Alexander Hendrie

Clinton Tax Returns Show Death Tax Hypocrisy

Share on Facebook
Tweet this Story
Pin this Image

Posted by Alexander Hendrie on Friday, August 12th, 2016, 2:44 PM PERMALINK


Death Tax for thee, but not for me.

Hillary Clinton has always pushed for a steep Death Tax on the American people. But when it comes to her own finances, it is a different story. Clinton’s newly released tax returns show she still uses tax avoidance strategies to shield her Death Tax liability.

According to a 2014 report by Bloomberg News, the Clintons created trusts in 2010 and shifted ownership of their New York home to it in 2011. In doing so, they will avoid paying hundreds of thousands of dollars in future death taxes.

As Bloomberg reports:

To reduce the tax pinch, the Clintons are using financial planning strategies befitting the top 1 percent of U.S. households in wealth. These moves, common among multimillionaires, will help shield some of their estate from the tax that now tops out at 40 percent of assets upon death.

The Clintons created residence trusts in 2010 and shifted ownership of their New York house into them in 2011, according to federal financial disclosures and local property records.

But Hillary Clinton’s official campaign website, in calling for a steep Death Tax hike, scolds:

She will also close complex loopholes, including methods that people can now use to make their estates appear to be worth less than they really are.

Oh! Let’s go back to the Bloomberg article:

Among the tax advantages of such trusts is that any appreciation in the house’s value can happen outside their taxable estate. The move could save the Clintons hundreds of thousands of dollars in estate taxes, said David Scott Sloan, a partner at Holland & Knight LLP in Boston.

“The goal is really be thoughtful and try to build up the nontaxable estate, and that’s really what this is,” Sloan said. “You’re creating things that are going to be on the nontaxable side of the balance sheet when they die.”

Interesting.

Clinton said that “the estate tax has been historically part of our very fundamental belief that we should have a meritocracy.”

The newly released Clinton tax return shows the continued use of an Article 4 Trust, as shown on Schedule E, page 2.


While Clinton is all too happy to use tax avoidance mechanisms, as a senator she voted against repealing the Death Tax and even voted against giving small businesses and families a higher level of Death Tax exemption:

  • In 2001, Clinton voted no on H.R. 1836, “the Economic Growth and Tax Reconciliation Act,” which contained a series of tax cuts, one of which increased the Death Tax exemption level to $3.5 million.
  • In 2005, Clinton voted no on H.R. 8, “the Death Tax Repeal Permanency Act of 2005,” which fully repealed the Death Tax.
  • In 2006, Clinton voted no on H.R. 5970, “the Estate Tax and Extension of Tax Relief Act of 2006,” which increased the Death Tax exemption level to $5 million.
  • In 2008, Clinton voted no on S.Amdt.4191, legislation to increase the Death Tax exemption level to $5 million.

If Clinton truly believes the Death Tax is about the “fundamental belief that we should have a meritocracy,” she should put her money where her mouth is and pay up.

See also: 

Photo Credit: 
https://www.flickr.com/photos/kabulpublicdiplomacy/

More from Americans for Tax Reform

Top Comments

Laniakea Official

Riiiiiiiight......... Suuuure he did.

JC

The only president to effectively raise taxes on the rich was Ronald Reagan. And he did it along with lowering taxes on the middle class. He lowered the tax rates for everyone, but eliminated the loopholes used by the rich to avoid paying taxes. The progressives have been working ever since to reverse what he did.


Hillary Is Painfully Clueless on the Corporate Rate

Share on Facebook
Tweet this Story
Pin this Image

Posted by Alexander Hendrie on Thursday, August 11th, 2016, 1:22 PM PERMALINK


Today Hillary Clinton criticized Donald Trump’s proposal to reduce the corporate income tax rate. In a Monday speech at the Detroit Economic Club, Trump reaffirmed his commitment to lowering taxes for ALL businesses. This is welcome news because America has the highest tax rates for businesses in the developed world. Lowering business taxes to a globally competitive rate will allow our businesses to compete against foreign competitors and put a stop to corporate inversions and foreign acquisitions of American assets.

