Author: tarek

Online retailers benefit from a tax loophole which allows for internet sellers to avoid collecting sales taxes from customers unless the company has a physical presence in their state. This has given companies like Amazon.com an unfair advantage over “bricks and mortar” stores and smaller, locally owned businesses all over America who must collect sales taxes from customers.

One place where Amazon.com certainly does have a physical presence is Texas. Recently, Texas asked Amazon.com to pay $269 million dollars in past due sales taxes.  The company runs a distribution center in the state and, as the Texas Comptroller said, “If you have a physical business presence in the state of Texas, you owe sales tax.”  Amazon refused to pay the bill, claiming a subsidiary owned the distribution center.  Last week, news came that Amazon has decided to shut down the center because they were “unable to come to a resolution with the Texas comptroller’s office.”  As the Dallas Morning News explained it, “Amazon.com has decided to take its ball and go home.”

Of course, the real answer to this problem is for Congress to end the loophole by allowing states to require sales tax collection from any company that sells to its residents.

In the past year, we’ve documented ad nauseum the lengths that anti-tax advocates will go to in order to convince lawmakers that the so-called “millionaire’s tax” is prompting wealthy taxpayers to move to other states. In Maryland, New Jersey and Oregon, these groups have selectively presented data in order to “show” that resident millionaires are packing up their Lear Jets and moving to Florida. And in each case, we’ve shown that when the data are presented honestly and fully, there’s simply no evidence that millionaires are voting with their feet.

But the latest such effort, by the Partnership for New York City, breaks new ground by simply making data up. For example, the report says that “Since the imposition of New York’s surcharge in 2009, there has been a 9.4 percent decrease in the state’s taxpayers who earn $1 million or more, decreasing from 381,786 in 2007 to 345,892 in 2009.” Take a minute and read that quote again. What the Partnership is implying is that millionaires had the magical ability to see into the future and start moving out of New York in 2007 and 2008 as a result of a tax increase that hadn’t even happened yet.

Next, it’s worth taking a closer look at that 381,786 figure, the supposed amount of millionaires in New York in 2007. Interestingly enough there is state-by-state data available from the IRS which shows that there were actually only 375,265 returns with federal adjusted gross income over $200,000 in 2007. Of course, not all 375,265 returns were all millionaires. So the 381,786 figure sited by the Partnership is troubling to say the least.

What is even more troubling is that there isn’t actual data available (from New York or the federal government) for 2009 showing the number of tax returns by income group. Which leaves us with a very troubling question — where does the Partnerships earlier figure of 345,892 millionaires in 2009 actually come from?

The answer: they’re using a forecast of the number of households in each state with wealth, not income, of $1 million or more. See the data. Released last September by a marketing firm, these estimates tell us a few interesting things. One is that between 2007 and 2009, the nation as a whole lost 13.9 percent of its net-worth “millionaires” between 2007 and 2009, which makes the 9.4 percent loss for New York seem not that impressive. Another is that 43 of the 50 states lost proportionally more of their net-worth “millionaires” over this period than did New York. So, leaving aside the minor detail that income taxes are based on income rather than wealth, which makes these marketing data utterly irrelevant to the point the Partnership is trying to make, any objective look at this data would suggest that New York is doing better than most other states.

For more on the many flaws of the Partnership’s paper, read this brief from the Fiscal Policy Institute. Suffice to say, the theory that New York millionaires are moving because of a targeted tax increase is based on deeply flawed (and perhaps even made up) data.

Lawmakers in Congress have been discussing a second tax holiday for U.S. corporations’ offshore tax profits, after having sworn that the first such holiday, enacted in 2004, would be a one-time event.

Typically, when multinational U.S. corporations bring overseas profits back to the United States (when they “repatriate” offshore profits) they have to pay U.S. corporate income taxes. The statutory tax rate for corporate income is 35 percent, although corporations of course use many breaks and loopholes to lower their effective rate.

The tax holiday that was enacted in 2004 allowed companies to repatriate their profits and pay taxes at a rate of just 5.25 percent (that is, almost nothing).

The biggest problem is that if Congress shows that it is willing to repeat this “one-time” tax holiday, then corporations will actually have an incentive to shift profits, and perhaps even operations and jobs, offshore. Corporations could then simply wait for the next “one-time” tax holiday to bring those profits back to the U.S.

One of the lawmakers pushing the proposal is the ostensibly progressive Senator Barbara Boxer of California.

The administration decided that the adults needed to intervene. Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner made a public statement this week that the administration does not support the idea. However, even Geithner’s statement did include an alarming caveat when he said, “We are not going to look at a [tax] holiday outside the context of comprehensive reform.” (Emphasis added.)

