TAXPAYER CHOICES, ITEMIZED DEDUCTIONS, AND THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE FEDERAL & STATE TAX SYSTEMS

Heather M. Field
{"title":"TAXPAYER CHOICES, ITEMIZED DEDUCTIONS, AND THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE FEDERAL & STATE TAX SYSTEMS","authors":"Heather M. Field","doi":"10.52214/cjtl.v13i1.8981","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Almost 30 million taxpayers who itemized their federal deductions for the 2017 tax year switched to the standard deduction for 2018. The provisions of the Tax Cuts & Jobs Act (“TCJA”) that led to this shift were intended to simplify the individual income tax system. This Article’s empirical study of federal and state tax filing data, however, demonstrates that the TCJA’s simplifying effect varied state-to-state depending on whether a state obligated its taxpayers to make the same choice for state tax purposes (i.e., to itemize deductions or take the standard deduction) as the taxpayer made for federal purposes. In states that obligated taxpayers to make the same choice, taxpayers experienced at least some simplification, and tax administration by the IRS and state tax authorities became materially easier, although the IRS’s simplification benefit was dampened to some degree. In states that allowed taxpayers to make state tax choices that differed from their federal choices, the TCJA’s simplifying effect for many taxpayers was largely illusory, state income tax administration actually became more complex, and some tax enforcement costs were, in effect, shifted from the IRS to state tax authorities. Thus, this Article’s study reveals that state-level rules about tax choices undermined the federal policy goal motivating the TCJA’s itemization-related changes. \nA taxpayer’s choice whether to itemize is just one of many tax elections explicitly provided to taxpayers. Accordingly, this Article’s study of taxpayers’ itemization choices also serves as an example that illustrates a broader point—state-level rules about whether taxpayers must make uniform federal and state tax elections create important, but previously underappreciated, interactions between the federal and state tax systems. Policymakers cannot fully understand the policy implications of many federal tax law changes unless they appreciate these federal/state interactions. This Article helps policymakers do so.","PeriodicalId":368484,"journal":{"name":"Columbia Journal of Tax Law","volume":"2 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2021-12-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Columbia Journal of Tax Law","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.52214/cjtl.v13i1.8981","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Almost 30 million taxpayers who itemized their federal deductions for the 2017 tax year switched to the standard deduction for 2018. The provisions of the Tax Cuts & Jobs Act (“TCJA”) that led to this shift were intended to simplify the individual income tax system. This Article’s empirical study of federal and state tax filing data, however, demonstrates that the TCJA’s simplifying effect varied state-to-state depending on whether a state obligated its taxpayers to make the same choice for state tax purposes (i.e., to itemize deductions or take the standard deduction) as the taxpayer made for federal purposes. In states that obligated taxpayers to make the same choice, taxpayers experienced at least some simplification, and tax administration by the IRS and state tax authorities became materially easier, although the IRS’s simplification benefit was dampened to some degree. In states that allowed taxpayers to make state tax choices that differed from their federal choices, the TCJA’s simplifying effect for many taxpayers was largely illusory, state income tax administration actually became more complex, and some tax enforcement costs were, in effect, shifted from the IRS to state tax authorities. Thus, this Article’s study reveals that state-level rules about tax choices undermined the federal policy goal motivating the TCJA’s itemization-related changes. A taxpayer’s choice whether to itemize is just one of many tax elections explicitly provided to taxpayers. Accordingly, this Article’s study of taxpayers’ itemization choices also serves as an example that illustrates a broader point—state-level rules about whether taxpayers must make uniform federal and state tax elections create important, but previously underappreciated, interactions between the federal and state tax systems. Policymakers cannot fully understand the policy implications of many federal tax law changes unless they appreciate these federal/state interactions. This Article helps policymakers do so.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
纳税人的选择,分项扣除,以及联邦和州税收制度之间的关系
近3000万纳税人将2017纳税年度的联邦扣除额逐项列出,改为2018年的标准扣除额。导致这一转变的《减税与就业法案》(“TCJA”)的条款旨在简化个人所得税制度。然而,本文对联邦和州税申报数据的实证研究表明,TCJA的简化效果因州而异,取决于一个州是否要求其纳税人为州税目的做出与纳税人为联邦目的做出相同的选择(即逐项扣除或采用标准扣除)。在要求纳税人做出同样选择的州,纳税人至少经历了一些简化,国税局和州税务机关的税务管理变得更加容易,尽管国税局的简化好处在某种程度上受到了抑制。在那些允许纳税人选择不同于联邦税收的州,TCJA对许多纳税人的简化效果在很大程度上是虚幻的,州所得税管理实际上变得更加复杂,一些税收执行成本实际上从国税局转移到州税务机关。因此,本文的研究揭示了关于税收选择的州一级规则破坏了激励TCJA分项相关变化的联邦政策目标。纳税人选择是否逐项纳税只是向纳税人明确提供的众多税收选择之一。因此,本文对纳税人的分项选择的研究也作为一个例子,说明了一个更广泛的点-州一级规则,即纳税人是否必须进行统一的联邦和州税收选举,从而在联邦和州税收系统之间创造了重要的、但以前未被重视的相互作用。政策制定者不能完全理解许多联邦税法变化的政策含义,除非他们了解这些联邦/州的相互作用。本文有助于政策制定者做到这一点。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Keep Charitable Oversight in the IRS WORST CHOICE FOR SCHOOL CHOICE: TUITION TAX CREDITS ARE A BAD IDEA AND DIRECT FUNDING IS WISER TRANSACTION-SPECIFIC TAX REFORM IN THREE STEPS: THE CASE OF CONSTRUCTIVE OWNERSHIP SHAPING THE FUTURE OF TRANSNATIONAL TAX DISPUTE SETTLEMENT THE EXPANSION AND INTERNATIONALIZATION OF MANDATORY DISCLOSURE RULES
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1