Federal tax reform : a review of the federal tax reform compromise and its implications for Illinois.

At head of title: Tax report.

The Fiscal impact of recent changes in federal and state tax law.

Caption title.

Problems relating to State applications for a convention to propose constitutional limitations on Federal tax rates : staff report to the Committee on the Judiciary, House of Representatives.

At head of title: 82d Congress, 2d Session. House Committee print.

Reference listing of 1992 federal tax forms and publications.

Includes indexes.

An analysis of tax expenditure versus direct expenditure

Each financial year concessions, benefits and incentives are delivered to taxpayers via the tax system. These concessions, benefits and incentives, referred to as tax expenditure, differ from direct expenditure because of the recurring fiscal impact without regular scrutiny through the federal budget process. There are approximately 270 different tax expenditures existing within the current tax regime with total measured tax expenditures in the 2005-06 financial year estimated to be around $42.1 billion, increasing to $52.7 billion by 2009-10. Each year, new tax expenditures are introduced, while existing tax expenditures are modified and deleted. In recognition of some of the problems associated with tax expenditure, a Tax Expenditure Statement, as required by the Charter of Budget Honesty Act 1988, is produced annually by the Australian Federal Treasury. The Statement details the various expenditures and measures in the form of concessions, benefits and incentives provided to taxpayers by the Australian Government and calculates the tax expenditure in terms of revenue forgone. A similar approach to reporting tax expenditure, with such a report being a legal requirement, is followed by most OECD countries. The current Tax Expenditure Statement lists 270 tax expenditures and where it is able to, reports on the estimated pecuniary value of those expenditures. Apart from the annual Tax Expenditure Statement, there is very little other scrutiny of Australia’s Federal tax expenditure program. While there has been various academic analysis of tax expenditure in Australia, when compared to the North American literature, it is suggested that the Australian literature is still in its infancy. In fact, one academic author who has contributed to tax expenditure analysis recently noted that there is ‘remarkably little secondary literature which deals at any length with tax expenditures in the Australian context.’ Given this perceived gap in the secondary literature, this paper examines fundamental concept of tax expenditure and considers the role it plays in to the current tax regime as a whole, along with the effects of the introduction of new tax expenditures. In doing so, tax expenditure is contrasted with direct expenditure. An analysis of tax expenditure versus direct expenditure is already a sophisticated and comprehensive body of work stemming from the US over the last three decades. As such, the title of this paper is rather misleading. However, given the lack of analysis in Australia, it is appropriate that this paper undertakes a consideration of tax expenditure versus direct expenditure in an Australian context. Given this proposition, rather than purport to undertake a comprehensive analysis of tax expenditure which has already been done, this paper discusses the substantive considerations of any such analysis to enable further investigation into the tax expenditure regime both as a whole and into individual tax expenditure initiatives. While none of the propositions in this paper are new in a ‘tax expenditure analysis’ sense, this debate is a relatively new contribution to the Australian literature on the tax policy. Before the issues relating to tax expenditure can be determined, it is necessary to consider what is meant by ‘tax expenditure’. As such, part two if this paper defines ‘tax expenditure’. Part three determines the framework in which tax expenditure can be analysed. It is suggested that an analysis of tax expenditure must be evaluated within the framework of the design criteria of an income tax system with the key features of equity, efficiency, and simplicity. Tax expenditure analysis can then be applied to deviations from the ideal tax base. Once it is established what is meant by tax expenditure and the framework for evaluation is determined, it is possible to establish the substantive issues to be evaluated. This paper suggests that there are four broad areas worthy of investigation; economic efficiency, administrative efficiency, whether tax expenditure initiatives achieve their policy intent, and the impact on stakeholders. Given these areas of investigation, part four of this paper considers the issues relating to the economic efficiency of the tax expenditure regime, in particular, the effect on resource allocation, incentives for taxpayer behaviour and distortions created by tax expenditures. Part five examines the notion of administrative efficiency in light of the fact that most tax expenditures could simply be delivered as direct expenditures. Part six explores the notion of policy intent and considers the two questions that need to be asked; whether any tax expenditure initiative reaches its target group and whether the financial incentives are appropriate. Part seven examines the impact on stakeholders. Finally, part eight considers the future of tax expenditure analysis in Australia.

