Testimony: International Tax Avoidance
Lawmakers should aim for policies that support investment and hiring in the United States and refining anti-avoidance measures to improve administrability and lower compliance costs.
Tax Foundation experts regularly testify before the US Congress, in US statehouses, and in government institutions and parliaments throughout Europe.
Featured Testimony
Testimony: The OECD’s Pillar One Project and the Future of Digital Services Taxes
If a multilateral solution to remove digital services taxes (DSTs) is not agreed to, then DSTs will continue to spread and mutate with negative impacts on some of the most innovative companies in the world.
Testimony: Capital Gains Taxation in the EU
It is essential to understand that the taxation of capital gains places a double tax on corporate income.
All Testimony
115 Results
Comments on Tobacco Product Standard for Menthol in Cigarettes
Tax Foundation comments on the state tax and revenue implications of the proposed tobacco product standard for menthol in cigarettes.
Testimony: Kansas Should Keep Groceries in the Sales Tax Base
Tax relief can take many different forms, but not all tax cuts have the same effects. Ultimately, maintaining broad tax bases while reducing tax rates is a more neutral and less complex approach than further narrowing an already-narrow sales tax base.
Tax Foundation Comments on Maryland’s Digital Advertising Tax Regulations
While it is not within the purview of the Comptroller’s office to reject a legislatively-approved tax no matter how poor—or constitutionally infirm—the underlying policy, the regulations fairly to fully resolve several important issues raised by the bill, while potentially creating additional legal infirmities in the regulation’s approach to apportionment.
Testimony: EU Parliament Subcommittee on Tax Matters Hearing on the Impact of National Tax Reforms on the EU Economy
Tax Foundation testimony on the diversity of tax systems within the EU, three important ways to consider reforms by Member States, and several recommendations for the EU Parliament’s Subcommittee on Tax Matters to consider.
Testimony: Joint Economic Committee Hearing on the Revenue Provisions of the Build Back Better Act
Tax Foundation testimony at the Joint Economic Committee hearing on the revenue provisions in the Build Back Better Act and related analysis on their estimated impact.
Tax Foundation Response to Ireland Department of Finance Consultation Document: Consultation on OECD International Tax Proposals
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.
Tax Foundation Comments on the Wyden, Warner, Brown Discussion Draft
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.
Tax Foundation Comments to the Cannabis Administration and Opportunity Act
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.
Tax Foundation Comment on Treasury’s State Tax Cuts Limitation Rule
The Tax Foundation recently submitted regulatory comment on the U.S. Treasury’s state tax cuts limitation rule, highlighting three areas of concern and suggesting revisions to the rule.
Testimony: Tax Fairness, Economic Growth, and Funding Government Investments
Economic research and Tax Foundation modeling indicate there is a negative trade-off between progressive taxes on capital income—such as the wealth tax, minimum book tax on corporate income, and a higher corporate tax rate—and economic growth.
Testimony: Convenience Rules and Remote Work in Arkansas
Remote work is here to stay. Convenience rules can’t change that. What they can change is the decisions people make. Under this rule, those decisions may not be to Arkansas’s advantage.
Testimony: Senate Budget Committee Hearing on the Progressivity of the U.S. Tax Code
We ought to be worried about the impact of corporate taxes on women, low-skilled workers, and younger workers, since they are the very workers who have been most impacted by the COVID-19 crisis. Raising the corporate tax rate would simply hurt them even more.
Testimony: Prioritizing Comprehensive Tax Modernization in Nebraska
The Nebraska legislature has an excellent opportunity to make progress toward a simpler, stabler, less burdensome, and more competitive tax code.
Tax Foundation Response to OECD Public Consultation Document: Reports on the Pillar One and Pillar Two Blueprints
The Tax Foundation response to the OECD public consultation document on the reports on the OECD Pillar 1 and OECD Pillar 2 blueprints.
Tax Foundation Comments on the Initiation of Section 301 Investigations of Digital Services Taxes
Digital services taxes effectively ring-fence the digital economy by limiting the tax to certain revenue streams of digital businesses, discriminating in favor of more traditional sectors of the economy.
Tax Foundation Response to OECD Public Consultation Document: Global Anti-Base Erosion Proposal (“GloBE”) (Pillar Two)
The tax base for the income-inclusion rule will be just as important as determining the rate, and both the base and the rate will likely impact business decisions. Additionally, policymakers need to determine how the choice for blending fits with the overarching goal of the policy. And as the example of GILTI shows, it is essential to assess how current international tax regulations would interact with a global minimum tax.
Response to OECD Public Consultation Document: Secretariat Proposal for a “Unified Approach” under Pillar One
Unifying the proposal under sound principles in the context of clear economic analysis should allow the Inclusive Framework to minimize both the administrative and economic burdens that the Secretariat’s proposal could create.
