procedure CONTENTS CONTENTS VII Vit Page Table ALCOHOL, DISTILLED SPIRITS, BEER, WINES, ETC. 13. Cigars: Number of factories operated, quantity of tobacco used, num- ber of cigars manufactured, and removed without payment of tax, Table Page calendar year 1948, by collection districts 131 37. Plants and permittees qualified to engage in the production, distribu- 14. Cigars weighing more than 3 pounds per thousand: Number removed tion, or use of alcohol and alcoholic liquors as of June 30, 1949__ 158 tax-paid, by classes, calendar year 1948, by collection districts 133 38. Basic permits under the Federal Alcohol Administration Act, fiscal year 1949 15. Cigars weighing more than 3 pounds per . thousand: Manufactured and 158 removed tax-paid for domestic consumption from customs bonded 39. Materials: Used at industrial alcohol plants in production of undena- manufacturing warehouses, class 6, by classes, calendar year 1948 135 tured ethyl alcohol, by kinds and by months, fiscal year 1949 159 16. Cigarettes weighing not more than 3 pounds per thousand: Number of 40. Materials: Used at industrial alcohol plants in production of unde- factories operated, quantity of tobacco used, number of cigarettes natured ethyl alcohol, by kinds and by States, fiscal year 1949 160 manufactured and removed, calendar year 1948, by collection 41. Materials: Used at industrial alcohol plants in the production of un- districts 136 denatured ethyl alcohol, by kinds, and quantities of undenatured 17. Cigarettes weighing more than 3 pounds per thousand: Quantity of • ethyl alcohol produced therefrom, fiscal year 1949 162 tobacco used, number of cigarettes manufactured and removed, 42. Summary: Production, withdrawals, and stocks of undenatured ethyl calendar year 1948, by collection districts 138 alcohol, by months, fiscal year 1949 163 43. Summary: Production, withdrawals, losses, and stocks on hand June 18. Leaf tobacco used in manufacturing cigars, cigarettes, and tobacco and snuff, also quantities of such articles manufactured, calendar years 30, of undenatured ethyl alcohol, and premises operated, by States, 1944 to 1948 138 fiscal year 1949 164 19. Summary of operations of manufacturers of tobacco and cigars, calen- 44. Summary: Production, withdrawals, losses, and stocks on hand June dar year 1948. Number of tobacco manufacturers, aggregate quan- 30, of undenatured ethyl alcohol, and premises operated, fiscal years tity of each kind, and total of all kinds of tobacco produced, classified 1934 to 1949; inclusive 166 as to output and percentage of total production, calendar years 1947 45. Summary : Importations, withdrawals, and stocks at industrial alcohol and 1948 139 bonded warehouses, of imported undenatured ethyl alcohol, by months, fiscal year 1949 20. Exportation in bond of manufactured tobacco, snuff, cigars, and cigar- 167 ettes, etc., year ended June 30, 1949, by collection districts 141 46. Summary: Importations, withdrawals, and losses at industrial alcohol 21. Withdrawals of manufactured tobacco, snuff, cigars, and cigarettes bonded warehouses, of imported undenatured ethyl alcohol, by from bonded internal revenue
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Mayo Clinic, a Minnesota Corporation
    United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit ___________________________ No. 19-3189 ___________________________ Mayo Clinic, a Minnesota Corporation lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellee v. United States of America lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellant ____________ Appeal from United States District Court for the District of Minnesota ____________ Submitted: October 20, 2020 Filed: May 13, 2021 ____________ Before SMITH, Chief Judge, LOKEN and GRUENDER, Circuit Judges. ____________ LOKEN, Circuit Judge. Mayo Clinic (“Mayo”), a Minnesota nonprofit corporation, oversees healthcare system subsidiaries and operates the Mayo Clinic College of Medicine and Science (“Mayo College”). Mayo is a tax-exempt organization under Section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code (IRC), 26 U.S.C. § 501(c)(3).1 After an audit in 2009, the Internal Revenue Service concluded that Mayo owed unrelated business income tax (“UBIT”) on certain investment income it received from the investment pool it manages for its subsidiaries. The IRS issued a Notice of Proposed Adjustment and reaffirmed its position in a 2013 Technical Advice Memorandum. At issue is $11,501,621 in UBIT for tax years 2003, 2005-2007, and 2010-2012. Mayo2 paid the tax and brought this refund action. The issue, briefly stated, is whether Mayo is a “qualified organization” exempted from paying UBIT on “unrelated debt-financed income” under IRC § 514(c)(9)(C)(i). Qualified organizations include “an organization described in section 170(b)(1)(A)(ii) . .” Section 170(b)(1)(A)(ii) describes “an educational organization which normally maintains a regular faculty and curriculum and normally has a regularly enrolled body of pupils or students in attendance at the place where its educational activities are regularly carried on.” The IRS denied Mayo the exemption because it is not an “educational organization” as defined in 26 C.F.R.