The Trump tax plan calls for lowering the tax rate for all businesses to 15 percent. A rate reduction is desperately needed. The current corporate income tax rate is 39 percent (federal rate of 35 percent plus the average state rate of 4 percent) while the top federal rate for businesses organized as pass-through entities is 39.6 percent.

In contrast, Hillary has suggested there is no need to lower the corporate rate. Clinton advisor Neera Tanden recently suggested that Hillary would oppose any effort to lower the corporate income tax rate because “the U.S. has been doing pretty well when it comes to competitiveness." This position puts Hillary far to the left, far outside the mainstream of economic thought.


Chart by Strategas Research Partners using Tax Foundation and OECD data

Rather than reduce the extremely high, uncompetitive corporate tax rate, Clinton has proposed an “exit tax.” The term “exit tax” is used by the campaign itself. Her campaign document describing this proposal says it will impose an $80 billion tax increase.

The Clinton campaign has called for at least $1 trillion in higher taxes including a $275 billion tax hike through unspecified “business tax reform.” Her campaign has failed to release specific details on these proposals so the true Clinton net tax hike figure is likely much higher than $1 trillion

Clinton’s refusal to acknowledge and address America’s high business tax rates will ensure that America’s competitiveness problem remains unresolved.

As shown in the chart above, America’s corporate income tax rate is close to 15 percent higher than the average in the developed world. The tax rate has barely changed since tax reform was passed 30 years ago in 1986.  At the time, we lowered our rate to 39 percent – below the developed average of 44 percent. Since then, other countries have cut their rates aggressively.

31 of the 34 OECD countries have reduced their corporate rates since 2000. Only the U.S. and Chile have higher corporate tax rates than they did in 2000. Our high rate makes it difficult, if not impossible for our businesses to compete with competitors that have much lower rates Canada (26.3 percent), the United Kingdom (20 percent), and Ireland (12.5 percent).

This inaction has resulted in close to 50 American businesses leaving the country through an inversion in the past decade, according to data compiled by Democrats on the Ways and Means Committee. America has also lost an additional $179 billion worth of assets through acquisitions by foreign competitors, according to a report by Ernst and Young.

Clearly there is a need to reduce business taxes, both to reduce the burden on American businesses and to allow them to compete with foreign competitors. While the Trump tax plan calls for across the board business tax reductions, the Clinton plan would only make the tax code more complex and burdensome for American businesses.

 

Photo Credit: 
McConnell Center

More from Americans for Tax Reform

Top Comments

John

Clinton wants to punish the successful people who create jobs and effectively make the average person dependant on the Govt instead. It's lunacy. Goodbye America if she gets elected and gets that plan through congress.


Hey Hillary, The Tax Code Is Already Steeply Progressive

Share on Facebook
Tweet this Story
Pin this Image

Posted by Alexander Hendrie, John Kartch on Monday, August 1st, 2016, 11:45 AM PERMALINK


Hillary’s “Buffett Rule” tax hike is a solution in search of a problem

With Warren Buffett today, Hillary Clinton will claim upper income earners do not pay their “fair share” of federal taxes. But the most recent government data shows the tax code is already steeply progressive. A Clinton “Buffett Rule” tax increase or similar gimmick is a solution in search of a problem. According to the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office:

-The top one percent of households pay 38.3% of federal income taxes and 25.4% of total federal taxes.

- The top 20 percent of households pay 88% of federal income taxes and 69% of total federal taxes.

- The top one percent of households pay an average income tax rate of 23.6% while the middle quintile pays an average income tax rate of 2.6%.

- The top one percent of households pay an average total tax rate of 34% while the middle quintile pays an average total tax rate of over 12.8%.  

- The top 20 percent of households pay an average total tax rate of 26.3 percent while the middle quintile pays an average total tax rate of 12.8%.

The data is shown below:

See also: 

Photo Credit: 
Brett Weinstein

More from Americans for Tax Reform

Top Comments

Rousseau Welch

Wrong hand, Hillary; that should be the right hand.


