DOCSLIB.ORG

Research Publications RP-19

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

Table 1 Federal Tax Collections by Sourcea Percentage Distributio n Selected Fiscal Years 1913-196 8 Corpora . Indi• tion vidual Employ income income Excise ment Year Total taxes tax taxes customs taxes Otherb 1913 100.0 - - 46.6 48.1 - 1j - 1917 100.0 20.0 17 .4 39.1 21.8 1 .6 1918 100.0 73.5 20.0 4.6 - 9 _ 1920 100.0 -69.0- 21 .9 ;.5.6 3.4 1925 100.0 32.1 25.7 18.9 17.0 - 6 .4 1928 100.0 38.5 26.3 16.3 , 16.9 - 2. 1 1932 -100.0 33.4 .22.6 24.1 17.4 _ 2. 5 1936 100.0 ' ` -19.3 17.3 39.6 9.9 - 12. 1 _ 1940 100.0 20.0 :17,1 32 .9 `6.1 14.5 9.4 1944 100.0 36.3 -,. .44.9 .11 .0 1 .1 . 4.3 2.5 . .. 1948 100.0 24.0 49.5 17.5 1 .0 5.6 2.5 ; I.- _ ,. .. .. .. 1950 100.0 27.6 43 .5 19 .3 11 6.7 . :1 .8 1952 100.0 32.7 44.6 13.7 .8 6.8 1 .3 1954 100.0 '30.6 46.5 13.5 .8 7.2 1 .4 - 1956 100.0 28.0 46.6 13 .2 0.9 9.6 1 .6 1960 10010 23.9 48.4 12.8 1.2 1118 11 9 1962 100.0 21 .2 50 .4 12 .7 1.2 1 ?.4 2.2 -1964 100.0 21 .4 48.1 12.3 1 .1 14.7 2. 3 1966 10010 23 .6 46.9 10.3 1.4 15.3 2.5 1968 1 00.0 19.2 50.4 9 .2 1 .4 17.8 2. 1 a . Internal revenue collections plus customs and, beginning with 1940, railroad unemployment, insurance 1 act taxes. Detail will not necessarily add to totals because of rounding . b, Chiefly estate and gift and capital stock taxes before 1940 . Thereafter, includes railroad unemployment insurance taxes and unclassified taxes. Source: Treasury Department, countries, This tax was replaced by th e live, it was superseded by the War Rev- excess-profits tax in 1917 , enue Act of October 1917, This act no t only substantially raised ordinary in- The Revenue Act of 1917 (in March ) colne tux rates, but changed the fiat rate included the first excess-profits tax in excess-profits tax into a heavily gradu- U.S . history, but before becoming effec - ated t,- ix on war profits.'" i . The first excess profits tax was levied at 8 percent on profits In excess of 8 percent of invested capital . The "war profits" tax of October 1917 used as it base the average profits of the period 1911-1913, but wit h limitations related to invested capital. Phis tax applied to partnerships and proprietors, as well as to cor. porations, (Ratner, op, cit ., p. 378. ) 20 Although the rates were reduced after Nvhen the normal tax for individuals wa s the end of the war, the excess profits tax reduced to 4 percent. The corporate rate remained in effect through 1921 . wits reduced to 10 percent in 1919 and ;. increased to 121/2 percent in 1922. Thus , While dividends remained exempt the corporation tax began to go its own from the "normal tax" portion of the way as a separate tax, rather than being individual income tax through the 1920's acollection-at-the-source device for a ,and early 1930's, "integration" with the general income tax. While the corpora- corporation tax came to -an end in 1919 tion tax rate .in 1926 `reached 13 .5 per- Table 2 Federal Tax Collections by Sources SelectedFiscal Years 1913-1968 (Millions) Corppora- Inds. tion vidual Employ. income income Excise Mont Year Total tax ;ax taxes customs taxes otheru I ; 1913 $ 663 $35 $ - 309 $ ( 319 _ i 1917 1,035 207 180 .: . 405 - -226 $1 7 I 1918 30879 ----2,852 774 180 72 . ; 7 1920 :51731 , - 3,957 1 1 254 323 - 197 1925 3,132 916 :845 624 548 - 1,99 1928 3,360 1,292 883 547 569 _ 69 A932 1 1886 630 427 454 328 _ 47 ; ;1936 3,907 753 674 1,547 387 (c) 474 1940 5,738 1,148 982 1,885 - 349 .