The Impact of income support programs on transitions to employment

The income support programs are created with the purpose of fighting both, the poverty trap and the inactivity trap. The balance between both is fragile and hard to find. Thus, the goal of this work is to contribute to solve this issue by finding how income support programs, particularly the Portuguese RSI, affect transitions to employment. This is made through duration analysis, namely using Cox and Competing Risks models. A particular feature is introduced in this work as it incorporates the possibility of Defective Risks. The estimated hazard elasticity with respect to the amount of RSI received for individuals who move to employment is -0,41. More than a half of RSI receivers stays for more than a year and the probability of never leaving to employment is 44%. The results appear to indicate that RSI has affected negatively transitions to employment.

Tax+

Un grupo de estudiantes de la Universidad del Rosario encontró la oportunidad de iniciar un proyecto basado en la recuperación de impuestos de renta de los ciudadanos colombianos que trabajan o trabajaron en Estados Unidos, bajo el tipo de visa J1. El mercado en Colombia actualmente se encuentra constituido por aproximadamente 4.256 consumidores cuyo consumo per cápita es de $ 2.143.800 de pesos, la estrategia a utilizar para captar un nivel de clientes importante esta resguardada en el valor agregado del servicio, este pretende ofrecer un precio más bajo que la competencia incrementando la tasa de retorno de impuestos para nuestros clientes. Para iniciar, durante el primer año se espera obtener un 20% de participación en el mercado con 889 clientes, lo que conforma un promedio de 75 personas mensuales. Los pasos que se deben seguir para realizar el trámite de recuperación de impuestos son: 1) Contactar al cliente y darle la información, 2) Envió de los requisitos y formularios para que llene el cliente, 3) Devolución de los papeles diligenciados por el cliente, 4) Envió de papeles a Estados Unidos, 5) Contacto con el agente y devolución del dinero, 6) Informar al estudiante que ya está su dinero, 7) Encuesta de satisfacción. Para esto es necesario contar con un equipo conformado por un gerente general, gerente financiero, gerente de servicio al cliente y gerente comercial. La compañía estará ubicada en Bogotá, sin embargo, Tax + aspira tener un crecimiento importante en el país entrando a ciudades con una actividad importante dentro del mercado de work and travel como lo son Medellín, Cali y Barranquilla. El proyecto se iniciará con la constitución de una sociedad anónima simplificada (S.A.S.), una inversión total de $ 26.000.000 de pesos, la cual se encuentra constituida por un aporte de $ 6.500.000 pesos de cada uno de los miembros del equipo emprendedor, con esto se pretende adquirir los activos fijos y capital necesarios para iniciar el funcionamiento de la empresa. 10 Durante el primer año se espera tener unos ingresos de $ 355.600.000 de pesos, para el segundo año se pretende incrementar el número de clientes a 964, lo cual constituye unos ingresos equivalentes a $ 471.328.000 de pesos, y para el tercer año las ventas esperadas deberán alcanzar los $ 538.204.160 de pesos, que generan una rentabilidad sobre ventas del 6,31%, 0,73% y 1,6%, respectivamente. Para alcanzar el punto de equilibrio la empresa debe vender $322.083.104 al año, lo que indica que se puede alcanzar en el primer año de operación. En el primer año de operación se obtiene un flujo de efectivo de $43.272.320, en el segundo año, $5.570.581 y en el tercero $11.521.539. La tasa interna de retorno del proyecto es de 89,99% y la inversión se recupera en el tercer año de operación.

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.

Characterising derivative-based loan arrangements

The income tax and GST laws contain an array of rules that apply to debt and gains in the nature of interest. The definitions of 'debt' or 'loan' and amounts in the nature of 'interest' vary across the provisions and tax officials, taxpayers and courts must decide whether the terms should be read as applying to debt, loans or interest in a narrow legal sense or should be read more broadly to catch multi-element arrangements that give effect to a debt or loan relationship in an economic or commercial sense but not in conventional single document form. This article reviews the UK, US and Australian approaches to interpreting multi-element transactions and considers whether four tax provisions dealing with debt should be interpreted to apply to multi-element, derivative-based loan arrangements.

The trouble with income trusts

This paper sketches broadly the efficiency and equity effects of income trusts that make their use as a substitute for the direct holding of shares of a corporation problematic for tax policy purposes. The paper also considers the potential effectiveness of an equity recharacterization rule applicable to the high-yield junk debt that is the common feature of the basic income trust structure. The author suggests that this type of narrowly focused rule would be more target-efficient than other possible responses to income trusts, such as fundamental reform of the corporate income tax or the restrictions on the holding of trust units proposed in the 2004 budget. However, a principal difficulty in designing an equity recharacterization rule is ensuring that it applies equally to structures that realize the same effect as the basic income trust structure but do not use high-yield junk debt.
The author argues that income trusts are examples of tax-driven financial innovation in the sense that they replicate an existing set of securities and therefore have no nontax rationale. These securities are essentially redundant, and the innovative process of which they are a product does not constitute “genuine” financial innovation. This essential characteristic of income trusts distinguishes them from real estate investment trusts, which arguably do not present a tax policy problem (or at least not the same one). More particularly, income trust transactions are redundant in the sense that they do not complete capital markets by providing investors with a risk and return payoff profile that is otherwise unavailable. In the absence of any efficiency gains or desirable distributional effects associated with income trusts, the available tax benefit is the subject of a defensible government response intended to eliminate it. But without any clear evidence that income trusts are substituted generally for the corporate form, any response can defensibly be limited to a narrowly targeted one that introduces a “taxlaw friction” by shifting the debt-equity boundary that is the focus of the basic income trust structure. Because the precise dividing points along this boundary lack any obvious normative content, the suggested policy focus should be the development of a legislative response that redraws the debt-equity boundary in a manner that minimizes perceived efficiency losses otherwise associated with the use of income trusts.