Hillary Opposes Lowering the Corporate Tax Rate, Says Top Advisor

Share on Facebook
Tweet this Story
Pin this Image

Posted by Alexander Hendrie on Friday, July 29th, 2016, 12:52 PM PERMALINK


Hillary Clinton would oppose lowering the corporate tax rate as President, a top advisor suggested. This position puts the campaign far outside the mainstream of both Democrats and Republicans including President Barack Obama and Speaker Paul Ryan who have called for lowering the 35 percent federal income tax rate to a more globally competitive rate.

As reported Thursday by PoliticoPro, Clinton advisor Neera Tanden suggested that Hillary would oppose any effort to lower the corporate income tax rate. Tanden argued that “the U.S. has been doing pretty well when it comes to competitiveness." 

Hillary’s refusal to endorse lower tax rates puts her at odds with her fellow Democrats that have called for lowering business tax rates. In past budget proposals, President Obama has called for lowering the corporate tax rate from 35 percent to 28 percent. Similarly, Finance Committee Ranking Member Ron Wyden (D-Ore.) proposed lowering the corporate tax rate to 24 percent in his tax reform plan.

The Trump tax plan calls for lowering the corporate rate to 15 percent, while the House Republican blueprint proposes lowering the rate to 20 percent. Like Clinton, other Democrat plans propose a net tax increase, while Republican plans all call for a net tax cut.


Chart by Strategas Research Partners using Tax Foundation and OECD data

Lowering the corporate tax rate has broad, bipartisan support because the U.S. has the highest rates in the developed world. At more than 39 percent, our business taxes far exceeds the developed average of 25 percent, not to mention competitors like Canada (26.3 percent), the United Kingdom (20 percent), and Ireland (12.5 percent).

As a result, our businesses cannot compete with those in the rest of the world. Close to 50 American businesses have left the country through an inversion in the past decade, according to data compiled by Democrats on the Ways and Means Committee.  America has also lost an additional $179 billion worth of assets through acquisitions by foreign competitors, according to a report by Ernst and Young.

American business tax rates have not changed since tax reform was passed 30 years ago in 1986.  At the time, we lowered our rate to 39 percent – below the developed average of 44 percent. Since then, other countries have cut their rates aggressively. 31 of the 34 OECD countries have reduced their corporate rates since 2000. Only the U.S. and Chile have higher corporate tax rates than they did in 2000.

Rather than reduce the extremely high, uncompetitive corporate tax rate, Clinton has proposed a series of measures aimed at inversions including an “exit tax” on income earned overseas. The term “exit tax” is used by the campaign itself. Her campaign document describing this proposal says it will raise $80 billion in tax revenue, but claims some of the $80 billion will be plowed into tax relief. How much? The campaign doesn't say.

In all, Hillary has formally proposed $1 trillion net tax increase including a $350 billion income tax increase, a $275 billion business tax increase, and $400 billion in “fairness taxes.”

The campaign has also called for capital gains tax increases and a tax on stock trading. Her campaign has failed to release specific details on these proposals so the true Clinton net tax hike figure is likely much higher than $1 trillion.

 

See also: 

Full List of Hillary’s Planned Tax Hikes

"Everyman" Tim Kaine Tried to Raise Taxes on Adult Beverages

Hillary Opens the Door to a Carbon Tax

Hillary's Soda Tax Endorsement Violates Middle Class Tax Pledge

Video Shows Hillary's 25% Gun Tax Endorsement

Democrat Platform Calls for Carbon Tax

Tim Kaine Pushed Income Tax Hikes on Working Families Making As Little as $17,000

Photo Credit: 
Toms Norde

More from Americans for Tax Reform

Top Comments

H.D. Rennerfeldt

MILLIONS OF AMERICANS ARE JOBLESS & HOMELESS!
This Shrill Harpy Harridan insists to help DESTROY
our economy for the One World Government of the
Communists behind the NEW WORLD ORDER of
installing a totalitarian oppressive regime.
Finish us off in what Obama began.
Cloward-Piven Strategies
& Alinsky's Rules for
Radicals
-


Congress Must Stop Obamacare Reinsurance Bailout

Share on Facebook
Tweet this Story
Pin this Image

Posted by Natalie De Vincenzi, Alexander Hendrie on Friday, July 15th, 2016, 10:19 AM PERMALINK


Obamacare drastically increased both federal spending as well as the costs of health insurance. In order to disguise the costs to American families, the law has relied on a web of confusing spending programs, subsidies, and taxes.

