Search results

The purpose of this paper is to explain the Regulated Investment Company Modernization Act of 2010, P.L. 111‐325, signed into law on December 22, 2010.

The paper summarizes the Act and provides a detailed explanation and analysis of each of the provisions in the Act.

An investment company registered under the Investment Company Act of 1940 may elect to be taxed as a Regulated Investment Company (RIC) under the Internal Revenue Code. A RIC that satisfies certain additional minimum distribution requirements is generally allowed to deduct the amount of dividends paid to its shareholders in computing the RIC's taxable income and gains, with the result that the RIC's distributed net income and gains can be passed through to its shareholders free of tax at the RIC level. The Act makes a number of changes to the provisions in the Code related to RICs.

The paper provides practical guidance from experienced financial services lawyers.

Despite the South African legislature’s intention to introduce capital gains tax (CGT) as a simple and clear tax, it is an extremely complex tax. Several provisions of both the Eighth Schedule to the Income Tax Act 58 of 1962 and the Act itself have to be taken into account in determining whether a taxable capital gain or an assessed capital loss has arisen during the year of assessment. The application of these principles is often surrounded by uncertainty. Hence, the purpose of this article is not only to provide an overview of some of the different provisions that have to be taken into account and the interaction between them, but also to highlight some of the problems arising from the application of the principles themselves.

This article comprises an attempt to find a practical method of applying the decision in the case of the Commissioner for the South African Revenue Service v Woulidge (63 SATC 483) (‘Woulidge’) to limit the application of section 7(3) of the Income Tax Act (‘the Act’). It is proposed in this article that Woulidge would also apply to the provisions of section 7(5) and paragraphs 69 and 70 of the Eighth Schedule to the Act. The approach proposed is illustrated by means of examples. The approach adopted by the Commissioner for the South African Revenue Service is also discussed. A conclusion is drawn regarding the practicality of applying Woulidge in the light of the examples.

This paper discusses the designing of a capital gains tax for New Zealand. The essential question is not why such a system is needed but what type of system should be implemented. The paper ignores the political discussion of whether such a tax is necessary and concentrates on design and implementation issues. Drawing from other tax jurisdictions, chiefly the United Kingdom and Australia, this article discusses the merits of tapering relief; indexation (now frozen in Australia); specific exemptions (e.g. owner occupied property); and of re‐defining capital assets into discrete categories which may be treated differently. The aim of the study is to open up the issue of capital gains for informed discussion: how such a tax should be administered, and the possibilities and likely difficulties involved in implementing such a tax.

State and federal revenues fell well short of projections in 2002. While revenues normally turn down in a recession, those revenue shortfalls were much greater than would have been expected given how mild the 2001 recession turned out to be. This paper examines some of the reasons for the large forecast variances observed in recent years using specific examples from forecasts made for the state of Minnesota. Key factors identified include inaccurate forecast for U.S. economic growth; inadequate, untimely and inaccurate data; imperfect models; and unrecognized changes in the structure of the economy. These factors came together and reinforced each other, ultimately producing a larger reduction in state revenues than could have been anticipated in advance.

This paper provides evidence suggesting capital gains tax affects stock returns and trading volume. The Canadian federal government budget of May 23, 1985 provided individual taxpayers with a cumulative tax exemption for capital gains, up to a lifetime limit of $500,000. The empirical results, using daily stock return and trading volume data from the Toronto Stock Exchange, show that stock prices decreased three days before the announcement of the lifetime capital gains exemption. The empirical results also show that stock trading volume increased two days and four days before the announcement and five days following the announcement. These results are consistent with the argument that the capital gains tax constrained some individual shareholders from selling appreciated shares (often called “lock‐in effect”).

The magnitude and immediacy of threats to the sustainability of state government programs call for significant changes in how we think about and make policies that influence the public budget. The Great Recession's prolonged battering of state budgets exhausted cutback strategies and has left policy makers with few options, producing a decision gridlock that is inescapable using traditional functional and line-item budget perspectives and embedded practices. Transforming state budgets requires an uncommon view. This paper identifies and describes seven overarching and pervasive habits in state policy making that contribute to unsustainable budgets. Although the applicability and commonness of each habit will vary by state, both individually and as a set the seven habits impart important handles for gaining greater control over a state's fiscal directions and fortunes.

Liability for capital gains tax is determined in terms of the Eighth Schedule to the Income Tax Act 58 of 1962. According to the Eighth Schedule, the disposal of an asset is the event that triggers the liability for capital gains tax. It is therefore imperative to know what constitutes a disposal, because it is fundamental to the entire capital gains tax regime. The purpose of this paper is to analyse the definition of a disposal in order to ascertain whether a disposal, as defined, is intended to mean a transfer of ownership in an asset or whether a disposal could take place upon the occurrence of events or causae other than the transfer of ownership. A study of relevant literature was undertaken to analyse the definition of “disposal” in order to fully comprehend the intention and meaning of the term as it is contemplated in the Eighth Schedule. The current definition of a “disposal” could lead to uncertainty and anomalies. It is therefore recommended that the legislature should amend the definition of a disposal in the Eighth Schedule. The definition should refer to the disposal of an asset (other than a personal‐use asset) as being the transfer of ownership of an asset from one person to another or the loss of the ownership of an asset. Because the common law has clear principles regarding how ownership of different classes of assets is transferred, no confusion would arise regarding whether or when a disposal has occurred.

This article aims to report the results of research into the effect of expanding the traditional models for valuation of simple securities to include the effect of taxation of the cash flows from investing and the possibility of bankruptcy of the issuer.

The models developed use the same techniques as the textbook models but lead to conclusions that are novel.

In particular, the models suggest that reducing the tax rate on capital gains does not always benefit bondholders and shareholders. For common stock the changes in both market value and realizable value depend not only on the change in tax rate, but also on the growth rate of the dividend stream.

The models presented follow the textbook models, so they assume stationary conditions. Future research should examine the case of conditions that may be mean‐reverting but are not stationary.

The immediate practical implications are in the domain of public policy, where the debate over the effect of tax changes has been based on overly simplified models.

As a financial policy, dividend policy significantly affects firm value. This chapter analyzes how stock prices react to dividend decisions. First, a dividend payment is an extraction of value; therefore, stock price theoretically drops by the dividend amount on the ex-dividend day. In practice, the price drop and the dividend magnitude are not equal because of tax clientele, short-term trading, and market microstructure. Investors are indifferent in trading stocks before and after stocks go ex-dividend if they obtain equal marginal benefits from the two trading times. The difference in tax rates on dividends and capital gains leads to the gap between the price drop and the dividend amount. Moreover, if transaction costs are considerable, investors have high incentives to short-sell stocks until they cannot obtain more profits. The final outcome of this short-term trading is the difference between the price drop and the dividend amount. Furthermore, market microstructure factors such as limit orders, bid-ask spread, and price discreteness also create this gap. Second, dividend announcements convey valuable information to outsiders. When firms announce increases (decreases) in dividends, their stock prices tend to increase (decrease). Third, dividend policy is negatively related to stock price volatility. This negative relationship is explained by duration effect, rate of return effect, arbitrage realization effect, and information effect. Empirical evidence for this relationship is found in many countries. Finally, dividend smoothing is also considered as a signal about firms' future earnings. Consequently, firms with stable dividends have higher market value. In other words, dividend stability has a positive effect on stock prices.