Scarinci Hollenbeck, LLC
The Firm
201-896-4100 info@sh-law.comFirm Insights
Author: Scarinci Hollenbeck, LLC
Date: April 6, 2015
The Firm
201-896-4100 info@sh-law.comThe piece, which was published March 15, went live after President Barack Obama, Rep. Dave Camp (R-Michigan) and Sens. Marco Rubio (R-Florida) and Mike Lee (R-Utah) proposed different plans for revising the federal tax structure.
These proposals all contain common themes of simplifying the tax code, along with spurring more robust economic growth and job creation. However, the methods they offer to achieve these ends vary significantly. While these plans aimed to affect many different aspects of tax policy, this particular article will delve into how they would impact corporate taxes.
Obama provided his proposal during the State of the Union address in January, suggesting making corporate income tax policy simpler and giving companies greater incentive to repatriate their earnings instead of retaining them overseas.
By making it more appealing for corporations to take these profits earned overseas and then move them back home, federal tax law could enable greater investment and hiring in the U.S. In addition, making the federal tax code less intricate would help trim business costs by eliminating superfluous staff involved with accounting.
Camp’s proposal – The Tax Reform Act of 2014 – would cut the top corporate income tax rate to 25 percent from 35 percent. In addition, his plan aims to eliminate the Alternative Minimum Tax for both pass-through businesses and corporations. An analysis conducted by The Joint Committee on Taxation predicted that Camp’s proposal would generate multiple benefits:
In March, Marco and Rubio announced a new tax proposal, which, like the aforementioned plans, would cut the top corporate income tax rate to 25 percent from 35 percent. In addition, the plan would permit firms to engage in full expensing, a greater benefit than what exists under current tax law.
When speaking with members of the media, he emphasized that his main concern was helping jumpstart economic growth, instead of determining which groups will benefit at the expense of others, according to The Washington Post.
One major issue that has come up is the impact on tax revenue, the InvestmentNews piece noted. According to the Tax Foundation’s initial review, the Marco-Rubio plan would cut tax revenue by $414 billion a year. The two senators have emphasized that when the reform’s impact on economic growth and the resulting increase in tax income is considered, the figures would be different.
The Tax Foundation came back and stated that while it would take 10 years for the aforementioned growth to completely come to fruition, but once this happens, it would result in a $90 billion increase in annual tax revenue.
While lawmakers may not approve this particular plan, it is entirely possible they will end up finalizing something slightly different. These government officials seem to have plenty of options to choose from. Maybe this abundance of different plans will combine with the existing desire for change to spur helpful reform.
No Aspect of the advertisement has been approved by the Supreme Court. Results may vary depending on your particular facts and legal circumstances.
Your home is likely your greatest asset, which is why it is so important to adequately protect it. Homeowners insurance protects you from the financial costs of unforeseen losses, such as theft, fire, and natural disasters, by helping you rebuild and replace possessions that were lost While the definition of “adequate” coverage depends upon a […]
Author: Jesse M. Dimitro
Making a non-contingent offer can dramatically increase your chances of securing a real estate transaction, particularly in competitive markets like New York City. However, buyers should understand that waiving contingencies, including those related to financing, or appraisals, also comes with significant risks. Determining your best strategy requires careful analysis of the property, the market, and […]
Author: Jesse M. Dimitro
Business Transactional Attorney Zemel to Spearhead Strategic Initiatives for Continued Growth and Innovation Little Falls, NJ – February 21, 2025 – Scarinci & Hollenbeck, LLC is pleased to announce that Partner Fred D. Zemel has been named Chair of the firm’s Strategic Planning Committee. In this role, Mr. Zemel will lead the committee in identifying, […]
Author: Scarinci Hollenbeck, LLC
Big changes sometimes occur during the life cycle of a contract. Cancelling a contract outright can be bad for your reputation and your bottom line. Businesses need to know how to best address a change in circumstances, while also protecting their legal rights. One option is to transfer the “benefits and the burdens” of a […]
Author: Dan Brecher
What is a trade secret and why you you protect them? Technology has made trade secret theft even easier and more prevalent. In fact, businesses lose billions of dollars every year due to trade secret theft committed by employees, competitors, and even foreign governments. But what is a trade secret? And how do you protect […]
Author: Ronald S. Bienstock
If you are considering the purchase of a property, you may wonder — what is title insurance, do I need it, and why do I need it? Even seasoned property owners may question if the added expense and extra paperwork is really necessary, especially considering that people and entities insured by title insurance make fewer […]
Author: Patrick T. Conlon
No Aspect of the advertisement has been approved by the Supreme Court. Results may vary depending on your particular facts and legal circumstances.
Consider subscribing to our Firm Insights mailing list by clicking the button below so you can keep up to date with the firm`s latest articles covering various legal topics.
Stay informed and inspired with the latest updates, insights, and events from Scarinci Hollenbeck. Our resource library provides valuable content across a range of categories to keep you connected and ahead of the curve.
The piece, which was published March 15, went live after President Barack Obama, Rep. Dave Camp (R-Michigan) and Sens. Marco Rubio (R-Florida) and Mike Lee (R-Utah) proposed different plans for revising the federal tax structure.
These proposals all contain common themes of simplifying the tax code, along with spurring more robust economic growth and job creation. However, the methods they offer to achieve these ends vary significantly. While these plans aimed to affect many different aspects of tax policy, this particular article will delve into how they would impact corporate taxes.
Obama provided his proposal during the State of the Union address in January, suggesting making corporate income tax policy simpler and giving companies greater incentive to repatriate their earnings instead of retaining them overseas.
By making it more appealing for corporations to take these profits earned overseas and then move them back home, federal tax law could enable greater investment and hiring in the U.S. In addition, making the federal tax code less intricate would help trim business costs by eliminating superfluous staff involved with accounting.
Camp’s proposal – The Tax Reform Act of 2014 – would cut the top corporate income tax rate to 25 percent from 35 percent. In addition, his plan aims to eliminate the Alternative Minimum Tax for both pass-through businesses and corporations. An analysis conducted by The Joint Committee on Taxation predicted that Camp’s proposal would generate multiple benefits:
In March, Marco and Rubio announced a new tax proposal, which, like the aforementioned plans, would cut the top corporate income tax rate to 25 percent from 35 percent. In addition, the plan would permit firms to engage in full expensing, a greater benefit than what exists under current tax law.
When speaking with members of the media, he emphasized that his main concern was helping jumpstart economic growth, instead of determining which groups will benefit at the expense of others, according to The Washington Post.
One major issue that has come up is the impact on tax revenue, the InvestmentNews piece noted. According to the Tax Foundation’s initial review, the Marco-Rubio plan would cut tax revenue by $414 billion a year. The two senators have emphasized that when the reform’s impact on economic growth and the resulting increase in tax income is considered, the figures would be different.
The Tax Foundation came back and stated that while it would take 10 years for the aforementioned growth to completely come to fruition, but once this happens, it would result in a $90 billion increase in annual tax revenue.
While lawmakers may not approve this particular plan, it is entirely possible they will end up finalizing something slightly different. These government officials seem to have plenty of options to choose from. Maybe this abundance of different plans will combine with the existing desire for change to spur helpful reform.
Let`s get in touch!
Sign up to get the latest from the Scarinci Hollenbeck, LLC attorneys!