Skip navigation.
Home
Get & Give Tax Help for Small Businesses

tax news

Time is right to repeal federal income tax - Green Bay Press Gazette

Google IRS Federal Income Tax - Sun, 2014-07-20 20:39

Time is right to repeal federal income tax
Green Bay Press Gazette
The problem began not with the targeting of conservative organizations by the IRS, but in 1913, with the passage of the 16th Amendment, which allowed Congress to levy an income tax. A toxic stew of class envy had formed in the late 19th century, when ...

Categories: Tax news

State eyeing tax service fraud - The Advocate

Google IRS Federal Income Tax - Sun, 2014-07-20 20:19

State eyeing tax service fraud
The Advocate
In less than two years, the state has overseen the arrests of 16 tax preparers. The dollar amounts on their alleged frauds total $3.6 million. IRS – Criminal Investigation helped bring federal charges against tax preparers such as Ferguson. Slidell ...

and more »
Categories: Tax news

Claudia Buck: Identity thieves exploit changes in federal law to file phony ... - Sacramento Bee

Google IRS Federal Income Tax - Sun, 2014-07-20 00:02

Claudia Buck: Identity thieves exploit changes in federal law to file phony ...
Sacramento Bee
She was referring to a significant change in federal tax law in 2013, enacted to accommodate same-sex taxpayers. Last August, the IRS and U.S. Treasury announced that legally married same-sex couples could now file their federal income taxes as married ...

and more »
Categories: Tax news

Colin Hanna: With IRS embroiled, time is right to repeal federal income tax - Contra Costa Times

Google IRS Federal Income Tax - Sat, 2014-07-19 10:11

Colin Hanna: With IRS embroiled, time is right to repeal federal income tax
Contra Costa Times
A high-level official of the Internal Revenue Service declares her innocence before a congressional committee and then asserts the Fifth Amendment right that she had effectively just waived. Incriminating emails have surfaced, while others are declared ...

Categories: Tax news

With scandal comes talk of ending the income tax - Atlanta Journal Constitution

Google IRS Federal Income Tax - Sat, 2014-07-19 09:05

With scandal comes talk of ending the income tax
Atlanta Journal Constitution
The problem began not with the targeting of conservative organizations by the IRS, but in 1913, with the passage of the 16th Amendment, which allowed Congress to levy an income tax. A toxic stew of class envy had formed in the late 19th century, when ...
IRS: Assess Changes Now That May Affect Your Premium Tax CreditAccountingweb.com
Congress Probes Legitimacy of ACA Premium Tax CreditsAccounting Today

all 4 news articles »
Categories: Tax news

Judge Rejects Philadelphia's Attempt to Impose Amusement Excise Tax on Exotic Dancers' Lapdance Earnings

Tax Foundation - Fri, 2014-07-18 07:30

If you buy something in Philadelphia, you pay a 8 percent sales tax (6 percent state plus 2 percent city). But if that something is an amusement (sporting event, theatre performance, show, etc.), the state doesn't tax it although the city taxes it at 5 percent. Why such purchases should get preferential tax treatment is beyond me, but it's also led to disputes over what counts as an "amusement" and what doesn't.

Philadelphia Mayor Michael Nutter's administration argued that lap dances performed at strip clubs count as an "amusement," and demanded $1.5 million in back taxes, interest, and penalties from three strip clubs covering the years 2008 to 2010. Last October, the city's Tax Review Board said that the city's amusement tax ordinance did not cover lap dances, but the City persisted. On Wednesday, a state judge threw out the city's argument:

“The ruling is simply that the (tax) ordinance, as it exists, as it’s currently worded, doesn’t cover lap dances,” says attorney George Bochetto (at left below), who represents two of the three clubs that were being taxed.  “If the city wants to tax lap dances, they can go to City Council, ask City Council to amend the ordinance, and they can start imposing a tax on lap dances. Or anything else they want: karaoke songs, piano playing. Anything they want. But you have to put it in the ordinance. You just can’t make it up as you go along.”

The city has 30 days to appeal. The court is correct that the City's argument is "vague and inconsistent," trying to make the statute so elastic that they can pick at will what is subject to the amusement tax.

