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

tax news

U.S. Taxpayers Face the 6th Highest Top Marginal Capital Gains Tax Rate in the OECD

Tax Foundation - Tue, 2015-03-24 12:00

The current federal top marginal tax rate on long-term capital gains in the United States is a total of 23.8 percent (20 percent plus a 3.8 percent tax to fund the Affordable Care Act) for taxpayers with adjusted gross incomes of $200,000 ($250,000 married filing jointly) or more. In addition, states and some localities levy taxes on capital gains income, which range from zero percent in states with no individual income tax, such as Florida, Texas, South Dakota, and Wyoming, to 13.3 percent in California.

An individual who has capital gains income is subject to both federal and state capital gains taxes. Taking into account the federal deductibility of state taxes and the phase-out of itemized deductions, the average top marginal capital gains tax rate faced by U.S. taxpayers is 28.6 percent.

This is the 6th highest rate in the OECD. Taxpayers in most OECD countries face much lower capital gains tax rates than their counterparts in the United States. Only taxpayers in Denmark (42 percent), France (34.4 percent), Finland (33 percent), Ireland (33 percent), and Sweden (30 percent) face higher rates. The U.S. rate is about 10 percentage points higher than the OECD average (18.4 percent) and 5 percentage points higher than the weighted average (23.2 percent). Nine OECD countries full-exempt most capital gains income.

The United States currently places a heavy tax burden on saving and investment with its capital gains tax. The U.S.’s top marginal tax rate on capital gains, combined with state rates, far exceeds the average rates faced throughout the industrialized world. Increasing taxes on capital income, as suggested in the president’s recent budget proposal, would further the bias against saving, leading to lower levels of investment and slower economic growth. Lowering taxes on capital gains would have the reverse effect, increasing investment and leading to greater economic growth.

To learn more about capital gains taxes see our new paper: “The High Burden of State and Federal Capital Gains Tax Rates in the United States.”

Top Marginal Tax Rate on Capital Gains, by OECD Country, 2015

 

Rank

Country

Rate

 

1

Denmark

42.0%

 

2

France

34.4%

 

3

Finland

33.0%

 

3

Ireland

33.0%

 

5

Sweden   

30.0%

 

6

United States

28.6%

 

7

Portugal

28.0%

 

7

United Kingdom

28.0%

 

9

Norway

27.0%

 

9

Spain

27.0%

 

11

Italy

26.0%

 

12

Austria

25.0%

 

12

Germany

25.0%

 

12

Israel

25.0%

 

12

Slovak Republic

25.0%

 

16

Australia

24.5%

 

18

Canada

22.6%

 

19

Estonia

21.0%

 

20

Japan

20.3%

 

21

Chile

20.0%

 

21

Iceland

20.0%

 

23

Poland

19.0%

 

25

Hungary

16.0%

 

26

Greece

15.0%

 

27

Mexico

10.0%

 

28

Belgium

0.0%

 

28

Czech Republic

0.0%

 

28

Korea

0.0%

 

28

Luxembourg

0.0%

 

28

Netherlands

0.0%

 

28

New Zealand

0.0%

 

28

Slovenia

0.0%

 

28

Switzerland

0.0%

 

28

Turkey

0.0%

 

 

OECD Simple Average

18.4%

 

 

OECD Weighted Average

23.2%

 

Source: Ernst and Young and Deloitte Tax Foundation Calculations.

   

 

Categories: Tax news

Are Lawmakers Forgetting the Benefit Principle of Public Finance?

Tax Foundation - Tue, 2015-03-24 10:45

Truly an issue at the heart of public finance, the current quandary of how to fund U.S. infrastructure spending has risen to new levels. Among a handful proposals circulating in Congress, John Delaney (D-MD)—in what he purports is “a natural deal”—has introduced H.R. 625, which would levy a retroactive tax on accumulated foreign earnings of U.S. multinationals, in order to fund an infrastructure bank and the soon-to-be bankrupt Highway Trust Fund. Although seemingly reasonable to some, H.R. 625 represents a logical fallacy of the finest specimen.

Citing declining U.S. competitiveness and underinvestment in infrastructure, Delaney, at a March 3 event at the American Enterprise Institute, outlined his vision for killing two birds with one stone (bill): Solving chronic U.S. infrastructure funding issues and reducing the incentive for U.S. multinationals to hold foreign profits offshore.

