DOCSLIB.ORG

TAX EXPENDITURES Compendium of Background Material on Individual Provisions

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
TAX EXPENDITURES Compendium of Background Material on Individual Provisions 105th Congress S. PRT. 2d Session COMMITTEE PRINT 105±70 " ! TAX EXPENDITURES Compendium of Background Material on Individual Provisions COMMITTEE ON THE BUDGET UNITED STATES SENATE DECEMBER 1998 PREPARED BY THE CONGRESSIONAL RESEARCH SERVICE Prepared for the use of the Committee on the Budget by the Congres- sional Research Service. This document has not been officially approved by the Committee and may not reflect the views of its members. 1 VerDate 23-MAR-99 13:45 Apr 13, 1999 Jkt 005300 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 6012 Sfmt 6012 E:\PICKUP\J52-491C 52491c PsN: 52491c 1 105th Congress S. PRT. 2d Session COMMITTEE PRINT 105±70 " ! TAX EXPENDITURES Compendium of Background Material on Individual Provisions COMMITTEE ON THE BUDGET UNITED STATES SENATE DECEMBER 1998 PREPARED BY THE CONGRESSIONAL RESEARCH SERVICE Prepared for the use of the Committee on the Budget by the Congres- sional Research Service. This document has not been officially approved by the Committee and may not reflect the views of its members. U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE 52-491 WASHINGTON : 1998 For sale by the U.S. Government Printing Office Superintendent of Documents, Congressional Sales Office, Washington, DC 20402 VerDate 23-MAR-99 13:45 Apr 13, 1999 Jkt 005300 PO 00000 Frm 00002 Fmt 5012 Sfmt 6012 E:\PICKUP\J52-491C 52491c PsN: 52491c COMMITTEE ON THE BUDGET PETE V. DOMENICI, New Mexico, Chairman CHARLES E. GRASSLEY, Iowa FRANK R. LAUTENBERG, New Jersey DON NICKLES, Oklahoma ERNEST F. HOLLINGS, South Carolina PHIL GRAMM, Texas KENT CONRAD, North Dakota CHRISTOPHER S. BOND, Missouri PAUL S. SARBANES, Maryland SLADE GORTON, Washington BARBARA BOXER, California JUDD GREGG, New Hampshire PATTY MURRAY, Washington OLYMPIA J. SNOWE, Maine RON WYDEN, Oregon SPENCER ABRAHAM, Michigan RUSSELL D. FEINGOLD, Wisconsin BILL FRIST, Tennessee TIM JOHNSON, South Dakota ROD GRAMS, Minnesota RICHARD J. DURBIN, Illinois GORDON SMITH, Oregon G. WILLIAM HOAGLAND, Staff Director BRUCE KING, Staff Director for the Minority ii VerDate 23-MAR-99 13:45 Apr 13, 1999 Jkt 005300 PO 00000 Frm 00003 Fmt 0486 Sfmt 0486 E:\PICKUP\J52-491C 52491c PsN: 52491c 1 TAX EXPENDITURESÐCompendium of Background Material on Individual Provisions VerDate 23-MAR-99 13:45 Apr 13, 1999 Jkt 005300 PO 00000 Frm 00004 Fmt 6019 Sfmt 6019 E:\PICKUP\J52-491C 52491c PsN: 52491c LETTER OF TRANSMITTAL December 22, 1998 UNITED STATES SENATE COMMITTEE ON THE BUDGET WASHINGTON, DC To the Members of the Committee on the Budget: The Congressional Budget and Impoundment and Control Act of 1974 (as amended) requires the Budget Committees to examine tax expenditures as they develop the Congressional Budget Resolution. There are over 120 separate tax expenditures in current law. Section 3(3) of the Budget Act of 1974 defines tax expenditures as those revenue losses attributable to provisions of the Federal tax laws which allow a special exclusion, exemption, or deduction from gross income or provide a special credit, a preferential rate of tax, or a deferral of tax liability. Tax expenditures are becoming increasingly important when considering the budget. They are often enacted as permanent legislation and can be compared to direct spending on entitlement programs. Both tax expenditures and entitlement spending have received, as they should in the current budget environment, increased scrutiny. This print was prepared by the Congressional Research Service (CRS) and was coördinated by Cheri Reidy of the Senate Budget Committee staff. All tax code changes through the end of the 105th Congress are included. The CRS has produced an extraordinarily useful document which incorporates not only a description of each provision and an estimate