000			01287nab a2200229 c 4500
999			_c142587 _d142587
003			ES-MaIEF
005			20220519133828.0
007			ta
008			200910s2020 ne ||||| |||| 00| 0 eng d
040			_aES-MaIEF _bspa _cES-MaIEF
041	0		_aeng
100	1		_948958 _aThuronyi, Victor
245	0	4	_aThe paycheck protection programme _ba tax expenditure in reverse? _c Victor Thuronyi
260			_c2020
504			_aBibliografía
520			_aThe 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.
650		4	_aCORONAVIRUS _967999
650		4	_aPOLITICA FISCAL _948067
650		4	_aESTADOS UNIDOS _942888
773	0		_9162937 _oOP 2141/2020/8/9 _tIntertax _w(IEF)55619 _x 0165-2826 _g volume 48, issues 8-9, August-September 2020, p. 787-789
942			_cART