Skip navigation.
Home
Get & Give Tax Help for Small Businesses

tax news

Law Article Discusses Post-DOMA Tax Changes

Tax Foundation - Tue, 2014-07-22 11:15

A law professor wrote an article discussing our work ensuring state tax guidance to same-sex couples after DOMA was struck down. About half the states both (1) require state tax return filing status to match the federal tax return filing status and (2) ban gay marriage. As these together create a paradox for taxpayers, we worked with states to provide affirmative guidance and options, rather than just throwing same-sex couple taxpayers to the wolves. I'm pleased to say that every state did so.

The article discussing this (and other interesting post-DOMA invalidation wrinkles, such as Medicare, Social Security, and military benefits) is Sarah R. Sullivan & Martha Prado, Preemption of Public Benefits in the Shadow of DOMA: When State and Federal Law Collide, 15 Fla. Coastal L. Rev. 225 (Winter 2014).

Categories: Tax news

Are Carbon Taxes Worth It? Australia Says No

Tax Foundation - Tue, 2014-07-22 11:15

Australia is the first developed country to both institute and repeal a tax on carbon. On Thursday, July 17, the Australian Senate repealed its carbon tax with a 39 to 32 vote.

After the repeal, Prime Minister Tony Abbot characterized the tax as destructive to jobs, families and the economy, without actually helping the environment. “The Carbon Tax was a $9 billion a year hit on the Australian economy,” he said, and stated that the repeal would “save the average Australian household $550 a year.”

Under the repealed law, liable Australian entities had just began paying the top rate of 25.4 Australian dollars per ton of carbon pollution emitted. Liable entities were mostly large emitters (25,000 tons of carbon dioxide per year), who cumulatively produced about 60 percent of the country’s emissions.

Australia implemented its carbon tax in July of 2012 with a tax of A$23 per ton of carbon. The tax was set to rise 2.5 percent each year until 2015 when a cap and trade system would be implemented.

Australia’s attempt to tax carbon indicates that raising the price of energy consumption is difficult to implement properly and can be politically unpopular. 

Why is Taxing Pollution so Difficult?

Setting aside the politics for a second, a carbon tax can make theoretic sense as a way to charge people for the social costs of their pollution. Economist call these uncompensated damages negative externalities. To offset these externalities, some economists recommend a tax on carbon emissions that is equal to the social cost of the pollution. These are known as Pigovian taxes, after the late British economist Arthur Pigou.

The problem is, such tax schemes must overcome two hurdles to be sound tax policy. First, the collected tax must go to remitting the damage caused by the externality. And second, policymakers must be able to know the uncompensated cost of carbon emission.

Additionally, regulators often lack sufficient knowledge or correct incentives to estimate and implement efficient carbon taxes. It is not an easy task to set a tax equal to the cost of the externality and distribute the revenue to compensate the appropriate individuals.

Why is Australia’s Experience Important to the United States? 

Australia has been called an important laboratory for U.S. energy policy because of the similarities between the two countries. The continental U.S. is roughly the same size as Australia, both countries are heavily reliant on carbon producing fossil fuels, and the distribution of emissions by industry are similar. Both Australia and the U.S. are among the top per capita carbon dioxide producers in the world.

The Australian laboratory for U.S. carbon tax policy seems to have demonstrated that politically, the costs of taxing carbon are prohibitively unpopular. The high social and economic costs of transforming an economy away from carbon emission are mostly borne by ordinary citizens. The first lesson in tax economics is: when people cannot quickly change their demand (as is the case with energy usage), most of the tax cost will be passed along to the consumer through higher prices.

A tax on carbon is, by extension, a tax on energy. Taxing energy raises the price of transportation, heating, cooling, manufacturing, and everything else that uses electricity, gas, oil, or plastic.

A tax on energy is a tax on growth and innovation. Historically, economic growth has been fueled by low energy prices and hampered by high energy prices. The Australian carbon tax has enforced this narrative by exacerbating the 2008 recession and handicapping its economic recovery.

Most of the revenue generated from Australia’s carbon tax went to tax breaks for low income taxpayers and subsidies to power plants and aluminum manufactures. In theory a carbon tax is intended to place upward price pressure on carbon emitting activities, forcing emissions to decrease. However, the revenue from the Australian tax was redistributed in the form of subsidies to low income energy consumers and to some of the largest polluters.

These two policies are fundamentally at odds. With one hand the government raised the price of energy, and with the other hand subsidized the use of carbon emitting energy to the tune of one billion Australian dollars.