Among these programs are the reinsurance, risk corridors and risk adjustment programs which redistribute funds from different groups directly to Obamacare insurers. In the case of reinsurance, this took the form of a fee on each individual with private health insurance to raise $25 billion, including $5 billion that would go back to taxpayers via the Treasury general fund.

In practice the reinsurance program has failed to work as promised, like so many other parts of the law. As a result, the Obama Department of Health and Human Services has funneled money from treasury’s general fund in direct violation of federal law. As announced earlier this year, Obamacare insurance companies would receive $7.7 billion through the reinsurance program – $6 billion obtained from a fee on private health insurance and $1.7 billion taken from the Treasury general fund. Because HHS did the same last year, this means a total of $3.5 billion has been stolen from taxpayers using the reinsurance program.

This decision clearly violates federal law. Section 1341 of Obamacare, which establishes reinsurance, explicitly allocates taxpayer dollars that “shall be deposited into the general fund of the Treasury of the United States and may not be used for the [reinsurance] program established under this section.”

A memo released by analysts at the nonpartisan Congressional Research Service found that federal law “unambiguously” states funds must be deposited into the Treasury general fund. Similarly, former White House Counsel C. Boyden Gray called the diverting of funds “unlawful” and questioned how it could possibly withstand legal scrutiny.

Despite this, the administration shows no signs of returning taxpayer funds. To force these funds to be returned, Congressman Mark Walker (R-N.C) recently introduced the “Taxpayers Before Insurers Act,” legislation that stops the Obama administration from illegally bailing out insurance companies through redirecting taxpayers funds to the Obamacare reinsurance slush fund. Companion legislation has also been introduced in the Senate by Senator Ben Sasse (R-NE).

This pro-taxpayer legislation forces the Obama Department of Health and Human Services to obey the law and return billions in funds to their rightful owner – the American people. If they fail to do so, the legislation strips HHS of billions in taxpayer funds.

This is just one of many cases where the federal government has utilized wasteful or illegal subsidies and payments to keep Obamacare afloat.  In the past few years, the government has stolen a total of $8.5 billion in taxpayer dollars to illegally fund Obamacare through programs like reinsurance, and the law has provided more than $170 billion in corporate welfare payments to special interests.

The fact is, the $3.5 billion in Obamacare reinsurance corporate welfare payments are merely the latest effort by the administration to ignore the law to the benefit of monied special interests. Members of Congress should stop this latest cash grab and support Congressman Walker’s Taxpayers Before Insurers Act.

Photo Credit: 
Pictures of Money

Top Comments

Cancel_NPR

obama and his communists fcku-ing American taxpayers...
WHAT'S NEW ?
WHAT AN AASHOLE...


Senate Should Pass Debt Management and Fiscal Responsibility Act

Share on Facebook
Tweet this Story
Pin this Image

Posted by Alexander Hendrie on Wednesday, July 13th, 2016, 8:00 AM PERMALINK


Senator Orrin G. Hatch (R-Utah) will this week introduce the “Debt Management and Fiscal Responsibility Act.” America is more than $19 trillion in debt and this number shows no sign of decreasing. If a President asks Congress to raise the debt ceiling, they must also show a commitment to addressing the long term debt crisis.

This legislation forces this by requiring the administration provide Congress with detailed information on the federal debt and propose solutions to address the crisis as a condition of raising the debt limit. Similar legislation introduced by Congressman Kenny Marchant (R-Texas) passed the House last year on a bipartisan vote of 267-151. Given the support in the House, ATR urges all Senators to co-sponsor and swiftly pass this commonsense legislation.

