Tax Credits, Deductions and Exemptions

Subterms

    Latest story

    100 Shares15 Views

    Republicans Wrestle With Trump’s Demands for Tax Cuts

    by

    House Republicans are planning to include several of President Trump’s campaign promises in the first draft of the bill, which they hope to release soon.It was easy to miss, but last weekend President Trump floated a fundamental rewrite of the American tax code. In a social media post, and again in remarks to reporters, Mr. Trump suggested the United States could stop taxing income under $200,000 and instead rely on revenue from his extensive tariffs.“It’ll take a little while before we do that, but we’re going to be cutting taxes, and it’s possible we’ll do a complete tax cut,” Mr. Trump told reporters on Sunday. “Because I think the tariffs will be enough to cut all of the income tax.”The idea was news to Republicans on Capitol Hill already in the throes of translating Mr. Trump’s impulses for cutting taxes into law.Senator Mike Crapo, a Republican from Idaho who leads the Finance Committee, said he had not heard from Mr. Trump or his staff about the proposal. “So I just don’t know what that’s referencing,” he said.Likewise in the House, where Republicans are preparing to release their first stab at the tax bill in the coming days. “We aren’t having that discussion at all — it’s never come up,” Representative Lloyd Smucker, a Republican from Pennsylvania and a member of the Ways and Means committee, said of not collecting income taxes on earnings under $200,000.Even if they take a pass on Mr. Trump’s most recent notion, congressional Republicans are straining to incorporate several of his previous tax proposals into the legislation. Those include not taxing tips, overtime pay or Social Security benefits, three of Mr. Trump’s campaign pledges that the White House has continued to push in his second term.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

    More stories

    • 163 Shares36 Views

      in Elections

      When Taxpayers Fund Shows Like ‘Blue Bloods’ and ‘S.N.L.,’ Does It Pay Off?

      by

      Gov. Kathy Hochul of New York has proposed an increase in the film tax credit to stay competitive with New Jersey and other states.New Yorkers — and residents of many other states — have paid more for entertainment in recent years than just their Netflix or Hulu subscriptions.Each New York household has also contributed about $16 in taxes, on average, toward producing the drama series “Billions” since 2017. Over that period, each household has also paid roughly $14.50 in production incentives for “Saturday Night Live” and $4.60 for “The Irishman,” among many other shows and movies.Add it all up, and New York has spent more than $5.5 billion in incentives since 2017, the earliest year for which data is readily available. Now, as a new state budget agreement nears, Gov. Kathy Hochul has said she wants to add $100 million in credits for independent productions that would bring total film subsidies to $800 million a year, almost double the amount from 2022.Other states also pay out tens or hundreds of millions each year in a bidding war for Hollywood productions, under the theory that these tax credits spur the economy. One question for voters and lawmakers is whether a state recoups more than its investment in these movies and shows — or gets back only pennies on the dollar.New York has one of the largest tax credit programs and makes most of its data public, so we totaled its spending to see which productions benefited the most. More

    • 150 Shares199 Views

      in Elections

      Republicans Want Lower Taxes. The Hard Part Is Choosing What to Cut.

      by

      House Republicans are preparing to adopt a plan that puts a $4.5 trillion limit on the size of the tax cut, but even that will not be enough for some of President Trump’s promises.Since their party swept to power, Republicans have entertained visions of an all-inclusive tax cut — one that could permanently lower rates for individuals, shower corporations with new incentives and deliver President Trump’s sprawling suite of campaign promises.If only it were so easy.House Republicans are preparing to adopt a budget plan that puts a $4.5 trillion upper limit on the size of the tax cut. Even such a huge sum is not nearly enough for all of their ideas, and so lawmakers must now decide which policy commitments are essential and which ones they can live without.For a sense of the Republican predicament, take a look at the 2017 tax cuts. Many of the measures in that law, including a larger standard deduction and more generous child tax credit, expire at the end of the year. The overriding goal of this year’s bill is to extend the expiring provisions, which provide their largest benefits to the rich, before they end.But accomplishing just that would cost roughly $4 trillion over the next 10 years. Then there’s a coveted business tax break for research and development — which, in an example of the zigzag of tax policy in Washington, Republicans wound down in 2017 and now want to revive. That would be another $150 billion. Allowing companies to once again deduct more of the interest on their debt is another $50 billion.Those changes are the table stakes. They essentially amount to preserving the status quo. And together they would eat up all but $300 billion of the $4.5 trillion Republicans are giving themselves to cut taxes. That’s not very much money, considering the ambitions Mr. Trump and other Republicans have for the bill.The squeeze is on.“You do start running out of space to do other things,” said Andrew Lautz, a tax policy expert at the Bipartisan Policy Center, a think tank.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