of its revenue cost, but also a discussion of its impact, a review of its underlying rationale, an assessment which addresses the arguments for and against the provision, and a set of bibliographic references. Nothing in this print should be interpreted as representing the views or recommendations of the Senate Budget Committee or any of its members. Pete V. Domenici Chairman (III) LETTER OF SUBMITTAL CONGRESSIONAL RESEARCH SERVICE THE LIBRARY OF CONGRESS Washington, D.C., December 15, 1998 Honorable Pete V. Domenici Chairman, Committee on the Budget U.S. Senate Washington, DC 20510. Dear Mr. Chairman: I am pleased to submit a revision of the December 1996 Committee Print on Tax Expenditures. As in earlier versions, each entry includes an estimate of the revenue cost, the legal authorization, a description, the impact of the provision, the rationale at the time of adoption, an assessment, and bibliographic citations. The impact section includes quantitative data on the distribution of tax expenditures across income classes where relevant and where data are available. The rationale section contains some detail about the historical development of each provision. The assessment section summarizes the issues surrounding each tax expenditure. The revision was written under the general direction of Jane G. Gravelle, Senior Specialist in Economic Policy. Contributors of individual entries include James M. Bickley, David L. Brumbaugh, Gregg A. Esenwein, Jane G. Gravelle, Donald W. Kiefer, Salvatore Lazzari, Linda Levine, Nonna A. Noto, Louis A. Talley, Jack H. Taylor, and Dennis Zimmerman of the Economics Division; and Velma W. Burke, Geoffrey C. Kollman, Robert F. Lyke, Joseph I. Richardson, and James R. Storey of the Education and Public Welfare Division. Thomas A. Holbrook provided editorial assistance and prepared the document for publication. DANIEL P. MULHOLLAN, Director (V) CONTENTS Letter of Transmittal .................................... III Letter of Submittal ...................................... V Introduction ............................................ 1 National Defense Exclusion of Benefits and Allowances to Armed Forces Personnel ........................ 11 Exclusion of Military Disability Benefits .................. 15 International Affairs Exclusion of Income Earned Abroad by U.S. Citizens ........ 19 Exclusion of Certain Allowances for Federal Employees Abroad ..................... 23 Exclusion of Income of Foreign Sales Corporations (FSCs) .... 27 Deferral of Income of Controlled Foreign Corporations ....... 31 Inventory Property Sales Source Rule Exception ............ 35 Deferral of Income of Controlled Foreign Corporations ....... 39 General Science, Space, and Technology Tax Credit for Qualified Research Expenditures ............. 43 Expensing of Research and Experimental Expenditures ....... 49 Energy Expensing of Exploration and Development Costs: Oil, Gas, and Other Fuels ......................... 53 Excess of Percentage over Cost Depletion: Oil, Gas, and Other Fuels ......................... 59 Credit for Enhanced Oil Recovery Costs .................. 65 Tax Credit for Production of Non-Conventional Fuels ........ 69 Tax Credits for Alcohol Fuels .......................... 75 Exclusion of Interest on State and Local Government Industrial Development Bonds for Energy Production Facilities ..... 81 Exclusion of Energy Conservation Subsidies Provided by Public Utilities ....................... 85 Tax Credit for Investments in Solar and Geothermal Energy Facilities ....................... 89 Tax Credits for Electricity Production from Wind and Biomass ................................... 93 Natural Resources and Environment Excess of Percentage Over Cost Depletion: Nonfuel Minerals ............................... 97 Expensing of Multiperiod Timber-Growing Costs .......... 103 VII VIII Exclusion of Interest on State and Local Government Sewage, Water, and Hazardous Waste Facility Bonds ... 