Bhutan is all set to welcome foreign tourists after two years of Covid hiatus. But travellers will have to shell out $200 per day, up from $60 in the last three decades. Is Bhutan using its tourism potential to shore up its foreign exchange reserves? Mariam Wardak tells you.

South Asia Diary | Bhutan increasing daily tax on tourists

India has raised its basic import duty on gold to 12.5% from 7.5%, as the world's second biggest consumer of the precious metal tries to dampen demand and bring down the trade deficit.

Plunging local currency pushes India to raise taxes on gold, oil

The US administration is searching for ways to save Americans from high-fuel prices. President Joe Biden has said that he is considering announcing a federal holiday which would save 5 cents per liter in fuel cost.

US to have a gasoline tax holiday | Will US plunge into a recession?

Under pressure from furious motorists and truck drivers, the White House is searching for ways to save Americans from high fuel prices. President Biden has said that he is considering announcing a tax holiday on which people could save almost 5 cents per liter in fuel costs.

United States: Gasoline tax holiday proposed to curb inflation

Britain's main manufacturing lobby in the UK told the government to stop short-term gimmicks and cut taxes for the sector as its members reported a significant slowdown in orders and a nosedive in investment.

UK manufacturers demand tax cuts amid reports of a significant slowdown in orders

McDonald's is going to pay USD 1.3 billion (1.25 billion euros) to avoid a tax evasion case in France. The money is being paid as per an agreement approved by a Paris court for tax evasion between 2009 and 2020.

This is the second biggest tax settlement in French history.

The settlement includes 508-million-euro fine and 737 million euros in back taxes already agreed in May, years after McDonald's was accused of reporting artificially low profits to reduce its tax bill.

"On condition of payment of the fine, the validation of the agreement means the end of the prosecution," chief financial prosecutor Jean-Francois Bohnert said in a statement. He was quoted by AFP.

Hailing the fine as the "maximum amount possible" under such a deal, he added that McDonald's would pay "2.5 times the amount of tax avoided".

Investigators had since 2014 been probing whether fees paid by McDonald's French operation to its European parent company in Luxembourg for use of the chain's brand in fact served to artificially slash its profits.

Judge Noel said that this let the company "soak up a large amount of the profits made by restaurants in France."

A source familiar with the case told AFP this week that such practices within the same group are "used exclusively to avoid taxes".

They added that the brand fees "could double" from one McDonald's branch to the next "without any justification at all, which made it possible to prove that it was done 'exclusively' for tax reasons".

Prosecutors had opened an official probe in 2016 after union officials reported the company for covering up tax evasion.

In a statement, McDonald's said it had already paid 2.2 billion euros in taxes over the period in question.

"This agreement ends a tax case and a judicial investigation without acknowledging fault," the company added.

(With inputs from agencies)

You can now write for wionews.com and be a part of the community. Share your stories and opinions with us <a href="https://www.wionews.com/content-contribution-registration-form">here</a>.

WATCH WION LIVE HERE

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="twitter-block" draggable="false"><iframe allow="accelerometer; autoplay; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture" allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="350" src="https://www.wionews.com/live-tv/embed?autoplay=1&amp;mute=1" width="100%"></iframe></div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="#" id="jqclosemark">×</a></div>

&nbsp;

McDonald's is going to pay USD 1.3 billion (1.25 billion euros) to avoid a tax evasion case in France. The money is being paid as per an agreement approved by a Paris court for tax evasion between 2009 and 2020.

McDonald's is going to pay USD 1.3 billion (1.25 billion euros) to avoid a tax evasion case in France. The money is being paid as per an agreement approved by a Paris court for tax evasion between 2009 and 2020. This is the second biggest tax settlement in French history. The settlement includes 508-million-euro fine and 737 million euros in back taxes already agreed in May, years after McDonald's was accused of reporting artificially low profits to reduce its tax bill. "On condition of payment of the fine, the validation of the agreement means the end of the prosecution," chief financial prosecutor Jean-Francois Bohnert said in a statement. He was quoted by AFP. Hailing the fine as the "maximum amount possible" under such a deal, he added that McDonald's would pay "2.5 times the amount of tax avoided". Investigators had since 2014 been probing whether fees paid by McDonald's French operation to its European parent company in Luxembourg for use of the chain's brand in fact served to artificially slash its profits. Judge Noel said that this let the company "soak up a large amount of the profits made by restaurants in France." A source familiar with the case told AFP this week that such practices within the same group are "used exclusively to avoid taxes". They added that the brand fees "could double" from one McDonald's branch to the next "without any justification at all, which made it possible to prove that it was done 'exclusively' for tax reasons". Prosecutors had opened an official probe in 2016 after union officials reported the company for covering up tax evasion. In a statement, McDonald's said it had already paid 2.2 billion euros in taxes over the period in question. "This agreement ends a tax case and a judicial investigation without acknowledging fault," the company added. (With inputs from agencies) You can now write for wionews.com and be a part of the community. Share your stories and opinions with us here. WATCH WION LIVE HERE ×

