Normal view MARC view ISBD view

Missing the mark : evaluating the new tax preferences for business income Ari Glogower and David Kamin

By: Glogower, Ari.
Contributor(s): Kamin, David.
Material type: ArticleArticlePublisher: 2018Subject(s): IMPUESTOS | SOCIEDADES | SISTEMA FISCAL | REFORMA | PLANIFICACION FISCAL | ESTADOS UNIDOSOnline resources: Click here to access online In: National Tax Journal v. 71, n. 4, December 2018, p. 789-806Summary: The 2017 Tax Legislation introduced two significant new tax preferences for businesses: a reduction in the corporate rate to a flat 21 percent and the 20 percent deduction for pass-through income under Section 199A. Advocates of the legislation justified these preferences in part as a way to encourage new business investment and as a response to international tax competition. However, Congress failed to effectively achieve these goals by appropriately targeting these preferences on an economically coherent category of business income — such as the normal returns to new investment — and by protecting the domestic tax base as they addressed international pressures. Instead, the law extends its tax cuts to a variety of economic returns, including returns to labor of highly-compensated domestic service providers, but only if income is earned in certain forms and in certain sectors of the economy. As a result, the legislation generates substantial new inequity, tax planning opportunities, and administrative challenges for the IRS — none of which was necessary to increase investment and reduce international profit shifting.
Tags from this library: No tags from this library for this title. Log in to add tags.
    average rating: 0.0 (0 votes)

Disponible también en formato electrónico a través de la Biblioteca del IEF.

Resumen.

Bibliografía.

The 2017 Tax Legislation introduced two significant new tax preferences for businesses: a reduction in the corporate rate to a flat 21 percent and the 20 percent deduction for pass-through income under Section 199A. Advocates of the legislation justified these preferences in part as a way to encourage new business investment and as a response to international tax competition. However, Congress failed to effectively achieve these goals by appropriately targeting these preferences on an economically coherent category of business income — such as the normal returns to new investment — and by protecting the domestic tax base as they addressed international pressures. Instead, the law extends its tax cuts to a variety of economic returns, including returns to labor of highly-compensated domestic service providers, but only if income is earned in certain forms and in certain sectors of the economy. As a result, the legislation generates substantial new inequity, tax planning opportunities, and administrative challenges for the IRS — none of which was necessary to increase investment and reduce international profit shifting.

There are no comments for this item.

Log in to your account to post a comment.

Click on an image to view it in the image viewer

Powered by Koha