Last Thursday, the House passed an appropriations bill by a vote of 211 to 198. At this point, it’s anybody’s guess how much of the appropriations bill will survive the Senate, but, just in case, it’s worth taking a look at it. And, it turns out, the House really wants to use the appropriations bill to regulate the IRS. Some of the provisions strike me as warranted. Some innocuous. Some strike me as bizarre, payback, perhaps, for long-held grudges. And some strike me as downright insidious. In this post I’m going to focus on the last two categories because frankly, they’re more fun to write about.
Last week, the Free Beacon ran an exposé of the Southern Poverty Law Center, making four principal claims. First, the Free Beacon said, the SPLC was keeping literally tons of money in offshore tax haven investment funds and bank accounts. Second, it spends too much on fundraising. Third, it overpays its executives. Fourth, it underspends on its mission.
The problem with the exposé? At best it misunderstands what’s going on, and at worst, it is flagrantly wrong.
Yesterday, the House Republicans posted “What Do the The Legend of Zelda and the American Tax Code Have In Common?”
Sadly, by the time I read about it on Twitter, the post had been taken down.
Why did the post come down? Probably because it was instantly and ruthlessly scorned, mostly because it claimed Nintendo had been founded in 1985 (it was founded in 1889). It has now been reposted with the dates corrected.
Unfortunately, the GOP didn’t correct the bigger flaw in the post: it promised something awesome and failed to deliver. See, what do Zelda an the Internal Revenue Code have in common? Zelda was released in 1986 and the last fundamental tax reform happened in 1986. Continue reading “The Zelda Tax”→
Today and tomorrow are 7-Eleven’s annual Bring Your Own Cup Day. In case you’re not familiar with it (or your Facebook feeds aren’t filled with bizarre containers of florescent sugar-ice), on #BYOCupDay, you can bring any container in your house to a 7-Eleven and, as long as it fits in the Slurpee machine, you can fill it up for $1.50.
After my wife and kids spent the day on the beach watching the Air and Water Show rehearsal, they were ready for some Slurpee. So, when I got out of work, we walked the three blocks to the nearest 7-Eleven. (Last year, we took berry-picking buckets; this year, we were much more modest and just brought cups my father-in-law bought when we took him to a Cubs game a couple years ago.)
Last month I blogged about new proposed legislation in Congress that sought to provide a safe harbor for gig worker classification for tax purposes. However, as I noted, the proposal implicitly favored one side of the debate by making the safe harbor one that would ensure the “easy” ability to classify a worker as an independent contractor (rather than an employee). In that post, I suggested that having tax lead the charge in this sharing economy worker classification debate perhaps allowed the tax “tail” to lead the employment relations “dog”. There are pressing nontax issues in the sharing economy that are driving litigation and dominating worker concerns – particularly employment law issues. Just last week, we saw further evidence of serious tensions in the landscape of sharing economy labor law.
On Tuesday, July 31, 207, in Chamber of Commerce of the United States, et al., v. The City of Seattle, a U.S. federal judge dismissed a challenge to legislation approved by the Seattle City Council in fall 2015. Pursuant to the Seattle law, businesses that hire or contract with taxi-drivers, for-hire transportation companies and “transportation network companies” must bargain with drivers if a majority want to be represented. That is, Seattle effectively allows Uber and Lyft drivers to unionize. Not surprisingly, Uber and Lyft objected to the law . . . Continue reading “The Front Lines of Sharing Economy Legal Debates”→
New legislation has just been introduced in the Senate that creates a “safe harbor” for independent contractor status. The proposed legislation provides that if a worker relationship satisfies certain criteria, then that worker can bypass the sometimes messy, multi-factor test for distinguishing between employees and independent contractors, and will be classified as an independent contractor for tax purposes. What prompted action now to address what has been a decades-old classification challenge for workers, businesses and the IRS alike? The gig economy. (Hence, the not-so-catchy title for the legislation: The New Economy Works to Guarantee Independence and Growth (NEW GIG) Act of 2017 (S. 1549).)
The legislation’s sponsor, Senate Finance Committee member John Thune, (R-S.D), described the impetus for the legislation as follows: “My legislation would provide clear rules so that these freelance style workers can work as independent contractors with the peace of mind that their tax status will be respected by the IRS.”
Hello everyone! I’m excited to be joining the Surly Subgroup and appreciate the opportunity to share some of my thoughts in thus forum. I’ve been at the University of Nebraska College of Law since 2012, and I teach Individual Income Tax, State and Local Tax, Corporate Tax, Corporate Finance, and Business Associations. Much of my research to date has focused on state-tax issues, though I’ve recently been spending time also thinking about how our tax systems intersect with individual privacy interests. I am looking forward to blogging about these issues—and maybe a good tax-and-soccer scandal from time to time.