    [Show full text]
  • Line Item Veto and the Tax Legislative Process: a Futile Effort at Deficit Reduction, but a Step Toward Tax Integrity Gordon T
    Hastings Law Journal Volume 49 | Issue 1 Article 1 1-1997 Line Item Veto and the Tax Legislative Process: A Futile Effort at Deficit Reduction, But a Step Toward Tax Integrity Gordon T. Butler Follow this and additional works at: https://repository.uchastings.edu/hastings_law_journal Part of the Law Commons Recommended Citation Gordon T. Butler, Line Item Veto and the Tax Legislative Process: A Futile Effort at Deficit Reduction, But a Step Toward Tax Integrity, 49 Hastings L.J. 1 (1997). Available at: https://repository.uchastings.edu/hastings_law_journal/vol49/iss1/1 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Law Journals at UC Hastings Scholarship Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in Hastings Law Journal by an authorized editor of UC Hastings Scholarship Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. The Line Item Veto and the Tax Legislative Process: A Futile Effort at Deficit Reduction, But a Step Toward Tax Integrity by GORDON T. BUTLER* Table of Contents Introduction ...................................................................... 2 I. The Problem of the Deficit and the Budget Process ............... 4 II. The Line Item Veto ...................................................... 21 A. 1995 Congressional Proposals ................................. 21 (1) House Bill 2 and "Enhanced Rescission" ................ 22 (2) Senate Bill 4 and "Separate Enrollment". ............... 24 B. The Line Item Veto of 1996 ...................................... 26 (1) The Act ....................................................... 26 (2) Constitutionality of the Line Item Veto .................. 31 (a) Separate Enrollment Form ............................... 41 (b) Enhanced Rescission Form ............................ 43 (3) Comparison with State Item Veto Authority ............... 52 (4) Critique of the Line Item Veto Act of 1996 ............. 56 m. Are "Tax Expenditures" Expenditures? .........
    [Show full text]
  • 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
    [Show full text]
  • Information for Impact: Liberating Nonprofit Sector Data by Beth Simone Noveck and Daniel L
    Information for Impact: Liberating Nonprofit Sector Data By Beth Simone Noveck and Daniel L. Goroff 2nd Edition Information for Impact: Liberating Nonprofit Sector Data By Beth Simone Noveck and Daniel L. Goroff* 2nd Edition *The authors wish to acknowledge the invaluable research assistance of Raphael Majma. About the Program on Philanthropy and Social Innovation Through convenings, leadership development initiatives, communications, and strategic partner- ships, the Aspen Institute’s Program on Philanthropy and Social Innovation (PSI) seeks to maximize the impact of social-sector leaders in contributing to the good society at home and abroad. PSI’s Nonprofit Data Project works to promote accessible, accurate, and current information on the U.S. nonprofit sector in partnership with the nation’s top nonprofit data providers — the Foun- dation Center, GuideStar, Center for Civil Society Studies at Johns Hopkins University, Center on Philanthropy at Indiana University, and the Center on Nonprofits and Philanthropy at the Urban Institute. The Nonprofit Data Project wishes to thank its supporters, the Bill & Melinda Gates Foun- dation, the Charles Stewart Mott Foundation, and the Goldhirsh Foundation. The Program on Philanthropy and Social Innovation also hosts the Aspen Philanthropy Group, an agenda-setting body of foundation, public, and private-sector leaders at the cutting edge of change, and it spurs partnerships and collaborative action among them. Leadership-development initiatives include the American Express Foundation-Aspen Institute Fellowship for Emerging Nonprofit Lead- ers, the Aspen Philanthropy Seminar, and the Seminar for Mid-America Foundation CEOs. PSI’s policy work includes the Impact Economy Initiative, which seeks to strengthen and expand the field of impact investing.