Categories: Tax news

Abbott Labs on Corporate Inversions

Tax Foundation - Fri, 2014-07-18 07:15

The corporate inversion debate continues to heat up, revealing a serious conflict between the Obama administration and the business community. Corporate inversions are cross-border mergers that allow U.S. companies to reincorporate abroad where corporate taxes are much lower.

Earlier this week, Abbott Laboratories and Mylan Inc., both U.S.-based drug makers, announced yet another inversion deal, this time a “spinversion” in which Abbott Labs will spin off part of its foreign operations and sell it to Mylan Inc. with plans to reincorporate the combined company in the Netherlands where corporate taxes are much lower. Then Treasury Secretary Jack Lew accused these and other companies of trying to “avoid paying taxes here, notwithstanding the benefits they gain from being located in the United States.” He went on to imply they are unpatriotic.

Now, in today’s Wall Street Journal, the CEO of Abbott Labs responds:

The raging debate about these decisions has been absurd, and people expounding on the topic are making wild claims that inversion is an abuse of the tax code, cheating and unpatriotic. It all makes for emotional and dramatic headlines and debate but ignores the facts.

First, inversion is legal. Period. It's allowed in the tax code. The tax code even specifies the terms and conditions under which it may be done. Reference 26 U.S. Code Section 7874.

Inversion doesn't change a company's tax rate. A company pays the same tax rate in the U.S. after inversion as it does before inverting. A company also pays the same tax rates in foreign domiciles before and after inversion.

Inversion does not relieve any pre-existing tax burden. It does not reduce the tax that any company would ultimately have to pay on past earnings overseas that have been deferred under the U.S. tax system.

The tax law today views overseas earnings that have not been repatriated as part of the U.S. tax system, regardless of whether a company has inverted. Therefore, those past foreign earnings, if repatriated to the U.S., are still subject to full U.S. taxation.

What does change after inversion is a company's access to its future foreign earnings generated outside of the U.S. tax system. Those future earnings may be used for any capital allocation purpose the company may have, including investment in the U.S., without the additional U.S. repatriation tax. Foreign taxes will have already been paid on those profits earned outside the U.S. It is the additional repatriation tax, imposed by high corporate tax rate in the U.S., that is not paid after inversion.

It is important to note that the U.S. has the highest corporate tax rate in the world at 35%, while the tax rates in countries with territorial systems, where our competitors are based, are in the mid-20s or lower.

The U.S. is among only a handful of countries, and the only one in the Group of Seven, that taxes companies on world-wide earnings rather than the earnings in their home domiciles. It's a double whammy: the highest rate, by far, and it's applied worldwide.

In terms of global competitiveness, the U.S. and U.S. companies are at a substantial disadvantage to foreign companies. Taxes are a business cost. Our disproportionately higher tax rate puts foreign companies at a huge advantage competitively, and their lower tax burden amounts to a subsidy that encourages them to acquire American businesses.

Read the whole article

We have made similar points on almost a weekly basis for years. Tax reform is hard, but it is made exponentially harder when the administration and the business community disagree on basic facts.

Follow William McBride on Twitter

Update: An earnlier version of this post referred to Abbot Labs. The post has been updated to reflect the correct name of the company, Abbott Laboratories.

Categories: Tax news

Abbot Labs on Corporate Inversions

Tax Foundation - Fri, 2014-07-18 07:15

The corporate inversion debate continues to heat up, revealing a serious conflict between the Obama administration and the business community. Corporate inversions are cross-border mergers that allow U.S. companies to reincorporate abroad where corporate taxes are much lower.

Earlier this week, Abbot Labs and Mylan Inc., both U.S.-based drug makers, announced yet another inversion deal, this time a “spinversion” in which Abbot Labs will spin off part of its foreign operations and sell it to Mylan Inc. with plans to reincorporate the combined company in the Netherlands where corporate taxes are much lower. Then Treasury Secretary Jack Lew accused these and other companies of trying to “avoid paying taxes here, notwithstanding the benefits they gain from being located in the United States.” He went on to imply they are unpatriotic.

Now, in today’s Wall Street Journal, the CEO of Abbot Labs responds:

The raging debate about these decisions has been absurd, and people expounding on the topic are making wild claims that inversion is an abuse of the tax code, cheating and unpatriotic. It all makes for emotional and dramatic headlines and debate but ignores the facts.

First, inversion is legal. Period. It's allowed in the tax code. The tax code even specifies the terms and conditions under which it may be done. Reference 26 U.S. Code Section 7874.

