Search

Buy-sell arrangements are the lubricant for transfers of business interests. Business owners also use buy-sell arrangements to grow their companies, incentivize key employees, leverage wealth, retire, maintain family ownership, and pass on legacies. The Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017 (PL 115-97) is having a dramatic effect on all these planning areas, and advisors need to look at their clients' buy-sell arrangements in a new light. Specifically, advisors should review buy-sell arrangements in the areas of exit, retirement, and estate planning. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017 (PL 115-97) was signed into law on December 22, 2017, and implements many significant tax changes that will affect all taxpayers. For individual taxpayers, the new law reduces tax rates, broadens tax rate brackets, increases the standard deduction, and modifies or eliminates a number of itemized deductions, including the personal and dependent exemption. For corporate taxpayers, the new law reduces the tax rate to 21 percent and modifies a number of tax provisions. Finally, a deduction for tax years 2018 through 2025 for qualified business income (for pass-through entities) is added by the act. This paper details these tax changes and discusses some related planning opportunities that are most likely to affect financial service professionals' clients. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Businesses derive no immediate tax benefit from nonqualified-benefit funding. However, after-tax funding of these benefits could be less costly under the new tax scheme. Further, utilization of creative benefit designs with more meaningful balancing of corporate and executive interests and a fundamental awareness of the limitations of who may be included in "top-hat" groups helps ensure that financial service professionals who embark on a journey of increased proficiency in this rewarding field are likely to find it a satisfying pursuit. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Loan regime split dollar has been the beneficiary of an advanced-planning renaissance due to low interest rates, increasing clarity in split-dollar regulations and a surging economy that provides a fertile ground for executive benefit arrangements. The recently passed Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017 [PL 115-97 (2017)] provides an additional incentive to take another look at this effective planning vehicle. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Three principal provisions of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017 (PL 115-97) affect executive compensation. These provisions expand the application of Internal Revenue Code Section 162(m); impose an excise tax on excess executive compensation and parachute payments paid by tax-exempt organizations; and establish a new form of qualified stock plan. In light of these provisions, the affected taxpayers should review their executive compensation practices and agreements to determine what changes are required in order to comply with, or to take advantage of, such provisions. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This Article queries how the administrative tax guidance used to implement the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017 has met the normative commitment to democratic legitimacy that often animates general administrative law. This Article argues that several reforms to the tax administrative process that came to fruition in recent years have failed to advance democratic tax administration. This argument is made by analyzing each piece ofadministrative guidance issued to implement the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, as compared to similar guidance issued to implement tax cuts in 2001, as well as the Tax Reform Act of 1986. To do this, we created a database of 864 guidance documents issued across six total years in three time periods. 1986-1988, 2001-2003, and 2017-2019. Our examination shows that although tax procedures may now better conform to procedures applied by other administrative agencies, these changes have in some respects set back the pursuit of democratic legitimacy in tax administration. The changing practices identified here have important implicationsfor democratic engagement and accountability in tax administration. For example, this Article critiques a specific change that our study reveals has had stark efects-tax administrators have almost totally abstained from using so-called temporary regulations. While this move has been promoted by scholars specifically as a way to address democratic legitimacy concerns related to transparency and participation in the tax rulemaking process, this Article argues on doctrinal and normative grounds that avoidance of temporary regulations is misplaced and should (and can) be reversed in part so as to better realize democratically legitimate tax administration. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article examines the question of whether digital services tax are taxes in lieu of a tax on income in the U.S. Topics discussed include Section 903 of the Internal Revenue Code, definition of nexus and how it relates to Section 903, and arguments suggesting that digital services taxes do not fall into the traditional statutory paradigm. Also mentioned are foreign tax credit, double taxation, and the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (TCJA).