    • 150 Shares99 Views

      in Elections

      Woman Pleads Guilty in Covid Tax Credit Scheme That Netted $33 Million

      by

      A Nevada business owner prepared and filed false tax returns to fraudulently obtain Covid relief money for her businesses and others, prosecutors said.Some people binge-watched shows during the Covid pandemic. Others picked up pickleball. But according to federal prosecutors, one Las Vegas woman prepared and filed false tax returns for her business and others at a busy average rate of nearly 80 per month.Over a 16-month period beginning in June 2022, the Justice Department said Friday, the woman, Candies Goode-McCoy, filed more than 1,200 returns in order to fraudulently claim Covid-19 tax credits of nearly $100 million.Ms. Goode-McCoy, 34, who pleaded guilty under a plea agreement on Thursday in U.S. District Court in Las Vegas to charges of conspiracy to defraud the government, managed to get the I.R.S. to pay out about $33 million, prosecutors said. She took $1.3 million of that herself, they said, and received an additional $800,000 from those for whom she prepared the false returns.Ms. Goode-McCoy, who could face as much as 10 years in prison when she is sentenced in February 2026, used the money to gamble at casinos, take vacations and buy luxury cars, prosecutors said. She also purchased designer clothing from Dolce & Gabbana, Gucci and Louis Vuitton, court documents show.Her lawyer could not be reached for comment on Friday.According to prosecutors, the businesses for which Ms. Goode-McCoy prepared taxes were not eligible to receive the refundable credits in the amounts claimed.Under the plea agreement, Ms. Goode-McCoy agreed to return the most of the $33 million that was fraudulently obtained.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

    • 125 Shares149 Views

      in Elections

      Supreme Court to Hear Catholic Charity’s Bid for Tax Exemption

      by

      The justices agreed to hear an appeal from a Wisconsin Supreme Court ruling that the charity’s activities were insufficiently religious to qualify.The Supreme Court agreed on Friday to decide whether Wisconsin was free to deny a tax exemption to a Catholic charity on the grounds that its activities were not primarily religious.The court has been notably receptive to arguments from religious groups, and the new case will give the justices another opportunity to explore the limits of the First Amendment’s protection of religious liberty.The case concerns a Wisconsin law that exempts religious groups from state unemployment taxes so long as they are “operated primarily for religious purposes.”Catholic Charities Bureau, the social ministry of the Catholic Diocese in Superior, Wis., has said its mission is to provide “services to the poor and disadvantaged as an expression of the social ministry of the Catholic Church.” State officials determined that the charity did not qualify for the exemption because it “provides essentially secular services and engages in activities that are not religious per se.”The Wisconsin Supreme Court said it accepted the charity’s contention that its services were “based on Gospel values and the principles of the Catholic social teachings.” But the court ruled that the group’s activities were “primarily charitable and secular” and did not “attempt to imbue program participants with the Catholic faith nor supply any religious materials to program participants or employees.”The court added that “both employment with the organizations and services offered by the organizations are open to all participants regardless of religion.”We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

    • 75 Shares169 Views

      in Elections

      Those Voters Who Are Still Undecided

      by

      More from our inbox:Michelle Obama’s Plea to American MenAn Ex-N.F.L. Player, on Marijuana ReformBipartisan Action Needed to Support Our Children Rob VargasTo the Editor:Re “These Voters Aren’t Exactly Undecided. They’re Cringing,” by Megan K. Stack (Opinion guest essay, Oct. 20):I am struck by undecided voters who are still, at this point, paralyzed by the feeling that neither of the candidates are “good” options, or that they don’t “like” either choice.To those struggling to vote outside their party affiliation, or to vote at all: The cognitive dissonance you feel is uncomfortable, yes, but consider who benefits most from the resulting inaction. It’s not the voter, it’s individuals and groups who use political power and tribalism for their own gain.This election is not a sporting event, it is real life, and we owe it to ourselves and to each other to use our hard-won right to vote thoughtfully, no matter how uncomfortable it is.Natasha Thapar-OlmosLos AngelesThe writer is a licensed psychologist and a professor at Pepperdine University.To the Editor:Re “Battle Is Fierce for Sliver of Pie: Undecided Votes” (front page, Oct. 22):Women can save our country, and I believe they will. They know what is at stake — not only free choice regarding their bodies but also a democracy that celebrates the diversity of its citizens.As the online summary said of the undecided voters: “Both campaigns are digging through troves of data to find these crucial Americans. They both think many are younger, Black or Latino. The Harris team is also eyeing white, college-educated women.”We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