Proponents of a tax holiday insist that companies use the money they bring back to the U.S. to create jobs, but data from the last time Congress allowed multinationals to bring back foreign profits at a very low tax rate indicates that the cash primarily ended up in the hands of shareholders through dividends and stock redemptions.

See our earlier report explaining why the repatriation tax holiday is a terrible idea.

The Obama administration has proposed to change the way unemployment insurance is financed to avoid tax increases on businesses that will otherwise occur automatically — but Republicans in Congress are resisting the plan because it allows for the possibility that states will collect more taxes overall from employers in the future.

Unemployment insurance benefits are generally financed by state taxes on employers while the administration of the program is financed by federal taxes on employers. The state tax revenue is saved in trust funds from which benefits are paid, but these had run dry in most states at the end of 2010, so states were allowed to borrow from the federal trust fund. States must eventually pay that money back with interest, but the economic recovery act enacted in 2009 gave states a break on the interest payments for almost two years.

The federal UI taxes on employers will increase automatically, under current law, in many states this year or next year to pay for the principal on those loans from the federal trust fund. On top of that, states must start paying the interest, and for this they often levy additional state taxes on employers. All of this is scheduled to occur at a time when economists agree that the recession is far from over.

The Obama administration’s plan would respond by delaying the automatic increase in federal UI taxes on employers and the due date for the interest payments from the states for two years. In 2014, the plan would more than double the tax base, from $7,000 of wages for each employee (which has not been adjusted since 1983) to $15,000. The rate of the federal tax would be reduced so that the federal tax would not be increased overall. The state taxes have the same base (at a minimum) as the federal tax, so the states could collect more revenue to shore up their programs if they did not change their tax rates.

The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities and the National Employment Law Project released a report Wednesday that spells out a very similar plan and explains its benefits.

Not for the first time, Republican leaders are putting themselves on record as preferring to allow a tax increase to take place rather than support a tax bill that is not exactly what they want.

The last place you would ever expect a discussion of tax policy is in the sea of Super Bowl commercials about beer, cars, and Doritos, yet the organization Americans Against Food Taxes spent over $3 million to change that last Sunday.

The ad, called “Give Me a Break”, features a nice woman shopping in a grocery store,  explaining how she does not want the government interfering with her personal life by attempting to place taxes on soda, juice, or even flavored water. The goal of the ad is to portray objections to soda taxes as if they are grounded in the concerns of ordinary Americans.

But Americans Against Food Taxes is anything but a grassroots organization. Its funding comes from a coalition of corporate interests including Coca-Cola, McDonalds and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce.

It is easy to understand why these groups are concerned about soda taxes, which were once considered a way to help pay for health care reform. The entire purpose of these taxes is to discourage the consumption of their products. As the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities explains in making the case for a soda tax, such a tax could be used to dramatically reduce obesity and health care costs and produce better health outcomes across the nation. Adding to this, the revenue raised could be dedicated to funding health care programs, which could further improve the general welfare.

These taxes may spread, at least at the state level.  In its analysis of the ad, Politifact verifies the ad’s claim that politicians are planning to impose additional taxes on soda and other groceries, writing that “legislators have introduced bills to impose or raise the tax on sodas and/or snack foods in Arizona, Connecticut, Hawaii, Mississippi, New Mexico, New York, Oklahoma, Oregon, South Dakota, Vermont and West Virginia.”

It’s true that taxes on food generally are regressive, and taxes on sugary drinks are no exception according to a recent study. It’s a bad idea to rely on this sort of tax purely to raise revenue, but if the goal of the tax is to change behavior for health reasons, then such a tax might be a reasonable tool for social policy. We have often said the same about cigarette taxes, which are a bad way to raise revenue but a reasonable way to discourage an unhealthy behavior.

With so many states considering soda taxes and the corporate interests revving up their own campaign, the “Give Me a Break” ad may just be the opening shot in the big food tax battles to come.

Lawmakers in a handful of states are pushing tax cuts for corporations and other businesses under the guise of spurring economic growth.  Florida, Kansas, Iowa, Missouri, and Arizona all made headlines this week for proposed tax cuts of this sort.

In Florida, Governor Scott’s proposed budget plan was released on Monday, and as expected, it included enormous cuts to both corporate income taxes and property taxes.  Under Scott’s plan, which he unveiled before a crowd of tea party activists, the state’s already low corporate tax rate would fall from 5 percent to 3.5 percent.  At the same time, state spending would plummet by $4.6 billion, with pre-K through university education making up $3.1 billion of that total.  Fortunately, even the state’s conservative legislators don’t seem the least bit interested in Scott’s ultra-conservative (and exceedingly vague) ideas.