$ 834 540 .. =1944 40,67.1 14,767 18,261 „ 4,464 431 1,738 1,01 3 1948 42,432 10,174 20,998 7,410 422 ` 2,381 1,048 1950 39,396 10,854 17,153 7,598 423 2,645 i23 1952 65,587 21,467 29,274 8,971 551 4,464 860 1954 70,506 21,546 32,814 9,517 562 5,108 959 1956 75,856 21,299 35,338 10,004 705 7,296 1,21 4 1960 92,871 22,179 44,946 11,864 1,123 10,970 1,789 1962 100,546 21,296 50,650 12,752 1,171 12,487 2,193 1964 113,422 24,301 54,590 13,950 1,284 16,723 2,574 1966 130,486 30,834 61,298 13,399 1,811 19,903 3,24 1 1968 155,326) 29,889 78,219 14,312 2,113 27,576 3,21 6 a, Internal revenue collections plus customs and, bpainnina_ with 1940, railroad unemployment insuranc e taxes, Revised series on receipts for 1960 and subsequent years, b . Chiefly estate and gift and capital stock taxes before 1940, Thereafter Includes railroad unemploymen t insurance taxes and unclassified taxes , c, Less than $500,000, Source: Treasury Department, 21 to to Table 3 Federal Corporation Income Tax Rates and Credit s Income Years 1913=1968 Other income tues Revenue Income Specific macaw tax and Act year ,credit surtax ales: Type Credit Matta 1913b 1913-1915 — 1% None _ . ; 1916 1916 — 2% None 1916 $3,000 plus 7% - 9% of invested capital 20% - 60% )} 1917 — 6%c Excess profits $3,000 where no or nominal 1917 1 invested capital 1918 $2,000 12% Excess profits $3,000 plus 8% of invested capital 30% -65%4 War-profits $3 1000 plus (1) average prewar net 200%4 income 10% of the increase o r 1918 decrease In invested capital or plus (2) 10% of invested capital 11919.1920 $2,000 10% Excess profits $3,000 plus 8% of invested capital 20% - 40%0 1921 $2,000 Excess fits Same as 1919, 1920 Same as 1919.1920 1921 1922,1923 $2.000c 12% None 1924 1924 $2,o00t 12.5% None 1925 $2.000= 13% None 1926 1 1926, 1927 $2.o0ot 13.5% - None 1928 $3,000t 12% None 1928 {f 1929 $3.o00t 11°0 None 11930,1931 $3,0001 12% None 1932 1932,1933 — ': 13.75% None NIRA 1933 — Declared value excess profits 12-12% of adjusted declared 596 — value of capital stoc k 1934 1934,1935 13.75% Declared value excess profits Same as 1933 (NIRA) 5% 1935 1 Normal. 8% -15% 10% of adjusted declared value 1936 I 1936, 1937 — Surtax. 7% - 27% Declared value excess profits :of capital stock ' : 6% -12% 1938 1938, 1939 — 12.5%-19%x Declared value excess profits Same as Act of 1935 -1936 6%-12% 1940 1940 ` 14.85% - 24%a Declared value excess profits Same as Act of 1935 -1936 6.6% -13.2%L 1941 1941 ; — Normal: 15% - 24%a - Excess profits 15,0003 25% - 50% Surtax: 6% - 7% -Declared value excess profits Same as Act 1935 -1936 6.6% -13.2%"k 1942 1942, 1943 — Normal : 15% - 24%= Excess profits $5.000) 35% - 60% Surtax: 10% -16% Declared value excess profits Same as Act 1935 -1936 6.6%-13.2%11 1943 1944. 1945 ; — -Normal- 15% - 24% Excess profits _ $5.0001 .. 90% _ Surtax: 10% -16% Declared value excess profits Same as Act 1935 -1936 6.6% -13.2%h :. , Excess Profits $1010001 9596' 1945 1946 - 1949 =" Normal: 15% - 24% None Surtax: 6% -14% 1950 1950 ;-= =Normal: 23% Excess profits: ` $25,000 3096a $25.000 Surtax: 19%m _ (Continued) Table 3 (Continued) = Federal Corporation 7ncomeTax Rates and Credits Income Years 1913-1968 Other Income taxes Revenue Income Specific Normal tax and Type Act year credit surtax ratesa Credit Ratea 1951 — Normal: 28.75% Excess profits 30%Q 1951 J $25,000 Surtax: 22% 11952,19-93 — Normal: 30%r Excess profits 30%t $25,000 Surtax: 22% Internal 1954 -1963° — Normal: 30% None Revenue $25,000 Surtax: 22% Code 1954 j 1964° — Normal: 22% None $25,000 Surtax: 28% 1964 11965,1966- — Normal: 22% None $25,000 Surtax: 26% 1968 1968 $25,000 Normal: 22% Surcharge on normal tax _ 10%R Surtax: 26% and surtax a_ The bases to which the various rates apply vary with the deductions provi- I. Sum of the excess profits tax, normal tax, and surtax was limited to 80% o f sions of the several revenue acts: likewise the brackets to which the rates the surtax net income, computed without the credit for income subject to apply differ with the several revenue acts. In the years 1938 - 1949, the top excess profits tax. marginal rate in some net income brackets exceeded the top rate of the m. The Excess Profits Tax Act of 1950 raised the surtax rate to 22 percent for normal tax plus the top surtax rate shown in the table. : taxable years beginning on or after July 1, 1950 . b. Tariff Act of October 3, 1913 . Tax effective on income for last 10 months of A.
Recommended publications
  • BEYOND PUBLIC CHOICE and PUBLIC INTEREST: a STUDY of the LEGISLATIVE PROCESS AS ILLUSTRATED by TAX LEGISLATION in the 1980S

