The paycheck protection programme a tax expenditure in reverse? Victor Thuronyi
By: Thuronyi, Victor
.
Material type: 
ArticlePublisher: 2020Subject(s): CORONAVIRUS | POLITICA FISCAL | ESTADOS UNIDOS
In:
Intertax volume 48, issues 8-9, August-September 2020, p. 787-789Summary: The Paycheck Protection Programme (PPP) enacted by the US Congress in March 2020 furnishes an example of a spending programme that could have been structured as a tax provision. If it had been enacted as a tax provision, the PPP would almost certainly have been drafted more tightly, in a way that could support a precise revenue estimate. The Internal Revenue Service might have administered the PPP more effectively and at a lower administrative cost than was involved in using private banks. The lack of public hearings before enactment contributed to poor design of the PPP.
| Item type | Current location | Home library | Call number | Status | Date due | Barcode |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Artículos | IEF | IEF | OP 2141/2020/8/9-12 (Browse shelf) | Available | OP 2141/2020/8/9-12 |
Bibliografía
The Paycheck Protection Programme (PPP) enacted by the US Congress in March 2020 furnishes an example of a spending programme that could have been structured as a tax provision. If it had been enacted as a tax provision, the PPP would almost certainly have been drafted more tightly, in a way that could support a precise revenue estimate. The Internal Revenue Service might have administered the PPP more effectively and at a lower administrative cost than was involved in using private banks. The lack of public hearings before enactment contributed to poor design of the PPP.
Click on an image to view it in the image viewer
There are no comments for this item.