New settlement trust provisions in the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017 have significant implications for Alaska Native Corporation (ANC) business longevity and the appropriateness of an operating business model given ANC goals as stated in their missions. The Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act (ANCSA) authorized the creation of for-profit corporations for the benefit of Alaska Native shareholders. But for Alaska Natives, cultural continuation was and continues to be a desired goal. Considering the typical life span of U.S. corporations and the inevitability of eventual failure, the for-profit corporate model is inconsistent with aspects of the ANC mission. Settlement trust amendments to ANCSA facilitate ANC cultural continuation goals solving the problem of business viability risk. We make a normative case that ANCs should consider increasing endowment business activity. We also discuss the Alaska Permanent Fund and lessons that those structuring settlement trusts might learn from literature on sovereign wealth funds and endowments. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article considers the implication of the possible limitation or repeal of the Internal Revenue Code Section 1031 on the use of tax deferred real property exchanges for the agricultural sector in Idaho. Topics discussed include the use of such properties as agricultural real estate, water rights, commercial buildings and timber rights as qualifying assets in the exchanges, repeal of the section in the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act in 2017, and the benefit of Section 1031 to taxpayers in the sector.

Historically, the Internal Revenue Code has permitted itemizing taxpayers to deduct state and local tax (SALT) payments on their federal tax returns. While this SALT deduction has been adjusted and refined over the years, it has been a mainstay of the federal tax code. As of December 2017, taxpayers were entitled to deduct the full amount of state and local property tax payments, as well as their choice of either state and local income taxes or sales taxes. The Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017 (TCJA) dramatically altered this provision by setting a $10,000 limit on the amount a taxpayer may deduct from her federal taxable income to account for all state and local tax payments. This $10,000 cap on SALT deductibility is scheduled to expire on December 31, 2025, by which point Congress will likely readdress this issue. This Note proposes that the next iteration of the SALT deduction scheme should allow for full deductibility of state taxes, while retaining a cap on the deductibility of local taxes. This distinction between the treatment of state and local taxes would reflect the relative advantages of public administration at the state level. State-level funding and provision of public services strikes the optimal balance between the competing goals of local administration and redistributive spending. Instituting full state tax deductibility would incentivize a shift in the funding and provision of redistributive federal programs to the state level, and would further the goals of state autonomy and policy innovation. Moreover, reducing or eliminating local tax deductibility would increase the internal policy consistency of the Internal Revenue Code, mitigate the regressive nature of the SALT deduction, and help reduce residential income segregation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Congress, through the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017, made a number of changes to the income tax rates applicable to individuals and profits of businesses conducted both in corporate and noncorporate form. Elsewhere, in an article entitled Advancing to Corporate Tax Integration: A Laissez-Faire Approach, I advanced the case for an Integrationist Norm of business income taxation. In the tax regime of the Integrationist Norm, all business profits would be subject to exactly the same tax burden as if a business were conducted directly by the individual equity holders without an intervening legal fiction of a juridical business entity. The purpose of this Article is to assess how near the TCJA brings the Code to achieving the Integrationist Norm, to consider what possible modifications to the TCJA might bring it nearer the target, and to examine whether such modifications might achieve sufficiently more good than harm to justify the effort to enact them. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Despite the alimony tax deduction repeal as part of the 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (TCJA), opportunities for alimony and child-support tax benefits currently exist. Indeed, the attempted repeal actually expanded the tax benefits--even extending them to child support--contrary to the stated congressional intent. An often-praised (but ill-advised) 2002 revenue ruling, along with a long-dormant provision for preferred-stock income stripping and the poorly drafted provision of the TCJA, combine to produce these unintended consequences. Wealthy and merely well-to-do taxpayers can easily benefit, as can many small-business owners. Indeed, the wealthy can likely receive double benefits. Unfortunately, moderate-income employed persons--those arguably most deserving of tax benefits--are at risk of having the proposed tax plans disallowed. These proposed plans involve income stripping and the assignment of income. The plans are naked because they lack any real economic substance, although they all satisfy the narrow requirements of the statutory economic substance doctrine (though not quite so clearly if used by moderate-income taxpayers). This Article serves several purposes. First, it illustrates the unintended consequences of legislation and administrative actions. Second, it explains how many taxpayers may be able to take advantage of the resulting loopholes. Third, it argues that the benefits should help everyone, or no one. Finally, it suggests that congressional acquiescence to the plans (per the legislative acquiescence doctrine) could expand them to help all taxpayers despite administrative or judicial action. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article discusses the role of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (TCJA) in expanding charitable giving. Topics mentioned include the public opinion and legislation regarding TCJA, the application of the expressive theory of law, the elitism, self-promotion, and tax benefit of charitable contribution, and price elasticity.

