The Computation of the Taxable Income

2018 ◽  
pp. 181-192
Author(s):  
Felix I. Lessambo
Keyword(s):  
2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Danielle Green ◽  
Erin Henry ◽  
Sarah Parsons ◽  
George A. Plesko

2020 ◽  
Vol 0 (0) ◽  
Author(s):  
Daniel Taborda ◽  
João Sousa

AbstractTo the best of our knowledge, this is the first paper focusing on the interpretations issued by different Portuguese courts concerning the application of the accrual principle established in the Corporate Income Tax Code.This paper uses a database of the Portuguese tax courts’ decisions and employs a case law-based research methodology to address the following question: under which circumstances the principle of justice may affect the strict application of the accrual principle? After collecting twenty-four legal decisions related to the application of the accrual principle outlined in tax law, this paper summarises eleven, grouping them according to the different issues under dispute. This analysis also includes the confrontation of the assumptions used by the tax authority and the claims of the taxpayers, identifying and discussing the legal arguments to override the strict application of the accrual principle.The main conclusion is that Portuguese courts may summon the principle of justice in taxation when taxpayers violate the accrual principle, in order to prevent unfair corrections to taxable income performed in tax audits. This paper found that the tax authority typically demands a rigid use of the accrual principle while the taxpayers often argue for a more flexible application. This last perspective has been adopted by the tax courts in certain circumstances, in particular when taxable income transfer was not motivated by tax avoidance.


2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Carina Neisser

Abstract The elasticity of taxable income (ETI) is a key parameter in tax policy analysis. To examine the large variation found in the literature of taxable and broad income elasticities, I conduct a comprehensive meta-regression analysis using information from 61 studies containing 1,720 estimates. My findings reveal that estimated elasticities are not immutable parameters. They are correlated with contextual factors and the choice of the empirical specification influences the estimated elasticities. Finally, selective reporting bias is prevalent, and the direction of bias depends on whether deductions are included in the tax base.


2021 ◽  
Vol 49 (2) ◽  
pp. 262-293
Author(s):  
Vincent Dekker ◽  
Karsten Schweikert

In this article, we compare three data-driven procedures to determine the bunching window in a Monte Carlo simulation of taxable income. Following the standard approach in the empirical bunching literature, we fit a flexible polynomial model to a simulated income distribution, excluding data in a range around a prespecified kink. First, we propose to implement methods for the estimation of structural breaks to determine a bunching regime around the kink. A second procedure is based on Cook’s distances aiming to identify outlier observations. Finally, we apply the iterative counterfactual procedure proposed by Bosch, Dekker, and Strohmaier which evaluates polynomial counterfactual models for all possible bunching windows. While our simulation results show that all three procedures are fairly accurate, the iterative counterfactual procedure is the preferred method to detect the bunching window when no prior information about the true size of the bunching window is available.


2014 ◽  
Vol 6 (4) ◽  
pp. 271-301 ◽  
Author(s):  
Henrik Jacobsen Kleven ◽  
Esben Anton Schultz

This paper estimates taxable income responses using a series of Danish tax reforms and population-wide administrative data since 1980. The tax variation and data in Denmark makes it possible to overcome the biases from nontax changes in inequality and mean reversion that plague the existing literature. We provide compelling graphical evidence of taxable income responses, arguably representing the first nonparametrically identified evidence of taxable income elasticities using tax reforms. We also present panel regression evidence that is extremely robust to specification, unlike previous results which have been very sensitive. (JEL D31, H24, H31, J22)


1925 ◽  
Vol 10 (9) ◽  
pp. 275-277
Author(s):  
HERBERT S. MANLEY
Keyword(s):  

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document