Less than Zero: Enron’s Corporate Income Tax Payments, 1996-2000

January 15, 2002 04:11 PM | | Bookmark and Share

Click here to see this analysis in PDF format.


A January 17 analysis of Enron’s financial documents by Citizens for Tax Justice finds that Enron paid no corporate income taxes in four of the last five years– although the company was profitable in each of those years.

  • Over the five-year period from 1996 to 2000, Enron received a net tax rebate of $381 million. This includes a $278 million tax rebate in 2000 alone.
  • Over the same period, the company’s profit before federal income taxes totaled $1.785 billion. In none of these years was the company’s pretax profit less than $87 million.
Federal Income Taxes Paid by Enron, 1996-2000
($-millions)
  2000 1999 1998 1997 1996 96-00
U.S. profits before federal income taxes  $ 618  $ 351  $ 189  $ 87  $ 540  $ 1,785
Tax at 35% corporate rate would be:  $ 216  $ 123  $ 66  $ 30  $ 189 $ 625
Less tax benefits from stock options –390 –134 –43 –12 –19 –597
Less tax savings from other loopholes, etc. –104 –94 –36 –1 –173 –409
Federal income taxes paid (+) or rebated (–)  $ –278  $ –105  $ –13  $ 17  $ –3  $ –381

At the 35 percent tax rate, Enron’s tax on profits in the past five years would have been $625 million, but the company was able to use tax benefits from stock options and other loopholes to reduce its five-year tax total to substantially less than zero.

Among the loopholes used to reduce the company’s tax liability was the creation of more than 800 subsidiaries in “tax havens” such as the Cayman Islands.

To read ITEP’s October 2000 report on Corporate Income Taxes in the 1990s, which discusses the use of stock options and other loopholes to reduce corporate income taxes, click here.


    Want even more CTJ? Check us out on Twitter, Facebook, RSS, and Youtube!

Latest GOP Corporate Tax Giveaway “Compromise” Looks Almost Identical to Original Bloated Plan

December 18, 2001 04:12 PM | | Bookmark and Share

Click here to see this analysis in PDF format.


Related CTJ Analyses
Analysis of Senate Stimulus Plan 10/29/01
Analysis of House Stimulus Plan 10/15/01
Impact of Accelerated Rate Cuts 10/15/01
$7.4 Billion in AMT Relief for 16 Corporations 10/26/01
Corporate Income Taxes in the 1990s 10/19/00

The latest so-called “compromise” package of corporate tax subsidies and upper-income tax reductions put forward today by House Republicans with President Bush’s approval is almost identical to the tax cut bill passed by the House in October.

  • The original bill was estimated to cost $212 billion over its first three years. The new bill’s tax cuts appear to have a three-year price tag of about $202 billion—only five percent less.
  • Over the first three years, 69 percent of the tax cuts in the original bill would have gone to corporations. Under the new bill, corporations would get about 63 percent of the tax breaks.

As for the major details of the bills:

  • Both bills would provide a huge increase in depreciation write-offs for corporations, at a cost of $109 billion over three years.
  • Both bills would extend a corporate tax shelter for companies that shift interest income offshore, at a cost of $3 billion over three years. (The original bill would have made this tax shelter permanent; the new bill extends it for “only” 5 years.)
  • Both bills would make it easier for companies with an excess of tax breaks to get refunds of taxes paid in earlier years, at a cost of $10 billion over 3 years.
  • The original bill would have completely repealed the corporate alternative minimum tax on otherwise very low-tax companies and refunded all minimum taxes paid since 1986—at a 10-year cost of $24 billion (almost all in the first 3 years). The new bill repeals about two-thirds of the minimum tax and pays out rebates more slowly—with a 3-year cost of about $10 billion and a likely 10-year cost of close to $16 billion.
  • Both bills would speed up the scheduled reduction in the 27% personal income tax rate from 2006 to 2002, at a cost of $49 billion over the next three years (and $60 billion over 4 calendar years).

“Who do House Republicans think they can possibly fool with this transparent repackaging of their original corporate giveaway scheme?” asked Citizens for Tax Justice director Robert S. McIntyre.


    Want even more CTJ? Check us out on Twitter, Facebook, RSS, and Youtube!

CTJ Ad in New York Times: Profiteering in the Name of Patriotism

November 15, 2001 04:14 PM | | Bookmark and Share

This is a moment when Americans are coming together in a spirit of cooperation and community unseen since World War II. There is an air of patriotism and national purpose.