In the case of H.R. 625, Delaney uses taxation of deferred foreign income (subpart F income) as a funding mechanism for U.S. infrastructure. Specifically, the bill includes an assessment of an 8.75 percent tax rate on foreign retained earnings, regardless of the current degree of liquidity of such earnings. For example, a U.S. multinational that has reinvested foreign profits into a factory sometime after 1986 will pay the same rate as if those earnings are currently in the form of cash.

This sort of funding mechanism, however, lacks a logical rationale and is yet another temporary measure. Significantly, Delaney’s proposition fails to take into account the important matching benefit principle in public finance: How have U.S. multinationals’ subsidiaries benefitted from U.S. infrastructure in accumulating foreign earnings? Most public finance aficionados would see little, if any, connection.

To highlight this concept, consider costs that the U.S. incurs for its national defense, legal system, or national police (FBI). These items are public goods and, thus, benefit all members of society—but almost exclusively those in the U.S. In a positivist perspective, it makes little sense for an entity that operates in a different jurisdiction and does not use these public goods to actually pay for them.

Moreover, H.R. 625 is problematic in that it only provides a relatively provisional cure and lacks the characteristics of a long-term and stable infrastructure funding mechanism that is so desperately needed. A key takeaway from the subsequent panel discussion at the AEI event is that there is an important distinction between a funding and a financing problem. The U.S. does not have a financing issue; infrastructure financing through the private sector works well, unless funding becomes unpredictable and occurs on an ad-hoc basis. However, there is clearly a funding issue, and as a resolution to that, taxing foreign accumulated profits since 1986 is arguably more of a transitory remedy.

Instead, a user fee focused approach would better adhere to the matching benefit principle of public finance. A gas tax increase or a mileage-based user fee system are two options to consider for raising revenue for infrastructure investment and the Highway Trust Fund. Although Delaney refuted the long-term viability of a gas tax—citing fossil fuels as a declining tax base in the long run—other participants during the panel discussion acknowledged its benefits and desirability as a source of funding. Steve Symms, a former U.S. senator, mentioned Ronald Reagan’s famous quotation that a gas tax really is not a tax at all; it is a user fee for driving on public roads.

The mileage-based user fee may have important privacy implications. But proposals exist that circumvent the government from knowing where you drive or park your car. For example, at the recurring vehicle inspection most people go through, each car’s odometer could be checked to determine how far the car has been driven. Implementing more widespread toll-based roads is also a potential solution.

The Tax Foundation’s Kyle Pomerleau has produced a report that discusses options to fix the Highway Trust Fund, where he specifically analyzes the feasibility of a gas tax increase.

A gas tax increase or some form of mileage-based user fee solution illustrates the virtue of the matching benefit principle. Costs are matched with the benefits enjoyed. Through this perspective, the flawed reasoning for a retroactive tax on accumulated foreign profits as a funding mechanism becomes increasingly evident.

In light of this argument, H.R. 625, as “a natural deal,” is truly a logical fallacy. In essence, it is an exemplar of lawmakers cutting corners, choosing what might be a politically easier, but principally wrong, path to trek.

 

Categories: Tax news

High-income Americans pay most income taxes, but enough to be 'fair'? - Pew Research Center

Google IRS Federal Income Tax - Tue, 2015-03-24 07:13

Pew Research Center

High-income Americans pay most income taxes, but enough to be 'fair'?
Pew Research Center
Back in the 1950s, corporate income tax generated between a quarter and a third of federal revenues (though payroll taxes have grown considerably over that period). Nor have corporate tax receipts kept pace with the overall growth ... In 2013 ...
Most Americans Hate The Tax Code, But For The Wrong ReasonInvestor's Business Daily

all 3 news articles »
Categories: Tax news

Italy prosecutors wrap up tax probe into Apple: sources

Yahoo Tax - Mon, 2015-03-23 17:06

Italian prosecutors have wrapped up an investigation into allegations U.S. tech giant Apple failed to pay corporate taxes to the tune of 879 million euros ($964 million), two sources said on Monday. The investigations, covering the period 2008-2013, involve two managers from the Italian subsidiary of Apple operations and one from its Irish-based subsidiary Apple Sales International, the sources said. The probe claims that by having profits generated in Italy booked by the Irish subsidiary, Apple reduced its taxable income base and saved just under 900 million euros in the period, the sources said. In a comment emailed to Reuters, Apple said it was one of the largest tax payers in the world and paid every euro of tax it owed wherever it did business.