Does charity begin and end at home for tax exemptions?

Charitable organisations have remained exempt from income tax in Australia since the first comprehensive state income tax legislation in 18841 through to the current Income Tax Assessment Act 1977. The charitable exemption was also part of the English income tax legislation from its inception in 1799. The Federal Treasurer has released exposure draft legislation which seeks to remove taxation exemptions from some tax exempt organisations that perform any of their activities outside Australia or make trust distributions overseas. The proposed legislation is in response to alleged tax avoidance arrangements which involve tax exempt organisations and charitable trusts. The paper begins by describing the current charity tax exemption provisions under the Income Tax Assessment Act (ITAA). It then turns to tracing the background policy history of the amendments which appear to be at odds with the form and intent of the proposed provisions. The proposed amendments and their practical consequences are then closely scrutinised and found wanting in a number of respects. Alternative strategies are suggested to arrive at an equitable solution to the avoidance mischief.

Small business entity tax concessions : through the eyes of the practitioner

The often competing imperatives of equity, simplicity and efficiency in the income tax regime, particularly the notion of simplicity, has been most evident within Australia’s small business sector over the last decade. In an attempt to provide tax simplification and reduce the tax compliance burden faced by Australian small businesses, provisions collectively referred to as the ‘simplified tax system’ or STS were introduced. The STS was designed to provide eligible small businesses with the option of adopting a range of ‘simplified’ tax measures designed to simplify their tax affairs whilst at the same time, reducing their tax compliance costs. Ultimately, a low take-up rate and accompanying criticisms led to a remodelled and rebadged concessionary regime known as the ‘Small Business Entity’ (SBE) regime which came into effect from 1 July 2007. This paper, through a pilot study, investigates the SBE regime though the eyes of the practitioner. In line the Australian Federal Government’s objective of simplification and reduced compliance costs, the purpose of the study was to (1) determine the extent to which the SBE concessions are being adopted by tax practitioners on behalf of their clients, (2) gain an understanding as to which individual SBE tax concessions are most favoured by practitioners, (3) determine the primary motivation as to why tax practitioners recommend particular SBE concessions to their clients, and (4) canvass the opinions of practitioners as to whether they believed that the introduction of the SBE concessions had met their stated objective of reducing tax compliance costs for small businesses. The findings of this research indicate that, while there is a perception that the SBE concessions are worth embracing, contrary to the policy intent, the reasons behind adopting the concessions was the opportunity to minimise a clients’ tax liability. It was revealed that adopting particular concessions had nothing to do with compliance costs savings and, in fact, the SBE concessions merely added another layer of complexity to an already cumbersome and complex tax code, which resulted in increased compliance costs for their small businesses clients. Further, the SBE concessions allowed tax practitioners the opportunity to engage in effective tax minimisation, thereby fulfilling the client advocacy role of the tax practitioner in maximising their clients’ tax preferences.

Revitalising the Australian Shipping Industry through Tax Reform: Alchemy or Piracy?

The Australian Federal Government has recently passed reforms to the shipping industry. These reforms are aimed at removing barriers to investment in Australian shipping, fostering global competitiveness and securing a stable maritime skills base. The shipping reform package adopts a two pronged approach designed to achieve its stated goals by providing both a ‘stick’ and ‘carrot’ to industry participants. First, the ‘stick’ is delivered via the provision of tighter regulation of coastal trading operations through a new licencing system, along with the introduction of a civil penalty regime and an increase in existing penalties. Second, the ‘carrot’ is delivered via taxation incentives available to vessels registered in Australia where the registrant meets certain specified criteria. These incentives, introduced through amendments to the Income Tax Assessment Act 1997 and the Income Tax Assessment Act 1936 and contained in the Tax Laws Amendment (Shipping Reform) Act 2012, provide five key tax incentives to the shipping industry. From 1 July 2012, amendments give effect to an income tax exemption for qualifying ship operators, accelerated depreciation of vessels, roll-over relief from income tax on the sale of a vessel, an employer refundable tax offset, and an exemption from royalty withholding tax for payments made for the lease of certain shipping vessels.

