Search This Blog

Showing posts with label integration. Show all posts
Showing posts with label integration. Show all posts

Saturday, August 27, 2016

How many times to tax business income?


A recent post (8/26/16) on the Tax Justice website was titled - Why we must close the pass-through loophole? That caught my attention as I was trying to think what the "loophole" might be?  A loophole is a provision that can be used beyond its intended purpose because the rule is not written specifically enough. When a rule is being used as intended, it is not a loophole. For example, sometimes the mortgage interest deduction is called a loophole, but it is not. People deducting interest on the mortgages on their primary and vacation homes is using the rule as intended.

The "loophole" that was the subject of the blog post is large businesses operating as partnerships rather than as corporations. Partnerships, S corporations and sole proprietors do not pay corporate income tax. Instead, the income is taxed directly to the owners and only one level of income tax is paid at the federal level (and state level). In contrast, C corporations pay the corporate income tax AND when they distribute earnings (dividends) to shareholders, the shareholders pay income tax. Thus, C corporation income is taxed twice.

That just happens to be the way it works in the US tax system. It doesn't have to work that way and not all countries double tax corporate income. In the US, there is some relief in that qualified dividends received by individuals are subject to the lower capital gains tax rate.

Over the years, there have been numerous studies by the government and various organizations on how to integrate the corporate tax meaning have corporate income taxed only once.  There are numerous ways this can be done.  Two easy ones would be to not have a corporate tax (only tax dividends) or not tax dividends (only tax corporate income at that level when earned).  Neither is ideal because not all corporations pay dividends and not all corporate shareholders are taxable (a lot of corporate stock is owned by tax-exempt organizations).

The Tax Reform Act of 1986 called for Treasury to study corporate taxation. This resulted in two reports issued in 1992 on corporate integration (January 1992 and December 1992).  Most recently, Senator Hatch, chair of the Senate Finance Committee reports he is working on a plan for corporate integration and the SFC held two hearings on an approach called the dividends paid deduction model (5/17 and 5/24; also see Joint Committee on Taxation report prepared for the hearings).

Some of the advantages of corporate integration include:

  • Treats all business entities similarly (although this also depends on the corporate versus individual tax rates applicable to business income).
  • Removes or lessens a corporation's tax preference for debt over equity.

So, I ask the question differently from the Tax Justice blog post - why not eliminate double taxation of corporate income and find a way to tax all business entities similarly.  And there are many ways of doing that.  More later on that.

What do you think?

Thursday, May 10, 2012

Tax rate on dividends and job creation


Today's Politico (5/10/12) has an opinion letter to Treasury Secretary Geithner from 18 CEOs asking the Administration to not support increasing the tax rate on dividends ("CEOs: Don’t raise taxes on dividends").  Currently, qualified dividends are taxed at capital gains rates (15%) rather than as ordinary income. This special treatment expires at the end of the year as do the lower regular and capital gains rates. So starting January 2013, the top tax rate possible on qualified dividends is 39.6% (plus an extra 3.8% new Medicare tax that starts in 2013 for upper income individuals).

I find this statement in the CEO letter confusing: "The administration’s plan to increase the top tax rate on dividends from 15 percent to 39.6 percent in 2013 will very likely have a seriously disruptive effect on this economic sector, reducing the incentive to pay dividends."

So, corporations won't have an "incentive" to pay dividends if the shareholders are in a 39.6% tax bracket?  Don't corporations pay dividends because they have earnings to share with shareholders?  What about the shareholders who are not in the 39.6% bracket (that top rate applies to less than 2% of individuals)?  What about corporate shareholders who also get a dividends received deduction?

The CEOs also say the higher tax rate will hurt seniors many of whom depend on investment income to make ends meet. Wow!  That is only a small percentage of senior who likely even get an appreciable amount of dividend income and if it is a lot of dividend income, they must have large portfolios?  Why should they get a lower rate on that income?  If any seniors are relying on their dividend income to make ends meet, they are not in a 39.6% bracket, and perhaps might even be in a 15% bracket.  And if they are really struggling to make ends meet, they probably don't even have an investment portfolio.  Wow!

And the letter notes that the lower rate is also important for competition and job creation!  Shareholders use dividend income to create jobs!?  

It is troubling to see this letter as it makes odd statements that distract from what is really needed to improve the tax law.  Why don't they be bold and talk about corporate integration - taxing corporate income once and creating a system that will allow for that.

What do you think?