Categories: Tax news

The Ted Cruz economy: Reality-checking his talking points - CNNMoney

Google IRS Federal Income Tax - Mon, 2015-03-23 12:42

Dallas Morning News

The Ted Cruz economy: Reality-checking his talking points
CNNMoney
Under the current tax system, many low-income Americans don't pay much, if anything, in federal income taxes. Moving to a flat tax could mean their income taxes would rise. As for the IRS, it's unclear how Cruz would collect taxes without the agency.
Cruz targets conservatives as he starts White House runConcord Monitor

all 3,458 news articles »
Categories: Tax news

IRS has $28.7 million unclaimed refunds for Washington taxpayers - KING5.com

Google IRS Federal Income Tax - Mon, 2015-03-23 12:36

KING5.com

IRS has $28.7 million unclaimed refunds for Washington taxpayers
KING5.com
The IRS says they have $28.7 million waiting to be refunded by Washington state taxpayers who didn't file for federal income tax for 2011. To collect the money, these taxpayers need to file a 2011 tax return with the IRS no later than Wednesday, April ...
Learn a Few IRS Workarounds: Some Income Comes Tax-FreeAccountingweb.com
Julie Jason: A 2011 tax refund could be yours, but you need to fileAlbany Times Union
Tax Secrets: Tax-free wealth; no IRS problemsNaples Daily News
TheNewsTribune.com -Pueblo Chieftain
all 403 news articles »
Categories: Tax news

Julie Jason: A 2011 tax refund could be yours, but you need to file - Albany Times Union

Google IRS Federal Income Tax - Sun, 2015-03-22 07:57

Chicago Daily Herald

Julie Jason: A 2011 tax refund could be yours, but you need to file
Albany Times Union
"Time is running out for people who didn't file a 2011 federal income-tax return to claim their refund," said IRS Commissioner John Koskinen. "People could be missing out on a substantial refund, especially students or part-time workers. Some people ...
Tax Refunds: Why Smaller is BetterDeposit Accounts (blog)
Cash-strapped Americans increasingly turning to tax refund advances, costly ...Fox News Latino
More cash-strapped Americans turn to tax refund advancesChicago Daily Herald

all 182 news articles »
Categories: Tax news

Nationwide IRS phone scam dialing eastern Iowans - kwwl.com

Google IRS Federal Income Tax - Sat, 2015-03-21 17:39

kwwl.com

Nationwide IRS phone scam dialing eastern Iowans
kwwl.com
In fact [my wife and I] did not have and state income tax or federal income tax debt. The IRS says it will never initiate contact with a taxpayer by phone, email or text message. They say they will never call about taxes owed without first mailing a ...
Midland Police warn residents of income tax time scamsMidland Daily News
IRS calling? Feds say it's a scamWKMG Orlando

all 53 news articles »
Categories: Tax news

Does the IRS Owe You Money, NORTH HOLLYWOOD-TOLUCA LAKE? More ... - Patch.com

Google IRS Federal Income Tax - Sat, 2015-03-21 11:13

Does the IRS Owe You Money, NORTH HOLLYWOOD-TOLUCA LAKE? More ...
Patch.com
The IRS this week is urging taxpayers who didn't file federal income tax returns in 2011 to do so by April 15– or up to $1 billion that's estimated to be owed to a million taxpayers will not be paid out. “Time is running out for people who didn't file ...

and more »
Categories: Tax news

More than 19000 Oklahomans who didn't file 2011 federal income tax returns ... - Tulsa World

Google IRS Federal Income Tax - Fri, 2015-03-20 12:48

More than 19000 Oklahomans who didn't file 2011 federal income tax returns ...
Tulsa World
In all, federal income tax refunds totaling more than $1 billion await an estimated 1 million taxpayers who did not file a 2011 federal income tax return, the IRS reported. To collect the money, they have until April 15, 2015, to file a 2011 tax return ...

and more »
Categories: Tax news

More than 19000 Oklahomans who didn't file 2011 federal income tax returns ... - Tulsa World

Google IRS Federal Income Tax - Fri, 2015-03-20 12:48

More than 19000 Oklahomans who didn't file 2011 federal income tax returns ...
Tulsa World
In all, federal income tax refunds totaling more than $1 billion await an estimated 1 million taxpayers who did not file a 2011 federal income tax return, the IRS reported. To collect the money, they have until April 15, 2015, to file a 2011 tax return ...

