As part of the 2017 tax reform known as the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, Congress passed a substantial new deduction for income earned through pass-through entities, such as partnerships, that was one of the most expensive provisions of the law, codified as section 199A of the Code. Section 199A provides a 20% deduction on the “qualified business income” of a taxpayer attributable to income earned through pass-through entities, offering a meaningful reduction in the taxpayer’s effective tax rate. At the time of the law’s passage, the Congressional rationale from supporters was that the deduction would help small businesses and middle-class residents by lowering tax bills, fostering investment and creating jobs. Meanwhile, on the ground after enactment, the reality is that nearly all of the billions of dollars for this deduction are flowing to high-income and wealthy individuals. At the same time, section 199A actually does stand to provide some benefit to small businesses and low- and middle-income taxpayers, including independent contractors and gig economy workers. However, this is a complex and tailored deduction, and taxpayers do not receive any indication regarding section 199A in annual tax reporting (e.g., Forms 1099), driving a gap between the allocation of the tax benefit and the ability for individuals to actually realize the benefit of the deduction. This article examines potential solutions in order to remediate the gap between the availability of a tax deduction or credit like section 199A, and the taxpayer ultimately claiming it, such as increasing existing information reporting to taxpayers, and increasing the role of the IRS in the preparation of tax returns. Section 199A, as representative of a broader pattern, cautions that, when future tax reform initiatives are proposed, additional attention needs to be paid to how and to what extent taxpayers are expected to claim a deduction, credit or other tax benefit, particularly low- and middle-income taxpayers.
作为2017年税收改革《减税与就业法案》(tax Cuts and Jobs Act)的一部分，国会通过了一项新的重大税收减免措施，适用于通过合伙企业等转递实体获得的收入，这是该法案中最昂贵的条款之一，被编入《税法》第199A条。第199A节规定，纳税人通过直通实体赚取的收入可扣除20%的“合格营业收入”，这大大降低了纳税人的有效税率。在该法案通过时，国会支持者的理由是，减税将通过降低税负、促进投资和创造就业机会来帮助小企业和中产阶级居民。与此同时，在法案颁布后，实际情况是，这项减税的数十亿美元几乎全部流向了高收入和富有的个人。与此同时，第199A条实际上确实为小企业和中低收入纳税人提供了一些好处，包括独立承包商和零工经济工人。然而，这是一个复杂的、量身定制的扣除，纳税人在年度税务报告(例如1099表)中没有收到关于199A节的任何指示，导致税收优惠的分配与个人实际实现扣除利益的能力之间存在差距。本文探讨了潜在的解决方案，以弥补税收减免或抵免(如第199A节)的可用性与纳税人最终申请税收抵免之间的差距，例如增加向纳税人报告的现有信息，以及增加IRS在准备纳税申报表中的作用。第199A节作为一种更广泛的模式的代表，告诫说，当提出未来的税收改革倡议时，需要额外注意纳税人，特别是低收入和中等收入纳税人，如何以及在多大程度上要求扣减、抵免或其他税收优惠。
{"title":"Misdirected Recipients of Tax Reform: Section 199A, its True Beneficiaries, and Application to Low- and Middle- Income Residents","authors":"J. Laplante","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.3862864","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3862864","url":null,"abstract":"As part of the 2017 tax reform known as the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, Congress passed a substantial new deduction for income earned through pass-through entities, such as partnerships, that was one of the most expensive provisions of the law, codified as section 199A of the Code. Section 199A provides a 20% deduction on the “qualified business income” of a taxpayer attributable to income earned through pass-through entities, offering a meaningful reduction in the taxpayer’s effective tax rate. At the time of the law’s passage, the Congressional rationale from supporters was that the deduction would help small businesses and middle-class residents by lowering tax bills, fostering investment and creating jobs. Meanwhile, on the ground after enactment, the reality is that nearly all of the billions of dollars for this deduction are flowing to high-income and wealthy individuals. At the same time, section 199A actually does stand to provide some benefit to small businesses and low- and middle-income taxpayers, including independent contractors and gig economy workers. However, this is a complex and tailored deduction, and taxpayers do not receive any indication regarding section 199A in annual tax reporting (e.g., Forms 1099), driving a gap between the allocation of the tax benefit and the ability for individuals to actually realize the benefit of the deduction. This article examines potential solutions in order to remediate the gap between the availability of a tax deduction or credit like section 199A, and the taxpayer ultimately claiming it, such as increasing existing information reporting to taxpayers, and increasing the role of the IRS in the preparation of tax returns. Section 199A, as representative of a broader pattern, cautions that, when future tax reform initiatives are proposed, additional attention needs to be paid to how and to what extent taxpayers are expected to claim a deduction, credit or other tax benefit, particularly low- and middle-income taxpayers.","PeriodicalId":330166,"journal":{"name":"Law & Society: Public Law - Tax eJournal","volume":"229 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2021-02-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"124423246","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
While taxation affects everybody who lives in a modern society, existing systems suffer from inconsistencies, operational imperfections, and high running costs. Amounts of tax paid by taxpayers are highly independent of the benefits received in return, which provides great freedom for policymaking. Despite that, no taxation model has emerged yet that would be able to efficiently address the problems mentioned above. In this paper, I show that there is an extremely simple taxation model that could overcome these issues. However, it requires all local (national) currency holdings to be fully recorded live at all times.