Unhappy bill: McDonald's to pay more than USD 1 billion to avoid tax evasion case

New York has become the latest state to suspend its gas tax in an effort to give drivers some relief at the pump. The suspension of the 16-cents-per-gallon tax runs from June 1 through the end of the year.

New York suspends gas tax by 16 cents a gallon for rest of 2022

Former US President Donald Trump must answer questions under oath in New York state’s civil investigation into his business practices, a state appeals court ruled Thursday. Trump had earlier appealed, seeking to overturn the ruling.

Donald Trump loses appeal, to be questioned in New York tax fraud probe

UK Prime Minister Boris Johnson has ordered ministers to cut around 90,000 Civil Service jobs to free up cash for measures to ease the cost of living crisis.

UK PM Boris Johnson plans to axe 90,000 civil service jobs to save money for tax cuts

Amid the ongoing chip shortage worldwide, The U.S. Senate has approved a $52 billion chips bill. The chip shortage has disrupted production.

U.S. Senate approves $52 billion chips bill to curb chip shortage woes

Wealthy Americans may have to shell out more soon as the World's largest economy unveiled a minimum income tax for billionaires. It is a part of President Joe Biden's budget proposal for the current year.

U.S. President Biden's budget blueprint for 2023: Biden proposes a 20% tax on the rich

U.S. President Joe Biden yesterday unveiled a budget blueprint for the fiscal year 2023. Under his proposal, the United States would allocate billions of dollars in aid to Ukraine. The budget proposed a higher tax on wealthy people and lower the national deficit.

Biden's budget blueprint for 2023: Higher taxes on the rich, lower deficits

U.S. President Biden's budget blueprint for 2023: Higher taxes on the rich, lower deficits

The Indian government could get Rs 10 billion per year from 1% tax on crypto trading. But one Indian MP has warned that imposing such a tax on every crypto transaction will kill the nascent asset class. This tax provision is mentioned in Finance Bill 2022, passed by Lok Sabha, the lower house of India’s parliament.

Will India's crypto tax rules scare away investors?

Wealthy Americans may have to shell out more soon as the World's largest economy today unveils a minimum income tax for billionaires. It is a part of President Joe Biden's budget proposal for the current year.

The fight to tax the super-rich, Joe Biden to unveil new budget proposals

China is all set to provide small firms with $157 billion tax rebates to help bring economic stability in the economy.

China to give $157 billion tax rebates to small firms to help bring economic stability

Thousands of people are protesting in Spain demanding tax cuts and reforms amid the ongoing economic crisis. Spanish PM Pedro Sanchez is also under constant pressure to cut taxes.

Protests in Spain: Spanish PM Pedro Sanchez under pressure to cut taxes

India has turned down Elon Musk's request for tax breaks on Tesla's electric cars as it states that the rules allow bringing in partially-built vehicles. Musk has been seeking tax breaks from the Indian government for a while now.&nbsp;

Vivek Johri, chairman of the Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs, in an interview, said, "We looked at whether the duties need to be re-jigged, but some domestic production is happening and some investments have come in with the current tariff structure."

"So, it is clear that this is not a hindrance," he added.&nbsp;

Nowadays, Musk seems to be in high demand in India. The billionaire has been invited by some Indian states to come up with different kinds of units for its electric cars in their respective areas.