    [Show full text]
  • "Relief" Provisions in the Revenue Act of 1943
    "RELIEF" PROVISIONS IN THE REVENUE ACT OF 1943 By JAMES E. FAHEY t THE Revenue Act of 1943 1 is an anomaly in the framework of income tax legislation.2 Its most obvious distinction lies in the manner of its enactment. It is the first revenue raising measure ever to be vetoed by a president and the first ever to be passed over veto. The political storm which engulfed Congress and the President over the bill's passage cen- tered in large measure over the so-called "relief" provisions found in the bill. These provisions alternately have been defended as accomplishing the correction of existing inequities in the law and assailed as providing loopholes enabling certain favored individuals and industries to avoid their equitable share in financing the war. A scrutinization of these con- troversial provisions in the light of the situations which they were de- signed to change may serve to focus the issue more clearly for the reader whose opinions are yet to be crystallized. Specifically, the President's veto message ' criticized five "relief" pro- visions in the bill as being special privilege measures. They were the provision for non-recognition of gain or loss on corporate reorganiza- tions carried on under court supervision and the concomitant "basis" provision,4 the extension of percentage depletion to certain minerals which were theretofore denied its use,' a provision making optional to taxpay- ers in the timber or logging business an accounting procedure which would enable them to treat the cutting of their timber as the sale of a capital asset,6 the extension of favored excess profits tax treatment formerly given only to producers of minerals and timber to producers of natural gas,7 and a broadening of the existing exemption of air mail carriers from excess profits taxes.8 t fember of the Kentucky Bar; Lecturer in Taxation, University of Louisville Law School.
    [Show full text]
  • Liberal Construction of Tax Treaties an Analysis of Congressional and Administrative Limitations of an Old Doctrine Herrick K
    Cornell Law Review Volume 47 Article 2 Issue 4 Summer 1962 Liberal Construction of Tax Treaties An Analysis of Congressional and Administrative Limitations of an Old Doctrine Herrick K. Lidstone Follow this and additional works at: http://scholarship.law.cornell.edu/clr Part of the Law Commons Recommended Citation Herrick K. Lidstone, Liberal Construction of Tax Treaties An Analysis of Congressional and Administrative Limitations of an Old Doctrine , 47 Cornell L. Rev. 529 (1962) Available at: http://scholarship.law.cornell.edu/clr/vol47/iss4/2 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]. LIBERAL CONSTRUCTION OF TAX TREATIES-AN ANALYSIS OF CONGRESSIONAL AND ADMINI- STRATIVE LIMITATIONS OF AN OLD DOCTRINE Herrick K. Lidstonet Automatic data processing, identification numbers for taxpayers, with- holding of income tax from dividends and interest, and tax subsidies for investments in new equipment, revolutionary as they are in United States tax philosophy,' could normally have been expected to obscure the bitter infighting over those portions of H.R. 10650, the Revenue Bill of 1962, which prescribe new rules for taxation of foreign income.2 However, two years of publicizing the flow of gold toward Europe have so dramatized the possibilities for income tax avoidance (and even evasion) in foreign operations and through foreign bank accounts and tax havens that envious taxpayers can almost sympathize with Ingemar 'Johansson's failure to convince the district court that he was the fighting chattel of a Swiss corporation.3 From 1954 to 1961 the political battle was for freedom from income tax on foreign earnings.
    [Show full text]
  • FEDERAL REGISTE 7 5 * ' 1934 NUMBER 154 VOLUME 8 ^ T/A F It E O ^
    ^ O N A M * . ^ 1 I ITTCOA'll FEDERAL REGISTE 7 5 * ' 1934 NUMBER 154 VOLUME 8 ^ t/A f iT E O ^ Washington, Thursday, August 5, 1943 Regulations the percentage that the simple average CONTENTS of the yields of sugar beets^in tons per acre planted on the farm in such year REGULATIONS AND NOTICES TITLE 7—AGRICULTURE or years is of the simple average of the Alien Property Custodian: . PaSe county average yields of sugar beets for Chapter VIII—War Food Administration Vesting orders: such year or years, except that the Abandoned patent applica­ normal yield for such farm shall not be P art 802—Sugar Determinations tions, nationals of: less than 80 percent nor more than 120 Enemy countries_________ 10911 NORMAL YIELDS OF COMMERCIALLY RECOVER­ percent of the county normal yield; and Enemy-occupied countries- 10911 ABLE SUGAR PER ACRE FOR SUGAR BEETS (in) For a farm on which sugar beets Avenarius, R., & Co-------------- 10913 (REVISED) were not planted in any of the next Bituminous Coal Division: Pursuant to the provisions of section preceding seven years, 90’ percent of the Minimum price schedules 303 of the Sugar Act of 1937, as.amended, county normal yield of sugar beets. amended: and Executive Order No. 9322, issued (3) The “county average yield” of , District 4_________________ 10885 March 26,1943, as amended by Executive sugar beets shall be: District 7 (2 documents)__ 10886, Order No. 9334, issued April 19, 1943, the (i) For each of the years 1936-1941, in­ 10888 following determination is hereby issued: clusive, the yield established,