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

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

    The Joint Committee on Taxation and Codification of the Tax Laws

    The Joint Committee on Taxation and Codification of the Tax Laws George K. Yin Edwin S. Cohen Distinguished Professor of Law and Taxation University of Virginia Former Chief of Staff, Joint Committee on Taxation February 2016 Draft prepared for the United States Capitol Historical Society’s program on The History and Role of the Joint Committee: the Joint Committee and Tax History Comments welcome. THE UNITED STATES CAPITOL HISTORICAL SOCIETY THE JCT@90 WASHINGTON, DC FEBRUARY 25, 2016 The Joint Committee on Taxation and Codification of the Tax Laws George K. Yin* February 11, 2016 preliminary draft [Note to conference attendees and other readers: This paper describes the work of the staff of the Joint Committee on Internal Revenue Taxation (JCT)1 that led to codification of the tax laws in 1939. I hope eventually to incorporate this material into a larger project involving the “early years” of the JCT, roughly the period spanning the committee’s creation in 1926 and the retirement of Colin Stam in 1964. Stam served on the staff for virtually this entire period; he was first hired (on a temporary basis) in 1927 as assistant counsel, became staff counsel in 1929, and then served as Chief of Staff from 1938 until 1964. He is by far the longest‐serving Chief of Staff the committee has ever had. The conclusions in this draft are still preliminary as I have not yet completed my research. I welcome any comments or questions.] Possibly the most significant accomplishment of the JCT and its staff during the committee’s “early years” was the enactment of the Internal Revenue Code of 1939.
  • Vol. 6, No. 2: Full Issue