Inversion doesn't change a company's tax rate. A company pays the same tax rate in the U.S. after inversion as it does before inverting. A company also pays the same tax rates in foreign domiciles before and after inversion.

Inversion does not relieve any pre-existing tax burden. It does not reduce the tax that any company would ultimately have to pay on past earnings overseas that have been deferred under the U.S. tax system.

The tax law today views overseas earnings that have not been repatriated as part of the U.S. tax system, regardless of whether a company has inverted. Therefore, those past foreign earnings, if repatriated to the U.S., are still subject to full U.S. taxation.

What does change after inversion is a company's access to its future foreign earnings generated outside of the U.S. tax system. Those future earnings may be used for any capital allocation purpose the company may have, including investment in the U.S., without the additional U.S. repatriation tax. Foreign taxes will have already been paid on those profits earned outside the U.S. It is the additional repatriation tax, imposed by high corporate tax rate in the U.S., that is not paid after inversion.

It is important to note that the U.S. has the highest corporate tax rate in the world at 35%, while the tax rates in countries with territorial systems, where our competitors are based, are in the mid-20s or lower.

The U.S. is among only a handful of countries, and the only one in the Group of Seven, that taxes companies on world-wide earnings rather than the earnings in their home domiciles. It's a double whammy: the highest rate, by far, and it's applied worldwide.

In terms of global competitiveness, the U.S. and U.S. companies are at a substantial disadvantage to foreign companies. Taxes are a business cost. Our disproportionately higher tax rate puts foreign companies at a huge advantage competitively, and their lower tax burden amounts to a subsidy that encourages them to acquire American businesses.

Read the whole article

We have made similar points on almost a weekly basis for years. Tax reform is hard, but it is made exponentially harder when the administration and the business community disagree on basic facts.

Follow William McBride on Twitter

Categories: Tax news

AbbVie, Shire agree on $55B combination

Yahoo Tax - Fri, 2014-07-18 04:50
The drugmaker AbbVie has reached a deal worth roughly $55 billion to combine with British counterpart Shire and become the latest U.S. company to seek an overseas haven from corporate income tax rates back home.
Categories: Tax news

IRS: Summer weddings mean tax changes - The Ridgefield Press

Google IRS Federal Income Tax - Fri, 2014-07-18 01:06

IRS: Summer weddings mean tax changes
The Ridgefield Press
Tax filing status. If you're married as of Dec. 31, that's your marital status for the whole year for tax purposes. You and your spouse can choose to file your federal income tax return either jointly or separately each year. You may want to figure the ...

Categories: Tax news

IRS Sharing Personal Income Tax Information with the Census Bureau - American Thinker (blog)

Google IRS Federal Income Tax - Thu, 2014-07-17 23:29

IRS Sharing Personal Income Tax Information with the Census Bureau
American Thinker (blog)
In order to design more efficient procedures for the upcoming 2020 census, the Department of Commerce wants to mine some data from our Form 1040 Income Tax returns and related documents. Specifically, the Census people over in the Commerce ... And what ...

and more »
Categories: Tax news

Apple appoints BlackRock founding partner to board

Yahoo Tax - Thu, 2014-07-17 14:20

(Reuters) - Apple Inc said Susan Wagner, founding partner of BlackRock Inc, had been appointed to its board. The maker of iPhone said Bill Campbell, the board's longest-serving member, would retire after 17 years of service. Campbell is chairman of Intuit Inc, the developer of tax-preparation software TurboTax. Besides BlackRock, Wagner also serves on the boards of DSP BlackRock (India), as well as Swiss Re, Wellesley College and Hackley School. (Reporting By Lehar Maan in Bangalore; Editing by Savio D'Souza)


Categories: Tax news

No special prosecutor needed for U.S. tax agency probe: Justice Dept

Yahoo Tax - Thu, 2014-07-17 13:37

By David Lawder WASHINGTON (Reuters) - A top Justice Department official, deflecting demands from Republicans, said on Thursday that a special prosecutor was not needed to look into past U.S. Internal Revenue Service treatment of conservative groups and the agency's loss of related emails. Deputy Attorney General James Cole, the Justice Department's second-in-command after Attorney General Eric Holder, told lawmakers the IRS was being thoroughly and fairly investigated.