The carbon tax did provide some funding for alternative and green energy projects, but again this use is not supported by sound tax theory. The increased price of energy under the tax regime would theoretically incentivize private actors to develop new technologies – allowing the market to decide what the most efficient alternative technologies are.

Instead, Australia invested much of the tax revenue into government research initiatives and subsidies for politically favored alternatives, displacing private investment. Well-structured tax policy would have used the tax revenue to mitigate climate related damage, not dictate future energy production.

While carbon taxes can be alluring on the pages of a text book, in practice they fail to become good tax policy. The laboratory results are in and Australia says they are done with the experiment.

Categories: Tax news

DC Circuit Orders Vacatur of IRS Obamacare Regulations Extending Tax ... - Federal Regulations Advisor

Google IRS Federal Income Tax - Tue, 2014-07-22 10:43

Forbes

DC Circuit Orders Vacatur of IRS Obamacare Regulations Extending Tax ...
Federal Regulations Advisor
We conclude that appellants have the better of the argument: a federal Exchange is not an “Exchange established by the State,” and section 36B does not authorize the IRS to provide tax credits for insurance purchased on federal Exchanges. We reach this ...
DC Circuit to IRS: Only Congress Can Change the LawForbes
Courts Issue Conflicting Rulings on Health Care LawNew York Times
Obamacare in chaos as federal court strikes down tax credits for low-income ...Daily Mail
Newsmax.com -News 13 Orlando -The Desert Sun
all 832 news articles »
Categories: Tax news

A Big F'ing Deal: DC Circuit Strikes Down Federal Obamacare Subsidies - Breitbart News

Google IRS Federal Income Tax - Tue, 2014-07-22 09:03

Breitbart News

A Big F'ing Deal: DC Circuit Strikes Down Federal Obamacare Subsidies
Breitbart News
"We conclude that appellants have the better of the argument: a federal Exchange is not an 'Exchange established by the State,' and section 36B does not authorize the IRS to provide tax credits for insurance purchased on federal Exchanges," the ...
The ObamaCare-IRS NexusWall Street Journal
A big hole in the heart of ObamacareCNN
Federal Courts Issue Conflicting Decisions on Affordable Care Act SubsidiesJD Supra (press release)
InsideCounsel -Health Affairs (blog)
all 1,767 news articles »
Categories: Tax news

Russia may ask rich to help foot bill for Crimea with 'solidarity tax'

Yahoo Tax - Tue, 2014-07-22 08:58

By Lidia Kelly MOSCOW (Reuters) - Russia could ask its richest citizens to help foot the bill for the annexation of Crimea by paying a "solidarity tax" proposed by a group of lawmakers. Deputies from the State Duma lower house of parliament, which is dominated by backers of President Vladimir Putin, have drawn up a draft law that would increase income tax for people earning more than more than 1 million roubles ($28,700) a month. "The main goal is to support regional budgets and that means also the budget of Russia's new territories," Andrei Krutov, the deputy leading the planned legislation, told Reuters. His reference to the "new territories" made clear that a key intention was to help the government pay for Crimea's absorption into Russia.


Categories: Tax news

Massachusetts Ballot Referendum Challenges Gas Tax Indexing

Tax Foundation - Tue, 2014-07-22 08:45

This November Massachusetts will vote to repeal House Bill 3847. The law, signed in 2013, raised the state’s gas tax from 21 to 24 cents per gallon and automatically tied the tax rate to inflation for future years. Despite opposition by the group Tank the Gas Tax, which successfully gathered enough signatures to trigger a referendum to repeal the tax increase, the 2013 measure is a sensible solution that stabilizes state gas tax revenues for future years. 

Since 1991, the last time Massachusetts passed a gas tax increase, Massachusetts gas tax revenues have fallen 18 percent after inflation adjustment while the total level of state and local gas tax collections  across the nation have Increased by 15 percent. Over this same period, Massachusetts gas tax revenues have fallen from 0.5 percent of the state’s GDP to only 0.15 percent, showing that gas-tax revenues have diminished even as the rest of Massachusetts’ economy has grown.

Yes, consumers may be driving less and cars have become more fuel efficient, but the gas tax’s declining share of revenue and GSP from 1991 to 2013 show that this is not the entire story. The gas tax prior to the 2013 changes failed to generate revenue at a rate to match the growth of the rest of the economy. As the Consumer Price Index increased by 71 percent from 1991 to 2013, the value of a 21 cent tax on gasoline diminished.  Essentially, Massachusetts has been experiencing a de facto tax cut for that last 20 years.