107 Tax Credit for Rehabilitation of Historic Structures ......... 111 Special Rules for Mining Reclamation Reserves ............ 115 Exclusion of Contributions in Aid of Construction for Water and Sewer Utilities ..................... 119 Agriculture Exclusion of Cost-Sharing Payments .................... 123 Exclusion of Cancellation of Indebtedness Income of Farmers ................................... 125 Cash Accounting for Agriculture ....................... 129 Income Averaging for Farmers ......................... 133 Five-Year Carryback for Farm Net Operating Losses ........ 137 Commerce and Housing Exemption of Credit Union Income ..................... 139 Exclusion of Investment Income on Life Insurance and Annuity Contracts ........................... 143 Small Life Insurance Company Taxable Income Adjustment .. 147 Special Treatment of Life Insurance Company Reserves ...... 151 Deduction of Unpaid Loss Reserves for Property and Casualty Insurance Companies .......... 155 Special Deduction for Blue Cross and Blue Shield Companies .......................... 159 Deduction for Mortgage Interest on Owner-Occupied Residences ...................... 163 Deduction for Property Taxes on Owner-Occupied Residences ...................... 169 Exclusion of Capital Gains on Sales of Principal Residences .. 175 Exclusion of Interest on State and Local Government Bonds for Owner-Occupied Housing ...... 179 Exclusion of Interest on State and Local Government Bonds for Rental Housing .............. 183 Depreciation of Rental Housing in Excess of Alternative Depreciation System ................... 187 Tax Credit for Low-Income Housing .................... 193 Tax Credit for First Time Homebuyers in the District of Columbia ......................... 197 Reduced Rates of Tax on Long-Term Capital Gains ......... 199 Depreciation of Buildings Other than Rental Housing in Excess of Alternative
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Appendix File Anes 1988‐1992 Merged Senate File
    Version 03 Codebook ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ CODEBOOK APPENDIX FILE ANES 1988‐1992 MERGED SENATE FILE USER NOTE: Much of his file has been converted to electronic format via OCR scanning. As a result, the user is advised that some errors in character recognition may have resulted within the text. MASTER CODES: The following master codes follow in this order: PARTY‐CANDIDATE MASTER CODE CAMPAIGN ISSUES MASTER CODES CONGRESSIONAL LEADERSHIP CODE ELECTIVE OFFICE CODE RELIGIOUS PREFERENCE MASTER CODE SENATOR NAMES CODES CAMPAIGN MANAGERS AND POLLSTERS CAMPAIGN CONTENT CODES HOUSE CANDIDATES CANDIDATE CODES >> VII. MASTER CODES ‐ Survey Variables >> VII.A. Party/Candidate ('Likes/Dislikes') ? PARTY‐CANDIDATE MASTER CODE PARTY ONLY ‐‐ PEOPLE WITHIN PARTY 0001 Johnson 0002 Kennedy, John; JFK 0003 Kennedy, Robert; RFK 0004 Kennedy, Edward; "Ted" 0005 Kennedy, NA which 0006 Truman 0007 Roosevelt; "FDR" 0008 McGovern 0009 Carter 0010 Mondale 0011 McCarthy, Eugene 0012 Humphrey 0013 Muskie 0014 Dukakis, Michael 0015 Wallace 0016 Jackson, Jesse 0017 Clinton, Bill 0031 Eisenhower; Ike 0032 Nixon 0034 Rockefeller 0035 Reagan 0036 Ford 0037 Bush 0038 Connally 0039 Kissinger 0040 McCarthy, Joseph 0041 Buchanan, Pat 0051 Other national party figures (Senators, Congressman, etc.) 0052 Local party figures (city, state, etc.) 0053 Good/Young/Experienced leaders; like whole ticket 0054 Bad/Old/Inexperienced leaders; dislike whole ticket 0055 Reference to vice‐presidential candidate ? Make 0097 Other people within party reasons Card PARTY ONLY ‐‐ PARTY CHARACTERISTICS 0101 Traditional Democratic voter: always been a Democrat; just a Democrat; never been a Republican; just couldn't vote Republican 0102 Traditional Republican voter: always been a Republican; just a Republican; never been a Democrat; just couldn't vote Democratic 0111 Positive, personal, affective terms applied to party‐‐good/nice people; patriotic; etc.