Yet, lobbyists for our largest corporations – GE, GM, IBM and others – are taking advantage of this moment to obtain from their friends in Congress a wish list of tax breaks and special favors they could never hope to win through open political debate in peacetime.

Consider these proposals to “stimulate” the economy, which have already passed the House and are awaiting Senate action.

Read the Full Report


    Want even more CTJ? Check us out on Twitter, Facebook, RSS, and Youtube!

Buy Now, Pay Later: How Generous Corporate Campaign Donors Save Billions in Taxes

November 7, 2001 04:16 PM | | Bookmark and Share

Click here  to see this analysis in PDF format.


Washington, D.C.
Profitable corporations that will receive a total of $7.4 billion in immediate Alternative Minimum Tax (AMT) rebates if the economic “stimulus” bill recently passed by the House of Representatives becomes law are also major campaign contributors, giving $45.7 million to federal elections since 1991[1] , according to a new report released today by Citizens for Tax Justice (CTJ), the Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy (ITEP), and Public Campaign.

The 30-page investigative report, “Buy Now, Save Later: Campaign Contributions and Corporate Taxation,” shows how these companies and others use campaign money to manipulate the political process to win huge tax breaks unavailable to ordinary Americans — and how they have been doing so for years.

“While we place our right hand over our hearts, we should make sure our left hand is holding onto our wallets,” said Public Campaign executive director Nick Nyhart. “We all want to help our country remain unified and our economy strong. Giving corporate campaign donors everything that’s been on their tax wish list for decades, though, raises disturbing questions for all the ordinary Americans who can’t afford to contribute to campaigns, but who pay their fair share of taxes come April 15.”

The report examines 41 companies that contributed a total of $150 million to federal candidates and parties since 1991 while, between 1996 and 1998 alone, receiving $55 billion in special tax breaks. Several of these same companies are in line to be major beneficiaries if the AMT repeal in the recently passed House bill should become law.

These corporations make use of all the tricks of the political influence trade: cash contributions to federal candidates and political party committees through political action committees (PACs); individual contributions from executives and their families; and unlimited soft money contributions. They also hire high-ranking former members of Congress and congressional staffers who have gone through the revolving door to plead their cases on Capitol Hill and help raise cash for politicians. The corporations and their legions of lobbyists target campaign money to where it matters most — the members of the House Ways and Means and Senate Finance Committees.

The report includes five case studies showing how individual companies, and sometimes entire industries, have used campaign contributions to help establish, widen, and protect particular tax loopholes.

“For years we have tracked how corporations with household names, like General Electric and Microsoft, have been adept at avoiding paying their fair share of federal taxes,” said Bob McIntyre, executive director of CTJ and ITEP. “Now we have a record of how they have gotten away with it — by generously rewarding the politicians who write the tax laws.”

Major findings of the study include:

  • Members of Congressional tax-writing committees — the House Ways and Means and Senate Finance Committees — collected $9.7 million from top tax- avoiding companies since 1991. The top recipients include Senate Finance Committee Members Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-UT), who received $355,430, and Sen. John B. Breaux (D-LA), who received $251,150.
  • After the GOP took over Congress in 1994 — and control of writing tax laws — top tax-avoiding companies sharply increased their contributions to the Republican Party and its candidates. In the 1992 and 1994 election cycles, the GOP received 54 percent of the contributions from these companies while the Democrats received 45 percent. By the 2000 election cycle, Republican candidates and party committees received more than twice as much campaign cash as the Democrats. Thus, campaign cash followed the power to make laws the companies wanted — not any ideological preference or principle.
  • Energy industries that will collect about $27 billion over ten years, if the energy bill passed by the House of Representatives in August 2001 becomes law, contributed $209 million to political campaigns from 1989 through June 2001. The oil and gas industry already pays the lowest effective tax rate of any industry in America — just 5.7 percent in 1998.
  • The “Big Five” accounting firms, which beefed up their tax lobbying practices in the late 1990s and built a reputation for securing tax loopholes for corporate clients from Congress and the Treasury Department, are also major campaign contributors. They contributed $29 million to federal candidates and party committees from 1989 through June 2001.
  • Microsoft Corp. led a successful campaign to extend the lucrative Foreign Sales Corporations (FSC) tax break, which gives credit to companies on profits earned from exports. Their month-by-month campaign contributions in 1997 peaked at $54,100 in July. That was the same month Congress approved the new law by inserting an 86-word provision that extended the FSC tax break to software companies into the massive budget reconciliation bill.
  • Industries benefiting from a special tax credit for research and experimentation (R&E) costs poured $148 million into political campaigns and parties from 1989 through June 2001. The pharmaceutical and computer industries are pushing hard to make the R&E tax credit permanent. One of their major champions, Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-UT), received more than half a million dollars from these industries between 1995 and 2000. Five days after Hatch offered an amendment in committee in July 1999 to make the credit permanent, he received a bundle totaling $10,000 from a who’s-who list of top Pfizer executives.

