Tax Reform ATR believes that all consumed income should be taxed one time, at one low and flat rate. Link
The Post Mortem on Maryland’s Special Tax Hike Session http://t.co/6nFjgjfF
taxreformer
What Tax Hikes Does Beth Anne Rankin (@BethAnneRankin) Support? http://t.co/dBs5DuV2 #AR04
taxreformer
What Tax Hikes Does Beth Anne Rankin Support? http://t.co/92cfRfYF
taxreformer
CoGC: Nanny State Update: Smoke Free Smoking Lounges, Ducking the Truth, Bag Bans and Soda Taxes http://t.co/Nqj3G8c7
taxreformer
Taxing Facebook to Pay for MySpace http://t.co/SSzTOJvd
taxreformer
My quick piece in @NRO: Illinois Republicans for Obamacare? http://t.co/5p9KnSi8 ^
joshuaculling
RT @amoylan: @taxreformer No wonder Jeff Fortenberry doesn't stand by tax pledge. http://t.co/55cW7B7B Lifetime @NTU Rating: 61.8%. http ...
amoylan
RT @RATECoalition: Check out @taxreformer ‘s take on Robert Rizzi & Jon Sallet’s study on corp #taxes & innovation http://t.co/z ...
RATECoalition
RT @GarciaCD16: Proud to announce that I have signed the @taxreformer "No New Taxes" Pledge! Taxpayers of #CD16 know I'm on their side! ...
GarciaCD16
ATR Rejects Gov. Quinn's Reckless Medicaid "Reform" Proposal http://t.co/554Cxwcp
taxreformer
ATR explains "passive loss" repeal in the most recent installment of the ATR Energy Tax Hike Series:
ATR Obama Budget Analysis: Energy Tax Hike Series
Passive Loss Exception Repeal
Current Law
A generation ago, “tax shelters” were popular and legal tax-avoidance strategies. The most common form a tax shelter took back then was for someone to become a limited partner in a partnership that had losses year after year. These losses would be passed along to the partner-investor, who would use them to offset other income. There were few restrictions on this practice.
That all changed in 1986 with the passage of the Tax Reform Act. Congress required “passive losses” (losses incurred by businesses in which the taxpayer didn’t have any material participation) to be carried forward, not used against other income. The losses from the passive activity now can only be realized if the activity eventually turns a profit, or when the investor sells his interest in the activity. This legislative change drove a stake through the heart of the tax shelter industry.
Congress made several exceptions to the passive loss rule, though. One of these was a working interest in an oil or gas property. For these investments, the rules are much like they were before 1986.
Obama Proposal
The FY 2010 Administration Budget repeals the passive loss exception for working interests in oil and gas properties starting in 2011. This has a ten-year cost of $49 billion, and when fully phased in will increase taxes annually by $6 billion.
ATR Analysis
This is a clear and blatant attempt to increase taxes on America’s energy manufacturing sector. The policy rationale behind the passive loss exception in current law is debatable, but repealing it should only be done in the context of further tax reform. If the federal government is going to be a full partner in your profitable years, and a deferred partner in your losing years, then you ought to at least get lower tax rates out of the deal. Under no circumstances should this exception be repealed in the context of a net tax hike.
For more information, contact tax policy director Ryan Ellis at rellis@atr.org or federal energy manger Brian Johnson at bjohnson@atr.org