The Debt Management and Fiscal Responsibility Act requires the Treasury Secretary to appear before Congressional Committees between 21 and 60 days before the Debt Limit will be reached to provide a detailed report outlining the nation’s financial state and to propose substantive reforms.

First, Treasury must submit a “Debt Report,” containing information on the current state of public debt, including historical levels of debt, the drivers and current composition of debt, and future debt projections.

Second, the legislation requires a “Statement of Intent,” containing short, medium, and long-term solutions the debt crisis, how increasing the debt limit will impact future spending, debt service, and the strength and stability of the U.S. dollar as the international reserve currency.

Third, the Debt Management and Fiscal Responsibility Act requires a “Progress Report,” if the administration comes before Congress for additional debt limit increases in the future. This report must contain information on the status of all recommendations made in the original statement of intent.

The Debt Management and Fiscal Responsibility Act creates a clear, yet comprehensive framework that any administration must follow to reduce federal debt when requesting a debt limit increase. By requiring the submission of a detailed report and comprehensive plan before Congress, this legislation will ensure that increasing the debt ceiling only occurs as part of a framework to reform the nation’s finances and chart a pathway toward fiscal responsibility. ATR urges all Senators to support and co-sponsor this important legislation.

Photo Credit: 
https://www.flickr.com/photos/59937401@N07/

More from Americans for Tax Reform

Top Comments

Stuartpayne

I would support this, but question whether the government will follow its own laws. Where's the "teeth" to enforce this?


Obama Admin Lawyers Threatened IRS Employee Testifying About Illegal Obamacare Payments

Share on Facebook
Tweet this Story
Pin this Image

Posted by Alexander Hendrie on Thursday, July 7th, 2016, 2:14 PM PERMALINK


Lawyers for the Obama Treasury Department threatened an IRS employee before his testimony to Congressional investigators over the administration’s illegal funding of Obamacare “Cost Sharing Reduction” (CSR) payments. The employee, IRS Chief Risk Officer David Fisher, was threatened with an “overly broad, inapplicable regulation.”

As the report notes on page 145 Mr. Fisher wanted to testify without government lawyers because of concerns that they did not represent his interests:

“One witness, however, did not want agency counsel to accompany him…. Mr. Fisher told Committee staff that he did not believe that Treasury counsel represented his interests and did not wish for them to attend the interview. Mr. Fisher also stated that he had already spoken to Treasury counsel and told them he did not want representatives from that office to attend his interview.”

In a letter to Mr. Fisher, government lawyers explicitly state that the IRS “forbids its employees and former employees from speaking to Congress without explicit permission from the IRS.” The letter references “Touhy regulations” as justification for this prohibition, however these regulations typically do not apply to Congressional information requests, a fact that was not made clear in the letter provided to Mr. Fisher.

As the report notes, this put Mr. Fisher in an untenable situation:

“Congress requested information from him, and he was willing to provide it, but Treasury threatened him with an overly broad, inapplicable regulation.”

Mr. Fisher was eventually subpoenaed by investigators so he could speak freely about both the program and the reasons for the administration’s unprecedented obstruction. As the report notes, his testimony provided key information over the illegal CSR payments:

“The answers he gave in provided more insight into the Administration’s decision-making processes than those of any other individual the committees interviewed with agency counsel present. His answers also shed light onto why the Administration has restricted the testimony of every other witness—going so far as to not letting witnesses answer questions about the names of individuals involved in the decision-making process—and why the Administration has failed to comply with the committees’ document subpoenas.”

The administration went to extreme lengths to hide the truth throughout the entire investigation. Since the House Ways and Means Committee and the House Energy and Commerce Committee launched its investigation, multiple agencies have refused to provide information, selectively applied the law, and even pressured one witness not to testify. As the report notes:

“The Administration successfully limited the testimony of most of their current and former employees by sending Administration counsels to attend the interviews. These counsels instructed witnesses not to provide full and complete answers to the Committees’ questions.”