    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.
  • Taxation Without Liquidation: Rethinking "Ability to Pay"

    Taxation Without Liquidation: Rethinking "Ability to Pay"

    1-1-2008 Taxation Without Liquidation: Rethinking "Ability to Pay" Sergio Pareja University of New Mexico - School of Law Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalrepository.unm.edu/law_facultyscholarship Part of the Law Commons Recommended Citation Sergio Pareja, Taxation Without Liquidation: Rethinking "Ability to Pay", 2008 Wisconsin Law Review 841 (2008). Available at: https://digitalrepository.unm.edu/law_facultyscholarship/257 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the UNM School of Law at UNM Digital Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in Faculty Scholarship by an authorized administrator of UNM Digital Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected], [email protected], [email protected]. PAREJA – FINAL 1/28/2009 3:06 PM TAXATION WITHOUT LIQUIDATION: RETHINKING “ABILITY TO PAY” SERGIO PAREJA* This Article proposes a novel way to tax wealth transfers. Specifically, it suggests that we divide all assets transferred by gift or bequest into two classes—illiquid assets and liquid assets. The recipient should include those assets in income but be allowed two options. With respect to illiquid assets, the recipient should be able to avoid immediate income inclusion if he takes the property with an income-tax basis of zero. With respect to liquid assets, the recipient should be allowed a full income-tax deduction if he rolls the gift or bequest into a deductible IRA. The combination of these simple rules would be much more equitable than our current system, and it would prevent people from having to sell illiquid assets to pay taxes. Introduction ........................................................................................... 842 I. Historical Framework ...............................................................
  • Taxes, Investment, and Capital Structure: a Study of U.S

    Taxes, Investment, and Capital Structure: a Study of U.S

    Taxes, Investment, and Capital Structure: A Study of U.S. Firms in the Early 1900s Leonce Bargeron, David Denis, and Kenneth Lehn◊ August 2014 Abstract We analyze capital structure decisions of U.S. firms during 1905-1924, a period characterized by two relevant shocks: (i) the introduction of corporate and individual taxes, and (ii) the onset of World War I, which resulted in large, transitory increases in investment outlays by U.S. firms. Although we find little evidence that shocks to corporate and individual taxes have a meaningful influence on observed leverage ratios, we find strong evidence that changes in leverage are positively related to investment outlays and negatively related to operating cash flows. Moreover, the transitory investments made by firms during World War I are associated with transitory increases in debt, especially by firms with relatively low earnings. Our findings do not support models that emphasize taxes as a first-order determinant of leverage choices, but do provide support for models that link the dynamics of leverage with dynamics of investment opportunities. ◊ Leonce Bargeron is at the Gatton College of Business & Economics, University of Kentucky. David Denis, and Kenneth Lehn are at the Katz Graduate School of Business, University of Pittsburgh. We thank Steven Bank, Alex Butler, Harry DeAngelo, Philipp Immenkotter, Ambrus Kecskes, Michael Roberts, Jason Sturgess, Mark Walker, Toni Whited and seminar participants at the 2014 SFS Finance Cavalcade, the University of Alabama, University of Alberta, University of Arizona, Duquesne University, University of Kentucky, University of Pittsburgh, University of Tennessee, and York University for helpful comments. We also thank Peter Baschnegal, Arup Ganguly, and Tian Qiu for excellent research assistance.
  • Individual Capital Gains Income: Legislative History

