To Choose or Not to Choose: Federal Income Tax Credits and Deductions and College Choice Decisions

2013 ◽  
Author(s):  
Tatyana Guzman
Author(s):  
MICHAEL O'HARE ◽  
ALAN L. FELD

Most government support of arts institutions is indirect—the result of charitable deduction provisions of the federal income tax, property tax exemptions extended by local governments, and other tax provisions. The money that government forgoes through these provisions must be made up by higher taxes for all taxpayers. The public, however, has little say about how these funds are spent. By its very nature, the income tax deduction places the decision-making power over arts institutions in the hands of those with high incomes. Those with high incomes receive a greater tax benefit for each dollar they contribute, increasing the amounts they donate, which increases the likelihood of their influence over those who run arts institutions, and they are allowed to place restrictions on the use of their gifts. Moreover the property tax exemption encourages arts institutions to invest heavily in real estate, which is not necessarily in the public's best interests. Replacing some indirect subsidies with direct subsidies and granting tax credits for donations in place of tax deductions would go a long way toward making the system more equitable.


2010 ◽  
Vol 3 (6) ◽  
pp. 37-40
Author(s):  
Robin Guerrero ◽  
Theresa Tiggeman ◽  
Tracie Edmond

Two important provisions of the Internal Revenue Code were the creation of the Earned Income Tax Credit and Child Tax Credit. Each of these credits were designed to reduce the amount of tax owed, thereby offsetting some of the increases in living expenses and federal income tax. For many this results in a smaller a tax liability. For others with little or no tax liabilities, the credit can result in a significantly increased refund. Many organizations such as the Volunteer Income Tax Income (VITA) Program, AARP and other similar organizations, cater to assisting these individuals. This is primarily due to the benefits that come from these credits which not only affect these individuals and their families but also the local economies. Larger refunds result in greater sustainability of taxpayer economic stability as well as an ongoing stimulation to the local economy. The purpose of this presentation is to describe the results of a study conducted involving the examination of each of these credits in relation to the taxpayer’s Adjusted Gross Income (AGI). The goal of this study was to demonstrate the importance of these credits as to how they benefit the lower income taxpayers. The study examined various taxpayers who qualified for the credits over the course of the past three years. The results demonstrated that roughly 20% to 25% of these taxpayers’ annual income is attributed to the assistance provided through these credits. Therefore, the need for the continuance of these credits is not only crucial for the welfare of the lower taxpayers but for stimulating the economy as well.


2010 ◽  
Vol 54 (3) ◽  
pp. 423-462
Author(s):  
David G. Duff

Abstract The acquisition of property plays an important role in the federal Income Tax Act (ITA), determining eligibility for a number of tax benefits, including entitlement to capital cost allowance, investment tax credits, and the deductibility of interest expenses incurred in respect of eligible property. In spite of its importance, the concept of an acquisition of property is not defined in the ITA, and it has been subject to divergent interpretations in the common law and the civil law. The author traces the sources of law informing the meaning of an acquisition of property in the common law and the civil law, and concludes that certain transactions may be subject to different tax consequences depending on whether they occurred in a common law province or in Quebec. The author demonstrates that the primary reference for determining whether a taxpayer acquired property—the twofold test in M.N.R. v. Wardean Drilling Ltd.—is premised on common law concepts and is incompatible with the goals of Canadian bijuralism expressed in the Federal Law—Civil Law Harmonization Act, No. 1 and section 8.1 of the federal Interpretation Act. In response to this contradiction, the author proposes a number of statutory amendments to ensure the uniform and predictable application of the ITA across Canada.


2014 ◽  
Vol 11 (1) ◽  
pp. 113
Author(s):  
Michelle Lyon Drumbl

Refundable credits, particularly the earned income tax credit (EITC) and the child tax credit, serve an important anti-poverty measure for low-income taxpayers.  Annually, millions of taxpayers who do not owe any federal income tax must file a tax return in order to claim these credits that are in the nature of social benefits.  The eligibility requirements for refundable credits are complex, and these returns are particularly prone to audit: EITC audits comprise one-third of all individual income tax audits.  Because of the large dollar amounts at stake, a taxpayer’s mistaken understanding of the eligibility requirements for these refundable credits can often result in a deficiency of several thousand dollars. Though studies indicate that taxpayer error is more commonly inadvertent than intentional, the section 6662 20% accuracy-related penalty applies once the deficiency reaches a statutory “understatement” threshold; it is imposed computationally and without regard to the taxpayer’s intent. By statute, taxpayers have the right to contest the accuracy-related penalty by demonstrating that there was reasonable cause for the underlying error and the taxpayer acted in good faith. Treasury regulations provide that such a circumstance might include “an honest misunderstanding of fact or law that is reasonable in light of all the facts and circumstances, including the experience, knowledge, and education of the taxpayer”.  Yet for all of these reasons – lack of experience, lack of knowledge, and relative lack of education – the taxpayer is unlikely to have the knowledge or resources to raise the very defense that is meant to protect an unsophisticated taxpayer. Drawing comparisons between refundable tax credits and social programs administered by other agencies, this article calls upon the IRS to better differentiate between inadvertent error (“those who don’t know”) and intentional or fraudulent error (“those who know better”).  The article argues that the current accuracy-related penalty approach is unduly punitive.  It concludes by proposing solutions that the IRS might consider in light of Congress’s desire for the Service to administer these social benefits through the Internal Revenue Code.


2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Nicolas Duquette ◽  
Alexandra Graddy-Reed ◽  
Mark Phillips

Author(s):  
Joshua T. McCabe

Chapter 4 examines how Canadian policymakers’ renewed promise to tackle child poverty translated into the Child Tax Benefit, the nonrefundable Child Tax Credit, and the Working Income Tax Benefit. Whereas the logic of tax relief served as the springboard for fiscalization in the US, the logic of income supplementation drove the process in Canada. This difference had important implications for the shape and scope of Canadian tax credits, enabling them to significantly reduce child poverty relative to the much weaker outcomes in the US. Family allowances offered policymakers an alternative to welfare as the primary method of delivering cash benefits to children. Canadian policymakers, including conservative policymakers and profamily groups, saw expanding child tax credits as a way to “take children off welfare” by redirecting benefits through a nonstigmatizing program. The initial change occurred under the Progressive Conservatives in 1992 and was consolidated under the Liberals in 1997.


1922 ◽  
Vol 2 (4) ◽  
pp. 101-105
Author(s):  
H. L. Cunningham ◽  
Robt. J. Stute

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document