Federal Income Tax Reform in the United States: How Did It Happen? What Did It Do? Where Do We Go from Here?

1988 ◽  
Vol 47 (4) ◽  
pp. 391-408
Author(s):  
Bernard P. Herber
2022 ◽  
pp. 1-26
Author(s):  
Seiichiro Mozumi

Abstract In the United States, tax favoritism—an approach that has weakened the extractive capacity of the federal government by providing tax loopholes and preferences for taxpayers—has remained since the 1930s. It has consumed the amount of tax revenue the government can spend and therefore weakened the possibility of the redistribution of fiscal resources. It has also made the federal tax system complicated and inequitable, resulting in undermining taxpayer consent. Therefore, since the 1930s, a tax reform to create a simple, fair, and equitable federal income tax system with the capacity to raise revenue has been long overdue. Many scholars have evaluated the Tax Reform Act of 1969 (TRA69), which Richard M. Nixon signed into law on December 30, 1969, as one of the most successful steps toward accomplishing this goal. This article demonstrates that TRA69 left tax favoritism in the United States. Furthermore, it points out that TRA69 turned taxpayers against the idea of federal taxation, a shift in public perception that greatly impacted tax reform in the years to follow.


2017 ◽  
Vol 30 (1) ◽  
pp. 25-61
Author(s):  
Seiichiro Mozumi

Abstract:In 1964, President Lyndon B. Johnson, the successor of John F. Kennedy, signed into law the largest tax cut in U.S. history until 1981, the so-called Kennedy–Johnson tax cut. Many scholars have evaluated it as representative Keynesian tax policy; this article focuses on the effort of the Treasury Department, tax experts such as Stanley S. Surrey and Wilbur D. Mills, the chairman of House Committee on Ways and Means, to reform the federal income tax system comprehensively—making it simpler, fairer, and more equitable—and their defeat by the 1964 tax cut. Through the policymaking and legislative process, the Kennedy administration’s Council Economic Advisers defeated the Treasury and Surrey by domesticating Keynes’s ideas on tax policy. Until the 1964 passage of the tax cut, Mills, with his inconsistent action, abandoned the accomplishment of their ideal tax reform.


2020 ◽  
pp. 089976402097769
Author(s):  
Nicolas J. Duquette

I compute the share of U.S. household giving accounted for by the American tax units donating the largest amounts over the 1960–2012 period from repeated cross-sectional samples of federal income tax returns. The share of donations accounted for by a minority of top donors rose sharply over this period. Donor concentration has risen both because the largest gifts have grown larger and because more households give little or nothing in any given year.


2003 ◽  
Vol 1 (1) ◽  
pp. 1-20
Author(s):  
Robert E. Blatz

The growth of legalized casino gambling in the United States will no doubt spur an increase in the number of gamblers who are required to report their respective winnings annually for federal income tax purposes. Yet, the primary tax concern of many gamblers is “how to deduct losses.” Basically, all gamblers are impacted by I.R.C. § 165(d), which limits gambling loss deductions to gambling gains and effectively disallows carry-backs or carry-forwards of excess gambling losses. But like Joanne Woodward's character in the film “The Three Faces of Eve,” gambling loss deductions possess multiple personalities. If the gambler is a “professional,” his losses are broadly defined and subject to I.R.C. § 165(d) ceiling limit. Conversely, a “casual” gambler's losses are narrowly defined and subject to even more code-imposed ceiling limits. Then again, a “commercial gaming establishment” is apparently not subject these limitations. According to the Commissioner, a professional gambler's “wagering losses” include not only the money wagered, but also many other related expenses incurred in order to enter into a wagering transaction. This can logically occur only when these expenses are capitalized into the wager or bet. However, such capitalization is not currently required under either I.R.C. § 263 or the Indopco decision. In fact, casual gamblers are precluded from capitalizing such related expenses into their wagers. Yet, this prohibition provides no tax benefit to casual gamblers. For, the Commissioner has, on scant authority, disallowed both I.R.C. §§ 212(1) and 183(b) deductions for these related expenses.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document