12.09.2014 Views

Forty Years of Change, One Constant: Tax Analysts

Forty Years of Change, One Constant: Tax Analysts

Forty Years of Change, One Constant: Tax Analysts

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.

<strong>Forty</strong> <strong>Years</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Change</strong>, <strong>One</strong> <strong>Constant</strong>: <strong>Tax</strong> <strong>Analysts</strong><br />

Jane Gravelle<br />

Congressional Research Service<br />

Washington<br />

The most significant policy change I have seen<br />

in my career is the recognition and addressing (in<br />

the <strong>Tax</strong> Reform Act <strong>of</strong> 1986) <strong>of</strong> the differential<br />

effects <strong>of</strong> investment subsidies on the allocation <strong>of</strong><br />

capital investment.<br />

When I first started working on this topic, there<br />

was not even clear agreement on what neutral<br />

policy was. Investment subsidies in the tax code,<br />

beginning in the 1960s, drove effective tax<br />

rates on equipment investment to extremely low<br />

levels, while maintaining high tax rates on land,<br />

structures, and inventories. By my estimates, in<br />

1980 the effective tax rate on equipment was about<br />

14 percent, although the statutory rate was 48<br />

percent. Even lower rates, which actually became<br />

negative rates averaging -32 percent for equipment,<br />

were adopted (with phase-ins) in the Economic<br />

Recovery <strong>Tax</strong> Act <strong>of</strong> 1981. About that time, many<br />

researchers, including myself, were writing papers<br />

showing the distortions in the treatment <strong>of</strong> investments<br />

and the effective tax rates which varied by<br />

asset type.<br />

The effective tax rate proved to be a marvelous<br />

device for communicating the effect <strong>of</strong> tax subsidies to<br />

policymakers. To what extent this analysis played<br />

any role in the significant reform <strong>of</strong> corporate and<br />

business taxes in the <strong>Tax</strong> Reform Act <strong>of</strong> 1986 cannot<br />

be known. Nevertheless, that legislation eliminated<br />

the investment credit, slowed depreciation,<br />

and lowered tax rates, producing a much more<br />

fundamental change for business taxes than for the<br />

individual tax. Because <strong>of</strong> these changes, corporate<br />

tax expenditures are a much smaller share <strong>of</strong><br />

revenues than are individual tax expenditures <strong>of</strong><br />

individual income tax revenue. Given the expected<br />

inflation rates in 1986, the accelerated depreciation<br />

largely <strong>of</strong>fset the understatement <strong>of</strong> depreciation<br />

due to inflation, and assets were largely subject to<br />

effective tax rates close to the statutory rate (30<br />

percent for equipment and around the statutory<br />

rate <strong>of</strong> 35 percent for buildings).<br />

This state <strong>of</strong> affairs has slipped a little since that<br />

time. Falling inflation rates lowered tax burdens<br />

disproportionally for equipment, and the 1993<br />

legislation lengthened the depreciation periods for<br />

commercial buildings to pay for a benefit for real<br />

estate agents from the passive loss restriction. Today<br />

I would estimate the aggregate rate for equipment<br />

to be 26 percent and the rate to be around 36<br />

to 37 percent for nonresidential buildings. (This<br />

number for equipment assumes bonus depreciation<br />

will not be extended indefinitely; it lowers the<br />

equipment rate to 20 percent.)<br />

Unfortunately, such success stories are rare. My<br />

most powerful impressions over a career <strong>of</strong> more<br />

than 40 years are not how things have improved,<br />

but how myths and misinformation persist, such<br />

as the idea that VAT rebates on exports matter to<br />

trade deficits, that international competitiveness<br />

has meaning, that capital import neutrality is neutral,<br />

that small business is the engine <strong>of</strong> growth, or<br />

that the estate tax affects a lot <strong>of</strong> people.<br />

Kendall L. Houghton<br />

Baker & McKenzie LLP<br />

Washington<br />

During the course <strong>of</strong> my career (roughly half<br />

the age <strong>of</strong> <strong>Tax</strong> <strong>Analysts</strong>), I have found that the<br />

level <strong>of</strong> sophistication in the dialogue between<br />

state taxpayers and their representatives on one<br />

side, and state tax administrators and their advocates<br />

on the other side, has increased greatly.<br />

Of course, there have been insightful leaders<br />

and deep thinkers engaged in all the great tax policy<br />

debates <strong>of</strong> the past several decades: articulation<br />

<strong>of</strong> constitutional nexus standards across tax types,<br />

delineation between tax incentives for economic<br />

investment and discriminatory tax regimes, identification<br />

<strong>of</strong> the proper forum (Congress? Streamlined<br />

Sales <strong>Tax</strong> Project? National Conference <strong>of</strong><br />

State Legislatures?) for collaborative rule-making,<br />

and the like. Still, the tremendous growth <strong>of</strong> our<br />

pr<strong>of</strong>essional tax organizations and communities,<br />

as well as the widespread availability <strong>of</strong> technical<br />

resources and online networks, has escalated the<br />

dissemination <strong>of</strong> ideas, drawn more participants<br />

into the debates, and strengthened the quality <strong>of</strong><br />

our dialogue.<br />

13

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!