Kansas lawmakers generated similar headlines this week as bills were introduced in both the House and Senate to phase out the state’s corporate income tax.  According to the Wichita Eagle, proponents of the measure are actually claiming that phasing out this major tax would somehow increase tax revenue.  We seriously doubt it.

In Iowa, Governor Branstad’s proposal to slash the corporate income tax in half and cut business property taxes by 40 percent received renewed attention this week as the Des Moines Register attempted to summarize the absolutely massive number of tax cuts being proposed by Iowa lawmakers. 

Fortunately, Senate Majority Leader Michael Gronstal isn’t impressed, saying, “Taken as a whole, the Republican budget basically says we’re going to squander the opportunities for the next generation of kids in this state — in terms of education, in terms of access to community college and training programs — we’re going to push that aside and say the most important thing is to make sure corporations have tax cuts.”

Missouri lawmakers also garnered some attention this week when the state Senate endorsed legislation to repeal the state’s franchise tax on businesses over the course of the next five years.  Currently, a business must have more than $10 million in assets to be subject to the franchise tax.  The St. Louis Post-Dispatch ran an excellent editorial this week in response to the plan, noting: “Businesses were given tax breaks, tax credits, tax incentives, low corporate taxes and tort reform. So where are the jobs? Or did they just pocket the savings? … Business-friendly is one thing. Business-promiscuous is quite another.”

It probably wouldn’t change anything, but it sure would be nice if Arizona lawmakers gave the Post-Dispatch’s editorial a read before beginning debate on the business tax cut package that Governor Brewer plans to release on Monday.

Progressive tax reform ideas are getting attention in Colorado, where voters may get the opportunity to enact it by ballot, and Kentucky, where lawmakers have the opportunity to support a far-reaching reform bill. Meanwhile, Iowa may move in the opposite direction by choosing the most draconian tax proposal being debated in the state.

Supporters of progressive taxation in Colorado, led by the Colorado Center on Law and Policy, filed a mix of ballot proposals last week that would greatly enhance the adequacy and fairness of Colorado’s tax system.  (Multiple proposals were filed for technical reasons, and supporters intend to bring only one plan before the voters.) 

Each proposal would transition away from Colorado’s flat rate income tax in favor of a graduated rate system.  The tax rate on taxable incomes below $50,000 would fall from 4.63% to 4.2%, while progressively higher rates would apply to higher levels of income.  Incomes above $1 million would be taxed at 9.5%. 

The majority of Colorado residents would see tax cuts, or no change in their income tax liability, under this plan.  Some of the proposals would also raise the state’s corporate income tax rate, while others would institute a new corporate minimum tax.  The state’s EITC would also be made permanent under some of the proposals.  By reforming Colorado’s tax system in this manner, approximately $1.5 billion in sorely needed revenue could be raised each year in order to improve the state’s struggling school system and other public services.

In Kentucky, Representative Jim Wayne held a press conference last week to discuss his bill, HB 318, which would modernize and increase the progressivity of Kentucky’s tax structure. The bill would expand the sales tax base to include a variety of services, introduce an Earned Income Tax Credit, and change the personal income tax rates and brackets.

ITEP estimates were used to show that, overall, the state would have a more progressive tax structure if the Wayne bill became law. Representative Wayne should be applauded for continuing to beat the progressive drum and arguing year after year that a tax system “should be equitable, it should be buoyant, it should be flexible, and it should grow with the economy.”

In less cheerful news, the Iowa House will have the opportunity to vote on a bill that passed through committee that, if approved, would reduce the state’s income tax rates across the board by 20 percent. This bill is one of the most expensive tax cut proposals currently on the table and threatens Iowa’s ability to provide public services over the long term.

In fact, the leader of the Democratic minority in the House recently said, “I’m not sure where the House ship is sailing. On one hand, we have all kinds of tax-cut bills moving through the process. … It’s about $2 billion over the next few years that would be eliminated from the state of Iowa’s budget. How is that even remotely fiscally responsible?”

Of course, it’s the opposite of fiscally responsible, as noted in a recent Iowa Policy Project brief finding that “[t]o develop long-term sustainability in the budget, it is important to examine what has given rise to current budget imbalances. Iowa’s long-term structural budget deficit has occurred in significant measure because lawmakers have adopted various tax breaks and reductions, not because they have expanded programs and services.”