The article discusses the inclusion of the qualified opportunity zones (QOZ) program in the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017 in the U.S. Topics mentioned include the benefits of the program to investors, the limitations and disadvantages of the program to investing, the gifts of qualified opportunity fund (QOF) interest, and the mechanics on how to invest in a QOZ.

The article discusses the changes brought about by the Tax Reduction Act of October 23, 2000 on the system of added taxation in the European Union by focusing on a case of added taxation in the direct investment of an intermediate company based in Switzerland. Topics include limitation in the free movement of capital by the company; acquisition of a foreign company by the intermediate company; and the assessment of the income of the intermediate company under the Union law.

Several provisions of the 2017 tax legislation, known as the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (TCJA), focused attention on federal taxation of states, their political subdivisions, and their affiliates. Most prominently, the TCJA limited the federal income tax deduction for state and local taxes to $10,000. States have sued and attempted workarounds. Another provision, which imposes an excise tax of 21% on "excessive compensation" paid by certain entities not subject to income tax, inadvertently failed to subject to tax entities that are integral parts of states or political subdivisions or are themselves political subdivisions. Calls for a technical correction have so far gone unheeded. More than 20 years ago, I wrote two articles about federal taxation of state governments, political subdivisions, and their affiliates. The Teacher's Manual to a leading casebook on nonprofit organizations describes these two articles as "as much as anyone knows about this confusing patchwork and its ramifications." The passage of time, changes in my own thinking, and new developments call for my returning to this topic. I do so here. Moreover, far more than in my earlier work, I examine the applicable rules regarding charitable contribution deductions to these entities as well as discuss the special rules applicable to governmental charities and the category of charities that lessen the burdens of government. In light of the 2017 tax legislation, I not only renew recommendations made long ago, but also extend them to the criteria for exempting entities that lessen the burdens of government, a category that has received little scholarly attention. I also call for establishing a system by which states, political subdivisions, and their affiliates could receive determination letters, like those issued to section 501(c) organizations and thus familiar to potential donors. Such an approach would avoid the distortion of the rules applicable to section 501(c)(3) that arises from the current special treatment of governmental charities. Treating governmental entities as a distinct category under the Internal Revenue Code, with their own criteria and their own determination letter, would also acknowledge and honor their role in our federalist system. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

An insidious form of racism is facilitated by those who are heedless of structural inequities-or in this instance, the fact that legal structures have been developed to protect the experiences of those who are white, with an underlying obliviousness to the fact that persons of color may have a different experience. Almost 80% of the United States' four centuries of existence have involved racialized slavery and extreme racial segregation. The subject of structural discrimination should be almost noncontroversial by now: established social and political structures have been built upon a foundation of racial inequality, inherently conferring power and privilege to some, while perpetuating the marginalization of others. A system that treats equally those who are positioned unequally will only serve to exacerbate the preexisting inequalities. Sweeping changes were made to two important homeownership tax subsidies when the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017 ("TCJA") was passed by the U.S. House of Representatives and Senate on December 20, 2017, and signed into law by President Trump on December 22, 2017. Within the framework of these tax expenditures, this Article explores the notion that TCJA amendments have structurally racist implications both because of the persistently harmful way in which homeownership continues to be subsidized and also because of the supply-side allocation of revenue generated by the amendments. This is less a polemic and more a thought piece-and perhaps more accurately, an economic meditation-contemplating the way in which structural racism exists organically in institutions or structures that have historically incorporated racialized norms such that facially "neutral" changes to those structures are not in fact neutral. This idea is particularly relevant to housing law and policy-an area in which equal opportunity has either been blocked or simply neglected. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article focuses on purchase price allocations in line with Section 1060 of the U.S. Internal Revenue Code of 1986. Topics covered include impact of Section 1060 on typical asset purchase transactions, residual method, application of Section 1060 on the sale and acquisition of real property, increases or decreases in purchase price and impact of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2018.