Capital gains tax in South Africa : lessons from Australia?

In the budget review of23 February 2000, the South African Minister of Finance announced that a capital gains tax ('CGT') would be introduced into South Africa, the anticipated start date at that point being 1 April 2001. Pursuant to Taxation Laws Amendment Act 5 of 2001, a CGT of general operation was introduced into the South African Income Tax Act 58 of 1962 (the 'ITA 1962') through the insertion of the Eighth Schedule¹, read together with s 26A of the Act. Section 26A is the charging provision that states that a person's taxable income included their 'taxable capital gain'. As discussed below, the start date was revised to 1 October 2001.

"To GAAR or not to GAAR-that is the question:" Canadian and Australian attempts to combat tax avoidance

In both Canada and Australia the relevant governments found their initial legislative attempts to combat tax avoidance to be ineffective. In time in each country it was concluded that the respective general avoidance provisions were of limited application and avoidance provisions were of limited application and ineffective to combat the sophisticated tax avoidance schemes promoted by tax advisers. In Canada it was determined that Income Tax Act, R.S.C 1985, s. 245(1) would be repealed and replaced with a general anti-avoidance rule ('GAAR') contained in a new s. 245 ITA. The Australian government similarly decided to replace Income Tax Assessment Act, Cth. 1936, s. 260 with a new general anti-avoidance measure, Part IVA ITAA. This article compares and contrasts the Canadian and Australian GAARs. Through the evaluation of each regime the article seeks to identify which model is most effective. It will be sen which model is most effective. It will be seen that both regimes have some features that are preferable to the other and thus both GAARs might be improved by incorporating aspects of the other anti-avoidance model.

Government revenue, private welfare, and tax reform in a small open economy

This paper examines the welfare and revenue effects of consumption and income taxes in a general equilibrium model with variable supply of labour and public goods. We derive the optimal consumption and income tax rates for such an economy. It is established that it is better to lower the income tax rate and increase the rate of consumption tax when this economy is in a downturn.

Income taxation commentary and materials

The formula of this established text remains the same in this new edition. The last section (entities and international) has been expanded along the lines of the first and second editions with discrete chapters to replace the amalgamated chapters for 'international' and 'entities'.

Tax evasion and dynamic inefficiency

I show within a two-period overlapping generations model with income tax evasion that when the penalty rate set by the government is su¢ ciently small, it is theoretically possible for the capital stock to exceed the golden-rule level on the balanced-growth path. However, such a dynamic inefficiency cannot be guaranteed when the probability of evasion detection is nil.

A study of job satisfaction and tax complexity

The introduction of the Income Tax Assessment Act 1997 (Australia) was an attempt to decrease the complexity of the tax system, but the issue of complexity is still evident. Accounting practitioners are becoming overwhelmed with the amount of tax legislation and researchers have suggested that they are less satisfied in their jobs as a result. This study examines whether tax complexity affects accounting practitioners' job satisfaction. Demographic and personality factors are considered. The issues that were investigated further include practitioner perceptions of the most complex area(s) of tax law and the primary causes of a complex tax system. It was found that although tax complexity is causing job dissatisfaction, demographic factors and personality characteristics do not appear to be significant factors. Instead, the large volume of tax law was identified as having the most significant impact on complexity (resulting in widespread dissatisfaction) and income tax was regarded as the most complex area.

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.

101 Ways to save money on your tax - legally! 2014-2015

Stop giving your money away!You work hard for your money, and you work even harder to set and keep a budget that makes the most of it. But when tax time arrives, do you feel shorted on your return? Nearly everyone has to pay taxes, but the government is only entitled to so much of your money. You might be letting them keep hundreds or even thousands of dollars that rightfully belong to you. No matter what your accounting habits have been so far, you can still claim what's yours.101 Ways to Save Money on Your Tax—Legally! 2014 – 2015 is your ultimate guide to maximising your return. Author Adrian Raftery, a.k.a. Mr. Taxman, is Australia's leading personal taxation expert. In the book, Raftery provides the information you need to get back every single dollar you're entitled to, plus tips and tricks that help you get the most out of deductions related to:•You, your family, and your property•Education, employment, and small business•Investment property, shares, and superannuation•Special circumstances, including medical expenses and leviesThe book also contains advice on related matters, including tax-effective investments, tax planning, and how to find a great accountant. All information has been updated to reflect tax law changes wrought by the May 2014 budget. If you're tired of paying too much tax and seeing too little return, 101 Ways to Save Money on Your Tax—Legally! 2014 – 2015 is your comprehensive guide to putting things right, starting now.

101 Ways to save money on your tax -- legally!

In 101 Ways to Save Money on Your Tax – Legally! Adrian Raftery, aka Mr Taxman, gives you proven tips to help you minimise your tax debt and maximise your tax return.

Fiscal Panorama of Latin America and the Caribbean 2013: tax reform and renewal of the fiscal covenant

Includes bibliography