PROGRESSIVE INCOME TAXES AND THE DEMAND FOR RISKY ASSETS

1984 ◽  
Vol 37 (1) ◽  
pp. 127-129
Author(s):  
JOHN C. FELLINGHAM ◽  
MARK A. WOLFSON
Keyword(s):  
2012 ◽  
Vol 1 (7) ◽  
pp. 121-126
Author(s):  
Dr. M. Sumathy Dr. M. Sumathy ◽  
◽  
M. Tamilselvan M. Tamilselvan
Keyword(s):  

2008 ◽  
Vol 35 (2) ◽  
pp. 71-100 ◽  
Author(s):  
Douglas K. Barney ◽  
Tonya K. Flesher

Farmers have benefited from unique tax treatment since the beginning of the income tax law. This paper explores agricultural influences on the passage of the income tax in 1913, using both qualitative and quantitative analysis. The results show that agricultural interests were influential in the development and passage of tax/tariff laws. The percentage of congressmen with agricultural ties explains the strong affection for agriculture. Discussion in congressional debates and in agricultural journals was passionate and patriotic in support of equity for farmers. The quantitative analysis reveals that the percentage farm population was a significant predictor of passage of the 16th Amendment by the states and of adoption of state income taxes in the 20th century.


1998 ◽  
Vol 25 (2) ◽  
pp. 63-80 ◽  
Author(s):  
Manuel L. Jose ◽  
Charles K. Moore

This paper traces the development of five taxation types in the Bible — income taxes, property taxes, special assessment taxes, poll taxes (all direct taxes), and indirect taxes. The development of these taxes is discussed within the context of Israel's historical development. The impact of counting, measurement, and computation on the development of taxation is also considered.


2003 ◽  
Vol 78 (1) ◽  
pp. 297-325 ◽  
Author(s):  
Leslie Hodder ◽  
Mary Lea McAnally ◽  
Connie D. Weaver

This paper identifies tax and nontax factors that influence commercial banks' conversion from taxable C-corporation to nontaxable S-corporation from 1997 to 1999, after a 1996 tax-law change allowed banks to convert to S-corporations for the first time. We find that banks are more likely to convert when conversion saves dividend taxes, avoids alternative minimum taxes, and minimizes state income taxes. Banks are less likely to convert when conversion restricts access to equity capital, nullifies corporate tax loss carryforwards, and creates potential penalty taxes on unrealized gains existing at the conversion date. Banks with significant deferred tax assets are less likely to convert, presumably because the write-off of deferred taxes at conversion decreases regulatory capital and exposes the bank to costly regulatory intervention. We also investigate the strategic choices banks make before converting to S-corporations. Converting banks alter their capital structures, deliberately sell appreciated assets, and strategically set dividends to augment net conversion benefits.


2018 ◽  
Vol 34 (1) ◽  
pp. 1-12
Author(s):  
Susan M. Albring ◽  
Randal J. Elder ◽  
Mitchell A. Franklin

ABSTRACT The first tax inversion in 1983 was followed by small waves of subsequent inversion activity, including two inversions completed by Transocean. Significant media and political attention focused on transactions made by U.S. multinational corporations that were primarily designed to reduce U.S. corporate income taxes. As a result, the U.S. government took several actions to limit inversion activity. The Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017 (TCJA) significantly lowered U.S. corporate tax rates and one expected impact of TCJA is a reduction of inversion activity. Students use the Transocean inversions to understand the reasons why companies complete a tax inversion and how the U.S. tax code affects inversion activity. Students also learn about the structure of inversion transactions and how they have changed over time as the U.S. government attempted to limit them. Students also assess the tax and economic impacts of inversion transactions to evaluate tax policy.


Author(s):  
Edward A. Zelinsky

This chapter examines the Internal Revenue Code’s treatment of religious entities. The federal tax statute embodies three diverse approaches to taxing and exempting sectarian organizations and activities. Some provisions of the Code—the charitable deduction, the general income tax exemption for eleemosynary institutions, the federal unemployment tax—exempt religious entities and other charitable, educational, and philanthropic institutions. Other provisions of the Code narrowly target churches for tax exemption. For example, the Code relieves churches of filing requirements with which nonchurch religious entities and other eleemosynary organizations must comply. Similarly, churches’ retirement plans receive lenient treatment under the Code. Churches receive procedural protections from IRS audits.Yet other provisions of the Code tax churches as for secular entities. Churches generally pay FICA taxes—Social Security and Medicare payroll taxes—on the compensation paid to nonclerical employees. These payroll taxes can be considerable. Churches also pay federal income taxes on their unrelated business incomes.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document