and more »
Categories: Tax news

IRS gives some Obamacare customers a tax break - CNBC

Google IRS Federal Income Tax - Fri, 2015-03-20 11:16

CNBC

IRS gives some Obamacare customers a tax break
CNBC
... their income tax returns partly based on incorrect information related to their health plan subsidies will not have to file amended returns and won't be pursued for additional tax payments based on the corrected forms by the Internal Revenue ...
HealthCare.gov still fixing tax-form blunderWashington Times
IRS offers some Obamacare customers a tax splitChronicle Bulletin

all 17 news articles »
Categories: Tax news

Letter: Tax cuts… who actually benefits? - Asheville Citizen-Times

Google IRS Federal Income Tax - Fri, 2015-03-20 10:45

Letter: Tax cuts… who actually benefits?
Asheville Citizen-Times
Even if employers deducted federal income taxes from their paychecks, these families are probably eligible to get that money refunded. In fact, they may be eligible for an additional “earned income tax credit” of up to $6,143 for 2014. The IRS urges ...

Categories: Tax news

10 Remaining States Provide Tax Filing Guidance to Same-Sex Married Taxpayers

Tax Foundation - Fri, 2015-03-20 07:45

After the IRS decision to allow gay and lesbian married couples to file joint federal tax returns, we noted that a number of states would have to provide guidance because they require two contradictory things: (1) if you file a joint federal return, you must file a joint state return, and (2) same-sex married couples cannot file jointly. Nearly all states that have a state income tax reference the federal tax code at some point to minimize taxpayers’ calculation, record keeping, and compliance burdens. Thirty states and the District of Columbia start with federal adjusted gross income, 6 states start with federal taxable income, and only 5 states do not reference the federal tax code at all.

In the 2014 filing season, we successfully communicated with officials in the 22 states where this was an issue, urging them to provide clarifying guidance to same-sex couple taxpayers. We also urged states not to “decouple” from the federal tax system as a measure of defiance, as doing so would impose huge compliance costs on nearly all state taxpayers and would be disproportionate since other viable options are available. These other options, which all the states adopted, include allowing joint filing, providing a worksheet to allocate income and deductions from the joint federal return to two single state returns, instructing taxpayers to prepare “pro forma” or dummy single federal tax returns to use for state filing, or instructing taxpayers to divide their deductions in half or by their income ratio.

This year, because many more states this year recognize same-sex marriage, the number of states that present this dilemma to taxpayers has dwindled to 10 states. (The legality of same-sex marriage in Alabama, Kansas, and Missouri is currently legally complicated, so we include these three states in our list.) Consequently, revenue officials in these states have a responsibility to provide guidance of some kind to taxpayers. Here is the current guidance provided to taxpayers in those ten states:

Alabama: This is the tricky one. A federal court legalized same-sex marriage and licenses were issued for a time, but the state supreme court has issued a conflicting order, causing uncertainty. Last year, Alabama taxpayers were instructed to apportion federal tax onto two single returns, using the ratio of each taxpayer’s federal AGI to the couple’s federal AGI. However, that guidance has been removed from the Alabama Department of Revenue website. There is no guidance in the individual income tax instruction booklet nor on the Department’s website. We reached out to the Department of Revenue, who explained that the guidance from last year is still valid, and that they “took it down because it was generating more questions than it was answering.” [Archived version of Alabama Department of Revenue guidance from 2014] Georgia: Same-sex taxpayers must complete pro forma federal single returns and use that information for the state returns. [Georgia Department of Revenue] Kansas: While Kansas jurisdictions are issuing marriage licenses, the state government does not recognize same-sex marriage. Same-sex taxpayers must allocate income to two single returns using a state-provided worksheet (Kansas Allocation of Income Worksheet). [Kansas Department of Revenue] Kentucky: Same-sex taxpayers must complete pro forma federal single returns and use that information for the state returns. [Kentucky Department of Revenue] Louisiana: Same-sex taxpayers must complete pro forma federal single returns and use that information for the state returns. [Louisiana Department of Revenue] Michigan: Same-sex taxpayers must complete pro forma federal single returns and use that information for the state returns. [Michigan Department of Treasury] Missouri: Same-sex couples may file jointly. [Office of the Governor of Missouri] Nebraska: Same-sex taxpayers must complete pro forma federal single returns and use that information for the state returns. [Nebraska Department of Revenue] North Dakota: Same-sex taxpayers must allocate income to two single returns using a state-provided schedule (ND-1S). [North Dakota State Tax Commissioner] Ohio: Same-sex taxpayers must allocate income to two single returns using a state-provided schedule (Schedule IT S). [Ohio Department of Taxation]

Additionally, 5 other states do not recognize same-sex marriage but either have no income tax (South Dakota and Texas) or do not require taxpayers to follow federal rules when filing (Arkansas, Mississippi, Tennessee).