Raising the rate from 21 to 24 cents and indexing the tax for inflation fixes this issue.  Contrary to what groups like Tank the Gas Tax claim, tying the gas tax to the rate of inflation is not an arbitrary tax hike but a way to stabilize gas tax revenues.

Categories: Tax news

Time's right to repeal federal income tax - Appleton Post Crescent

Google IRS Federal Income Tax - Tue, 2014-07-22 07:09

Time's right to repeal federal income tax
Appleton Post Crescent
The problem began not with the targeting of conservative organizations by the IRS, but in 1913, with the passage of the 16th Amendment, which allowed Congress to levy an income tax. A toxic stew of class envy had formed in the late 19th century, when ...

Categories: Tax news

What Are Tax Expenditures?

Tax Foundation - Mon, 2014-07-21 11:45

A tax expenditure is defined as a departure from the default tax code that decreases total taxes paid. They are called tax “expenditures” because they resemble government spending.

Although a majority of tax expenditure spending can be accounted for by a small number of provisions, the Congressional Budget Office estimates there are over 200 exemptions, deductions, and credits.

The majority of the expenses incurred through tax expenditures are for individuals. For Fiscal Year 2014, the Office of Management and Budget projects nearly $1.2 trillion in total tax expenditures – $148 billion (13 percent) in corporate tax expenditures and $1.036 trillion (87 percent) in individual tax expenditures.

Tax expenditures can be roughly divided into three categories: those that help promote neutrality, those for social welfare, and those that benefit just one favored class of corporations (corporate welfare). Over 60 percent of tax expenditures make the tax code more neutral.

A neutral tax code treats current consumption, and investment and saving (future consumption) equally. For example, the capital gains and dividends tax expenditure lowers the rate on investment income to reduce the problem of double taxation. When investment income is taxed twice, investment is disincentivized you get less investment in the future and more current consumption. The lower rate on capital gains is good tax policy because it moves toward tax code neutrality.

However, maintaining neutrality though tax expenditures can introduce unnecessary complexity and tax compliance issues. We would be better served by correctly defining the tax base.

A correctly defined tax base would only tax businesses on their real profits (revenue minus costs) and only tax individuals on their personal expenditures. This would provide individuals with a system that is neutral between current consumption and future consumption and enable businesses to invest and grow.

As an added bonus, a neutral tax base would eliminate the need for any additional tax expenditures.

Below are the current largest tax expenditures by cost.

Largest Individual Tax Expenditures:

The Exclusion of Employer Contributions for Medical Insurance Premiums ($196 billion). Exclusion of Net Imputed Rental Income ($76 billion). Deductibility of Mortgage Interest on Owner-Occupied Housing ($70 billion). Lower Rate for Capital Gains ($60 billion). Defined Contribution Employer Plans ($59 billion). 

Largest Corporate Tax Expenditures:

Deferral of Income from Controlled Foreign Corporations ($76 billion). Deduction for U.S. Production Activities ($10 billion). Accelerated Depreciation of Machinery and Equipment ($8 billion).
Categories: Tax news

Transportation Security Administration Fees Rise Today

Tax Foundation - Mon, 2014-07-21 07:45

Transportation Security Administration (TSA) per-passenger fees rise today, from $2.50 for non-stop flights and $5.60 for connecting flights to $5.60 for all flights. I’ve written about this fee hike before, discussing how direct airline ticket taxes and fees can be a large portion of the total ticket price. As I explained then, there is some theoretical justification for special taxes on airline tickets in order to pay for essential Federal Aviation Administration functions and effective security. However, also as I noted then, “probably very few of us wake up in the morning hoping we get to pay $2.50 (let alone $5) to walk through a full-body scanner and then get frisked.”

Those issues aside, purchasers of airline tickets face many other taxes as well, ranging from Passenger Facility Charges at each airport to a tax for each flight segment to a 7.5 percent excise tax on the ticket price. Beyond those direct taxes, airline customers also ultimately foot much of the bill for fuel taxes. As we showed in a recent map, fuel taxes can range widely around the nation, with Ohio, Texas, and Delaware charging no tax, while Illinois, for example, charges 32.8 cents per gallon. On top of state taxes, the federal government also levies an excise tax or 4.4 cents per gallon for commercial carriers.

Again, as a way of funding essential public support services for aviation, these taxes and fees have sound theoretical justifications. But many of these collections don’t go to air traffic controllers and other essential support services; they go to numerous extra functions assigned to the FAA and TSA, including regulation and law enforcement-type activities. We don’t expect police departments to be fully funded by speeding tickets and license fees, so it’s not clear why we should try to entirely fund aviation regulators from similarly tied revenue.