The Tax Cuts and Jobs Act1 significantly reformed the system of taxation in the United States by enacting permanent and temporary provisions to the Internal Revenue Code. These provisions encompass changes affecting U.S. individuals and entities, both domestically and internationally. Claiming that the change would "pay for itself," the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act intends to stimulate the economy. The large tax cuts may have created short-term economic growth; however predictions suggest that in the long-run, the increased spending and the decline in tax revenue will significantly raise the U.S. budget deficit. Regardless of Congressional intent, the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act impacts both individuals and businesses; yet, the burdens and benefits have not been distributed equally. This Comment will argue that the tax reform enacted in 2017 is not the tax reform required to address the issue of growing inequality both in the United States and on a global scale. Furthermore, this Comment will explain how tax policy should be used as a weapon to combat human suffering, a weapon policy makers should use to create a progressive system of taxation. First, it examines several major social and economic issues faced by citizens and businesses in countries around the world, focusing on the issue of income inequality. It will specifically examine the causes and effects of these major issues. It will then parallel the issues identified on a global scale to those encountered in the United States, surveying the underlying causes and effects. Next, it will evaluate the impact of globalization on these major global issues and analyze the role that tax policy could play in mitigating some of the most commonly faced issues. This Comment will then review countries that have recently effectuated tax reforms, contrasting successful tools used by certain governments with ineffective strategies used by others. The argument will mainly be based on analysis of several specific provisions included in the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act. These provisions will be explained and evaluated based on their purpose and ability to effectuate change for certain groups of taxpayers and for the economy as a whole. This Comment will conclude that the legislation does not meet the standards of a successful tax regime (defined as one that reduces inequality) because it fails to eliminate many of the major socioeconomic issues in the U.S. and abroad. Finally, this Comment will suggest what a successful tax legislation should have aimed for, and how modifications to the TCJA are necessary to address the issues in the domestic and global economy. It will ultimately conclude that tax reform must aim toward the goal of multilateralism and equality among taxpayers in a given regime. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article explains the U.S. Tax Court decision in Amazon v. Commissioner and its significance to multinational enterprises when transferring preexisting intangibles into a foreign jurisdiction under pre-2009 Cost Sharing Arrangements regulations. Topics discussed are business and taxing principles associated with transferring of preexisting intangibles, re-allocation of Amazon's income from its transaction with Amazon Luxembourg, and amendment of Section 482 though the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act.

The Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (TCJA) was the most significant piece of federal tax legislation passed in thirty years. Not surprisingly, the TCJA has spurred the states to rethink their tax systems. This rethinking of state taxes was necessary even before the TCJA. To date, the states have primarily considered reforms that respond to the capping of the State and Local Tax (SALT) deduction, and the current proposals, if enacted and successful, would only return the states to where they were in 2017, which is to say to quite mediocre revenue systems. This Article, the first in a series, argues that the TCJA should provide the final motivation to move the states to reform their tax systems in fundamental ways that made sense even before the passage of the TCJA. The reform that is the focus of this Article is the implementation of entity-level consumption taxes. The states should have implemented such taxes long ago for a number of reasons. Prominent among such reasons is that the United States under-taxes the consumption tax base generally and, if well-designed, a low-rate entity-level tax is not likely to spur much additional evasion. The passage of the TCJA makes such a tax more appealing because this tax would be imposed on business entities, and businesses can still deduct state and local taxes. Thus, this proposal represents a response to the new SALT cap. Two other complementary reforms are developed. First, states should tax the windfall given to certain unincorporated businesses by the TCJA. This too can be a form of SALT workaround, as the tax on the windfall can be reduced for those taxpayers hurt by the capping of the SALT deduction. Finally, states should bolster their laws governing the apportioning of the income of multistate corporations. These laws already govern the apportionment of the state corporate income and would also control the apportionment of the tax base for the two new taxes proposed in this Article (namely, a new tax on consumption and on the federal windfall). [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article focuses on Opportunity Zone (OZ) program as part of 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act which was created as a mechanism to funnel investments into targeted low-income areas throughout the U.S. It mentions program provides three major tax benefits such as deferral of capital gains that are reinvested in OZ property, increase in the basis of investments. It also mentions New Markets Tax Credit (NMTC), which provides tax incentives for individuals to invest in low-income communities.