Photo Credit: 
sci-culturist

More from Americans for Tax Reform

Top Comments

sliver fox

....let me ad that i am a drag performer in Greenwich Village but my friends and i will never vote for Killary. We'd LOVE to have cosmos with her but ELECT her? oh please....

silver fox

traitors, liars, criminals, cheaters, theives......the democratic party will destroy America before it relinquishes power.

Steve Rossi

thank you silver fox. please discuss this with your friends and let them see for themselves whats better for them and America. God bless you.


Report Uncovers Stonewalling of Illegal Obamacare Payments

Share on Facebook
Tweet this Story
Pin this Image

Posted by Alexander Hendrie on Thursday, July 7th, 2016, 9:53 AM PERMALINK


The Obama administration has been illegally funding Obamacare “Cost Sharing Reduction” (CSR) payments for years over the objections of IRS officials, according to a report released today by the House Ways and Means Committee and the House Energy and Commerce Committee. Since Congress launched its investigation, multiple agencies have refused to provide information, selectively applied the law, and even pressured one witness not to testify.

Key findings:

-The administration initially submitted a CSR appropriations request for Fiscal Year 2014, but later withdrew it and began making payments illegally. As the report notes, Obamacare created CSR payments, but they have never been appropriated for. The Constitution explicitly makes clear that the power of the purse lies with Congress and the Executive cannot spend taxpayer money without Congressional approval.

-CSR payments were created as one way to artificially hide the true costs of Obamacare through a web of government spending programs. CSR payments would be given to an insurance company based on the income of an enrollee and the plan they purchased. Assuming certain criteria were met, the insurance company would receive federal dollars as an incentive to keep co-payments, deductibles, and other out of pocket costs low.

-After officials from the Obama Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) withdrew the CSR appropriations request, the administration begun illegally shifting funds from a separate appropriation. The administration has refused to provide the legal memorandum that led to this decision even in the face of Congressional subpoenas.

-IRS officials expressed concern that this method of funding CSR payments was illegal so were briefed on the memorandum. As the report notes in an interview with one IRS official at the meeting, they were not permitted to take notes or keep a copy of the memo:

“We were given a memo to read. We were instructed we were not to take notes and we would not be keeping the memo, we’d be giving it back at the end of the meeting.”

-Following this meeting, IRS officials continued to have concerns that the CSR payments violated federal law and raised concerns with IRS Chief John Koskinen. As the report notes, these concerns were heard, but ignored:

“The IRS officials’ concerns that this course of action violated appropriations law were noted, but not addressed or ameliorated by OMB’s legal memorandum.”

-Shortly thereafter, DoJ and Treasury officials officially approved the decision to use an unrelated appropriation to make CSR payments.

Since Congress launched its investigation, multiple Obama government agencies have undertaken a concerted effort to hide the truth by refusing to provide, or unlawfully redacting documents, refusing to answer questions or allow witnesses to testify, and selectively applying the law. In at least one case, the Obama administration pressured a witness into not revealing information, and in another case the administration prevented a witness from answering questions.

As the report notes:

  • The Department of the Treasury improperly withheld and redacted documents without any valid legal basis to do so.
  • The Department of Health and Human Services improperly withheld documents without any valid legal basis to do so.
  • The Office of Management and Budget improperly withheld documents without any valid legal basis to do so.
  • The Department of the Treasury failed to search for records responsive to the committees’ subpoenas.
  • Treasury used regulations and Testimony Authorizations to prohibit current and former IRS employees from providing testimony to Congress about the source of funding for the CSR program.
  • Treasury officials selectively enforced the law by allowing witnesses to answer certain questions prohibited by the authorizations without objection
  • HHS counsel prevented witnesses from answering substantive questions regarding the CSR, citing the need to protect “internal deliberations” and “confidentiality interests”
  • Witnesses were instructed not to reveal the names of White House and DoJ officials involved in decisions regarding the cost sharing reduction program.
  • The Department of the Treasury pressured at least one witness into following the restrictions set forth in his Testimony Authorization after the witness questioned Treasury’s ability to limit his testimony.
  • OMB prevented a witness from answering factual questions regarding the dates or times of a meeting or conversation, refusing to invoke a legal privilege to justify withholding the information from Congress.