    [Show full text]
  • A Historical Examination of the Constitutionality of the Federal Estate Tax
    William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal Volume 27 (2018-2019) Issue 1 Article 5 October 2018 A Historical Examination of the Constitutionality of the Federal Estate Tax Henry Lowenstein Kathryn Kisska-Schulze Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarship.law.wm.edu/wmborj Part of the Constitutional Law Commons, and the Taxation-Federal Estate and Gift Commons Repository Citation Henry Lowenstein and Kathryn Kisska-Schulze, A Historical Examination of the Constitutionality of the Federal Estate Tax, 27 Wm. & Mary Bill Rts. J. 123 (2018), https://scholarship.law.wm.edu/wmborj/vol27/iss1/5 Copyright c 2018 by the authors. This article is brought to you by the William & Mary Law School Scholarship Repository. https://scholarship.law.wm.edu/wmborj A HISTORICAL EXAMINATION OF THE CONSTITUTIONALITY OF THE FEDERAL ESTATE TAX Henry Lowenstein* and Kathryn Kisska-Schulze** INTRODUCTION During the 2016 presidential campaign debate, Democratic candidate Hillary Clinton vowed to raise the Federal Estate Tax to sixty-five percent,1 while Republican candidate Donald Trump pledged to repeal it as part of his overall tax reform proposal.2 Following his election into the executive seat, President Trump signed into law the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (TCJA) on December 22, 2017, which encompasses the most comprehensive tax law changes in the United States in decades.3 Although the law does not completely repeal the Estate Tax, it temporarily doubles the estate and gift tax exclusion amounts for estates of decedents dying and gifts made after December 31, 2017, and before January 1, 2026.4 Following candidate Trump’s campaign pledge to repeal the Estate Tax,5 and his subsequent signing of the TCJA into law during his first year of presidency,6 an interesting question resonating from these initiatives is whether the Estate Tax is even constitutional.
    [Show full text]
  • Depreciation Policy: Whither Thou Goest
    SMU Law Review Volume 32 Issue 2 Article 1 1978 Depreciation Policy: Whither Thou Goest Henry J. Lischer Jr. Follow this and additional works at: https://scholar.smu.edu/smulr Recommended Citation Henry J. Lischer, Depreciation Policy: Whither Thou Goest, 32 SW L.J. 545 (1978) https://scholar.smu.edu/smulr/vol32/iss2/1 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Law Journals at SMU Scholar. It has been accepted for inclusion in SMU Law Review by an authorized administrator of SMU Scholar. For more information, please visit http://digitalrepository.smu.edu. DEPRECIATION POLICY: WHITHER THOU GOEST by Henry J. Lischer, Jr.* TABLE OF CONTENTS I. HISTORY OF DEPRECIATION .................................................. 546 A. Financial Accounting History ........................................ 547 B. United States Tax History Through 1968 .......................... 550 II. CONTEMPORARY DEPRECIATION ............................................. 563 A. Tax Shelters and the Tax Reform Act of 1969 ................... 563 B. ADR Depreciation and the Revenue Act of 1971 ................ 567 C. The Tax Reform Act of 1976 ......................................... 569 D. Theoretical Bases for Contemporary Depreciation ............. 571 E. Purposes of Contemporary Depreciation ......................... 573 III. MODIFICATION PROPOSALS ................................................... 573 A. Inflation Adjusted Depreciation ..................................... 573 B. Other Proposed Modifications to Depreciation .................
    [Show full text]
  • Tariff Act of 1930 Corresponding to Sec- 28, Judiciary and Judicial Procedure, by Act June 25, Tion 571, See Section 1651(C) of This Title; Section 572, See 1948, Ch
    §§ 571 to 573 TITLE 19—CUSTOMS DUTIES Page 54 PART 6—GENERAL PROVISIONS at the rate of 6 per centum a year, from the time when said bonds became due. §§ 571 to 573. Repealed. June 17, 1930, ch. 497, title IV, § 651(a)(1), 46 Stat. 762, eff. June 18, (R.S. § 963.) 1930 CODIFICATION Sections, act Sept. 21, 1922, ch. 356, title III, §§ 320, 321, R.S. § 963 derived from act Mar. 2, 1799, ch. 22, § 65, 1 title IV, § 641, 42 Stat. 947, 989, related to provisions as Stat. 676. to effect of repeals, Treaty with Cuba and certain laws Section was formerly classified to section 787 of Title unaffected. 28 prior to the general revision and enactment of Title Provisions of Tariff Act of 1930 corresponding to sec- 28, Judiciary and Judicial Procedure, by act June 25, tion 571, see section 1651(c) of this title; section 572, see 1948, ch. 646, § 1, 62 Stat. 869. section 1316 of this title; section 573, none. § 574. Exemption from taking other oaths CHAPTER 4—TARIFF ACT OF 1930 Nothing contained in title 34 of the Revised SUBTITLE I—HARMONIZED TARIFF SCHEDULE OF THE UNITED STATES Statutes shall be construed to exempt the mas- ters or owners of vessels from making and sub- Sec. scribing any oaths required by any laws of the 1202. Harmonized Tariff Schedule. United States not immediately relating to the SUBTITLE II—SPECIAL PROVISIONS collection of the duties on the importation of merchandise into the United States. PART I—MISCELLANEOUS 1301 to 1303. Repealed or Omitted.