# # #

Public Campaign is a non-profit, non-partisan organization dedicated to sweeping reform that aims to reduce dramatically the influence of special interest money and big contributors on America’s elections. Public Campaign is laying the foundation for reform by working with citizens organizations and other groups around the country that are fighting for comprehensive change. Together, we are building a network that includes participants from many states, creating a powerful national force for federal reform.

Public Campaign advocates for “Clean Money/Clean Elections” campaign finance systems, now the law in four states:   Arizona, Maine, Massachusetts, and Vermont. Under Clean Money/Clean Elections systems, candidates who choose not to accept private contributions qualify for public financing for their election campaigns. At the federal level, Rep. John Tierney (D-MA) has introduced, H.R. 1637, the Clean Money, Clean Elections Act, and in the Senate, Sen. Paul Wellstone (D-MN) has introduced S. 719.

CTJ and ITEP focus on federal, state, and local tax policies and their impact upon our nation. Their joint studies of corporate tax avoidance have been widely cited for their key role in the enactment of the Tax Reform Act of 1986. Indeed, The Washington Post called their reports a “key turning point” in the tax reform debate that “had the effect of touching a spark to kindling” and “helped to raise public ire against corporate tax evaders.” The Wall Street Journal said that they “helped propel the tax-overhaul effort,” and the Associated Press reported that the studies “assured that something would be done . . . to make profitable companies pay their share.”

In 1996, ITEP completed work on its microsimulation tax model. The model is capable of calculating the impact of current tax law and tax change proposals on taxpayers by income level. It can also project potential revenue yields of tax law changes. The ITEP model is unique in its ability to produce analysis at the federal and state levels and to analyze income, consumption, and property based taxes.

[1] Public Campaign analyzed campaign finance data provided by the Center for Responsive Politics (CRP), www.crp.org, a non-partisan, non-profit research group based in Washington, D.C. that tracks money in politics. CRP downloads campaign finance records from the Federal Election Commission and codes them by company and industry.


    Want even more CTJ? Check us out on Twitter, Facebook, RSS, and Youtube!

Why We have a Corporate Minimum Tax

November 1, 2001 04:18 PM | | Bookmark and Share

Click here to see this analysis in PDF format.
Click here to see CTJ’s 1985 report on Corporate Taxpayers and Corporate Freeloaders in PDF format.


 

“The committee believes the tax system is nearing a crisis point. . . . [C]ertain tax provisions allow many corporations to pay relatively little Federal income tax, without stimulating investment and production as intended. Many firms have made use of tax provisions to reduce their tax liability to zero, and, in some cases, corporations with substantial book income obtain tax refunds.”
House Ways and Means Committee Report
On what became the Tax Reform Act of 1986 (Dec. 7, 1985)
“The committee finds it unjustifiable for some corporations to report large earnings and pay significant dividends to their shareholders, yet pay little or no taxes on that income to the government.”
Senate Finance Committee Report
On its version of the same bill (May 29, 1986)

In the first half of the 1980s, the Reagan administration instituted an array of new corporate loopholes, notably super-accelerated depreciation. The result was massive corporate tax avoidance. Studies by Citizens for Tax Justice found that half of America’s largest and most profitable corporations were frequently able to avoid paying any income tax at all.

TEN CORPORATIONS
WITH THE LARGEST TOTAL TAX REBATES
FROM 1981 THROUGH 1984
($-millions)
Company: Pretax U.S. Profit
($-mill.)
Tax Rebate Tax Rate
Boeing Co. $ 2,099 $ –285 –13.6%
Dow Chemical Co. 972 –180 –18.5%
ITT 815 –178 –21.8%
Tenneco 3,401 –166 –4.9%
Pepsico 1,799 –136 –7.6%
Santa Fe Southern Pacific Corp. 2,309 –133 –5.8%
General Dynamics 1,580 –104 –6.6%
General Electric 9,577 –98 –1.0%
Transamerica Corp. 749 –94 –12.5%
Texaco 1,819 –68 –3.7%
TOTALS,      
10 BIGGEST REBATES: $ 25,119 $ –1,441 –5.7%

The list of corporate tax freeloaders was a rogues’ gallery of famous names. General Electric, Texaco, Dow Chemical, Pepsico, Boeing, and ITT were among the long list of companies that paid nothing at all in taxes.

