scholarly journals Taxation: Federal Income Tax: Corporate Accumulations, Stock Dividends and the "Preferred Stock Bail-out," and Taxability of the Corporation upon the Distribution of "Inventory Assets" under the Internal Revenue Code of 1954

1955 ◽  
Vol 53 (5) ◽  
pp. 725
Author(s):  
Alice Austin
Worldview ◽  
1973 ◽  
Vol 16 (4) ◽  
pp. 32-37
Author(s):  
Dean M. Kelley

On December 18, 1972, the Tenth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Denver handed down a decision which may be momentous not only for churches but for all organizations (hospitals, colleges, symphony orchestras, museums and other "public charities") exempt from federal income tax under Section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code. The court took away a religious organization's tax exemption because it had engaged injpolitical activity, yet the decision has gone almost unnoticed in the great metropolitan newspapers of the East.


1920 ◽  
Vol 18 (7) ◽  
pp. 689
Author(s):  
R. L. C.

2019 ◽  
Vol 46 (2) ◽  
pp. 57-65
Author(s):  
Mary M. Stolberg

ABSTRACT Many scholars have chronicled the long political and legal battle that led to ratification of the 16th Amendment on February 25, 1913. However, none have described how the Bureau of Internal Revenue implemented the tax in only six months on a shoestring budget. William H. Osborn, the commissioner who oversaw the effort, left a diary of his experiences, which sheds light on the political, budgetary, and bureaucratic challenges he faced. While most internal revenue commissioners work in relative obscurity, Osborn won public acclaim by pursuing long-neglected evasions with headline grabbing criminal cases, pushing against patronage to hire qualified agents, and instituting cost-saving efficiencies. He melded political acumen, administrative genius, and a talent for inspiring his employees to build the basic framework for modern federal income tax collections. His experiences highlight the important, but often overlooked, role played by skilled bureaucrats.


1969 ◽  
Vol 62 (1) ◽  
pp. 5-11
Author(s):  
Robert L. Morton

The procedure outlined by the Internal Revenue, service (IRS) for computing the amount of tax due, after the taxable income has been determined (line lld, Form 1040), requires five computational steps: (1) subtract the lower limit or the top bracket from the taxable income, (2) multiply the difference by the applicable rate, (3) add the product to a stated amount, (4) multiply the amount obtained in Step 3 by .075, and (5) add the product to the amount obtained in Step 3.


1988 ◽  
Vol 6 (2) ◽  
pp. 259-310 ◽  
Author(s):  
Carolyn C. Jones

Before the income-splitting joint tax return for husbands and wives became a part of the Internal Revenue Code in 1948, the federal income tax was assessed essentially on an individual basis. The progressive rate structure of the income tax meant that a husband and wife would, as a couple, pay the least tax if their income were divided equally between them. This became a substantial consideration as maximum marginal rates of tax exceeded 90 percent during the 1940s.


2018 ◽  
Vol 11 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Patrick Oglesby

Abstract A Federal tax on cannabis requires answers to several questions: 1. What should we tax? What should be the “base” or bases of a cannabis tax? (Possible bases include: price; weight of various product types [like flower, trim, and concentrate]; and THC content.) 2. Given any base, what should the tax rate be? 3. Should medical cannabis bear full tax? 4. Should marijuana advertising and selling expenses become deductible for federal income tax purposes? (That would treat cannabis businesses like other businesses; current Internal Revenue Code section 280E bars such deductions.) Recently introduced federal legislation provides answers, some more aligned with drug policy than others, to those questions.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document