{"title":"Consistent Taxation in a Cashless Society","authors":"L. Gillemot","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.3759918","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3759918","url":null,"abstract":"While taxation affects everybody who lives in a modern society, existing systems suffer from inconsistencies, operational imperfections, and high running costs. Amounts of tax paid by taxpayers are highly independent of the benefits received in return, which provides great freedom for policymaking. Despite that, no taxation model has emerged yet that would be able to efficiently address the problems mentioned above. In this paper, I show that there is an extremely simple taxation model that could overcome these issues. However, it requires all local (national) currency holdings to be fully recorded live at all times.<br>","PeriodicalId":330166,"journal":{"name":"Law & Society: Public Law - Tax eJournal","volume":"20 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2020-12-31","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"122473797","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
As the nation is experiencing the need for ever-increasing government expenditures to address COVID-19 disruptions, rebuild the nation's infrastructure, and many other worthy causes, conventional thinking calls for restoring at least a portion corporate taxes eliminated by the 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, especially from progressive circles. In this working paper, Edward Lane and L. Randall Wray examine who really pays the corporate income tax and argue that it does not serve the purposes most people believe. The authors provide an overview of the true purposes and incidence of corporate taxation and argue that it is inefficient and largely borne by consumers and employees, not shareholders. While the authors would prefer the elimination of the corporate profits tax, they understand the conventional thinking that taxes are necessary to help finance government expenditures--even if they disagree. Accordingly, the authors present alternatives to the corporate tax that shift the burden from consumers and employees to those who benefit the most from corporate success.
{"title":"Is It Time to Eliminate Federal Corporate Income Taxes?","authors":"E. Lane, L. Randall Wray","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.3734445","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3734445","url":null,"abstract":"As the nation is experiencing the need for ever-increasing government expenditures to address COVID-19 disruptions, rebuild the nation's infrastructure, and many other worthy causes, conventional thinking calls for restoring at least a portion corporate taxes eliminated by the 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, especially from progressive circles. In this working paper, Edward Lane and L. Randall Wray examine who really pays the corporate income tax and argue that it does not serve the purposes most people believe. The authors provide an overview of the true purposes and incidence of corporate taxation and argue that it is inefficient and largely borne by consumers and employees, not shareholders. While the authors would prefer the elimination of the corporate profits tax, they understand the conventional thinking that taxes are necessary to help finance government expenditures--even if they disagree. Accordingly, the authors present alternatives to the corporate tax that shift the burden from consumers and employees to those who benefit the most from corporate success.","PeriodicalId":330166,"journal":{"name":"Law & Society: Public Law - Tax eJournal","volume":"1 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2020-11-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"130745817","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
This is a case about tax shelters. It presents a narrow legal question: May people and companies that promote abusive tax shelters sue to block enforcement of monetary penalties for failing to disclose those tax avoidance transactions to the IRS? But the practical question is far broader. At stake is whether the tax-shelter industry will be permitted to use waves of strategic pre-enforcement lawsuits to hobble the IRS’s efforts to combat abusive tax shelters. The narrow legal question can and should be decided based on the plain statutory text. Petitioner seeks to permanently restrain the IRS from imposing penalties for failure to disclose certain “micro-captive insurance” transactions that taxpayers use to claim losses. Petitioner has advertised these transactions as “tax shelters.” Congress has deemed these penalties to be “taxes” for purposes of the Anti-Injunction Act. And that Act expressly bars any “suit for the purpose of restraining the assessment or collection of any tax” by “any person.” Petitioner’s suit therefore seeks to “restrain” the “assessment” of a penalty that Congress has defined as a “tax.” That alone is enough to resolve this case. But, as this brief shows, broader historical context and practical consequences confirm why it is important for this Court to follow the plain statutory text. This case does not arise in a vacuum. It arises against the backdrop of a decades-long struggle between the federal agency charged with responsibility for administering and enforcing the internal revenue laws and an industry consisting of accountants, lawyers, bankers, insurance companies, and others working in concert to defeat those laws. A ruling for petitioner would mark a resounding win for the tax-shelter industry and a significant setback for the government in its ongoing effort to reveal and challenge abusive tax shelters. It could cost the federal treasury billions of dollars annually. Petitioner’s effort to frustrate tax assessment is exactly the kind of demand that the Anti-Injunction Act seeks to prevent. Rather than hand the tax-shelter industry a powerful new tool to thwart the assessment of taxes on a massive scale, this Court should apply the statute as written and affirm. AMICI: Lily Batchelder: Majority Chief Tax Counsel, Senate Committee on Finance (2010–2014) and Deputy Director, National Economic Council (2014–2015). Mark Mazur: Staff Economist, Joint Committee on Taxation (1989–1993); Director of Research, Analysis, and Statistics of Income, IRS (2001–2009); Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Treasury for Tax Analysis (2009–2012); and Assistant Secretary of the Treasury for Tax Policy (2012–2017). Eileen J. O’Connor: Assistant Attorney General of the United States, responsible for the Tax Division of the Department of Justice (2001–2007). Leslie Samuels: Assistant Secretary of the Treasury for Tax Policy (1993–1996). Stephen Shay: International Tax Counsel, U.S. Department of the Treasury (1986
{"title":"Brief of Amici Curiae Former Government Officials in Support of Respondents, CIC Services, LLC v. Internal Revenue Service","authors":"Daniel Hemel, S. Morse, Clint Wallace","doi":"10.2139/SSRN.3693452","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2139/SSRN.3693452","url":null,"abstract":"This is a case about tax shelters. It presents a narrow legal question: May people and companies that promote abusive tax shelters sue to block enforcement of monetary penalties for failing to disclose those tax avoidance transactions to the IRS? But the practical question is far broader. At stake is whether the tax-shelter industry will be permitted to use waves of strategic pre-enforcement lawsuits to hobble the IRS’s efforts to combat abusive tax shelters. \u0000 \u0000The narrow legal question can and should be decided based on the plain statutory text. Petitioner seeks to permanently restrain the IRS from imposing penalties for failure to disclose certain “micro-captive insurance” transactions that taxpayers use to claim losses. Petitioner has advertised these transactions as “tax shelters.” Congress has deemed these penalties to be “taxes” for purposes of the Anti-Injunction Act. And that Act expressly bars any “suit for the purpose of restraining the assessment or collection of any tax” by “any person.” Petitioner’s suit therefore seeks to “restrain” the “assessment” of a penalty that Congress has defined as a “tax.” That alone is enough to resolve this case. \u0000 \u0000But, as this brief shows, broader historical context and practical consequences confirm why it is important for this Court to follow the plain statutory text. This case does not arise in a vacuum. It arises against the backdrop of a decades-long struggle between the federal agency charged with responsibility for administering and enforcing the internal revenue laws and an industry consisting of accountants, lawyers, bankers, insurance companies, and others working in concert to defeat those laws. A ruling for petitioner would mark a resounding win for the tax-shelter industry and a significant setback for the government in its ongoing effort to reveal and challenge abusive tax shelters. It could cost the federal treasury billions of dollars annually. \u0000 \u0000Petitioner’s effort to frustrate tax assessment is exactly the kind of demand that the Anti-Injunction Act seeks to prevent. Rather than hand the tax-shelter industry a powerful new tool to thwart the assessment of taxes on a massive scale, this Court should apply the statute as written and affirm. \u0000 \u0000AMICI: \u0000 \u0000Lily Batchelder: Majority Chief Tax Counsel, Senate Committee on Finance (2010–2014) and Deputy Director, National Economic Council (2014–2015). \u0000 \u0000Mark Mazur: Staff Economist, Joint Committee on Taxation (1989–1993); Director of Research, Analysis, and Statistics of Income, IRS (2001–2009); Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Treasury for Tax Analysis (2009–2012); and Assistant Secretary of