The CGT small business concessions : recent evidence from the perspective of the tax practitioner

On 21 September 1999 Division 152 was inserted into the Income Tax Assessment Act (1997) (ITAA 1997). It was subsequently subject to amendments in 2006. Division 152 contains the small business CGT concessions, which enables eligible small business taxpayers to reduce the amount of tax payable on capital gains arising from certain CGT events (including the sale of the small business itself) that occur after 11:45 am on 21 September 1999. One of the stated principal objectives of the legislation was to provide a concessionary regime for small business owners who did not have the same ability to access the concessionary superannuation regime (particularly the superannuation guarantee charge) generally available to employees. The then Federal Treasurer, Mr Peter Costello, when announcing the introduction of the concessions, specifically stated that the object of Div 152 was to provide “small business people with access to funds for retirement or expansion”. The purpose of this project is to: one, assess the extent to which small business taxpayers understand the CGT small business concessions, particularly when considering sale of their business; two, determine which of the four small business CGT concessions are being adopted and/or recommended by tax advisors to clients; and three, determine whether the recent superannuation changes announced by the Federal Government in relation to the capping of the concessional superannuation thresholds have had an impact on the use of the small business retirement concession. It is anticipated that the results of this study will reveal that that small business owners are reliant on their tax advisors to explain the operation of Division 152. It is plausible that give the complexity of the CGT concessions, most small business owners are completely unaware of the four small business CGT concessions contained in Division 152 and do not understand how these concessions apply. Our study will also reveal the extent to which each CGT small business concession has been adopted (and reasons why). In particular, emphasis will be placed on the adoption of the small business retirement concession contained in Subdivision 152-D (and specific reasons for its adoption). This study also seeks to understand whether the recent (and impending) changes to the concessional superannuation cap has resulted in the retirement concession being more widely adopted (or recommended) by tax advisors. We would expect that the results of our study to confirm this to be the case, particularly coupled with the recent economic downturn, which has led to lower superannuation fund balances. By providing accounting firms with this information, small business owners will benefit from the information, becoming better placed to be long-term self funded retirees, providing not only financial benefits to the individuals and the country, but a significant increase in social self-assurance by these members of the community.

Double tax agreements and the international allocation of business income in Australia

Increasingly, the effectiveness of the present system of taxation of international businesses is being questioned. The problem associated with the taxation of such businesses is twofold. A system of international taxation must be a fair and equitable system, distributing profits between the relevant jurisdictions and, in doing so, avoiding double taxation. At the same time, the prevention of fiscal evasion must be secured. In an attempt to achieve a fair and equitable system Australia adopts unilateral, bilateral and multilateral measures to avoid double taxation and restrict the avoidance of tax. The first step in ascertaining the international allocation of business income is to consider the taxation of business income according to domestic law, that is, the unilateral measures. The treatment of international business income under the Australian domestic law, that is, the Income Tax Assessment Act 1936 (Cth) and Income Tax Assessment Act 1997 (Cth), will depend on two concepts, first, whether the taxpayer is a resident of Australia and secondly, whether the income is sourced in Australia. After the taxation of business profits has been determined according to domestic law it is necessary to consider the applicability of the bilateral measures, that is, the Double Tax Agreements (DTAs) to which Australia is a party, as the DTAs will override the domestic law where there is any conflict. Australia is a party to 40 DTAs with another seven presently being negotiated. The preamble to Australia's DTAs provides that the purpose of such agreements is 'to conclude an Agreement for the avoidance of double taxation and the prevention of fiscal evasion with respect to taxes on income'. Both purposes, for different reasons, are equally important. It has been said that: The taxpayer hopes the treaty will prevent the double taxation of his income; the tax gatherer hopes the treaty will prevent fiscal evasion; and the politician just hopes. The first purpose, the avoidance of double taxation, is achieved through the provision of rules whereby the Contracting States agree to the classification of income and the allocation of that income to a particular State. In this sense DTAs do not allocate jurisdiction to tax but rather provide an arrangement whereby the States agree to restrict their substantive law. The restriction is either through the non-taxing of the income or via the provision of a tax credit.