    • 163 Shares189 Views

      in Elections

      Trump and Harris Both Like a Child Tax Credit but With Different Aims

      by

      Kamala Harris’s campaign is pushing a version of the credit intended to fight child poverty, while Donald J. Trump sees the program primarily as a tax cut for people higher up the income scale.Vice President Kamala Harris has made an expanded child tax credit central to her campaign, and former President Donald J. Trump boasts, “I doubled the child tax credit.” With a quick look, voters might think the child-rearing subsidy the rare matter on which the rival candidates agree.It is anything but. The common vocabulary masks profound differences over which parents the government should help and what constitutes fairness for children in a country of great wealth and inequality.Mr. Trump sees the $110 billion program mostly as a tax cut, which as president he increased to $2,000 per child and extended to high-income families. But his policy denies the full benefit to the poorest quarter of children because their parents earn too little and owe no income tax.Ms. Harris would expand the tax cuts and add a large anti-poverty plan, sending checks to millions of parents with low pay or no jobs. That would turn a tax cut into an income guarantee, in a landmark expansion of the safety net.Supporters of the Harris plan say the payments would shrink child poverty. Critics see an expensive welfare scheme that could weaken the willingness to work.“They’re both talking about something called the ‘child tax credit,’ but they’re not at all talking about the same policy,” said Scott Winship of the conservative American Enterprise Institute.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

    • 138 Shares149 Views

      in Elections

      Is It Better to Buy or Lease a Car? It Depends.

      by

      The lowest overall cost is to buy a car and keep it for a long time. But leasing usually has lower monthly costs. And leasing an E.V. may come with a tax break.Most people have two options when they want a new car: buy it with a traditional loan or lease it.Either can make sense, depending on your personal situation.If you’re looking for the lowest overall cost over the longer term, buying a car with a loan, and then driving it for a while debt free after you finish making payments, is usually the best option.But if low monthly payments and a smaller down payment are a priority, a lease may be worth considering. And if you’re willing to try an electric vehicle or a plug-in hybrid, tax breaks available for leased models may make deals more affordable. Almost half of new E.V.s were acquired with leases in the second quarter of this year, up from around a fourth a year earlier, according to data from Experian.The Federal Reserve’s decision on Wednesday to cut its benchmark rate by half a point indirectly affects rates on car loans, which are also influenced by factors like the borrower’s credit score and the level of loan delinquencies. The average interest rate for a new-car loan in August was 7.1 percent, and 11.3 percent for a used-car loan, according to the automotive site Edmunds. “It will take a number of additional rate cuts before the cumulative effect becomes material for car buyers,” said Greg McBride, chief financial analyst at Bankrate.Paying cash for your car is, of course, interest free. But while car prices have eased somewhat, they remain high. The average transaction price in July was around $48,000 for a new car, and about $25,000 for a used car, according to Kelly Blue Book, part of Cox Automotive. Most people who buy a new automobile and many who buy one used get some kind of financing.With a traditional loan, you make a down payment and then pay off the debt with fixed monthly payments over time. (The average new-car loan term is about six years.) When the loan is repaid, you can keep the car and drive it payment free or trade it in and get credit for its value toward your next car purchase.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

    • 138 Shares119 Views

      in Elections

      Trump’s Proposal to End Taxes on Overtime Pay Could Cost Billions

      by

      Former President Donald J. Trump is calling for exempting overtime pay from taxes, the latest in a string of vague tax proposals that have befuddled tax experts, worried fiscal hawks and seemingly charmed voters.Mr. Trump floated the idea this past week during a campaign rally in Tucson, Ariz., telling the crowd that it would supercharge incentives to work more and put money back in the pockets of many Americans.“It’s time for the working man and woman to finally catch a break, and that’s what we’re doing because this is a good one,” he said.The pitch is part of what has become Mr. Trump’s playbook during the presidential race: tossing out potentially huge tax cuts, defined in just a few words, to try and win over middle- and working-class voters. He has also vowed to exempt tips from taxes and end taxes on Social Security benefits, two ideas that have proven popular. At the same time, he has said he would further cut the corporate tax rate.As with his promise to end taxes on tips, though, Mr. Trump left many key details about the overtime plan unaddressed, making it hard to estimate its costs. Among the open questions is whether overtime pay would be exempt from just the income tax or if the exception would also apply to the payroll taxes that fund Social Security and Medicare.There is also the issue of how many Americans could benefit from Mr. Trump’s idea. More than 34 million Americans worked over 40 hours a week in 2023, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, but only a subset of that group are owed time-and-a-half pay for overtime under federal law. The rules are complex, but in general Americans earning a salary of more than $43,888 a year may not be owed overtime, depending on their job. Americans paid by the hour, currently about 55 percent of the work force, are broadly eligible for overtime pay.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More