the Treasury for Tax Policy (2012–2017). \u0000 \u0000Eileen J. O’Connor: Assistant Attorney General of the United States, responsible for the Tax Division of the Department of Justice (2001–2007). \u0000 \u0000Leslie Samuels: Assistant Secretary of the Treasury for Tax Policy (1993–1996). \u0000 \u0000Stephen Shay: International Tax Counsel, U.S. Department of the Treasury (1986","PeriodicalId":330166,"journal":{"name":"Law & Society: Public Law - Tax eJournal","volume":"40 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2020-09-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"121212865","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Recently, individual states have decided to restrict COVID-19 financial aid measures to those who have paid taxes to said state thus generally excluding those who are working cash-in-hand/unreported employment, unemployed, students, or retired. This contribution assesses COVID-19 financial support packages with an emphasis on common state aid features targeting individuals with the intention to critically evaluate if, when, and how these measures discriminate against the socio-economic status of the recipient. The impact that COVID-19 has had on income-generating activities is especially harsh for unprotected workers and the most vulnerable groups in the informal economy. The preliminary results of this study indicate that impoverished and vulnerable groups such as immigrants, cash-in hand workers/unreported workers, unemployed, students, and pensioners are not only at risk of losing their sources of income due to the pandemic´s economic effects, but they are also excluded from receiving crucial financial aid. This illustrates that there is great need for a revision of national COVID-19 policies and budget allocations to ensure a more equitable protection of individuals.
{"title":"Allocating COVID-19 State Aid Equitably – The Case of Denmark","authors":"Yvette Lind","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.3670653","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3670653","url":null,"abstract":"Recently, individual states have decided to restrict COVID-19 financial aid measures to those who have paid taxes to said state thus generally excluding those who are working cash-in-hand/unreported employment, unemployed, students, or retired. This contribution assesses COVID-19 financial support packages with an emphasis on common state aid features targeting individuals with the intention to critically evaluate if, when, and how these measures discriminate against the socio-economic status of the recipient. The impact that COVID-19 has had on income-generating activities is especially harsh for unprotected workers and the most vulnerable groups in the informal economy. The preliminary results of this study indicate that impoverished and vulnerable groups such as immigrants, cash-in hand workers/unreported workers, unemployed, students, and pensioners are not only at risk of losing their sources of income due to the pandemic´s economic effects, but they are also excluded from receiving crucial financial aid. This illustrates that there is great need for a revision of national COVID-19 policies and budget allocations to ensure a more equitable protection of individuals.","PeriodicalId":330166,"journal":{"name":"Law & Society: Public Law - Tax eJournal","volume":"22 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2020-08-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"133301956","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Section 91 of the Income Tax Act Cap.340 makes provision for Uganda’s statutory General Anti-Avoidance Rules (GAAR). They encompass the commissioner’s discretion to re-characterise transactions that are part of a tax avoidance scheme or whose form does not reflect the substance, or to disregard transactions that do not have a substantial economic effect. These rules trace their origin from the early common law judicial principles of statutory construction whose effect was to reconstruct transactions constituting artificial elements lacking commercial purpose other than the avoidance of tax. These operated co-currently with the taxpayers’ freedom to arrange their business affairs in a tax efficient manner. This co-existence of opposite principles ultimately resulted into uncertainty as to when an otherwise legal transaction ceases to be permissible and becomes impermissible for tax purposes. Statutory GAARs in most of the common law world came in to instill some level of certainty to the GAAR. Having codified these anti-avoidance principles, Uganda’s statutory GAAR potentially inherited some of these uncertainties. This paper explores the development of GAAR in the USA, UK and New Zealand in relation to such GAAR’s certainty, assesses how some of the identified uncertainties potentially flow through Uganda’s GAAR, and provides recommendations on how such may be addressed.