    [Show full text]
  • Senate Republican Conference John Thune
    HISTORY, RULES & PRECEDENTS of the SENATE REPUBLICAN CONFERENCE JOHN THUNE 115th Congress Revised January 2017 HISTORY, RULES & PRECEDENTS of the SENATE REPUBLICAN CONFERENCE Table of Contents Preface ...... ...... ...... ...... ...... ...... ...... ...... ...... ...... ...... ...... ...... ...... ...... ...... ...... ...... 1 Rules of the Senate Republican Conference ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... ....2 A Service as Chairman or Ranking Minority Member ...... ...... ...... ...... ...... ...... ...... ...... 4 B Standing Committee Chair/Ranking Member Term Limits ...... ...... ...... ...... ...... ...... ...... 4 C Limitations on Number of Chairmanships/ Ranking Memberships ...... ...... ...... ...... ...... ...... ...... ...... ...... ...... ...... ...... ...... ...... 4 D Indictment or Conviction of Committee Chair/Ranking Member ....... ....... ....... .......5 ....... E Seniority ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... 5....... ....... ....... ...... F Bumping Rights ...... ...... ...... ...... ...... ...... ...... ...... ...... ...... ...... ...... ...... ...... ...... 5 G Limitation on Committee Service ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... ...5 H Assignments of Newly Elected Senators ...... ...... ...... ...... ...... ...... ...... ...... ...... ...... 5 Supplement to the Republican Conference Rules ...... ...... ...... ...... ...... ...... ...... ...... ...... ...... 6 Waiver of seniority rights .....
    [Show full text]
  • BEYOND PUBLIC CHOICE and PUBLIC INTEREST: a STUDY of the LEGISLATIVE PROCESS AS ILLUSTRATED by TAX LEGISLATION in the 1980S
    University of Pennsylvania Law Review FOUNDED 1852 Formerly American Law Register VOL. 139 NOVEMBER 1990 No. 1 ARTICLES BEYOND PUBLIC CHOICE AND PUBLIC INTEREST: A STUDY OF THE LEGISLATIVE PROCESS AS ILLUSTRATED BY TAX LEGISLATION IN THE 1980s DANIEL SHAVIRO" TABLE OF CONTENTS I. INTRODUCTION ................................. 3 II. HISTORICAL OVERVIEW OF CYCLICAL TAX LEGISLATION ... 11 A. Legislation From the Beginning of the Income Tax Through the 1970s: The Evolution of Tax Instrumentalism and Tax Reform ..................................... 11 t Assistant Professor, University of Chicago Law School. The author was a Legislation Attorney with theJoint Committee of Taxation during the enactment of the 1986 tax bill discussed in this Article. He is grateful to Walter Blum, Richard Posner, Cass Sunstein, and the participants in a Harvard Law School seminar on Current Research in Taxation, held in Chatham, Massachusetts on August 23-26, 1990, for helpful comments on earlier drafts, to Joanne Fay and Michael Bonarti for research assistance, and to the WalterJ. Blum Faculty Research Fund and the Kirkland & Ellis Faculty Fund for financial support. 2 UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA LAW REVIEW [Vol. 139: 1 B. The 1981 Act and Its Aftermath ................... 19 C. The 1986 Act ............................... 23 D. Aftermath of the 198.6 Act ......................... 29 E. Summary .................................. 30 III. THE PUBLIC INTEREST THEORY OF LEGISLATION ........ 31 A. The Various Strands of Public Interest Theory .......... 31 1. Public Interest Theory in Economics ............ 31 2. The Pluralist School in Political Science .......... 33 3. Ideological Views of the Public Interest .......... 35 B. Criticisms of PublicInterest Theory .................. 36 1. (Largely Theoretical) Criticisms by Economists ... 36 a. When Everyone "Wins," Everyone May Lose ..