    [Show full text]
  • Individual Income Tax Data
    PART 14· INDIVIDUAL INCOME TAX DATA PREPARED BY THE STAFFS OF THE TREASURY AND THE JOINT COMMIT'rEE ON INTERNAL REVENUE TAXATION APRIL 1951 UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE 81736 WASHINGTON: 1951 TABLE 1.- Individual income taxes of the United States, 1913 to 1950 RATES, EXEMPTIONS, AND CREDITS Revenue Act Revenue Act Description Taxes in effect Act of Oct. of 1916 (Sept. I Act of Mar. I Rovonu,of 1917 (Oct. Ad of 1918 (Feb. Revenue Act Revenue Act Revenue Act Dec. 31, 1913 22, 1914 8, 1916) . 3,1917 3,1917) 24,1919) of 1921 of 1924 of1926 ------- Personal exemptions: Married or bead of family $4,000 ___ __ ___ ___ No cbange __ No cbange 1_____ No change __ $2,000 ________ _ No cbange ______ $2,500 2 __________ $2,500 ___________ $3,500. Single ________________________________ _ $3,000_ -- -------- No cbange __ No cbange ______ No cbange __ $1,000 _________ No change _____ _ No cbange ______ No cbange ______ $1,500. $200 ___________ $40L ___________ Credit for dependents __________________ ___ -- -------------- ------------------ -------------- No change ______ No cbange ______ No cbange. Normal tax rate: 2% ______________ 1st $2,000 of net income in excpss of 1% _-_____________ No cbange __ 2% ______________ No cbange __ No cbange ____ 6%3 _____________ 4% 4_____________ lYz%. certain credits. 2d $2,000 of net income in excess of 1% ______________ No cbange __ 2% ______________ No change ___ 4% ____________ 6%3 ________ ___ __ 4%4 _____________ 2% __ ___ _________ lYz%. certain credits. 1% ______________ Next $4,000 of net income in excess of No cbange __ 2% ______________ No change __ 4% ____________ 12% 3___________ _ 8% 4 _______ ~----- 4% ______________ *3%.
    [Show full text]
  • Will Tax Hikes Kill the Bull Market? Trending Conversations
    Will Tax Hikes Kill the Bull Market? Trending Conversations Brian Levitt Global Market Strategist, North America Not a Deposit Not FDIC Insured Not Guaranteed by the Bank May Lose Value Not Insured by any Federal Government Agency Sources: Federal Reserve Bank ofSt.Louis, 12/31/20. federal budget deficit. deficit. budget federal The upshot is a substantialof the widening US a result of the weakness in economy activity. government hasbeen collecting less revenue as spending.the At sametime, the federal currently seeking an additional $1.9 trillion in is administration Biden The economy. the support to in spending trillion $3 over committed has already economy, the many of segments on impact devastating its and outbreak coronavirus federalThe US government,its in responsethe to Spending is Outpacing Revenue by a Wide Margin a Wide Spending by is Outpacing Revenue The Problem The FederalTax Receipts Spending and Percent of US Gross Domestic Product 30% 20% 35% 25% 10% 15% 1962 Federal Government Outlays (% of GDP) of Government (% Outlays Federal 1964 1966 1968 1970 1972 1974 1976 1978 1980 1982 1984 1986 1988 1990 1992 Federal Government Receipts (% of GDP) of (% Receipts Government Federal 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 Spending Revenue 2016 2018 2 2020 The Response The Biden Administration is Proposing Tax Increases The Biden administration is proposing tax Past Tax Rates and Current Proposals increases designed to generate revenue and to reduce the income gap between the nation’s 60% higher and lower earners. Among
    [Show full text]