[R]esearchers analyzed the relationship between tax progressivity and personal well-being in 54 nations surveyed by the Gallup Organization in 2007—a total of 59,634 respondents. Well-being was expressed in people’s assessments of their overall life quality, from “worst” to “best possible life,” on a scale of 1 to 10; and in whether they enjoyed positive daily experiences (such as smiling, being treated with respect, and eating good food) or suffered negative ones, including sadness, worry, and shame. Finally, the analysis looked at the participants’ satisfaction with their nation’s public goods, from schools to clean air. […] On average, residents of the nations with the most progressive taxation evaluated their own lives as closer to “the best possible.” They also reported having more satisfying experiences and fewer discomfiting ones than respondents living in nations with less progressive taxes. [via TaxProf]
Category: Tax
Somewhere in Mitt Romney’s 59-point Economic Plan, There’s Something About Tax Reform
That’s right boys and girls. Our economy is such a jumbled clusterfuck that Presidential Ken Doll Mitt Romney and his team had to lay out 59 specific proposals to get this thing turned around. In a USA Today op-ed, Mittens laid out a little preview of this plan and it includes – YEP! – cutting taxes and ultimately overhauling the tax code:
Marginal income tax rates and tax rates on savings and investment must be kept low. Further, taxes on interest, dividends and capital gains for middle-income taxpayers should be eliminated. Our corporate tax rate is among the world’s highest. It leaves U.S. firms at a competitive disadvantage and induces them to park their profits abroad, benefiting the rest of the world at our expense. I will fix these problems with permanent solutions. Ultimately, I will press for a total overhaul of our overly complex and inefficient system of taxation.
Romney seems to be following Jon Huntsman’s lead but for fortunately for Mittens, Huntmsan’s plan wasn’t bulleted and no one heard the speech.
TaxSlayer.com Is the New Corporate Sponsor of The Gator Bowl
You may have heard that the college football season over the weekend, which means tax professionals’ mandatory Saturdays will be a little more unbearable and your football crazed significant other will not be seen nor heard from (with the exception of deafening bodily functions) until January.
January, of course, is bowl season when the best teams in the land compete for bragging rights as champions of various BCS bowls. It also allows a few dozen mediocre teams to play equally mediocre teams for no particular reason. One of these bowls is the Gator Bowl. Sure it might be the 6th oldest bowl and sure, it has been played on New Year’s Day since 1996 but that doesn’t make it any more meaningful. It will feature teams from the SEC and The Big 10 that will be a threat for their respective conference championships for 2 to 3 weeks. In short, the Gator Bowl has a long tradition of fielding third-rate football teams.
So it makes perfect sense for TaxSlayer.com, tax prep company with a long tradition of third-rate service, to sponsor the Gator Bowl:
The Evans, Ga.-based company announced a multi-year partnership Thursday with the Gator Bowl Association and the fact that it was named a new “title sponsor” of the bowl, starting with the 2012 Gator Bowl in Jacksonville, Fla., on Jan. 2.[…] TaxSlayer may not have the same name recognition as TurboTax or TaxAct, but it comes out of a tax prep business that dates back 40 years.
And in case you’re not convinced that TaxSlayer.com isn’t doing everything they can to get their name out there, they also sponsor Dale Earnhardt, Jr., which will make them a household name in no time. In the South, anyway.
[via AT]
That Tax Shelter Seemed Like a Really Good Idea at the Time
It helps to be really smart if you want to talk yourself into something really stupid. That’s how a lot of bad tax shelters happen. Let’s call this one the “Dumb-Ass Deduction Distressed Asset-Debt” (“DAD^2” or “DAD-squared”) shelter.
The ingredients:
• A bunch of near-worthless consumer receivables from a struggling Brazilian department store chain.
• A whip-smart Chicago tax lawyer, John E. Rogers.
• A bunch of LLC partnerships for tax-motivated investors.
• Some cash.
The Brazilians contribute their receivables – purportedly with a big built-in loss – to a partnership. This partnership contributes the debt to other LLCs. Shortly afterwards the first LLC buys out the Brazilians, who are desperate for cash, leaving the crappy receivables behind. The investor partnerships then write off the debts as bad debt deductions, giving big tax losses to the investors.