Categories: Tax news

Nebraska's Latest Tax Incentives Report is an Exaggeration

Tax Foundation - Thu, 2014-07-17 13:15

On Tuesday, the Nebraska Department of Revenue released the state’s 2013 annual tax incentives report, which describes the various business tax incentives in the state as well as their effects and beneficiaries. The department reports that this year the state spent around $200 million on tax credits which generated nearly $1 billion of capital investment and 2,300 full-time jobs, mostly due to the Advantage Act and the Employment and Investment Growth Act. While these findings seem rosy, they should not be taken at face value but rather examined in lieu of alternative scenarios.

Investment and job creation numbers are some of the best trophies politicians can display to voters. Really, who can argue that the almost $3 billion in new investment and 4,379 new jobs created over the past two years by the largest active tax incentive program in Nebraska aren’t great figures? It turns out that the claim that the tax incentive created these investments and jobs is exaggerated due to selection bias—that is, many of the positive economic outcomes might have occurred in the absence of the incentives.

Robert Zahradnik of the Pew Center on the States suggested three questions policymakers should ask when evaluating the actual economic impact of tax incentive programs:

To what extent did the incentive change businesses’ behavior? Will the incentive produce a net economic benefit? Is the tax incentive an effective approach to achieving its goals compared to alternative policies?

Although precise answers to these questions are difficult to obtain in the absence of formal economic models, qualitative reasons for investment and job growth in Nebraska are worth considering. Forbes ranks Nebraska as the 6th best state for business and careers, attributable to its favorable business costs, regulatory environment, and economic climate. Of course, tax incentives affect business costs, but they play a minimal role overall. Is it not reasonable to assume that businesses would invest in a state with favorable business costs, regulatory environment, and economic climate even without tax incentives? In deciding where to locate, businesses certainly consider the more imperative variables of labor markets, the economy, and physical site characteristics long before tax incentives.

Fiscal responsibility demands that before continuing to fund existing tax incentive programs, Nebraska policymakers should evaluate them. This could easily be done through cost-benefit and economic analyses by the Legislative Audit Office with the help of outside parties, it is just a matter of priorities.

Aside from other concerns about tax incentives, the policy of discriminatorily rewarding particular business behaviors doesn’t appear as attractive when compared with the alternative policy of lowering the state’s 18th highest top corporate tax rate. Eliminating the tax incentives would allow for a substantial decrease in the overall rate, offering real and sustained investment and job growth to the entire state—not just a few select firms.

More on Nebraska.

Categories: Tax news

Reviewing Rhode Island’s New Budget

Tax Foundation - Thu, 2014-07-17 09:15

Rhode Island is one of the worst-scoring in the State Business Tax Climate each year, but there have been small attempts in the last decade at moving the state toward a more competitive code. In 2010, the Rhode Island brought the top income tax rate down to 5.99 percent, and this year, the corporate rate will be lowered two percentage points, paired with an increase in the exemption of the state’s estate tax. On the negative side, the state will institute “combined reporting” of corporate profits with its most recent budget, which will make the code more difficult to comply with. On the whole, however, changes in Rhode Island have been positive. Below is a review of the major tax changes this year.

2015 Budget Reform

Rhode Island’s budget includes several positive tax measures.  Biggest of all, and something we’ve recommended in the past, is the reduction of the corporate tax rate from 9 to 7 percent. The budget also brings an increase in the estate tax exemption from $921,655 to $1.5M, as well as the elimination of the cliff provision for heirs—who, until now, were required to pay tax on the entire estate if its value exceeded the exemption. On the negative side, Rhode Island will also move to a combined reporting method for corporations, which means that a portion of a corporation’s combined income from all affiliated entities (even those outside the state) will be taxed by the state.

On January 1, 2015, Rhode Island will also move to a single sales factor apportionment for C-corporations.

The budget also eliminates the Sakonnet River Bridge toll, and replaces it with a 1 cent gas tax for transportation infrastructure costs. The toll permanently expired on July 1, which is when the state’s fiscal year begins. The gasoline tax in Rhode Island is the 14th highest in the nation. Beginning July 1, 2015, the gasoline tax will be at least 32 cents per gallon and indexed for inflation every other year. 3.5 cents of the existing gas tax will now go to Rhode Island Turnpike and Bridge Authority. As we’ve written previously, the move away from tolls means drivers are less connected to the cost associated with roads.