The small business CGT concessions: Evidence from the perspective of the tax practitioner

On 21 September 1999 Division 152 was inserted into the Income Tax Assessment Act (1997) (ITAA 1997). Division 152 contains the small business CGT concessions, which enables eligible small business taxpayers to reduce the amount of tax payable on capital gains arising from certain CGT events that occur after 11:45 am on 21 September 1999. One of the principal objectives of the legislation is to provide a concessionary regime for small business owners who do not have the same ability to access the concessionary superannuation regime generally available to employees. When announcing the introduction of the concessions the then Federal Treasurer, Mr Peter Costello, specifically stated that the objective of Division 152 was to provide ‘small business people with access to funds for retirement or expansion’. The purpose of this article is to: one, assess the extent to which small business taxpayers understand the CGT small business concessions, particularly when considering the sale of their business; two, determine which of the four small business CGT concessions are most commonly adopted and/or recommended by tax practitioners to clients; and three, to determine whether the superannuation changes in relation to the capping of the concessional superannuation thresholds have had an impact on the use of the small business retirement concession.

Reporting Income Taxes in the Banking Sector In Angola - Accounting, Tax Regulation and Financial Reporting Evidences

This research provides an insight into income taxes reporting in Angola, based on hand collected data from the annual reports of banks. Empirical studies on Angolan companies are scarce, in part due to the limited access to data. The results show that income taxes’ reporting has improved over the years 2010-2013, becoming more reliable and understandable. The Angolan Government is boosting the economic growth through tax benefits in the investment in public debt, which cause a reduction in the banks’ effective tax rate. The new income tax law will reduce the statutory tax rate from 2015 onwards and change the taxable income, resulting in shifting the focus to promoting private investment.

The tax treatment of employee stock options : generous to a fault

In the 2000 budgets, both the federal and Ontario governments introduced changes to the tax treatment of employee stock options for the explicit purpose of making their tax treatment in Canada similar to or more favourable than that in the United States. The federal budget added a deferral, similar to that currently applicable to options granted by Canadian-controlled private corporations, for up to $100,000 per year of public company stock options. The Ontario budget introduced an exemption from tax for employees involved in research and development on the first $100,000 per year of employee benefits arising on the exercise of qualified stock options or on eligible capital gains arising from the sale of shares acquired by the exercise of eligible stock options. These proposals reflect the apparent acceptance by the two governments that there is a “brain drain” from Canada to the United States of knowledge workers in the “new” economy and that reductions in Canadian taxes should stem this drain. In the author’s view, the tax treatment of employee stock options, even without these changes, is overly generous. Both the federal and provincial proposals ignore the fact that most employee stock options are taxed more favourably in Canada than in the United States in any event. In particular, most employee stock option benefits in Canada are taxed at capital gains tax rates, whereas in the United States most are taxed at full rates. While the US Internal Revenue Code does provide capital gains tax treatment for certain employee stock option benefits, a number of preconditions must be met. Most important, the shares acquired pursuant to the options must be held for a minimum of one year after the option is exercised. In addition, there are monetary limits on the amount of options that qualify for capital gains treatment. In Canada, there are generally no holding period requirements or monetary limits that apply in order for the option holder to benefit from capital gains tax rates. Empirical evidence indicates that the vast majority of employees in the United States exercise their options and immediately sell the shares acquired. These “cashless exercises” do not benefit from capital gains treatment in the United States, whereas similar cashless exercises in Canada generally do. This empirical evidence suggests not only that the 2000 budget proposals are unwarranted, but also that the existing treatment of employee stock options in Canada is already more generous than that in the United States. This article begins with a theoretical “benchmark” for the taxation of employee stock options. The author suggests that employee stock options should be treated in the same manner as other income from employment. In theory, the value of the benefit should be included in income when the option is granted or vests. However, owing to the practical difficulty of valuing employee stock options, the theoretical benchmark proposed is that the value of the benefit (the difference between the fair market value of the shares acquired and the strike price under the option) be taxed when the shares are acquired, and the employer be entitled to a corresponding deduction. The employee stock option rules in Canada and the United States are then compared and contrasted with each other and the benchmark treatment. The article then examines the arguments that have been made for favourable treatment of employee stock options. Included in this critique is a review of the recent empirical work on the Canadian brain drain. Empirical studies suggest that the brain drain—if it exists at all—is small and that, despite what many newspapers and right-wing think-tanks would have us believe, lower taxes in the United States are not the cause. One study, concluding that taxes do have an effect on migration, suggests that even if Canada adopted a tax system identical to that in the United States, the brain drain would be reduced by a mere 10 percent. Indeed, even if Canada eliminated income tax altogether, it would not stop the brain drain. If governments here want to spend money in order to stem the brain drain, they should focus on other areas. For example, Canada produces fewer university graduates in the fields of mathematics, sciences, and engineering than any other G7 country except Italy. The short supply of university graduates in these fields, the apparent loss of top-calibre academics to US
universities, and the consequent lower levels of university research in these areas (an important spawning ground for new ideas in the “new” knowledge-based economy) suggest that Canada may be better served by devoting more resources to its university institutions, particularly in post-graduate programs, rather than continuing the current trend of budget cuts that universities have endured and may further endure if taxes are reduced.
As far as employee stock options are concerned, if Canada does want to look to the United States for guidance on tax reform (which it seems to do with increasing frequency of late), it should adopt the US rules applicable to nonstatutory options, which are close to the proposed benchmark treatment. In the absence of preferential tax treatment, employee stock options would still be included in compensation packages provided that there were sound business reasons for their use. No persuasive evidence has been put forward that the use of stock options, in the absence of tax incentives, is suboptimal. Indeed, the US experience suggests quite the opposite.