In the remaining 35 states and the District of Columbia, the state currently recognizes same-sex marriage and couples are able to file joint state tax returns (if the state has an income tax, that is). The states where same-sex marriage is currently legal are Alaska, Arizona, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Florida, Hawaii, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Montana, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Carolina, Utah, Vermont, Virginia, Washington, West Virginia, Wisconsin, Wyoming, and the District of Columbia.

While tax administration is not at the forefront of those advocating for or against same-sex marriage, it is of crucial importance to taxpayers who need to file their taxes in a way that conforms to state law. In these ten states where state law directs taxpayers to do two contradictory things, it is incumbent on tax and revenue officials to provide guidance on resolving that contradiction. We acknowledge this may put tax administrators in awkward positions with respect to their state’s public policy, but the options outlined here address compliance issues without violating state statutory or constitutional provisions on same-sex marriage. We further acknowledge the hard work of tax administrators in every state in providing exactly that guidance to their taxpayers.

Categories: Tax news

Iowa Considers Alternative Maximum Tax

Tax Foundation - Thu, 2015-03-19 11:45

Right now, Iowa’s income tax has nine different brackets, with rates ranging from 0.36 percent (in the first $1,539 of taxable income) to 8.98 percent (on all income above $69,255), and that’s not going away—but if some legislators get their way, taxpayers might have an alternative.

House Study Bill 215 revives a concept considered in 2013 and 2014: an alternative maximum tax, or, as it’s termed in the bill language, an “alternative base cumulative income tax.” The basic idea is that each year, taxpayers get to choose between (1) paying under the current graduated income tax structure, claiming any credits, deductions, or exemptions for which they are eligible; or (2) paying a flat 5 percent rate on all taxable income while foregoing most income subtractions.

Those making the election for a flat rate would still be able to subtract the standard deduction ($6,235 for an individual), plus interest and dividends from federal securities, and federal pension income, but would forego other subtractions. In exchange, they could pay a flat 5 percent rate. Since they would be paying a lower rate, those making this election would also pay 122 percent of the school district-levied surtax rate for their district.

This alternative tax structure functions as an alternative maximum tax: informed taxpayers would select the option yielding the lower tax burden, which, for many taxpayers, would be the alternative base cumulative income tax. The state’s tax credits greatly advantage farmers, low-income families with children, and those harnessing alternative energy sources, but for other taxpayers, foregoing most income tax credits and deductions would not be a substantial loss.

The one wrinkle is federal tax deductibility. Iowa is one of a small number of states that allow a deduction for federal income taxes paid, which can certainly be significant. However, I crunched the numbers on a variety of scenarios, and conservatively estimate that taxpayers with more than $40,000 in taxable income would almost always be better off paying the alternative tax—unless, again, they fall into tax-advantaged categories as farmers, low-income families with children, and the like.

It is not, however, a sure thing. Some high income taxpayers might fare better under the traditional rate structure if they combine that federal deductibility with, say, sizable deductions for charitable contributions. And some low middle-income families might qualify for enough assistance through the tax code to make the standard approach worth their while. This adds complexity to the system, as taxpayers would want to calculate their tax burden both ways.

Iowa’s top tax rate of 8.98 percent is anomalously high, and its rate structure is steeply progressive, with seven different rates falling on the first $31,000 of income (nine rates in all). Among neighboring states, only Minnesota has a higher top tax rate; Illinois, Missouri, Nebraska, South Dakota (which foregoes an income tax entirely), and Wisconsin all offer lower top rates. A lower flat rate on a broader base would be good tax policy and make Iowa more competitive. As an alternative rather than a replacement, though, it does add a degree of complexity.

The 5 percent flat rate proposal is intended as a tax cut, not as a revenue neutral alternative. A similar proposal in 2013, which would have adopted a flat rate of 4.5 percent, would have resulted in an estimated reduction of $396.5 million in income tax liability in tax year 2013, and $469.9 million by 2017. At a 5 percent rate, the reduction in revenue by tax year 2017 might be expected to be in the neighborhood of $410 million, about twice the amount of the increased revenue associated with a recent gas tax hike.