It can’t fail, right? Well, aside from the obvious problems, like:
– The tax law presumes that if a partner (think Brazilians here) contributes stuff to a partnership, and then gets cash back in redemption of the interest within two years, then it wasn’t really a tax-free partnership contribution and distribution. Instead, the tax law presumes that the Brazilian sold the stuff for cash. The partnership was just a place to hide it for awhile.
– If the Brazilians hadn’t sold out, the tax law would have required them to get all of the losses. The tax law doesn’t let taxpayers shift gains or losses to others by joining a partnership. After all, that’s what S corporations are for.
The guy who put this thing together was smart, as people who put together sophisticated tax deals always are. The Tax Court spells it out:
Rogers is a member of the International Fiscal Association, an international tax group. He has also been a trustee of the Tax Foundation, a publicly supported foundation that researches tax policy issues and publishes papers. Rogers has worked with the Governments of Puerto Rico and Romania in developing programs implementing their industrial taxation programs. Rogers has written a number of publications, primarily on international tax matters, transfers of technology, the use of low-tax jurisdictions, and the compensation of executives outside the United States. In 1997 Rogers was invited to testify before the House Ways and Means Committee on fundamental international tax reform.
When a plan by someone who is that smart fails, it fails spectacularly. Tax Court Judge Wherry disallowed all of the bad debt deductions, and imposed penalties, pointing a finger at the lawyer-mastermind:
There has been no showing of reasonable cause or good faith on Rogers’ part in conceptualizing, designing, and executing the transactions. To the contrary, as we have detailed above, Rogers’ knowledge and experience should have put him on notice that the tax benefits sought by the form of the transactions would not be forthcoming…
I’m sure that, over drinks, Mr. Rogers would have me convinced that he was right. That’s why you should never buy a tax shelter until you sober up.
“If they don’t come up with loan modifications and keep people in their homes that they’ve worked so hard for, we’re going to tax them out of business,” Waters said. [Some People Don’t Care to Mince Words on Jon Huntsman’s Tax Reform Plan
[L]et’s just call this Huntsman plan what it really is: a huge, highly confused, poorly defended giveaway to people who earn lots of money from their investments. For people who can live off investment gains, it delivers the pleasure of a tax-free lifestyle. [Joseph Thorndike]
Jon Huntsman Has a Plan for Tax Reform
Unheard-of GOP Presidential candidate Jon Huntsman isn’t doing so well in the race for his party’s nomination. This is probably due to the fact that he seems like a fairly pragmatic fellow and pragmatism isn’t really something that fits in the GOP agenda. I mean, COME ON, the man believes in evolution and trusts scientists on climate change. Clearly he’s going nowhere with those kinds of policy positions.
So, in what will likely amount to another failed attempt to bring some sense to the GOP narrative, Huntsman will give a speech on tax reform and various other issues in New Hampshire.
Huntsman will lay out his plans for tax and regulatory reform, energy independence and free trade in a New Hampshire speech that’s being billed as perhaps the last best chance for Huntsman, who stands far behind the GOP frontrunners in polls, to establish himself as a serious contender for the Republican presidential nomination. “Meeting our challenges will require serious solutions, but above all, it will require serious leadership – a quality in high demand in our nation’s capital, and among my opponents on the campaign trail,” Huntsman will say, according to excerpts released by his campaign. The centerpiece of the plan is a proposal to reform tax rates. The Huntsman plan would eliminate all loopholes, deductions and tax exemptions in exchange for establishing three individual income brackets, taxed at eight, 14 and 23 percent. The Huntsman plan would also eliminate capital gains and dividend taxes, do away with the Alternative Minimum Tax (AMT) and reduce the corporate tax rate to 25 percent.
Now all he has to do is mention God’s role in all of this and he’ll be the frontrunner.
Huntsman to unveil sweeping tax reform [The Hill]
Berkshire Hathaway: Wall St. Journal Is Wrong About Our Taxes on Bank of America Deal
Last week, folksy octogenarian (81 years today!) billionaire Warren Buffett announced that he was going to invest $5 billion in Bank of America. Some are questioning The Oracle’s intentions with this investment but considering WB came up with the idea in a place where all good ideas originate – the tub – it’s plausible that this investment will turn out okay for Berkshire shareholders (isn’t that the point?).