The deeper reasoning behind higher airline fees has to do with federal budgetary needs. Due to being a narrow constituency often perceived as being wealthy, airline passengers are an easy group to tax. The most recent Presidential budget proposal, for example, proposed to increase numerous aviation-related taxes and fees, raising $17 billion over ten years from airlines and their customers. The current fee increase is due to a budget deal arising in December, 2013, with higher airline fees an essential pay-for to make the deal work without raising taxes.

However, such high aviation taxes and fees are problematic on economic and tax policy grounds. Airline taxes are likely much higher than is necessary to pay for associated services and any potential externalities (like “noise pollution” at airports and rare aviation accidents). Such high rates on a narrow base (just one good) are practically the definition of bad tax policy. Plus, the beneficiaries of a more safe and secure airplane may not all be passengers: drivers, for example, clearly benefit from reduced congestion externalities on roads during peak holiday travel seasons, while major beneficiaries of increased aviation safety may be people on the ground. Estimating these burdens is not simple.

That effect is compounded by the role that aviation plays as a business input. Business travelers and any firm using air mail have to build these excess taxes into their cost structure, even as their final sales may be subject to sales taxes at the state level, creating potential for tax pyramiding. Thus excess taxation of business inputs beyond what is necessary to cover essential user costs, especially for a major infrastructural input like aviation services, creates economic burdens.

To appropriately tax airlines, we need a clear accounting of exactly how much it costs to provide essential safety and support services for airlines, and how much of the benefits of those services are obtained by passengers and airlines versus the general public. Otherwise, policymakers are flying blind about what an appropriate airline tax policy would really be.

Read more on transportation and infrastructure taxes here.

Follow Lyman on Twitter.

Categories: Tax news

Time is right to repeal federal income tax - Green Bay Press Gazette

Google IRS Federal Income Tax - Sun, 2014-07-20 20:39

Time is right to repeal federal income tax
Green Bay Press Gazette
The problem began not with the targeting of conservative organizations by the IRS, but in 1913, with the passage of the 16th Amendment, which allowed Congress to levy an income tax. A toxic stew of class envy had formed in the late 19th century, when ...

Categories: Tax news

State eyeing tax service fraud - The Advocate

Google IRS Federal Income Tax - Sun, 2014-07-20 20:19

State eyeing tax service fraud
The Advocate
In less than two years, the state has overseen the arrests of 16 tax preparers. The dollar amounts on their alleged frauds total $3.6 million. IRS – Criminal Investigation helped bring federal charges against tax preparers such as Ferguson. Slidell ...

and more »
Categories: Tax news

Claudia Buck: Identity thieves exploit changes in federal law to file phony ... - Sacramento Bee

Google IRS Federal Income Tax - Sun, 2014-07-20 00:02

Claudia Buck: Identity thieves exploit changes in federal law to file phony ...
Sacramento Bee
She was referring to a significant change in federal tax law in 2013, enacted to accommodate same-sex taxpayers. Last August, the IRS and U.S. Treasury announced that legally married same-sex couples could now file their federal income taxes as married ...

and more »
Categories: Tax news

Colin Hanna: With IRS embroiled, time is right to repeal federal income tax - Contra Costa Times

Google IRS Federal Income Tax - Sat, 2014-07-19 10:11

Colin Hanna: With IRS embroiled, time is right to repeal federal income tax
Contra Costa Times
A high-level official of the Internal Revenue Service declares her innocence before a congressional committee and then asserts the Fifth Amendment right that she had effectively just waived. Incriminating emails have surfaced, while others are declared ...

Categories: Tax news

With scandal comes talk of ending the income tax - Atlanta Journal Constitution

Google IRS Federal Income Tax - Sat, 2014-07-19 09:05

With scandal comes talk of ending the income tax
Atlanta Journal Constitution
The problem began not with the targeting of conservative organizations by the IRS, but in 1913, with the passage of the 16th Amendment, which allowed Congress to levy an income tax. A toxic stew of class envy had formed in the late 19th century, when ...
IRS: Assess Changes Now That May Affect Your Premium Tax CreditAccountingweb.com
Congress Probes Legitimacy of ACA Premium Tax CreditsAccounting Today

all 4 news articles »
Categories: Tax news

Judge Rejects Philadelphia's Attempt to Impose Amusement Excise Tax on Exotic Dancers' Lapdance Earnings

Tax Foundation - Fri, 2014-07-18 07:30

If you buy something in Philadelphia, you pay a 8 percent sales tax (6 percent state plus 2 percent city). But if that something is an amusement (sporting event, theatre performance, show, etc.), the state doesn't tax it although the city taxes it at 5 percent. Why such purchases should get preferential tax treatment is beyond me, but it's also led to disputes over what counts as an "amusement" and what doesn't.

