Stay informed with quick and accessible analysis of today's top tax policy topics. Read Tax Foundation's Tax Policy Blog for insight from our experts on tax policies across the U.S. and abroad.
To find our most recent research papers and data, click the links below.
The Biden administration does have a point about how some components of the infrastructure bill could put downward pressure on inflation in the long term. However, the taxes chosen to pay for those investments would counteract those effects, by reducing investment and productivity growth.
Earlier this year, Maryland legislators overrode Governor Larry Hogan’s (R) veto of HB732, approving a digital advertising tax, the first of its kind in the country. But legislators punted several crucial questions to the state comptroller, who last week submitted proposed regulations for the digital advertising tax to the state Joint Committee on Administrative, Executive, and Legislative Review.
Rather than pursuing policies that have demonstrably reduced R&D and innovation elsewhere, and that would disincentivize R&D in the U.S., lawmakers should continue to ensure an ecosystem that encourages risk-taking and R&D.
As Congress prepares to rewrite some portion of the current international tax rules, it’s hoped that they are able to achieve a more principled approach and one that is not so subject to obfuscation and misinterpretation.
Lawmakers are considering policy changes within the reconciliation bill that would reduce private R&D within the pharmaceutical industry and reduce the number of new drugs coming to market. Instead of hampering medical progress, policymakers should work to ensure that the tax code remains conducive to R&D spending and the resulting innovation.
The recent effort to change international tax rules has been one of significant contradictions. The proposals have been driven by arguments about the need to raise additional revenues, to stabilize corporate tax rates, or to prevent offshoring. However, upon closer examination, these three arguments fail to capture what is occurring.
Congressional lawmakers are putting together a reconciliation bill to enact much of President Biden’s Build Back Better agenda. Many lawmakers including Senate Finance Committee Chair Ron Wyden (D-OR), however, want to make their own mark on the legislation.
Mark-to-market is not simple to implement, as it involves new administrative and compliance challenges for taxpayers. Mark-to-market levies tax on phantom income, requiring some taxpayers to engage in some degree of liquidation, ultimately suppressing incentives to save and invest. The limited tax revenues that could result from these proposals are not worth the risk.
The proposed restructuring of the GILTI and FDII regimes makes several changes to the tax base that are largely offsetting, leaving virtually all the revenue potential to be determined by the tax rates on GILTI and FDII and the haircuts on foreign tax credits. Lawmakers should carefully weigh the trade-offs between higher tax revenues and competitiveness.
Over the next ten years, the structure of the Child Tax Credit (CTC) is scheduled to change, complicating efforts to extend enhanced CTC benefits or reform the CTC for the long-term. Rather than take an all-or-nothing approach or kick the can down the road by relying on temporary expansions, lawmakers could consider alternative options that better target low-income households, retain work incentives, reduce the impact on federal revenue, and provide taxpayers with a stable, consistent tax code.
Taxes will play an important role in the success or failure of federal cannabis reform. Since the federal government is late to the party, it should proceed with caution when imposing new taxes.
As lawmakers are reviewing international tax rules and determining what to change and update, they should pay attention to the way GILTI interacts with profitable and loss-making companies.
While the excise tax penalty in H.R. 3 is referred to as a 95 percent tax rate, it actually amounts to a 1,900 percent tax rate because of how the proposal defines the tax base. In other words, under the H.R. 3 tax penalty, a drug that sells for $100 would incur a $1,900 tax.
To tackle problems of homelessness and housing costs, Senator Ron Wyden (D-OR) has released a major tax proposal, the Decent Affordable Safe Housing (DASH) For All Act. Several of Wyden’s proposals are also components of the Biden administration’s infrastructure agenda, with a large focus on tax credits designed to either incentivize new housing or directly reduce rent burdens.
Temporary policy creates uncertainty for taxpayers and scheduling more expirations will add to the already-expiring provisions under the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (TCJA) of 2017.
Increasing tax compliance is a major part of the Biden administration proposal to raise revenue for physical and social infrastructure. Reducing the tax gap—the difference between taxes owed and taxes paid—is a good way to raise revenue, but it doesn’t come without trade-offs, and it’s important to go about it in the right way.
While arcane, expense allocation rules are relevant to current debates because they result in a heavier tax burden for U.S. companies under current law than the recently negotiated global minimum tax proposal.
One of the ways lawmakers intend to pay for $3.5 trillion of new spending in the budget reconciliation package is by creating “health care savings.” The leading proposal to achieve this is H.R. 3, the Elijah Cummings Lower Drug Costs Now Act, which would change the way that prescription drug prices are negotiated under Medicare Part D.
There are many ways the U.S.’s international tax rules could be changed, reformed, improved, or worsened. Reflexively jacking up taxes on U.S. multinationals does not necessarily accomplish the goal of reducing or eliminating profit shifting, and it would in fact worsen it.
The Biden administration recently cited an analysis from Treasury claiming that “the President’s agenda will protect 97 percent of small business owners from income tax rate increases.” However, the figure is misleading. To assess the economic effect of higher marginal tax rates, it matters how much income or investment will be affected—not how many taxpayers.