In response to public outrage, Congress and President Reagan enacted the Tax Reform Act of 1986. It closed many of the most egregious corporate loopholes and added an “Alternative Minimum Tax ” to assure that large profitable corporations would be required to pay some reasonable amount in federal income tax.

Now, the corporate alternative minimum tax is under attack, from the same companies whose tax-avoiding ways in the eighties are the reason for its existence. In fact, these corporations want not only repeal of the alternative tax, but also a huge increase in depreciation write-offs. That’s the same witches’ brew that produced the corporate tax avoidance scandals of the eighties.

To read CTJ’s full 1985 report on Corporate Taxpayers and Corporate Freeloaders, go to www.ctj.org/pdf/corp0885.pdf.

 

 

 


    Want even more CTJ? Check us out on Twitter, Facebook, RSS, and Youtube!

AMT Case Studies: Who Are the Companies Complaining About the AMT, and What Do They Pay in Taxes?

October 29, 2001 04:20 PM | | Bookmark and Share

Click here to see this analysis in PDF format.


Related CTJ Analyses
Analysis of Senate Stimulus Plan 10/29/01
Analysis of House Stimulus Plan 10/15/01
Impact of Accelerated Rate Cuts 10/15/01
$7.4 Billion in AMT Relief for 16 Corporations 10/26/01
Corporate Income Taxes in the 1990s 10/19/00

Last year, IBM reported $5.7 billion in pretax U.S. profits. Despite a supposed 35 percent corporate tax rate, IBM’s actual federal income tax bill was only 3.4 percent of its pretax U.S. earnings. Without the AMT, IBM would have paid a mere 0.2 percent.*

In 2000, Ford Motor Co. reported $9.4 billion in pretax U.S. profits, but it paid only 6.3 percent of that in federal income taxes.* The previous year, Ford paid only 5 percent on $9.3 billion in pretax U.S. profits. Ford’s annual report doesn’t offer full disclosure, but it appears that without the AMT, Ford would have paid virtually nothing in taxes over the past two years.

General Motors reported $2.9 billion in pretax U.S. profits in 2000. Despite the AMT, GM paid no federal income tax at all. Instead, GM got a outright tax rebate of $105 million.* In fact, over the past six years, GM has paid nothing in federal income taxes, despite $22.4 billion in pretax U.S. profits!

In 1998 and 1999, General Electric reported a total of $21.3 billion in pretax U.S. profits. It paid a mere 8.8 percent of that in federal income taxes. Without the AMT, GE’s tax rate would have been only 4.6 percent.

United Airlines earned $1.2 billion in pretax U.S. profits in 1998, but paid only 8.6 percent of that in federal income taxes. Without the AMT, United would have paid only 3.8 percent.

Comdisco reported $181 million in pretax U.S. profits in 1998, and paid just 6.1 percent of that in federal income taxes. Without the AMT, Comdisco’s tax bill would have been negative—it would have gotten an outright tax rebate from the U.S. Treasury.

*Updated to reflect tax benefits from stock options.
Compiled from corporate annual reports by Citizens for Tax Justice, Oct. 2001(updated Nov 2001).


    Want even more CTJ? Check us out on Twitter, Facebook, RSS, and Youtube!

Senate Republicans Up “Stimulus” Ante to $220 Billion Over 3 Years

October 29, 2001 12:23 PM | | Bookmark and Share

Click here to see this analysis in PDF format.

Senate Republicans have proposed even larger upper-income and corporate tax cuts than the bloated “stimulus” measure passed by the House last week on a party-line vote. Over the first three years, the Senate GOP measure would cut taxes by $220 billion, compared to $212 billion under the House bill. Earlier, there was a bipartisan agreement between the President and congressional leaders to limit additional stimulus measures to $50-75 billion.

  • More than half of the tax cuts proposed by Senate Republicans for next year would go to the best-off one percent of all taxpayers, whose average tax cut in 2002 would be $33,843 each.
  • In contrast, only 6 percent of the proposed 2002 tax cuts would go to the bottom three-fifths of taxpayers, whose average 2002 tax cut would be $67.