Natural disasters result in untold human suffering and economic loss. In addition to possible physical injury and loss of life, the futures of the individuals involved are forever altered. Homes and neighborhoods are destroyed, families and communities are dislocated, and jobs and businesses are jeopardized. Unconscionably, Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017 further diminished the already inadequate tax relief available for the damage or destruction of personal-use property caused by casualty events. Following a general discussion of the tax laws applicable to casualty losses, including changes made by the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017, this article surveys the permanent tax relief provisions available to the victims of all natural disasters and the additional permanent tax relief provisions available only to the victims of Federally declared disasters. Examined and compared is the action taken by Congress and the Treasury Department, extending even greater tax relief and incentives to the victims of selected Federally declared disasters. Although the victims of natural disasters feel the devastation equally, widespread media coverage and political considerations often result in greater levels of tax relief to victims of higher-profile natural disasters. The American public expects the federal government to provide relief to the victims of all natural disasters and is unaware the federal government, through its tax laws, treats the victims of certain natural disasters more favorably, depending often on the extent of the media coverage and the political importance of a particular casualty event. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article offers an analysis on the complexities on state taxation brought by the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (TCJA) that was signed into law by U.S. President Donald Trump in December 2017. Topics covered include a historical and general overview of the TCJA, focusing on seven distinct topics within the law from a state perspective, an overview of the TCJA provisions for each topic, and a discussion of possible or actual responses by states to these provisions, particularly Indiana and Missouri.

The article offers an analysis on the effects of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (TCJA) signed into law by U.S. President Donald Trump in December 2017, on state individual income taxes through existing links between the federal and state income tax laws. Topics covered include the two elements of the law that generate the largest changes, the description of the TCJA and its provisions that impact state income taxes, and the steps that states have taken to address the TCJA.

In October 2015, the American Bar Association's Real Property, Trust and Estate Law (RPTE) section convened a Conservation Easement Task Force. The objective of the Task Force was to provide recommendations regarding federal tax law as it relates to conservation easements. This Report is the culmination of the Task Force's work. Part I of the Report is an Executive Summary of the Task Force's recommendations. Part II provides the background necessary to understand the Task Force's recommendations. Part III briefly sets forth the Task Force's comments on the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017 as it relates to charitable contributions in general and conservation easement donations in particular. In Part IV, the Task Force recommends that the Treasury publish safe harbor provisions that would be common to most conservation easements. Part V sets forth the Task Force's recommendations regarding amendments and discretionary consents, the inconsistent use regulations, and furthering transparency in conservation easement administration. Part VI discusses issues surrounding valuation of conservation easements. Part VII contains a brief comment on syndicated conservation easement transactions. Part VIII is the Task Force response to certain proposals the Treasury Department made (most recently in 2016) to change conservation easement law. Appendix A sets forth the "perpetuity" requirements of § 170(h) and the Treasury Regulations. Appendix B offers specific language to facilitate the preparation of key safe harbor provisions. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Although nonqualified deferred compensation plans lack explicit tax preferences afforded to qualified plans, it is well understood that nonqualified deferred compensation results in a joint tax advantage when employers earn a higher after-tax return on deferred sums than employees could achieve on their own. But the joint tax advantage depends critically on how plans are operated; chiefly how plan sponsors use or invest deferred compensation dollars. This is the first Article to systematically investigate nonqualified deferred compensation practices. It shows that joint tax minimization historically has taken a backseat to accounting priorities and participant diversification concerns. In recent years, the largest source of joint tax advantage likely stems from use of corporate owned life insurance (COLI) to informally fund nonqualified deferred compensation liabilities. To be sure, the reduction in corporate tax rates enacted in the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act increases the joint tax benefit of nonqualified deferred compensation. Nonetheless, this Article recommends a measured response focusing first on COLI reform and an extension of the application of the Affordable Care Act's Net Investment Income Tax to nonqualified deferred compensation earnings, before considering fundamental reform of the taxation of nonqualified deferred compensation. This Article also reveals that nonqualified deferred compensation results in an undisclosed advantage to corporate executives, as it provides what are effectively above-market returns on retirement savings, and that, at least in recent years, shareholders, not taxpayers, have provided the bulk of the subsidy for nonqualified deferred compensation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Based on the experience of recent decades, the United States apparently musters the political will to change its tax system comprehensively about every 30 years, so it seems especially important to get it right when the chance arises. Based on the strong public statements of economists opposing and supporting the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017, a causal observer might wonder whether this law was tax reform or mere confusion. In this paper, I address that question and, more importantly, offer an assessment of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act. The law is clearly not "tax reform" as economists usually use that term: that is, it does not seek to broaden the tax base and reduce marginal rates in a roughly revenue-neutral manner. However, the law is not just a muddle. It seeks to address some widely acknowledged issues with corporate taxation, and takes some steps toward broadening the tax base, in part by reducing the incentive to itemize deductions. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