The real estate conveyance tax has been increased from $2 per $500 of property value to $2.30. This is to pay for the various housing programs.

With these changes, as well as other funding reforms, the budget closes a $67 million gap that stemmed from recently negotiated raises for state employees ($24.3 million) and an unexpected increase in human services caseloads ($42.7 million).

We project that the corporate portion of the 2015 budget means Rhode Island’s overall ranking in our Index will get bumped from 46th to 45th.

 

Current law

With changes

Overall

46

45

Corporate

43

31

Individual

36

36

Sales

27

27

Unempl Insur

50

50

Property

46

46

Going Forward

There is much more that Rhode Island can do to make its tax code competitive. Rhode Island has seen tax reform proposals in the past that would have substantially increased its Index ranking. Some of these should be revisited for future budgets:

In 2013 and 2014, Rhode Island considered repealing the sales tax, which would have put the state at 31st in the Index.  Although the 2010 reform cut the top marginal tax rate on individual income, Rhode Island currently ranks 24th highest among states that collect income tax on individuals. Further reductions in the overall burden of this tax would make Rhode Island a better place to work and live. Consider additional increases of the estate tax exemption to couple to the federal exemption level ($5 million, inflation adjusted). This reform was enacted in Maryland, New York, and the District of Columbia this year. Estate tax repeal is ultimately most desirable. Pursue further business tax improvements, like the removal of the capital stock tax base in the corporate tax, or unemployment insurance tax reform.

The reduction in the corporate tax rate this year is a good move for Rhode Island, but with a continuation in the state’s concerted effort, more can be accomplished.

More on Rhode Island.

Categories: Tax news

More on Inversions: Foreign-Owned Companies Pay a Higher Effective Tax Rate than U.S. Companies

Tax Foundation - Thu, 2014-07-17 05:45

One of the common themes in the debate over corporate inversions is that these transactions will erode the U.S. tax base and cost the Treasury billions of dollars in lost taxes.

What is interesting is that the latest IRS data for 2011 shows that the U.S. subsidiaries of foreign corporations pay a higher effective tax rate than do all active corporations in general. The IRS data for active companies with more than 50% foreign ownership indicate that in 2011 these companies paid $35.7 billion in income taxes on $130 billion in income subject to tax, for an effective tax rate of 27%. By contrast, the average effective tax rate for all active C-corporations was 22% in 2011.

Of the $220 billion in corporate income taxes collected by the U.S. Treasury that year, 16% was paid by foreign-owned companies.

Many press stories on the inversion issue give the false impression that by changing their headquarters to another country (the U.K. for example), the “new” company will stop paying U.S. income taxes. Nothing could be further from the truth.  These companies will continue to pay U.S. income taxes on the profits they make in the U.S. What changes is that their foreign earnings will no longer be subject to the U.S. worldwide tax system.

The solution to the inversion “problem” is for the U.S. to cut its 35% federal corporate tax rate to at least a reasonable 25% and move to a territorial tax system like most other industrialized nations. The irony is that the U.S. already offers a territorial tax system for foreign-based companies doing business in the U.S. They pay U.S. income taxes on their American-earned profits and don’t pay U.S. income taxes on their foreign earnings. It is time for American-based companies to be treated the same way as their global competitors.

 

Categories: Tax news

CPA and former IRS agent offers tips to help getfinances in order - Agoura Hills Acorn

Google IRS Federal Income Tax - Wed, 2014-07-16 19:12

CPA and former IRS agent offers tips to help getfinances in order
Agoura Hills Acorn
The maximum federal income tax rate on long-term capital gains is only 15 percent, or 20 percent for those in the top ordinary income tax bracket. If you are facing difficult times and expect this to be a low income year, the good news is that a ...

Categories: Tax news

U.S. Justice Department says investigating lost IRS emails

Yahoo Tax - Wed, 2014-07-16 15:19

The U.S. Justice Department on Wednesday confirmed it is investigating the loss of Internal Revenue Service emails being sought by congressional Republicans in an inquiry over tax scrutiny of conservative political groups. In written testimony to be delivered to the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, Deputy Attorney General James Cole said the probe "includes investigating the circumstances of the lost emails" from the computer of Lois Lerner, a retired IRS official. Last month, the IRS acknowledged losing some of Lerner's emails to a computer hard-drive failure, an incident that has rekindled Republican outrage in the long-running controversy over IRS targeting of conservative political groups. A Justice Department official said there had been no determination of whether the probe was criminal in nature.