Black fella land – white fella tax : changing the CGT implications of aboriginal/native title

The taxation of aboriginal/native title payments gives rise to a number of complex and difficult legal and policy issues. Reform measures announced on 13 February 1998 by the then Federal Treasurer and Attorney-General did not address the possible capital gains tax (‘CGT’) implications and even those relating to ordinary income under s 6-5 Income Tax Assessment Act 1997 (Cth) remain unimplemented. The much anticipated Report of the Native Title Payments Working group (6 February 2009), while primarily focusing on non-taxation issues, also recognises the need for taxation reform and makes some recommendations in regard to such. Most recently, on 18 May the Assistant Treasurer, Senator Nick Sherry, the Minister for Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs, Jenny Macklin, and the Attorney General, Robert McClelland, announced the commencement of a national consultation on the tax treatment of native title, including the interaction of native title, Indigenous economic development and the tax system. The Assistant Treasurer recognised the need for “greater clarity and increased certainty for native title holders on how the tax system and native title interact.” At the same time, they released a paper entitled Native Title, Indigenous Economic Development and Tax to guide the national consultation. The proposed measures considered in the paper, including exempting Native title payments and/or creating a new tax exempt Indigenous Community Fund, provide a welcome step towards reform in this area. This article is part of a broader research project that explores the CGT implications of aboriginal/native title. While these provisions impact on both Indigenous traditional owners and relevant payers, such as mining companies, the focus in the project is particularly on the CGT implications for the traditional owners. This first part of the project examines the status of aboriginal/native title and incidental/ ancillary rights as CGT assets. The broader research project will then build on this analysis in the context of relevant CGT events. As the preliminary findings in this article evidence the CGT implications of aboriginal/native title are far from certain. The application of CGT to aboriginal/native title raises more issues than it answers. The key reason is that the current law is entirely unsuitable to communally held inalienable aboriginal/native title. Nevertheless, it will be seen that it is arguable that aboriginal/native title and/or incidental rights are post-CGT assets and acts in relation to such could trigger a CGT event with tax implications for the traditional owners. It will be suggested that these current tax provisions provide a very pertinent example where the law operates as a blunt tool that does not appropriately promote justice and reconciliation. To tax Indigenous communities as a result of acts that extinguish or impair their traditional ownership is incongruous. A specific provision(s) should be included in the capital gains provisions to ensure any such payments are exempt from taxation. This is not only fair given the history of uncompensated extinguishment of aboriginal title Australia, but also promotes the ability of Indigenous communities to optimise the financial benefits stemming from aboriginal/native title agreements.

Distributional effects of eliminating the differential tax treatment of business and personal income in Chile

Includes bibliography