    [Show full text]
  • A Requiem for the Rollover Rule: Capital Gains, Farmland Loss, and the Law of Unintended Consequences
    University of Arkansas ∙ System Division of Agriculture [email protected] ∙ (479) 575-7646 An Agricultural Law Research Article A Requiem for the Rollover Rule: Capital Gains, Farmland Loss, and the Law of Unintended Consequences by Christine A. Klein Originally published in WASHINGTON & LEE LAW REVIEW 55 WASH. & LEE L. REV. 403 (1998) www.NationalAgLawCenter.org A Requiem for the Rollover Rule: Capital Gains, Farmland Loss, and the Law of Unintended Consequences Christine A. Klein' Table ofContents I. Introduction........................................ 404 II. The "American Dream" Narrative: Tax Preferences for Home Owners .................................... .. 407 A. The Home Sale Preference of Former § 1034 . .. 410 B. The Ambivalent Taxation of Capital Gains 412 III. The Restrictive Subtext: The Rollover Rule 414 A. The Rollover Mechanism , 416 B. Converting the Involuntary Conversion Provision 420 C. A Case of Mistaken Identity: Is a Home Like a Ship? . .. 422 IV. The Revenue Act of 1951 424 A. War and Taxes ................................ .. 425 B. From Hot War to Cold War. ..................... .. 427 C. A Bipartisan Oasis: The Home Sale Preference . .. 432 V. The Unintended Consequences ofthe Rollover Rule: Three Hypotheses 433 A. Over-Investment in Housing 434 B. Inflation of Housing Prices 437 C. Conversion ofFarmland into Suburban Housing 438 VI. A Tale of Two Counties: A Case Study 439 A. Santa Clara County, California: 1990-96 441 B. Boulder County, Colorado: 1990-96................. 443 I. Over-Investment in Housing 446 * Associate Professor of Law, Detroit College of Law at Michigan State University. LL.M., Columbia University; J.D., University of Colorado; B.A., Middlebury College. I am grateful to Michael C.
    [Show full text]
  • Committee on Appropriations UNITED STATES SENATE 135Th Anniversary
    107th Congress, 2d Session Document No. 13 Committee on Appropriations UNITED STATES SENATE 135th Anniversary 1867–2002 U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE WASHINGTON : 2002 ‘‘The legislative control of the purse is the central pil- lar—the central pillar—upon which the constitutional temple of checks and balances and separation of powers rests, and if that pillar is shaken, the temple will fall. It is...central to the fundamental liberty of the Amer- ican people.’’ Senator Robert C. Byrd, Chairman Senate Appropriations Committee United States Senate Committee on Appropriations ONE HUNDRED SEVENTH CONGRESS ROBERT C. BYRD, West Virginia, TED STEVENS, Alaska, Ranking Chairman THAD COCHRAN, Mississippi ANIEL NOUYE Hawaii D K. I , ARLEN SPECTER, Pennsylvania RNEST OLLINGS South Carolina E F. H , PETE V. DOMENICI, New Mexico ATRICK EAHY Vermont P J. L , CHRISTOPHER S. BOND, Missouri OM ARKIN Iowa T H , MITCH MCCONNELL, Kentucky ARBARA IKULSKI Maryland B A. M , CONRAD BURNS, Montana ARRY EID Nevada H R , RICHARD C. SHELBY, Alabama ERB OHL Wisconsin H K , JUDD GREGG, New Hampshire ATTY URRAY Washington P M , ROBERT F. BENNETT, Utah YRON ORGAN North Dakota B L. D , BEN NIGHTHORSE CAMPBELL, Colorado IANNE EINSTEIN California D F , LARRY CRAIG, Idaho ICHARD URBIN Illinois R J. D , KAY BAILEY HUTCHISON, Texas IM OHNSON South Dakota T J , MIKE DEWINE, Ohio MARY L. LANDRIEU, Louisiana JACK REED, Rhode Island TERRENCE E. SAUVAIN, Staff Director CHARLES KIEFFER, Deputy Staff Director STEVEN J. CORTESE, Minority Staff Director V Subcommittee Membership, One Hundred Seventh Congress Senator Byrd, as chairman of the Committee, and Senator Stevens, as ranking minority member of the Committee, are ex officio members of all subcommit- tees of which they are not regular members.