Alternative maximum taxes are rare but not unknown. Rhode Island adopted an alternative flat income tax structure from 2006 – 2011 which culminated in lower overall rates and the elimination of the state’s top brackets. That bill included phased-in reductions in the flat rate, whereas the legislation pending in Iowa sets the rate at 5.0 percent in perpetuity, but like the Rhode Island bill, this Iowa proposal draws upon elements of good tax policy. Ideally, though, Iowa would look at ways to reduce its high income tax burden without making taxpayers calculate their tax burden twice.

More about Iowa here. Our writeup of the 2013 proposal can be found here.

Categories: Tax news

Austria Announces Tax Reform

Tax Foundation - Thu, 2015-03-19 07:15

According to Tax-News, Austria has announced a proposal to reform its income tax paired with adjustments to its property tax and value-added tax.

The income tax reforms would make their income tax system slightly more progressive. The bottom marginal tax rate (which is on income between $11,721 and $26,639) would drop from 36.5 percent to 25 percent. The top statutory tax rate (which applies to income over $63,934) would increase from 50 percent to 55 percent.

The effective marginal tax rates on income would not be as high. In Austria, the payroll taxes an individual earns can be deducted from taxable income.

Austria is also considering an increase in their dividend income tax rate, which currently sits at 25 percent.

The proposal would also increase the “reduced” VAT rate from 10 percent to 13 percent. The special reduced rate applies to goods such as food, books, passenger transportation, and “cultural events.” This will bring the reduced rate closer to its main VAT rate of 20 percent.

The property tax will also be raised. Austria currently raises very little (0.23 percent of GDP) from its real property tax. The United States raises about 2.81 percent of GDP from property taxes.

To learn more about Austria see how it compares to other industrialized nations, see the International Tax Competitiveness Index.

Categories: Tax news

North Richland Hills man gets 3-year prison term for defrauding IRS for $1 million - Dallas Morning News (blog)

Google IRS Federal Income Tax - Thu, 2015-03-19 07:12

Dallas Morning News (blog)

North Richland Hills man gets 3-year prison term for defrauding IRS for $1 million
Dallas Morning News (blog)
A North Richland Hills man was sentenced to three years in federal prison Wednesday after admitting he filed false income tax returns to the IRS. Michael Lloyd Moody, 32, was indicted in March 2013 on 16 counts of aiding and assisting in the ...
Tarrant tax preparer headed to prison for creating false returnsFort Worth Star Telegram

all 2 news articles »
Categories: Tax news

How to Get the Premium Tax Credit From the Affordable Care Act

Yahoo Tax - Thu, 2015-03-19 03:55
If you bought into the Affordable Care Act, you may end up paying some money back when filing your tax return.
Categories: Tax news

Who can garnish an income tax refund? - Logan Daily News

Google IRS Federal Income Tax - Wed, 2015-03-18 22:08

Houston Chronicle

Who can garnish an income tax refund?
Logan Daily News
Before any other federal or state agency can garnish your tax refund, you must be current on your federal income tax payments. This is because the outstanding taxes you owe to the IRS must always be paid first. For example, if you owe taxes for a prior ...
Deadline nears for getting 2011 income tax refunds; Texans owed more than ...Houston Chronicle
Two Women Indicted in Tax Refund ScamABC6OnYourSide.com
Fast Tax Refunds: Minus The FeesIsland Gazette
Patch.com -KMOV.com -LA Daily News
all 35 news articles »
Categories: Tax news

Please Don't Mail Your Tax Returns to the Tax Foundation

Tax Foundation - Wed, 2015-03-18 21:15

Someone mailed us their tax returns and documents today. We quickly sent it back to that individual, as we neither process tax returns nor assist individuals with tax planning or preparation. Tax documents contain a lot of private information and everyone should be very careful about to whom they send this information. Here's where to file your federal tax returns.

We are here for taxpayers but we are unable to assist individuals with tax planning or preparation. Our staff includes scholars who study tax policy and data, not tax preparation professionals.  If your question involves tax policy or data, we will do our best to assist you, but if you have a question about your own taxes, e.g. which deductions to take or whether your employer withheld the correct amount from your paycheck, please contact an accountant, tax attorney, tax preparation service, or the IRS. The IRS will answer questions about federal tax returns, forms, and refunds. (Please see this page of contact information on the IRS website.)  If you have a question about your state or local tax payments, forms, refunds, etc., please contact your state's department of revenue. (See the list of state revenue department websites here—scroll to "State Departments of Revenue Websites.")

Categories: Tax news
Syndicate content