    Individual Capital Gains Income: Legislative History

    Order Code 98-473 Individual Capital Gains Income: Legislative History Updated April 11, 2007 Gregg A. Esenwein Specialist in Public Finance Government and Finance Division Individual Capital Gains Income: Legislative History Summary Since the enactment of the individual income tax in 1913, the appropriate taxation of capital gains income has been a perennial topic of debate in Congress. Almost immediately legislative steps were initiated to change and modify the tax treatment of capital gains and losses. The latest changes in the tax treatment of individual capital gains income occurred in 1998 and 2003. It is highly probable that capital gains taxation will continue to be a topic of legislative interest in the 109th Congress. Capital gains income is often discussed as if it were somehow different from other forms of income. Yet, for purposes of income taxation, it is essentially no different from any other form of income from capital. A capital gain or loss is merely the result of a sale or exchange of a capital asset. An asset sold for a higher price than its acquisition price produces a gain, an asset sold for a lower price than its acquisition price produces a loss. Ideally, a tax consistent with a theoretically correct measure of income would be assessed on real (inflation-adjusted) income when that income accrues to the taxpayer. Conversely, real losses would be deducted as they accrue to the taxpayer. In addition, under an ideal comprehensive income tax, any untaxed real appreciation in the value of capital assets given as gifts or bequests would be subject to tax at the time of transfer.
  • Table of Contents

    Table of Contents

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

    Oil Industry Financial Performance and the Windfall Profits Tax

    Oil Industry Financial Performance and the Windfall Profits Tax Updated July 13, 2011 Congressional Research Service https://crsreports.congress.gov RL34689 Oil Industry Financial Performance and the Windfall Profits Tax Summary Over the past 13 years, surging crude oil and petroleum product prices have increased oil and gas industry revenues and generated record profits, particularly for the top five major integrated companies, ExxonMobil, Royal Dutch Shell, BP, Chevron, and ConocoPhillips. These companies, which reported a predominant share of those profits, generated more than $104 billion in profit on nearly $1.8 trillion of revenues in 2008, before declining as a result of the recession and other factors. From 2003 to 2008, revenues increased by 86%; net income (profits) increased by 66%. Oil output by the five major companies over this time period declined by more than 7%, from 9.85 million to 9.12 million barrels per day. In 2010 the companies’ oil production was 9.4 million barrels per day. Being largely price-driven, with no accompanying increase in output resulting from increased investment in exploration and production, some believe that a portion of the increased oil industry income over this period represents a windfall and unearned gain. A windfall income is not earned as a result of additional production effort on the part of the firms, but due primarily to record crude oil prices, which are set in the world oil marketplace. Since the 109th Congress, numerous bills have been introduced seeking to impose a windfall profits tax (WPT) on oil. An excise-tax based WPT would tax only domestic production and, like the one in effect from 1980-1988, would increase marginal oil production costs.
  • International Tax Policy for the 21St Century

    International Tax Policy for the 21St Century

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

    Simplification of Federal Tax Laws Randolph E

    Cornell Law Review Volume 29 Article 5 Issue 3 March 1944 Simplification of Federal Tax Laws Randolph E. Paul Follow this and additional works at: http://scholarship.law.cornell.edu/clr Part of the Law Commons Recommended Citation Randolph E. Paul, Simplification of Federal Tax Laws, 29 Cornell L. Rev. 285 (1944) Available at: http://scholarship.law.cornell.edu/clr/vol29/iss3/5 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Journals at Scholarship@Cornell Law: A Digital Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in Cornell Law Review by an authorized administrator of Scholarship@Cornell Law: A Digital Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. CORNELL LAW QUARTERLY VOLUME XXIX MARCH, 1944 NUMBER 3 SIMPLIFICATION OF FEDERAL TAX LAWSt RANDOLPH E. PAUL A spirit of humility is not amiss in dealing with the problem of simplifica- tion of our tax laws. The subject is vast.' Many have tried and no one has conquered. The job is interminable. It spreads octopus-like in all directions. One does well to take with him as he starts out on the long journey toward simplification the message given to Everyman, in the old play, by Knowledge, the sister of Good Deeds: "I will go with thee, and be thy guide, In thy most need to go by thy side." Our difficulties with simplification begin with its place in the pattern of taxation. It is not a thing in vacuo. It does not stand alone like a pyramid in the desert. To mix metaphors, it is but one strand of' a thread which is woven into an intricate design.
  • Antitrust Laws with Amendments