Philadelphia Mayor Michael Nutter's administration argued that lap dances performed at strip clubs count as an "amusement," and demanded $1.5 million in back taxes, interest, and penalties from three strip clubs covering the years 2008 to 2010. Last October, the city's Tax Review Board said that the city's amusement tax ordinance did not cover lap dances, but the City persisted. On Wednesday, a state judge threw out the city's argument:

“The ruling is simply that the (tax) ordinance, as it exists, as it’s currently worded, doesn’t cover lap dances,” says attorney George Bochetto (at left below), who represents two of the three clubs that were being taxed.  “If the city wants to tax lap dances, they can go to City Council, ask City Council to amend the ordinance, and they can start imposing a tax on lap dances. Or anything else they want: karaoke songs, piano playing. Anything they want. But you have to put it in the ordinance. You just can’t make it up as you go along.”

The city has 30 days to appeal. The court is correct that the City's argument is "vague and inconsistent," trying to make the statute so elastic that they can pick at will what is subject to the amusement tax.

Categories: Tax news

Abbott Labs on Corporate Inversions

Tax Foundation - Fri, 2014-07-18 07:15

The corporate inversion debate continues to heat up, revealing a serious conflict between the Obama administration and the business community. Corporate inversions are cross-border mergers that allow U.S. companies to reincorporate abroad where corporate taxes are much lower.

Earlier this week, Abbott Laboratories and Mylan Inc., both U.S.-based drug makers, announced yet another inversion deal, this time a “spinversion” in which Abbott Labs will spin off part of its foreign operations and sell it to Mylan Inc. with plans to reincorporate the combined company in the Netherlands where corporate taxes are much lower. Then Treasury Secretary Jack Lew accused these and other companies of trying to “avoid paying taxes here, notwithstanding the benefits they gain from being located in the United States.” He went on to imply they are unpatriotic.

Now, in today’s Wall Street Journal, the CEO of Abbott Labs responds:

The raging debate about these decisions has been absurd, and people expounding on the topic are making wild claims that inversion is an abuse of the tax code, cheating and unpatriotic. It all makes for emotional and dramatic headlines and debate but ignores the facts.

First, inversion is legal. Period. It's allowed in the tax code. The tax code even specifies the terms and conditions under which it may be done. Reference 26 U.S. Code Section 7874.

Inversion doesn't change a company's tax rate. A company pays the same tax rate in the U.S. after inversion as it does before inverting. A company also pays the same tax rates in foreign domiciles before and after inversion.

Inversion does not relieve any pre-existing tax burden. It does not reduce the tax that any company would ultimately have to pay on past earnings overseas that have been deferred under the U.S. tax system.

The tax law today views overseas earnings that have not been repatriated as part of the U.S. tax system, regardless of whether a company has inverted. Therefore, those past foreign earnings, if repatriated to the U.S., are still subject to full U.S. taxation.

What does change after inversion is a company's access to its future foreign earnings generated outside of the U.S. tax system. Those future earnings may be used for any capital allocation purpose the company may have, including investment in the U.S., without the additional U.S. repatriation tax. Foreign taxes will have already been paid on those profits earned outside the U.S. It is the additional repatriation tax, imposed by high corporate tax rate in the U.S., that is not paid after inversion.

It is important to note that the U.S. has the highest corporate tax rate in the world at 35%, while the tax rates in countries with territorial systems, where our competitors are based, are in the mid-20s or lower.

The U.S. is among only a handful of countries, and the only one in the Group of Seven, that taxes companies on world-wide earnings rather than the earnings in their home domiciles. It's a double whammy: the highest rate, by far, and it's applied worldwide.

In terms of global competitiveness, the U.S. and U.S. companies are at a substantial disadvantage to foreign companies. Taxes are a business cost. Our disproportionately higher tax rate puts foreign companies at a huge advantage competitively, and their lower tax burden amounts to a subsidy that encourages them to acquire American businesses.

Read the whole article

We have made similar points on almost a weekly basis for years. Tax reform is hard, but it is made exponentially harder when the administration and the business community disagree on basic facts.