Categories: Tax news

Opinion: End the federal income tax - NorthJersey.com

Google IRS Federal Income Tax - Wed, 2014-07-16 13:58

Chicago Defender

Opinion: End the federal income tax
NorthJersey.com
The problem began not with the targeting of conservative organizations by the IRS, but in 1913, with the passage of the 16th Amendment, which allowed Congress to levy an income tax. A toxic stew of class envy had formed in the late 19th century, when ...
AICPA Sues the IRS Over Voluntary Income Tax Preparer ProgramCPA Practice Advisor
House Slashes IRS Enforcement Budget Almost 25 PercentThe New American
House Backs Financial Services Bill With Steep Cuts to IRSRoll Call (blog)
Hot Air -Journal of Accountancy
all 183 news articles »
Categories: Tax news

Jack Lew’s Misinformation on the U.S. Corporate Tax System

Tax Foundation - Wed, 2014-07-16 13:45

In a recent letter to Congress’s tax writing committees, Treasury Secretary Jacob Lew wrote that Congress should act to prevent U.S. corporations from inverting (the practice of a U.S. company merging with a foreign company and moving its headquarters to the foreign country).

In doing so, Lew writes that corporations that invert “seek to shift their profits overseas to avoid paying their fair share of taxes,” while benefiting from the United States without paying a dime. To make his case, he provides this description of the situation:

“The firms involved in these transactions still expect to benefit from their business location in the United States, with our protection of intellectual property rights, our support of research and development, our investment climate, and our infrastructure, all funded by various levels of government. But these firms are attempting to avoid paying taxes here, notwithstanding the benefits they gain from being located in the United States.”

Unfortunately, Lew provides a false and misleading depiction of the U.S. corporate tax system.

When a U.S. based corporation earns income in the United States that income is subject to the U.S. corporate income tax. When a foreign based corporation earns income in the United States, again, that income is subject to the U.S. corporate income tax.

So, any U.S. corporation that becomes a foreign corporations will still be required to pay their “fair share” for the benefits they experience when operating on U.S. soil.

Additionally, corporate taxes aren’t the only tax these corporate pay. Any corporation operating in the U.S. pays all the other taxes that deal with doing business. They pay property taxes on any land or property they own, they pay sales taxes on any good they buy, they pay payroll taxes on wages they pay to their workers, and their employees pay income tax on the income they earn.

They avoid no U.S. taxes on their domestic income. But this isn’t to say they won’t pay less in total taxes. In many cases they will pay lower taxes, due to how our tax code treats foreign earned income.

The U.S. corporate tax system subjects U.S. based corporations to what is called a worldwide system of taxation. This means that corporations must pay taxes not only on income earned in the U.S. using American infrastructure, but also on income earned anywhere else in the world.

This tax treatment is out of step with the rest of the developed world—only six of the 34 OECD countries subject their corporations to this type of treatment. But more importantly, it puts U.S. businesses at a competitive disadvantage.

Nearly every foreign corporation that competes against U.S. corporations both in the U.S. and abroad holds a competitive advantage over the U.S. Let’s take the French based corporation, L’Oreal, for example.

When L’Oreal does business in the U.S. it pays the federal tax rate of 35 percent and when it does business in the United Kingdom, it pays the U.K.’s tax rate of 21 percent.

Now, a U.S. based corporation also pays a tax rate of 35 percent on U.S. income, but on income earned in the U.K., it again pays a tax rate of 35 percent (21 percent for the U.K. and 14 percent for the United States when it repatriates that income).

This is because France, along with almost all of the developed world, has a territorial tax system. This means that income is tax in the location in which it was earned, i.e. where the country receives the benefits of the government services such as infrastructure and sound laws.

A territorial tax system is the type of international tax system the U.S. needs to be competitive in the modern world.

So, instead of misrepresenting the current U.S. tax system and demonizing businesses looking for a fair shake in the global economy, Secretary Lew should turn his attention to helping Congress find solutions to fix our tax code. A lower corporate rate and a shift to a territorial tax system would be a good start.

For more information on how our tax code taxes international income, see the video below.

Categories: Tax news
Syndicate content