Ohio Governor Kasich, an advocate of repealing the state’s personal income tax, now apparently thinks that if the full income tax can’t be repealed, then he should make the tax as generous as possible to wealthy Ohioans. There are reports that the Governor wants to introduce a tax break for capital gains income. He said recently, “We can’t tax ourselves to prosperity. We need to get the mojo back.”

Kasich should read ITEP’s report on capital gains taxation, which explains that tax breaks for capital gains are an ineffective strategy for economic development.

The battle pitting Michigan’s low-income families against big business is heating up.  Governor Rick Snyder is unabashedly supporting an elimination of the state’s Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC) to help pay for his $1.5 billion annual cut in state business taxes.  Snyder wants to replace the Michigan Business Tax with a 6 percent corporate income tax which will exempt most small businesses from paying any business taxes.   

Michigan, however, is not flush with cash to pay for such a cut. It has a $1.8 billion budget gap to close this year.  So, Snyder and other state lawmakers have turned to their state’s most vulnerable residents and are asking them to “share in the pain” to help plug the even larger budget gap that would result if the business tax cut plan is enacted. 

This week, State Senator Roger Kahn officially introduced a bill to eliminate the EITC because, he says, state residents “don’t need it.”

Michigan’s EITC costs around $350 million a year, which is around 20 percent of the cost of the business tax cut, and provides affordable, effective, and targeted assistance to more than 700,000 low- and moderate-income Michiganders.   These are the working families hit hardest by the economic downturn and who are also feeling the impact of several years of budget cuts to education and health services. 

The Michigan League of Human Services’ CEO released a statement on the proposal saying, “While we recognize the desire for everybody in the state to share in the sacrifice, poor people are being asked to be the sacrificial lambs. The Michigan Earned Income Tax Credit, which helps low- and moderate-income working households, should not be the first credit considered among Michigan’s $34 billion list of tax expenditures, including tax breaks for big corporations.”

There’s been a lot of talk lately about how much U.S. corporations actually pay in federal income taxes, and a lot of it has been wrong. This is not surprising, since corporations go to a lot of trouble to obscure what they pay in the financial reports that they must file with the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) each year.

For example, the New York Times recently reported that General Electric paid 14.3 percent of its profits in taxes over the 2005-2009 period. While this is surprisingly low (compared to the statutory corporate income tax rate of 35 percent) it is incorrect, and the real effective rate is much lower.

GE’s effective tax rate for its U.S. profits was actually just 3.4 percent over that period. Our figure is based on what GE says that it paid in U.S. corporate income taxes (called “current” taxes) divided by what GE says its pretax U.S. profits were (all from GE’s annual 10K reports to shareholders, filed with the SEC).

There are several reasons for confusion over the effective tax rates paid by corporations. First, the U.S. only taxes corporate profits generated in the U.S. (or repatriated to the U.S.) so that it is mostly up to foreign countries to tax the profits these corporations generate offshore, and yet some people are referring to worldwide taxes U.S. corporations pay on their worldwide profits when they discuss the U.S. corporate tax system. The worldwide effective tax rate includes taxes that a corporation pays to all governments in the world. But to understand how the U.S. corporate income tax is working, one must focus on U.S. taxes paid on U.S. profits. No one expects Congress to do much about taxes that U.S. corporations pay to the governments of France, Germany, or Japan!

Second, to get a sense of what a corporation pays each year, we should include the current U.S. taxes paid, but not the deferred U.S. taxes. “Deferred” is a euphemism for “not paid.” Corporations can defer (delay) paying taxes if, for example, they enjoy tax breaks for accelerated depreciation, which allow them to take deductions for capital investments sooner than they would if the rules were simply based on the actual life of the investment. A company could eventually pay taxes that it has “deferred.” But that doesn’t happen very often.

A post on the New York Times Economix blog, which received a lot of recent attention, uses data that includes the worldwide taxes, both current and deferred, paid by U.S. corporations on their worldwide profits, and tries to use this to make a point about the U.S. corporate tax system.

(The NYU scholar who created this data set recently introduced another measure which rightly focuses only on profitable corporations, but the problems identified above still remain.)

The point the New York Times article was trying to make is that effective corporate tax rates vary widely among companies and industries, which is true (and is a bad thing). But the worldwide tax information cited doesn’t shed much light on the U.S. corporate tax system’s role in these disparities.
 
More important, as our lawmakers contemplate reforming the corporate income tax, the place to start is to have an accurate understanding of the effective tax rates that companies pay to the U.S. government. Mistakenly mixing in foreign data just muddies the waters.