{"title":"From Judicial Exposition To Legislative Intervention: The GAAR's Odyssey Of Uncertainty","authors":"J. Nuwagaba","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.3670125","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3670125","url":null,"abstract":"Section 91 of the Income Tax Act Cap.340 makes provision for Uganda’s statutory General Anti-Avoidance Rules (GAAR). They encompass the commissioner’s discretion to re-characterise transactions that are part of a tax avoidance scheme or whose form does not reflect the substance, or to disregard transactions that do not have a substantial economic effect. These rules trace their origin from the early common law judicial principles of statutory construction whose effect was to reconstruct transactions constituting artificial elements lacking commercial purpose other than the avoidance of tax. These operated co-currently with the taxpayers’ freedom to arrange their business affairs in a tax efficient manner. This co-existence of opposite principles ultimately resulted into uncertainty as to when an otherwise legal transaction ceases to be permissible and becomes impermissible for tax purposes. Statutory GAARs in most of the common law world came in to instill some level of certainty to the GAAR. Having codified these anti-avoidance principles, Uganda’s statutory GAAR potentially inherited some of these uncertainties. This paper explores the development of GAAR in the USA, UK and New Zealand in relation to such GAAR’s certainty, assesses how some of the identified uncertainties potentially flow through Uganda’s GAAR, and provides recommendations on how such may be addressed.","PeriodicalId":330166,"journal":{"name":"Law & Society: Public Law - Tax eJournal","volume":"1 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2020-08-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"133724472","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2020-08-05DOI: 10.36368/NJOLAS.V4I01.206
Patrik Emblad
How do nation states relate to each other in terms of power? How do they relate to private parties in terms of power? Nation states are often thought of as sovereign to tax. In a legal sense that may be true. However, to be legally sovereign is not the same thing as being able to effectively exercise sovereignty. The mobility of capital and businesses, or at least the perception of their mobility, is increasingly pressuring sovereignty to tax. To shed light on the economic constrains on nation states and the beliefs about such constrains, this article introduces the concept of economic-ideological forces and contends that sovereignty should be understood in a way that encompasses these forces. Otherwise, it does not provide an adequate account of power and thus becomes a tool for maintaining established power relations.
{"title":"Power and sovereignty: How economic-ideological forces constrain sovereignty to tax","authors":"Patrik Emblad","doi":"10.36368/NJOLAS.V4I01.206","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.36368/NJOLAS.V4I01.206","url":null,"abstract":"How do nation states relate to each other in terms of power? How do they relate to private parties in terms of power? Nation states are often thought of as sovereign to tax. In a legal sense that may be true. However, to be legally sovereign is not the same thing as being able to effectively exercise sovereignty. The mobility of capital and businesses, or at least the perception of their mobility, is increasingly pressuring sovereignty to tax. To shed light on the economic constrains on nation states and the beliefs about such constrains, this article introduces the concept of economic-ideological forces and contends that sovereignty should be understood in a way that encompasses these forces. Otherwise, it does not provide an adequate account of power and thus becomes a tool for maintaining established power relations.","PeriodicalId":330166,"journal":{"name":"Law & Society: Public Law - Tax eJournal","volume":"9 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2020-08-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"115181805","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
This amicus brief was filed before the United States Supreme Court in CIC Services, LLC v. Internal Revenue Service, No. 19-930, supporting the petitioners on the merits. The issue in the case is whether the Anti-Injunction Act, 26 U.S.C. s. 7421(a), precludes pre-enforcement judicial review of Administrative Procedure Act challenges against Treasury and IRS rules and regulations -- specifically in this case, IRS Notice 2016-66. Building on previous scholarship, the brief argues that statutory text, history, and purpose support a narrow interpretation of the Anti-Injunction Act that harmonizes with the Administrative Procedure Act and allows pre-enforcement judicial review.