 

Photo Credit: 
https://www.flickr.com/photos/charlesfettinger/

More from Americans for Tax Reform

Top Comments

PeterM

“We were given a memo to read. We were instructed we were not to take notes and we would not be keeping the memo, we’d be giving it back at the end of the meeting.”

Can you believe this garbage?!!!

Where are we??? North Korea???!!!

This is an absolute outrage. Where in the HELL is the feckless/worthless GOP on this?

Scared under their bed.

Time for Trump. Locked and loaded - with both barrels.

Rob

If the DOJ and FBI won't even prosecute Hillary, which is a slam dunk case of criminal treason, it sure won't go after Obama's gigantic insurance fraud. Obama has done more to lower the standards of the U.S. than I thought even possible. We're essentially a lawless banana republic, and 43% say they still support Hillary. Wow how we've fallen.

GHZSD

My experience, those supporting Hillary are more likely to listen to rap and hate America


ATR Supports Fiscal State of the Nation Resolution

Share on Facebook
Tweet this Story
Pin this Image

Posted by Alexander Hendrie on Thursday, July 7th, 2016, 2:00 AM PERMALINK


Congressman Jim Renacci (R-Ohio) recently introduced H.Con.Res.140, a resolution calling for the Fiscal State of the Nation. This commonsense resolution requires the Comptroller General of the United States to present a financial report of the United States before a Joint Session of Congress. ATR supports this important resolution and urges all Members of Congress to co-sponsor and support H.Con.Res. 140.

Financial statements for the United States are already compiled, but are typically buried in 300 page reports. As a result, important information regarding the federal government’s assets, liabilities, revenues, expenses, and sustainability of programs are often ignored or missed by Members of Congress, the media, and the public.

The country is $19 trillion in debt and the long-term sustainability of important federal programs remains uncertain. At the same time, billions in taxpayer dollars are wasted on unnecessary or inefficient programs. By requiring an annual update on the long-term financial health of the country, your resolution helps ensure our nation’s finances remain at the forefront of public discussion.

This important financial information is already available but is all too often missed or ignored. ATR urges all Members of Congress to co-sponsor and support this important resolution.

 

Photo Credit: 
https://www.flickr.com/photos/76657755@N04/

More from Americans for Tax Reform

Top Comments


ATR Submits Comment Opposing Treasury's Proposed Section 385 Regulations

Share on Facebook
Tweet this Story
Pin this Image

Posted by Natalie De Vincenzi, Alexander Hendrie on Wednesday, July 6th, 2016, 3:27 PM PERMALINK


ATR President Grover Norquist today submitted a comment in opposition of Treasury’s proposed section 385 debt equity regulations. While these regulations were proposed as a way to halt business inversions, this is clearly not the case as they affect businesses regardless of whether they are inverting.

Instead, these regulations will only make it harder for American businesses to compete. They are unnecessary, will make it harder for our businesses to compete with foreign competitors, will reduce investment in the U.S., and will open the door for the IRS to further abuse its powers.

Debt and equity have been treated differently under the tax code for decades and businesses have structured themselves based on these rules. Altering these rules without adequate expert input as this administration proposes will immediately impact a wide range of common, internal business transactions such as the ability to redistribute cash among subsidiaries to make new investments.

In turn, this will result in extensive compliance and regulatory burdens affecting businesses across all industries. These regulations may result in less money invested in the U.S. economy, slow our already stagnant economic growth, and further encumber job growth. Additionally, the information disclosure requirements created to enforce this rule empower the already dysfunctional IRS to collect an excessive level of new information.

As written, section 385 regulations are an indiscriminate weapon that the federal government can use to restrict and undermine the legitimate business transactions of American companies operating at home and abroad, and foreign companies operating in the U.S.

Photo Credit: 
Kevin Baird

More from Americans for Tax Reform

Top Comments


Pages

hidden
×