This is a particularly good week to enter the blogging world as a state-tax guy. I woke up yesterday ready for a regular day of summer research and writing when this happened:
The #AmazonWashingtonPost, sometimes referred to as the guardian of Amazon not paying internet taxes (which they should) is FAKE NEWS!
Now, I’m generally inclined to not give much attention to our current President’s tweets, but it isn’t often that state-tax issues get presidential attention, so it seemed like a good opportunity to dig into the tweet a bit more. (Plus it gave me the opportunity to use a terrible Trump pun right off the bat as a blogger.)
Although the President’s tweet is difficult to interpret (and that’s being gracious), it appears that he was primarily attempting to criticize The Washington Post as “fake news.” That came a day after the paper reported on the fact that several of his golf clubs had posted fake Time magazine covers on their walls. Trump made this criticism, though, through an oddly constructed reference to the paper’s relationship with Amazon and Amazon’s position with respect to “internet taxes,” which most likely is a reference to the collection of use tax on online sales. (The Washington Post and Amazon are not related, of course, except that Jeff Bezos—the founder, chairman, and CEO of Amazon—purchased the paper in 2013.)
The Trump and Republican tax plans have circled around the idea of repealing the mortgage interest deduction. Although I’m not convinced it will happen (see e.g., Treasury Secretary Mnuchin’s remarks). The mere threat of the repeal has garnered a fair amount of attention.
For example, the other day this chart was making its rounds on twitter.
I have not verified the methodology of the chart or the data. I interpret that the chart examines (in absolute numbers) how many mortgages exist at $1,000,000. The implicit conclusion of the chart is that homeowners in states like D.C., Hawai’i, California and New York have the most at stake in retaining the deduction.
Because there seems to be evidence that the mortgage interest deduction contributes to housing inflation. Back in 2011 the Senate held hearings on incentives for homeownership.  It has been suggested that the elimination of the deduction will drop home prices between 2 and 13% with significant regional differences.  So, if the mortgage interest deduction is eliminated, then the aforementioned states might have numerous problems, including a smaller property tax base.
Last week Tax Foundation tweeted about the states that have either a state level estate or inheritance tax.
The map and subsequent conversations I have had reinvigorated my interest in the prospect of an estate tax. Briefly in this post, I wanted to say a couple things about the state level estate or inheritance tax, the map, and the effect of the Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2001 (“EGTRAA“) on the prospects of the elimination of federal estate tax.
I’ll readily admit that it has been a while since I did an estate tax return. So, I needed some refreshing regarding the idiosyncrasies of the interaction between the state and federal taxes. Some recent history is not only necessary but illustrative of the prospects of permanent federal estate tax repeal.
Brief History of Switch From Credit to Deduction
Prior to the enactment of EGTRAA, the federal estate tax provided an tax credit for an amount paid because of a state level estate tax. The mechanics of credit was essentially a revenue sharing agreement for the tax collected between the federal government and the states – essentially, up to 16% of an estate’s value. The credit applied whether or not the state had an independent estate tax. This tax was known as a “pick-up” or “sponge” tax.
The French election for president—an event worthy of note in its own right (particularly on the heels of the Brexit vote)—generated a political, international relations, security and media firestorm due to a late-breaking data leak and hack. On Friday, the campaign of French centrist candidate Emmanuel Macron announced that it had been the subject of a major computer hack. At least 9GB of emails and personal and business documents from Macron’s campaign were posted to a document sharing site called Pastebin. Initial reports contended that the hack and leak were an effort to aid Macron’s far-right opponent Marine Le Pen, and may have been undertaken with Russian assistance. While Macron won the election, the potential fallout out from these leaks may have only just begun.
There’s an important tax dimension to the story, which may have been slightly overshadowed by Friday’s massive data dump. Two days before, on Wednesday, Le Pen hinted during a debate at possibility that Macron might have an offshore account in the Bahamas. Apparently, two hours before the debate, documents were anonymously posted on an internet forum that purported to include Macron’s signature and to show that he had a Bahamas bank account. During the debate, Macron responded that the claim was false and constituted “defamation.” On Thursday, Macron and his campaign outlined the spread of this offshore-account assertion on various sites and contended some were connected to “Russian interests.” On Friday, Macron lodged a complaint with the French prosecutor’s office regarding offshore account allegations made online.
Though the Friday hack and data dump have dominated the spotlight, the alleged tax leak is in fact part of the bigger and quite troubling picture of leaks in the modern cyber environment . . .