Corporate domicile and average effective tax rates: The cases of Canada, Japan, the United Kingdom, and the United States

1995 ◽  
Vol 2 (1) ◽  
pp. 55-83 ◽  
Author(s):  
Julie H. Collins ◽  
Douglas A. Shackelford
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
United Kingdom ◽  
The United States ◽  
Tax Rates ◽  
Effective Tax Rates ◽  
The United Kingdom

scholarly journals How Progressive is the U.S. Federal Tax System? A Historical and International Perspective

2007 ◽  
Vol 21 (1) ◽  
pp. 3-24 ◽  
Author(s):  
Thomas Piketty ◽  
Emmanuel Saez
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
United Kingdom ◽  
Income Tax ◽  
The United States ◽  
Tax Rates ◽  
Tax System ◽  
Tax Progressivity ◽  
The United Kingdom ◽  
Income Groups ◽  
The U.S

This paper provides estimates of federal tax rates by income groups in the United States since 1960, with special emphasis on very top income groups. We include individual and corporate income taxes, payroll taxes, and estate and gift taxes. The progressivity of the U.S. federal tax system at the top of the income distribution has declined dramatically since the 1960s. This dramatic drop in progressivity is due primarily to a drop in corporate taxes and in estate and gift taxes combined with a sharp change in the composition of top incomes away from capital income and toward labor income. The sharp drop in statutory top marginal individual income tax rates has contributed only moderately to the decline in tax progressivity. International comparisons confirm that is it critical to take into account other taxes than the individual income tax to properly assess the extent of overall tax progressivity, both for time trends and for cross-country comparisons. The pattern for the United Kingdom is similar to the U.S. pattern. France had less progressive taxes than the United States or the United Kingdom in 1970 but has experienced an increase in tax progressivity and has now a more progressive tax system than the United States or the United Kingdom.

scholarly journals A Comparative Discussion of the Judicial Disqualification of Directors under the South African Companies Act

2020 ◽  
pp. 1-24
Author(s):  
Rehana Cassim
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
United Kingdom ◽  
South African ◽  
United States Of America ◽  
The United States ◽  
The South ◽  
The United Kingdom ◽  
Locus Standi

Abstract Section 162 of the South African Companies Act 71 of 2008 empowers courts to declare directors delinquent and hence to disqualify them from office. This article compares the judicial disqualification of directors under this section with the equivalent provisions in the United Kingdom, Australia and the United States of America, which have all influenced the South African act. The article compares the classes of persons who have locus standi to apply to court to disqualify a director from holding office, as well as the grounds for the judicial disqualification of a director, the duration of the disqualification, the application of a prescription period and the discretion conferred on courts to disqualify directors from office. It contends that, in empowering courts to disqualify directors from holding office, section 162 of the South African Companies Act goes too far in certain respects.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document