Follow William McBride on Twitter

Update: An earnlier version of this post referred to Abbot Labs. The post has been updated to reflect the correct name of the company, Abbott Laboratories.

Categories: Tax news

Abbot Labs on Corporate Inversions

Tax Foundation - Fri, 2014-07-18 07:15

The corporate inversion debate continues to heat up, revealing a serious conflict between the Obama administration and the business community. Corporate inversions are cross-border mergers that allow U.S. companies to reincorporate abroad where corporate taxes are much lower.

Earlier this week, Abbot Labs and Mylan Inc., both U.S.-based drug makers, announced yet another inversion deal, this time a “spinversion” in which Abbot Labs will spin off part of its foreign operations and sell it to Mylan Inc. with plans to reincorporate the combined company in the Netherlands where corporate taxes are much lower. Then Treasury Secretary Jack Lew accused these and other companies of trying to “avoid paying taxes here, notwithstanding the benefits they gain from being located in the United States.” He went on to imply they are unpatriotic.

Now, in today’s Wall Street Journal, the CEO of Abbot Labs responds:

The raging debate about these decisions has been absurd, and people expounding on the topic are making wild claims that inversion is an abuse of the tax code, cheating and unpatriotic. It all makes for emotional and dramatic headlines and debate but ignores the facts.

First, inversion is legal. Period. It's allowed in the tax code. The tax code even specifies the terms and conditions under which it may be done. Reference 26 U.S. Code Section 7874.

Inversion doesn't change a company's tax rate. A company pays the same tax rate in the U.S. after inversion as it does before inverting. A company also pays the same tax rates in foreign domiciles before and after inversion.

Inversion does not relieve any pre-existing tax burden. It does not reduce the tax that any company would ultimately have to pay on past earnings overseas that have been deferred under the U.S. tax system.

The tax law today views overseas earnings that have not been repatriated as part of the U.S. tax system, regardless of whether a company has inverted. Therefore, those past foreign earnings, if repatriated to the U.S., are still subject to full U.S. taxation.

What does change after inversion is a company's access to its future foreign earnings generated outside of the U.S. tax system. Those future earnings may be used for any capital allocation purpose the company may have, including investment in the U.S., without the additional U.S. repatriation tax. Foreign taxes will have already been paid on those profits earned outside the U.S. It is the additional repatriation tax, imposed by high corporate tax rate in the U.S., that is not paid after inversion.

It is important to note that the U.S. has the highest corporate tax rate in the world at 35%, while the tax rates in countries with territorial systems, where our competitors are based, are in the mid-20s or lower.

The U.S. is among only a handful of countries, and the only one in the Group of Seven, that taxes companies on world-wide earnings rather than the earnings in their home domiciles. It's a double whammy: the highest rate, by far, and it's applied worldwide.

In terms of global competitiveness, the U.S. and U.S. companies are at a substantial disadvantage to foreign companies. Taxes are a business cost. Our disproportionately higher tax rate puts foreign companies at a huge advantage competitively, and their lower tax burden amounts to a subsidy that encourages them to acquire American businesses.

Read the whole article

We have made similar points on almost a weekly basis for years. Tax reform is hard, but it is made exponentially harder when the administration and the business community disagree on basic facts.

Follow William McBride on Twitter

Categories: Tax news

AbbVie, Shire agree on $55B combination

Yahoo Tax - Fri, 2014-07-18 04:50
The drugmaker AbbVie has reached a deal worth roughly $55 billion to combine with British counterpart Shire and become the latest U.S. company to seek an overseas haven from corporate income tax rates back home.
Categories: Tax news

IRS: Summer weddings mean tax changes - The Ridgefield Press

Google IRS Federal Income Tax - Fri, 2014-07-18 01:06

IRS: Summer weddings mean tax changes
The Ridgefield Press
Tax filing status. If you're married as of Dec. 31, that's your marital status for the whole year for tax purposes. You and your spouse can choose to file your federal income tax return either jointly or separately each year. You may want to figure the ...

Categories: Tax news

IRS Sharing Personal Income Tax Information with the Census Bureau - American Thinker (blog)

Google IRS Federal Income Tax - Thu, 2014-07-17 23:29

IRS Sharing Personal Income Tax Information with the Census Bureau
American Thinker (blog)
In order to design more efficient procedures for the upcoming 2020 census, the Department of Commerce wants to mine some data from our Form 1040 Income Tax returns and related documents. Specifically, the Census people over in the Commerce ... And what ...

and more »
Categories: Tax news
Syndicate content