Regardless, some don’t think a guy who says that he doesn’t want to be “coddled” and needs – nay, WANTS! – to pay higher taxes shouldn’t be throwing around money and should just put his money where his Blizzardhole is. Accordingly, The Wall St. Journal published an editorial today accusing Buffett of being a little dodgy when it comes to Berkshire’s tax liability as it relates to his BofA investment.
Mr. Buffett’s recent decision to invest in Bank of America represents another tax-avoidance triumph for the Berkshire chief executive. U.S. corporations are subject to a top federal income tax rate of 35%, the second highest in the world. But the Journal’s Erik Holm notes [Ed. note: Thanks for linking!] that Mr. Buffett and the Berkshire bunch won’t pay anything close to that on their investment in BofA preferred shares.
That’s because corporations can exclude from taxation 70% of the dividends they receive from an investment in another corporation. This exclusion is intended to prevent double- or even triple-taxation as money is earned by one company, paid to another company and then ultimately paid out to shareholders. The policy makes sense; we only wonder why the exclusion isn’t 100%.
With the 70% exclusion for Mr. Buffett and his fellow shareholders, Berkshire will enjoy an effective tax rate of 10.5% on the $300 million in dividends it will receive each year from Bank of America.
So, a 10.5% effective rate. Not bad, right? Well, Berkshire says it’s wrong and issued a brief press release to rebut the Journal’s op-ed account and not so subtly suggests that they bone up on tax law:
An editorial in today’s Wall Street Journal says that “Berkshire Hathaway will enjoy an effective tax rate of 10.5% on the $300 million in dividends it will receive each year from Bank of America.” That statement is incorrect.
Virtually all of the stocks that Berkshire owns are held in its property-casualty subsidiaries, and that will be the case with the Bank of America preferred.
The tax treatment for dividends paid by U.S. corporations to property-casualty insurance companies was materially changed by a law passed in 1986. The changes were described in detail in the chairman’s letter included in Berkshire’s 1986 annual report.
A minor change in rate was made in 1993. Since that time dividends that insurers receive from U.S. companies incur an effective tax rate of 14.175%. For Berkshire, that rate will apply to dividends it receives from Bank of America.
So, in other words, suck it editorial board. If you know Buffett like you should know him, then you know that if he could save that 3.675%, he would.
Buffett’s Latest Tax Break [WSJ]
Berkshire Hathaway Inc. News Release [Business Wire (a Berkshire Hathaway Compay!)]
Deductible or Not Deductible: Bartender Refuses to Serve Drunk; Drunk Slashes Bartender’s Tires (Allegedly)
As you know, we like to check in on our friends across the pond every once in awhile to remind them about Valley Forge and whatnot and to see if they have managed to straighten up. There are problems aplenty for accountants in the UK and some of the strangest ones are shared with the peanut gallery over at AccountingWEB UK. Today’s problem is kind of fun because it may be one that many of you have been privy to.
I think I know the answer to this but will put it out there anyway.
Publican [Ed. note: that’s the landlord of a pub for the Yankees out there.] refused to serve a “customer” drink on Saturday night. The publican found his 4 tyres slashed after closing time.
Tax deduction?
To me, this seems like one of those situations that qualify as “the cost of doing business” (i.e. that’s life) and thus, not deductible. Think about it. You’re a bartender. You deal with assholes. Often times, these assholes get drunk. It’s your job as a bartender to take note when one of these assholes is drunk and refuse said asshole any further service. Since assholes don’t like being cut off (been there myself a time or two) this is usually taken personally and bad decisions end up getting made (e.g. attempt to walk to another bar, awkward sexual advances, vandalism).
Now, our publican friend would gladly trade any potential tax deduction for the chance to catch the guy who slashed the tires but that ship has sailed. My thinking is that he’s just going to have to let this one go. Other opinions? Fire away.