On December 22, 2017, President Donald Trump signed the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (TCJA), the most sweeping revision of US tax law since the Tax Reform Act of 1986. The law introduced many significant changes. However, perhaps none was as important as the changes in the treatment of traditional "C" corporations—those corporations subject to a separate corporate income tax. Beginning in 2018, the federal corporate tax rate fell from 35 percent to 21 percent, some investment qualified for immediate deduction as an expense, and multinational corporations faced a substantially modified treatment of their activities. This paper seeks to evaluate the impact of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act to understand its effects on resource allocation and distribution. It compares US corporate tax rates to other countries before the 2017 tax law, and describes ways in which the US corporate sector has evolved that are especially relevant to tax policy. The discussion then turns the main changes of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017 for the corporate income tax. A range of estimates suggests that the law is likely to contribute to increased US capital investment and, through that, an increase in US wages. The magnitude of these increases is extremely difficult to predict. Indeed, the public debate about the benefits of the new corporate tax provisions enacted (and the alternatives not adopted) has highlighted the limitations of standard approaches in distributional analysis to assigning corporate tax burdens. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article examines the impact of arcane budget law known as the "Byrd rule" on the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act in the U.S. It mentions that major tax cuts enacted through reconciliation since 2001 have been sunset. It also mentions about impact of 2017 Tax Legislation on the corporate tax rate cut and amortization of research and experimentation (R&E) expenditures.

The article offers information on the need for Democratic Party to promote real solutions to the economic problems faced by working families and communities in midterm election. Topics discussed include increase in racism, sexism, and anti-immigrant bias in the U.S.; considering no difference to their economic well-being if Democrats or Republicans were in office; and making people aware of the impact of the policies of U.S. President Donald Trump on their life and eradication of Home Energy Assistance Program with tax cut law.

The article discusses the implications of the tax cut law known as U.S. Tax Cuts and Jobs Act on small businesses in the country.

The article focuses on the passage of Tax Cuts and Jobs Act which amended various provisions of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986. Topics discussed include significant increase in the percentage of taxpayers who use the standard deduction, alternative minimum tax (AMT) regime is retained with exemptions and phase-outs significantly increased and exclusions for estate, gift and generation-skipping transfer (GST) taxes.

The tax deduction for charitable contributions has existed in the Internal Revenue Code in some form since the early 1900s. While the charitable deduction has been preserved in the U.S. tax code for more than 100 years, the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (TCJA) of December 2017 threatens charities by removing the tax incentive to donate to charity from all but the wealthiest taxpayers. Both charities and nonprofits play a vital role in the U.S. economy by providing some goods and services more efficiently than the public or private sectors. In this Note I explore the role of nonprofits in the U.S. economy and how the federal government has used tax incentives to encourage taxpayers to donate to charities. I describe how new changes in TCJA, including doubling the standard deduction, increasing the estate tax exemption, capping the state and local tax deduction, and lowering the income tax rates, remove the tax incentives for most individual taxpayers to donate to charity. I then propose solutions to the problems that TCJA created for charities. I submit that a carefully constructed universal charitable deduction could be a fiscally efficient subsidy. TCJA created an uncertain future for the nonprofit sector. Implementing the proposals in this Note could help preserve the future of the nonprofit sector in the United States by making the tax incentive to give to charity available to all taxpayers. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