The GOP bill would (1) accelerate to 2002 the reductions in the top income tax rates scheduled to take effect in 2006; (2) repeal the corporate alternative minimum tax on large, profitable, low-tax corporations; and (3) allow corporations to write off an extra 30 percent of their equipment purchases (in 2002-04). In addition, the personal tax rebates sent out earlier this year would be extended to many taxpayers who were previously ineligible.

“Who would have thought that a national emergency would set off a feeding frenzy by corporations and the wealthy?” said Robert S. McIntyre, director of Citizens for Tax Justice. “And who could have imagined that so many of our nation’s elected officials would eagerly go along with this monstrous demonstration of greed?”


    Want even more CTJ? Check us out on Twitter, Facebook, RSS, and Youtube!

The House’s $212 Billion Special-Interest Love Feast, from the American Prospect

October 22, 2001 04:22 PM | | Bookmark and Share

Special-interest zeal to co-opt the national crisis as an excuse for huge new upper-income tax breaks continues unabated in Washington, D.C.

As I write this, the House is on the verge of approving a bloated “stimulus” tax-cut bill that makes a mockery of the previous bipartisan agreement between congressional leaders and the administration that additional stimulus measures should be temporary and limited to a total of $50-75 billion. Instead, House Republicans have put forward a laundry list of new tax breaks, some explicitly permanent, that are officially expected to cost a staggering $212 billion over the next three fiscal years— and who knows how much thereafter.

With typical dishonesty, the bill’s backers are characterizing it as a $99 billion measure, by referring only to its first-year cost. Sadly, the press is going along with this charade.

Two-thirds of this latest round of GOP tax cuts would go to corporations. The individual tax changes, which include a 10 percent drop in capital gains taxes, are also sharply tilted towards the wealthy. Overall, almost three-quarters of the total tax reductions next year (including the benefits to capital owners from the corporate breaks) would go to the top tenth of all taxpayers. That includes the 41 percent that would go the bestoff one percent, whose average tax cut in 2002 would be almost $27,000 each.

Read the Full Report


    Want even more CTJ? Check us out on Twitter, Facebook, RSS, and Youtube!

House GOP “Stimulus” Bill offers 16 Large, Low-Tax Corporations $7.4 Billion in Instant Tax Rebates

October 16, 2001 12:24 PM | | Bookmark and Share

Click here to see this analysis in PDF format.


Related CTJ Analyses
Analysis of Senate GOP Stimulus Plan 10/29/01
Analysis of House Stimulus Plan 10/26/01
AMT Case Studies 10/29/01
Corporate Income Taxes in the 1990s 10/19/00

The “stimulus” tax-cut bill just approved by the House Ways and Means Committee calls for some $25 billion in immediate tax rebates to large profitable corporations that paid the low-rate “alternative minimum tax” over the past decade and a half because loopholes cut their regular income tax bills to little or nothing.

Some $7.4 billion of these corporate rebate checks would be made out to just 16 tax-avoiding Fortune 500 companies—each of whcih would get more than $100 million in rebates. (These companies reported a total of more than $42 billion in pretax U.S. profits last year.)

 

16 Corporations with More than $100 Million in AMT Credit Carryforwards at the End of 2000
Company AMT Rebates under the
House GOP Tax Bill,
$-millions
IBM $ 1,424
Ford Motor Co.* 1,000
General Motors 833
General Electric 671
TXU (Texas Utilities Company) 608
DaimlerChrysler** 600
ChevronTexaco 572
UAL (United Airlines) 371
Enron 254
Phillips Petroleum 241
AMR (American Airlines) 184
IMC Global 155
Comdisco 144
CMS Energy 136
Westvaco 112
Kmart 102
Total, these 16 Companies $ 7,407
Source: Corporate Annual Reports for 2000, except as noted.
*As disclosed by Ford to the Detroit News, Oct. 26, 2001.
**As reported by DaimlerChrysler to Automotive News
Citizens for Tax Justice, Oct. 26, 2001 (added Ford & Kmart)
  • Topping the list is IBM, slated to get a $1.4 billion rebate check. Ford is next at $1 billion, followed by General Motors at $833 million, General Electric at $671 million, TXU (Texas Utilities) at $608 million, DaimlerChrysler at $600 million, and ChevronTexaco at $572 million.