    Antitrust Laws with Amendments

    ANTITRUST LAWS WITH AMENDMENTS 1 8 9 0 — 1 9 5 6 v 1. Sherman A ct 2. C layton A ct 3. F ederal T rade Commission A ct & Admendments 4. E xport T rade A ct 5. B anking C orporations A uthorized to do Foreign Banking Business 6. N ational Industrial R ecovery A ct 7. P rice D iscrimination Compiled By GILMAN G. UDELL, Superintendent D o c u m e n t R o o m , H o u s e o f R epresentatives UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE WASHINGTON : 1957 For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U. S. Government Printing Office Washington 25, D. C. - Pricc 35 cents Digitized for FRASER http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis CONTENTS Public Law No. 190, approved July 2, 1890 (1st seas. 51st Cong., U. S. Stat. L., vol. 26, p. 209) (Sherman Antitrust Act)____________________ Public Law No. 227, became a law August 27, 1894 (2d sess. 53d Cong., U. S. Stat. L., vol. 28, p. 570) (antitrust amendments to Wilson Tariff Act)______________________________________________________________ Public Law No. 11, approved July 24, 1897 (1st sess. 55th Cong., U. 8. Stat. L., vol. 28, p. 213) (antitrust amendments to Dingley Tara Act). Publio Law No. 82, approved February 11, 1903 (2d sess. 57th Cong^ U. S. Stat. L.f vol. 32, p. 823) (suits in equity)______________________ Public Law No. 87, approved February 14, 1903 (2d sess. 57th Cong., U. S. Stat. L., vol. 32, pp. 827, 828) (extract from the act establishing Department of Commerce)_________________________________________ Publio Resolution No.
  • Covid-19 and Us Tax Policy: What Needs to Change?

    Covid-19 and Us Tax Policy: What Needs to Change?

    PUBLIC LAW AND LEGAL THEORY RESEARCH PAPER SERIES PAPER NO. 679 LAW & ECONOMICS RESEARCH PAPER SERIES PAPER NO. 20-015 APRIL 2020 COVID-19 AND US TAX POLICY: WHAT NEEDS TO CHANGE? REUVEN S. AVI-YONAH THE SOCIAL SCIENCE RESEARCH NETWORK ELECTRONIC PAPER COLLECTION: HTTP://SSRN.COM/ABSTRACT=3584330 FOR MORE INFORMATION ABOUT THE PROGRAM IN LAW AND ECONOMICS VISIT: HTTP://WWW.LAW.UMICH.EDU/CENTERSANDPROGRAMS/LAWANDECONOMICS/PAGES/DEFAULT.ASPX Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3584330 DRAFT 4/30/20 COVID-19 AND US TAX POLICY: WHAT NEEDS TO CHANGE? Reuven S. Avi-Yonah THe University of MicHigan 1. Introduction THe COVID-19 Pandemic already feels like a Historical turning point akin to Word Wars I and II and the Great Depression. It may signal the end of the second period of globalization (1980-2020) and a cHange in the relative positions of the US and CHina. It could also lead in the US to significant cHanges in tax policy designed to bolster the social safety net wHicH was revealed as very porous during the pandemic. In wHat follows I will first discuss some sHort-term effects of the pandemic and then some potential longer-term effects on US tax policy. 2. Short-Term CHanges THe CARES act, wHicH passed unanimously througH Congress in MarcH, enacted some significant modifications in tax policy. In particular, the CARES act relaxed limits on the use of net operating losses by individuals and corporations, permitting 2020 losses to offset 2015 to 2019 profits.1 It also relaxed the limits on interest deductibility.2 It remains to be seen wHether these cHanges will become permanent.