The House Republican blueprint has received surprisingly positive reviews from many economists and tax observers. In one bold stroke, the destination-based cash flow tax could eliminate the aspects of the tax code that encourage businesses to locate jobs overseas. It could be a powerful engine for domestic job creation and economic growth. All that being said, however, it's time for House Speaker Paul Ryan and Ways and Means Chair Kevin Brady to accept that the tax will almost certainly never become law.
Tax Analysts Blog
I have often said that tax reform is like the weather – everyone talks about it, but no one does anything about it. With Donald Trump about to become president, and his Republican allies in control of Congress, it would seem to many that tax reform is all but a done deal.
Swift (and probably piecemeal) destruction of the Affordable Care Act is a program fraught with peril -- both for Republican politicians and for millions of Americans currently insured through the individual market. As both liberal and conservative experts have noted, repeal without immediate replacement seems likely to disrupt insurance markets and leave chaos in its wake.
The new year is here, and 2017 has the potential to dramatically alter the tax policy climate in both the United States and Europe. Most obviously, the incoming Trump administration and its Republican allies in Congress would love to remake the U.S. tax code by repealing Obamacare (which has many important tax components) and passing a tax reform package that lowers rates and alters how business income is treated. In Europe, the populist wave personified by Brexit and Donald Trump could sweep away governments in France (most likely), Italy, and Germany (least likely).
Come January 20, a lot of Americans will miss some of the people in the current administration who have made our government run during the last eight years. I am among them. But unlike the millions who are lamenting the imminent departure of President Obama, my eyes will be trained on the building next door – the one with the statue of Alexander Hamilton on the south portico – the Treasury Department.
If you listen to the lobbyists, tax reform is always just around the corner. For years, Beltway mavens have been especially vocal about the urgency – and even the inevitability – of corporate reform. With some $2.6 trillion in corporate earnings “trapped,” “stranded,” “stashed,” or simply held overseas, the status quo has long seemed untenable.
Does Donald Trump secretly covet a VAT? This is a reasonable question, judging from Trump’s Twitter activity and other public statements. On multiple occasions the president-elect has asserted that other countries’ VAT regimes function as a trade barrier that favors our foreign competitors and punishes U.S. businesses that export into overseas markets.
Italian Prime Minister Matteo Renzi bet his political future on a somewhat convoluted constitutional referendum that was designed to make it much easier for his center-left coalition to govern without majority support from voters. He bet big, and he lost big, because Italians rejected the constitutional changes proposed by the prime minister, who promptly announced his resignation. The outcome is both a major victory for democracy and a sharp setback for the EU and possibly the eurozone.
You hear it so often it’s become commonplace: There’s never been a president like Donald Trump. In any number of ways, that truism is undeniably true. But in some respects, there are precedents for a President Trump, or at least for some Trumpian policies, including his still vague “borrow to build” plan for infrastructure.
OK – I admit it. I hold a bias in favor of law enforcement, particularly when it comes to taxes. Thirty years of litigating civil tax cases for the U.S. Department of Justice, and seeing the myriad ways that taxpayers use to avoid paying what they owe, will do that to a person. While abuse of the tax laws cuts across most income levels and demographics, I found that the wealthiest people often came up with the most “creative” explanations for why they didn’t follow the tax laws.