    [Show full text]
  • Mayo Clinic, a Minnesota Corporation
    United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit ___________________________ No. 19-3189 ___________________________ Mayo Clinic, a Minnesota Corporation lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellee v. United States of America lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellant ____________ Appeal from United States District Court for the District of Minnesota ____________ Submitted: October 20, 2020 Filed: May 13, 2021 ____________ Before SMITH, Chief Judge, LOKEN and GRUENDER, Circuit Judges. ____________ LOKEN, Circuit Judge. Mayo Clinic (“Mayo”), a Minnesota nonprofit corporation, oversees healthcare system subsidiaries and operates the Mayo Clinic College of Medicine and Science (“Mayo College”). Mayo is a tax-exempt organization under Section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code (IRC), 26 U.S.C. § 501(c)(3).1 After an audit in 2009, the Internal Revenue Service concluded that Mayo owed unrelated business income tax (“UBIT”) on certain investment income it received from the investment pool it manages for its subsidiaries. The IRS issued a Notice of Proposed Adjustment and reaffirmed its position in a 2013 Technical Advice Memorandum. At issue is $11,501,621 in UBIT for tax years 2003, 2005-2007, and 2010-2012. Mayo2 paid the tax and brought this refund action. The issue, briefly stated, is whether Mayo is a “qualified organization” exempted from paying UBIT on “unrelated debt-financed income” under IRC § 514(c)(9)(C)(i). Qualified organizations include “an organization described in section 170(b)(1)(A)(ii) . .” Section 170(b)(1)(A)(ii) describes “an educational organization which normally maintains a regular faculty and curriculum and normally has a regularly enrolled body of pupils or students in attendance at the place where its educational activities are regularly carried on.” The IRS denied Mayo the exemption because it is not an “educational organization” as defined in 26 C.F.R.
    [Show full text]
  • Tax Policy— Unfinished Business
    37th Annual Spring Symposium and State-Local Tax Program Tax Policy— Unfinished Business Tangle of Taxes Health Policy Tax Policy and Retirement Issues in Corporate Taxation Tax Compliance Thoughts for the New Congress The Role of Federal and State Federal Impact on State Spending May 17–18, 2007 Holiday Inn Capitol Washington DC REGISTRATION — Columbia Foyer President Thursday, May 17, 8:00 AM - 4:00 PM Robert Tannenwald Friday, May 18, 8:00 AM - 12:30 PM Program Chair All sessions will meet in the COLUMBIA BALLROOM Thomas Woodward Executive Director J. Fred Giertz Thursday, May 17 8:45–9:00 AM WELCOME AND INTRODUCTION 9:00–10:30 AM ROUNDTABLE: RICHARD MUSGRAVE REMEMBERED Organizer: Diane Lim Rogers, Committee on the Budget, U.S. House of Representatives Moderator: Henry Aaron, The Brookings Institution Discussants: Helen Ladd, Duke University; Wallace Oates, University of Maryland ; Joel Slemrod, University of Michigan 10:30–10:45 AM BREAK 10:45–12:15 PM TANGLES OF TAXES: PROBLEMS IN THE TAX CODE Organizer/Moderator: Roberton Williams Jr., Urban-Brookings Tax Policy Center Alex Brill, American Enterprise Institute — The Individual Income Tax After 2010: Post-Permanencism Ellen Harrison, Winthrop Shaw Pittman LLP — Estate Planning Under the Bush Tax Cuts Leonard Burman, William Gale, Gregory Leiserson, and Jeffery Rohaly, Urban-Brookings Tax Policy Center — The AMT: What’s Wrong and How to Fix It Discussants: Roberta Mann, Widener University School of Law; David Weiner, Congressional Budget Office 12:30–1:45 PM LUNCHEON - DISCOVERY BALLROOM Speaker: Peter Orszag, Director, Congressional Budget Office Presentation of Davie-Davis Award for Public Service 2:00–3:30 PM HEALTH POLICY: THE ROLE FOR TAXES Organizer: Timothy Dowd, Joint Committee on Taxation Moderator: Alexandra Minicozzi, Office of Tax Analysis, U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • Measuring Tax Burden: a Historical Perspective