     

  • The 16 low-tax companies that would get more than $100 million each under the GOP-backed bill include five in the energy business, along with the three largest U.S. automakers. Two companies are in the airline industry, which is receiving $15 billion in grants and loans under already passed legislation.

     

  • The bill’s proposed total of $25 billion in instant rebates for profitable tax-avoiding corporations is almost twice as big as the $13.7 billion in added individual rebates that the tax committee decided to provide to 37 million, mostly low-income families and singles whose 2000 earnings were too low to qualify for the previous round of personal tax rebates.

Under the bill, the “AMT” would be repealed (to facilitate future tax sheltering) and corporations would be entitled to an immediate rebate of any alternative minimum tax they paid since the tax was established in 1986. In contrast, under current law, a company that pays the AMT can get a refund in a later year only if its regular income tax payments exceed the AMT that year. Many profitable companies have so many loopholes that they never pay enough in regular income taxes to use these “AMT credit carryforwards.”

 

 


    Want even more CTJ? Check us out on Twitter, Facebook, RSS, and Youtube!

$212 Billion House GOP “Stimulus” Tax Bill Would Almost Double Bush Tax Cuts Over Next Three Years

October 15, 2001 05:28 PM | | Bookmark and Share

Click here to see this analysis in PDF format.

The House Ways and Means Committee, on a party line vote, has approved a bill that over the next three years would almost double the size of the Bush tax cuts enacted last May. Officially, the new corporate and individual tax cuts are estimated to cost $212 billion over the next three fiscal years (and the actual cost is likely to be considerably higher).

A distributional analysis of the bill’s effect in calendar 2002 finds:

  • Forty-one percent of the tax cuts would go the best-off one percent of all taxpayers, whose average tax cut in 2002 would be almost $27,000 each.
  • Almost three-quarters of the 2002 tax cuts would go to the best off tenth of all taxpayers.
  • Only 7 percent of the tax cuts would go the bottom three-fifths of taxpayers.

Major items in the Ways & Means October 12 “stimulus” tax bill include:

Corporate tax cuts:

  • The largest corporate tax loophole under current law—accelerated depreciation—would be almost doubled, at an estimated cost of $109 billion over the next three years. Ostensibly, these additional tax subsidies will expire after 2004, but similar “temporary” measures enacted in the past have typically been routinely extended.
  • The bill would permanently repeal the corporate alternative minimum tax that now discourages corporate tax sheltering and forces some otherwise low- and no-tax large, profitable corporations to pay at least something in taxes. In addition, companies that paid the minimum tax in the past would get an immediate refund of those payments. This would officially cost $24 billion over 10 years, and more likely two or three times that much due to increased tax sheltering not reflected in the “official” estimate. A large share of this money would go to just a handful of companies, including IBM, General Motors, General Electric, and Chevron Texaco.
  • The bill would make it easier for corporations with “tax losses” to use them to apply for refunds of taxes they paid in the past, at a cost of more than $10 billion over the next three years. Like the increase in depreciation write-offs, this provision is technically supposed to expire after 2004.
  • An expiring current-law tax shelter for multinational corporations, notably General Electric and the major auto companies, which allows them to shift taxable profits off-shore through manipulations of interest payments would be made permanent. The estimated cost over ten years is $21 billion.

Individual tax cuts:

  • The top income tax rate on capital gains would be reduced from 20 percent to 18 percent.(1) Assuming no increase in realized gains, this would cut taxes by $10 billion in calendar 2002 alone (with three quarters of that going to the top 1%). If as some predict, realizations go up, then the upper-income tax savings will be even larger.
  • The cut in the former 28 percent tax rate to 25 percent, scheduled to take effect in 2006 under the Bush tax-cut bill enacted earlier this year, would be accelerated to 2002. (Unless changed, under current law the rate will be 27 percent in 2002 and 2003, 26 percent in 2004 and 2005, and 25 percent in 2006 and thereafter.)
  • Individual exemptions from the alternative minimum tax would be temporarily increased.
  • The 2001 tax rebates of $600 for couples, $500 for single parents, and $300 for childless singles would be extended to about 37 million couples and individuals who did not get them or got less than the full amounts. To qualify, a person or couple must have filed a tax return for tax year 2000. For those affected, the $13.7 billion in additional 2001 rebates would average about $350.

 


    Want even more CTJ? Check us out on Twitter, Facebook, RSS, and Youtube!