Texas ‘Pole Tax’ Gets Called Back to the Stage
[T]he Texas Supreme Court on Friday gave state officials the go-ahead to continue collecting a special $5-per-customer tax on strip clubs. The so-called “pole” tax, collected upon entrance to any club that features nude dancing and alcohol consumption, was ruled unconstitutional by a state district judge in Austin and the 3rd Court of Appeals. The law was passed by the Texas Legislature in 2007, and so far about $15 million has been collected. The money has not been disbursed because of the earlier court rulings. [HC via DMWT, Earlier]
A Romantic Tragedy: The Iowa Film Tax Credit Scandal
Once upon a time a little farm state was feeling sad. The state wasn’t poor. It wasn’t lonesome – strange, handsome and glamorous men were always courting her – but something was missing. What could it be?
Then a man whispered in her ear: you need glamor! And it’s in your grasp!
The little state blushed. “How can I, a little farm state, be glamorous like Hollywood?”
The man said: “You can buy glamour!” And he burst into song:
You’ve got glamor
Right here in River City!
Movies start with cash;
If I can be so brash;
Give me some tax credits!
So the smitten little state gave the man transferable film tax credits. She was so excited about glamor, she gave the tax credits away freely, and the glamor came:
We’ve relied on caucuses every four years to bring action and celebrities to town. Now, sightings are anytime, any place.
But something was wrong. The little state sensed amid the cocktail party laughter that the glamorous were laughing at her, not with her. She noticed that the glamorous people were driving away with shiny new cars that she was paying for. And she noticed that the tax credits were getting rather expensive.
So she cut off her tax credits. This made the glamorous people mad, and some of them sued her. But she caught some of the hapless glamorous people and had them locked up. She made the man who whispered in her ear about film credits confess that he had done a bad thing. She got mad at the man who handed out the tax credits for her and tried to put him in jail.
So the little state is sadder, but perhaps wiser. Which has an attraction of its own:
I flinch, I shy, when the lass with the delicate air goes by
I smile, I grin, when the gal with a touch of sin walks in.
I hope, and I pray, for a Hester to win just one more “A”
The sadder-but-wiser girl’s the girl for me.
The sadder-but-wiser girl for me.
The moral of our story? If you fund it, they will come. And loot your purse. And laugh at you.
Don’t Think You Can Just Go Around Lying About the Taxpayer Protection Pledge and Not Expect Americans for Tax Reform to Have Their Feelings Hurt
A large portion of the populace probably thinks that Americans for Tax Reform president and co-founder Grover Norquist – and by extension, all of ATR – is an ideological, tax-hating, meanie. Sure, he tracks the bagels and coffee consumption at meetings and sure, he might let terrorists have their way with our grandmothers if the chips are down but that’s just holding true to his principles of austerity. Plus, he’s down with Elmo and gives the green light to cheeky blog posts, so you know he’s got a soft spot and a sense of humor.
So when someone says something mean about ATR or the Taxpayer Protection Pledge, it cuts. It cuts deep. And when someone running for public office has the audacity to lie about the Taxpayer Protection Pledge, that’s when things have simply crossed the line to the point of no return.
Case in point – Kate Marshall, who is running for Congress in Nevada’s 2nd District said the following about her opponent Mark Amodei:
“He signed a tax pledge which basically says no tax loopholes shall be left behind,” Marshall said. “He shall never turn down a subsidy, shall never close a loophole.”
Well, this little statement got a few knickers in a twist over at ATR and they pulled a quote from Factcheck.org to prove Marshall wrong:
ATR’s tax pledge does protect corporations in general — but only from an overall increase in taxes. It says nothing about jobs at all. More important, it does not rule out an overhaul of the tax code. Signers agree to oppose any “net” reduction of deductions or credits “unless matched dollar for dollar by further reducing tax rates.” […] That leaves ample room for elimination of any number of special tax breaks so long as the overall level of taxation is not increased. To claim that this “protects” any particular provision of the tax code is simply untrue.
So now, Grover and Co. would like Kate Marshall to apologize for this blatant disregard for the truth. This can be made in the form of a written apology, public statement, sending Grover a bouquet of flowers or – here’s a wild idea – how about SIGNING THE PLEDGE? That would probably smooth things over.
Kate Marshall Urged to Apologize for Lies About Taxpayer Protection Pledge [ATR]
Four special election candidates spar over taxes [LVS]