    This PDF is a selection from an out-of-print volume from the National Bureau of Economic Research Volume Title: Fifty Years of Economic Measurement: The Jubilee of the Conference on Research in Income and Wealth Volume Author/Editor: Ernst R. Berndt and Jack E. Triplett, editors Volume Publisher: University of Chicago Press Volume ISBN: 0-226-04384-3 Volume URL: http://www.nber.org/books/bern91-1 Conference Date: May 12-14, 1988 Publication Date: January 1991 Chapter Title: Measuring Tax Burden: A Historical Perspective Chapter Author: B. K. Atrostic, James R. Nunns Chapter URL: http://www.nber.org/chapters/c5981 Chapter pages in book: (p. 343 - 420) 11 Measuring Tax Burden: A Historical Perspective B. K. Atrostic and James R. Nunns 11.1 Introduction 11.1.1 Overview Measures of tax burden are indicators of how well tax policy meets one of its primary goals, equitably raising the revenues needed to run government. Equity has two aspects. The first, vertical equity, concerns the way taxes are distributed among taxpayers with different abilities to pay. The second, hori- zontal equity, concerns the way taxes are distributed among taxpayers with the same ability to pay. Tax burden measures thus answer broad economic and social questions about the effect of tax policy on the distribution of income and wealth. The history of these measures incorporates the histories of economic and world affairs, major tax and economic policy legislation, intellectual and so- cial movements, and data and technological innovation in the fifty years since the first meeting of the Conference on Research in Income and Wealth.
    [Show full text]
  • Brief of Amici Curiae Bipartisan Economic Scholars
    No. 19-840 In the Supreme Court of the United States _________ CALIFORNIA, ET AL., Petitioners, v. TEXAS, ET AL., Respondents. _________ On Writ of Certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit _________ BRIEF AMICI CURIAE FOR BIPARTISAN ECONOMIC SCHOLARS IN SUPPORT OF PETITIONERS _________ SHANNA H. RIFKIN MATTHEW S. HELLMAN JENNER & BLOCK LLP Counsel of Record 353 N. Clark Street JENNER & BLOCK LLP Chicago, IL 60654 1099 New York Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20001 (202) 639-6000 May 13, 2020 [email protected] i TABLE OF CONTENTS TABLE OF AUTHORITIES ......................................... iii INTEREST OF AMICI CURIAE .................................. 1 INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT ....................................................................... 3 ARGUMENT ....................................................................... 5 I. The Fifth Circuit’s Severability Analysis Lacks Any Economic Foundation And Would Cause Egregious Harm To Those Currently Enrolled In Medicaid And Private Individual Market Insurance As Well As Health Care Providers. ....................................................................... 5 A. Economic Data Establish That The ACA Markets Can Operate Without The Mandate. ................................................................... 5 B. There Is No Economic Reason Why Congress Would Have Wanted The Myriad Other Provisions In The ACA To Be Invalidated. ....................................................... 10 II. Because The ACA Can Operate Effectively Without
    [Show full text]
  • Vol. 6, No. 2: Full Issue
    Denver Journal of International Law & Policy Volume 6 Number 2 Spring Article 11 May 2020 Vol. 6, no. 2: Full Issue Denver Journal International Law & Policy Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.du.edu/djilp Recommended Citation 6 Denv. J. Int'l L. & Pol'y This Full Issue is brought to you for free and open access by the University of Denver Sturm College of Law at Digital Commons @ DU. It has been accepted for inclusion in Denver Journal of International Law & Policy by an authorized editor of Digital Commons @ DU. For more information, please contact [email protected],dig- [email protected]. DENVER JOURNAL OF INTERNATIONAL LAW AND POLICY VOLUME 6 1976-1977 Denver Journal OF INTERNATIONAL LAW AND POLICY VOLUME 6 NUMBER 2 SPRING 1977 INTERNATIONAL ASPECTS OF THE TAX REFORM ACT OF 1976 TAXING BoYcorrs AND BRIBES ........................................... G. C . Hufbauer J. G. Taylor 589 The authors examine the tax penalty provisions of the Tax Reform Act of 1976 and the Export Administration Act Amendments of 1977 in relation to U.S. persons who "participate in or cooperate with" international boycotts or bribery. The article discusses the various types of international boycotts and the penalty, computational, and reporting requirements imposed on participants as clarified by the Treasury Guidelines and Revenue Proce- dures. The authors conclude with a discussion of the novelty, complexity, and potential impact of the legislation. TAKING SIDES: AN OVERVIEW OF THE U.S. LEGISLATIVE RESPONSE TO THE ARAB BOYCOTT ............................................ John M . Tate Ralph B. Lake 613 The current legislative scheme in opposition to the Arab boycott is generally directed against the Arab League countries' secondary and tertiary, indirect forms of boycott.
    [Show full text]
  • Real Property Like-Kind Exchanges Since 1921, the Internal Revenue
    Real Property Like-kind Exchanges Since 1921, the Internal Revenue Code has recognized that the exchange of one property held for investment or business use for another property of a like-kind results in no change in the economic position of the taxpayer and therefore should not result in the imposition of tax. This concept is codified today in section 1031 of the Internal Revenue Code with respect to the exchange of real and personal property, and it is one of many nonrecognition provisions in the Code that provide for deferral of gains. The Obama Administration’s fiscal year 2015 budget targets section 1031 by substantially repealing the provision with respect to real property by limiting the amount of gain that may be deferred to $1 million annually. This proposal could have a significant negative impact on the real estate sector with real implications for the broader economy. Background The original like-kind exchange rule goes all the way back to the Revenue Act of 1921 when Congress created section 202(c), which allowed investors to exchange securities and property that did not have a “readily realized market value.” This rather broad rule was eliminated in 1924 and replaced with section 112(b) in the Revenue Act of 1928, which permitted the deferral of gain on the like-kind exchange of similar property. With limited exceptions, generally related to narrowing the provision, Congress has largely left the like-kind rule unchanged since 1928.1 Section 1031 permits taxpayers to exchange assets used for investment or business purposes for other like-kind assets without the recognition of gain.
    [Show full text]
  • America's Economic Way Of
    |America’s Economic Way of War How did economic and financial factors determine how America waged war in the twentieth century? This important new book exposes the influence of economics and finance on the questions of whether the nation should go to war, how wars would be fought, how resources would be mobilized, and the long-term consequences for the American economy. Ranging from the Spanish–American War to the Gulf War, Hugh Rockoff explores the ways in which war can provide unique opportunities for understanding the basic principles of economics as wars produce immense changes in monetary and fiscal policy and so provide a wealth of infor- mation about how these policies actually work. He shows that wars have been more costly to the United States than most Americans realize as a substantial reliance on borrowing from the public, money creation, and other strategies to finance America’s war efforts have hidden the true cost of war. hugh rockoff is a professor of Economics at Rutgers, the State University of New Jersey, and a research associate of the National Bureau of Economic Research. His publications include numerous papers in professional journals, The Free Banking Era: A Re-examination (1975), Drastic Measures: A History of Wage and Price Controls in the United States (1984), and a textbook, History of the American Economy (2010, with Gary Walton). NEW APPROACHES TO ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL HISTORY series editors Nigel Goose, University of Hertfordshire Larry Neal, University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign New Approaches to Economic and Social History is an important new textbook series published in association with the Economic History Society.
    [Show full text]