本“法庭之友摘要”已提交美国最高法院，在CIC服务有限责任公司诉美国国税局案(第19-930号)中支持上诉人的案情。本案的问题在于，《反禁令法》(26 U.S.C. s. 7421(a))是否排除了对《行政程序法》针对财政部和国税局规章制度的挑战的执行前司法审查——特别是在本案中，国税局通知2016-66。摘要在以往学术研究的基础上，认为法定文本、历史和目的支持对《反禁令法》的狭义解释，使之与《行政程序法》相协调，并允许执行前司法审查。
{"title":"Brief of Amicus Curiae Kristin E. Hickman In Support of Petitioners, CIC Services, LLC v. Internal Revenue Service, et al., No. 19-930 (U.S. Supreme Court)","authors":"Kristin E. Hickman","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.3658611","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3658611","url":null,"abstract":"This amicus brief was filed before the United States Supreme Court in CIC Services, LLC v. Internal Revenue Service, No. 19-930, supporting the petitioners on the merits. The issue in the case is whether the Anti-Injunction Act, 26 U.S.C. s. 7421(a), precludes pre-enforcement judicial review of Administrative Procedure Act challenges against Treasury and IRS rules and regulations -- specifically in this case, IRS Notice 2016-66. Building on previous scholarship, the brief argues that statutory text, history, and purpose support a narrow interpretation of the Anti-Injunction Act that harmonizes with the Administrative Procedure Act and allows pre-enforcement judicial review.","PeriodicalId":330166,"journal":{"name":"Law & Society: Public Law - Tax eJournal","volume":"1 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2020-07-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"128689232","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Between 1985 and 2019, the global average statutory corporate tax rate has fallen from 49 percent to 23 percent, largely due to the rise of international tax competition. The biggest winners from globalization have received the largest tax cuts. In this paper we propose a solution to replace this race-to-the-bottom with a race-to-the-top. Multinational companies that have low effective tax rates in some foreign countries (what we call a “tax deficit”) would pay an extra tax in their home country. We explain how such a tax should be designed and how it could be collected. The ideal solution would be for all countries to jointly start collecting the tax deficit of their multinationals. We describe how defensive measures could be applied against countries refusing to take part in such an agreement, measures that could ultimately pave the way to global corporate tax coordination.
{"title":"Ending Corporate Tax Avoidance and Tax Competition: A Plan to Collect the Tax Deficit of Multinationals","authors":"K. Clausing, Emmanuel Saez, G. Zucman","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.3655850","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3655850","url":null,"abstract":"Between 1985 and 2019, the global average statutory corporate tax rate has fallen from 49 percent to 23 percent, largely due to the rise of international tax competition. The biggest winners from globalization have received the largest tax cuts. In this paper we propose a solution to replace this race-to-the-bottom with a race-to-the-top. Multinational companies that have low effective tax rates in some foreign countries (what we call a “tax deficit”) would pay an extra tax in their home country. We explain how such a tax should be designed and how it could be collected. The ideal solution would be for all countries to jointly start collecting the tax deficit of their multinationals. We describe how defensive measures could be applied against countries refusing to take part in such an agreement, measures that could ultimately pave the way to global corporate tax coordination.","PeriodicalId":330166,"journal":{"name":"Law & Society: Public Law - Tax eJournal","volume":"30 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2020-07-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"132599904","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Jinyan Li, N. Bao, Shanghua Hu, Wei Hu, Matias Zerbino
Digitisation technologies are facilitating and transforming tax administration and dispute resolution in various ways. This paper presents some existing and emerging best practices in digitalized tax administration and smart dispute resolution. Inspired by the objectives of the Belt & Road Initiative and BRITACOM and these best practices, this paper suggests that BRITACOM take advantage of digitisation and seize upon the unprecedented opportunity to create a digitalized mechanism for resolving cross-border tax disputes among Belt & Road jurisdictions.
{"title":"Digitalization and International Tax Dispute Resolution: A Window of Opportunity for BRITACOM","authors":"Jinyan Li, N. Bao, Shanghua Hu, Wei Hu, Matias Zerbino","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.3664039","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3664039","url":null,"abstract":"Digitisation technologies are facilitating and transforming tax administration and dispute resolution in various ways. This paper presents some existing and emerging best practices in digitalized tax administration and smart dispute resolution. Inspired by the objectives of the Belt & Road Initiative and BRITACOM and these best practices, this paper suggests that BRITACOM take advantage of digitisation and seize upon the unprecedented opportunity to create a digitalized mechanism for resolving cross-border tax disputes among Belt & Road jurisdictions.","PeriodicalId":330166,"journal":{"name":"Law & Society: Public Law - Tax eJournal","volume":"14 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2020-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"125661798","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：