When financial analysts of a financial institution review the tax provision of potential customers incident to a financial transaction, the focus typically is directed at current and deferred taxes, the quantum of earnings permanently invested abroad, and the quality of a booked tax benefit. The complexity of the analysis has increased as a result of the 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act. U.S. tax law now contains a new minimum tax regime applicable to controlled foreign corporations and provides tax benefits for domestic businesses using U.S. "intangibles" to exploit foreign markets. The former is known as GILTI and the latter is known as FDII. Together, these provisions change the dynamics of cross-border taxation and their effect is difficult to quantify in the absence of IRS guidance. This article explains the mechanisms adopted by Congress to promote U.S. business activity and penalize U.S. taxpayers that engage in businesses abroad through controlled foreign corporations that have little or no need for plant, property, or equipment. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article focuses on the U.S. Tax Cuts and Jobs Acts with the foreign grantor (FC) to be liquidated for U.S. tax purposes after the death of the non-U.S. person grantor. It mentions post-mortem planning and U.S. tax-planning structures for families with a non- U.S. person parent and structure avoids the imposition of the U.S. estate tax. It also mentions U.S. income tax liability to the non-U.S. person grantor for the sale of the foreign assets.

On 22 December 2017 President Trump signed the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act. This corporate tax reform can be considered the most significant amendment of the US corporate tax code since 1986. Besides the reduction of the corporate income tax rate from 35% to 21%, the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act entails features like a switch from worldwide income taxation to territorial taxation, as well as immediate deductions for certain assets. This leads to a substantial improvement for the US in global tax competition. In this paper, we analyse the effects of the US tax reform on FDI flows between Europe and the US. We find that European high-tax countries in particular will suffer from a net outflow of FDI. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The Tax Cuts and Jobs Act has been heavily discussed across the country since it was enacted. A provision of particular interest relates to the ability to deduct up to 20 percent of qualified business income earned either through pass-through entities or directly by individuals, through a complicated calculation. In all of the discussion going on about this provision, a group of people who are eligible to benefit from it are being overlooked. The provision was written with large income partnerships in mind, presumably targeting high income individuals, but the provision is not exclusive to pass-through entities with large incomes or to partnerships at all. Individuals at lower and mid-level incomes, who are conducting business as independent contractors, through sole proprietorships, or through partnerships will also be impacted by this provision. Such individuals can claim the deduction even if they are engaged in a specified service business, which is supposed to render those kinds of business owner's ineligible at higher income levels. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017 overhauled the U.S. corporate tax system, lowering the statutory rate, exempting foreign earned income, and strengthening anti-abuse provisions. However, opportunities and incentives for abuse remain. Therefore, while developing tax policy is helpful, this paper posits that developing tax professionalism—not only tax policy—is needed. Efforts to reform tax policy should be balanced with efforts to develop and guard tax professionalism. Implementing tax policies in a flourishing tax system requires flourishing tax professionals. We develop theoretical and moral analyses to assess tax policy and tax professionalism approaches to tax reform. By targeting processes in the tax system, the tax policy approach attempts to influence practitioner behavior by restricting opportunities and incentives for corporate tax aggression. The tax professionalism approach recognizes that beneath efforts to influence behavior is a deeper, fundamental challenge to develop and protect tax professionals as reflexive agents capable of responsibly handling tax system opportunities and incentives. The tax professionalism approach focuses on persons in the tax system—not processes. This paper draws attention to the limitations of the tax policy approach and to the complementary need for the tax professionalism approach and proposes practical approaches to developing tax professionalism. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This article analyzes the effects of the American Taxpayer Relief Act of 2012 (Obama Tax Increase) and the Jobs and Growth Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2003 (Bush Tax Cut) on corporate payout decision and stock returns. Logit and fixed-effect panel data analyses are conducted on all firms listed in NYSE, Amex and NASDAQ in the announcement windows of two, three and four quarters before and after the tax reforms. The results show that the implementation of these tax reforms more persistently affects dividend payments than stock repurchases. It also has a boosting effect on stock returns in the Bush Tax Cut that is 75 % greater than their reducing effect in the Obama Tax Increase, in absolute terms, controlling for dividend payment and stocks repurchase. These effects are robust to different market capitalization sizes. Less solvent firms persistently spend larger dollar amounts in stock repurchases, especially in the announcement of the Bush Tax Cut (+1.11 % per solvency ratio percentage in the [−2Q, +2Q] window). Insolvency is more often significant and with positive impacts on stock returns in the Obama Tax Increase, suggesting that some investors decide to migrate to leveraged-high-growth firms once they realize that some dividend-paying firms could change their dividend policies. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]