The continually adjusted combination of coefficients, costs, and weights that comprise the SFRA formula are intended to identify school districts which are in need of increased funding, as well as those that are fortunate enough to have generated a surplus, and institute a balancing act whereby the level of funding is equalized. While funding formulas like SFRA "were often initiated in response to legal action that claimed inequities existed in funding across school districts, because without such programs wealthier districts had more resources for education than did poorer districts" (Toutkoushian & Michael, 2008), years after its implementation in New Jersey there is evidence that these inequalities cannot be adequately addressed simply through mathematics alone
It can be said that the tax on earnings is considerably difficult to collect as compared to a consumption tax that can be levied at certain scale. It is believed that the income tax is a violation of individual freedom because it does not provide the right to people for taking decisions regarding the use of money earned (Ault & Arnold, 2010)
As a result of which, the rate of growth of national product is intended to reduce. It can be said that the capital investment can influence the growth rates while indicating that technological innovation can affect the growth rate (Dennis-Escoffier & Fortin, 2007; Mikesell, 2011; Ault & Arnold, 2010)
There are different tax systems present with different levels of tax incidence, which includes the progressive, proportional, and regressive. Different systems are present to define the income in different ways while permitting the national reductions of incomes (Mikesell, 2011; Ault & Arnold, 2010; Dennis-Escoffier & Fortin, 2007)
It can be added to the price and profits influencing the sales taxes. It can reduce the consumption expenditure while saving insufficiently as compared to other major revenue taxes (Nelson, Collins, & Healy, 2008; Ault & Arnold, 2010; Dennis-Escoffier & Fortin, 2007)
Personal Opinion: From a personal point-of-view, the Australian taxation system is increasingly departing from the principles of good tax design. The system seems to encourage wealth generation through borrowing and speculating while penalizing wealth generation through working and saving (Eslake, 2011)
The continual efforts by these multinationals to evade paying taxes has caused huge concerns for policymakers and the general public, especially because of the huge tax burdens for individuals and businesses in the future. As a result, the Australian government is planning to name and shame these businesses, a move that could have financial implications (Grieve, Bertram & Smith, 2013)
While the Australian public shares different views on the Australian taxation system, it's widely considered as a system that basically departs from the principles of good tax design. Generally, Australia's tax system has moved backwards rather than becoming competitive despite of numerous governmental efforts to enhance its competitiveness through various tax reform initiatives (O'dwyer, 2012)
The three most common taxes in the Australian taxation system are personal income tax, Goods and Services Tax, and Fringe Benefits Tax. Personal income tax is based on how much an individual earns and the ever-changing tax brackets established by the government while Goods and Services Tax is consumer and broad-based tax on goods on services for businesses (Reinhardt & Steel, 2006)
The system also needs to deliver sustainable revenues that will foster economic growth through meeting social and public needs. The inefficiency and inequality of Australia's tax system is evident in the fact that big companies or business in the country have evaded paying taxes worth billions of dollars in Australia through the use of complex but legal tax minimization schemes (Wright, 2013)
However, for higher rate tax-payers, their dividend tax liability rates will be higher. It is thus not surprising that for a number of business owners in countries like Canada, they will receive their incomes in terms of deemed salary instead of dividends (Atkinson, 2007) It is however important that company directors take reasonable steps to ensure that they do not declare dividends illegally in light of tax and other statutory requirements
In S corporation businesses, the situation is somehow opposite. Here, salaries call for higher taxes than do dividends, the main reason being taxes are subject to employment taxes whereas dividends are not (Hoffman, 2004)
But with little planning and flexibility, the corporations can abide by the rules of the state regulatory bodies and still apply the rules to pay own tax advantages. Most tax rules for corporations and unincorporated businesses are very rigid as far as taxes, salaries and dividends are concerned and getting any of them wrong can plunge a business into troubles (Parkin, 2006)
After all, owners of both partnerships and sole proprietorships pay personal taxes on their full share of their company's incomes every year. These business structures do not allow for owner salaries but withdrawals which have no tax impact at all (Ross, 2007)
Chamberlain's article "New York Democrats call for permanent sales tax holiday" published by the non-partisan Tax Foundation. Chamberlain calls holding tax holidays "dubious tax policy" because they actually add to retailers' tax compliance costs, increase uncertainty about tax law, and "are non-neutral both across products and over time" (Chamberlain 2006)
Last year, during its tax holiday, specifically scheduled during the typical back-to-school clothing buying period, the state of Connecticut lost an estimated "$3.8 million to $4 million in revenue for the week"(De La Torre 2008)
Commissioner (1947). When individuals have taxable income, they must claim that income, and the same is true with any kind of gain they receive - such as property (Barris, 2008; Baum, Nunnigton, & Mackmin, 2011)
Commissioner (1947) and Commissioner v. Tufts (1983) reaffirm the concept that there are many different kinds of taxable gains and a large number of individuals fail to realize that anything they acquire must be accounted for (Bittker, 1978; Pino-Anderson, 1982)
Tufts (1983) reaffirm the concept that there are many different kinds of taxable gains and a large number of individuals fail to realize that anything they acquire must be accounted for (Bittker, 1978; Pino-Anderson, 1982). By addressing the different between recourse and nonrecourse debt, those who find themselves in inheritance situations attempt to avoid taxation on the property they acquire because there was debt owed on that property at the time it was bequeathed to them (Cunningham, 1984; Isaac & O'Leary, 2012)
By addressing the different between recourse and nonrecourse debt, those who find themselves in inheritance situations attempt to avoid taxation on the property they acquire because there was debt owed on that property at the time it was bequeathed to them (Cunningham, 1984; Isaac & O'Leary, 2012). The belief is that the object that was inherited is worth only as much as (or appreciably less) than the debt that was owed on it, so there should not be any taxation of that object (Isaac & O'Leary, 2012; Yin, 2002)