While Prime Minister Narendra Modi's administration has been encouraging Tesla to produce locally, Musk wants India to lower taxes by 100 per cent on imported EVs.&nbsp;

<a href="https://www.wionews.com/india-news/indian-states-invite-tesla-ceo-elon-musk-to-set-up-units-for-its-electric-cars-445176">Also read |&nbsp;Indian states invite Tesla CEO Elon Musk to set up units for its electric cars</a>

He is demanding this to enable his company to sell vehicles built elsewhere at competitive prices.&nbsp;

As per Johri, the company has not yet presented a plan for local manufacturing and procurement from India.&nbsp;

Till now, two states, namely, Maharashtra and Telangana, have made the offer. Maharashtra Water Resources Minister Jayant Patil has asked Musk to set up manufacturing in the state for its products.&nbsp;

In a tweet to Musk, Patil said, "Maharashtra is one of the most progressive states in India. We will provide you all the necessary help to get you established in India. We invite you to establish your manufacturing plant in state." &nbsp;

Earlier, Telangana Industry and Commerce Minister K T Rama Rao had also invited the CEO to come up with a shop in his state.&nbsp;

Senior ministers from Punjab and West Bengal have also extended invitations to Musk.&nbsp;

The invites were triggered after the billionaire informed that the carmaker is facing numerous challenges for launching its car in India.&nbsp;

(With inputs from agencies)

India has turned down Elon Musk's request for tax breaks on Tesla's electric cars as it states that the rules allow bringing in partially-built vehicles. Musk has been seeking tax breaks from the Indian government for a while now.

India has turned down Elon Musk's request for tax breaks on Tesla's electric cars as it states that the rules allow bringing in partially-built vehicles. Musk has been seeking tax breaks from the Indian government for a while now. Vivek Johri, chairman of the Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs, in an interview, said, "We looked at whether the duties need to be re-jigged, but some domestic production is happening and some investments have come in with the current tariff structure." "So, it is clear that this is not a hindrance," he added. Nowadays, Musk seems to be in high demand in India. The billionaire has been invited by some Indian states to come up with different kinds of units for its electric cars in their respective areas. While Prime Minister Narendra Modi's administration has been encouraging Tesla to produce locally, Musk wants India to lower taxes by 100 per cent on imported EVs. Also read | Indian states invite Tesla CEO Elon Musk to set up units for its electric cars He is demanding this to enable his company to sell vehicles built elsewhere at competitive prices. As per Johri, the company has not yet presented a plan for local manufacturing and procurement from India. Till now, two states, namely, Maharashtra and Telangana, have made the offer. Maharashtra Water Resources Minister Jayant Patil has asked Musk to set up manufacturing in the state for its products. In a tweet to Musk, Patil said, "Maharashtra is one of the most progressive states in India. We will provide you all the necessary help to get you established in India. We invite you to establish your manufacturing plant in state." Earlier, Telangana Industry and Commerce Minister K T Rama Rao had also invited the CEO to come up with a shop in his state. Senior ministers from Punjab and West Bengal have also extended invitations to Musk. The invites were triggered after the billionaire informed that the carmaker is facing numerous challenges for launching its car in India. (With inputs from agencies)

India rejects Musk's request for tax breaks on Tesla cars

Quebec, the Canadian province is scrapping a plan to tax adults who refuse Covid vaccination. State's premier Francois Legault announced this on Tuesday saying that the idea was too divisive.

The proposed measure for a special health contribution from adults who refuse vaccination was unveiled by Legault last month. He had said that those who chose to avoid inoculations should help cover the extra costs imposed on the health system by the coronavirus. Experts said the idea would go against the spirit of Canada's universal public health system.

Legault said he was worried about the divisions that COVID-19 and measures introduced to fight it had caused in Quebec, the second most populous of the 10 provinces.

"My role is to try to bring Quebecers together to stay united. This is why we won't go ahead with the health contribution," he told reporters. "I understand that this divides Quebecers and right now we need to build bridges."

Quebec and neighboring Ontario, which together account for around 61% of Canada's population, are starting to lift restrictions amid signs that the Omicron variant has peaked.

But experts in Ontario on Tuesday said this meant infections and hospitalizations linked to the variant would start rising.

Ontario removed some limits on businesses on Monday, allowing restaurants, malls, and cinemas to start operating with a 50% capacity. It plans to further relax curbs later in February and March.

A report by the Ontario COVID-19 Science Advisory Table said Omicron infections had peaked around Jan. 11, but relaxing the measures "will increase the spread of COVID-19."

The panel said "we expect hospitalizations to rebound after reopening on January 31, and to remain at a prolonged peak, except under the most favorable assumptions".

A spokesperson for Ontario's health minister said the province had sufficient hospital capacity to respond to the panel's projections.

(With inputs from agencies)

Quebec, the Canadian province is scrapping a plan to tax adults who refuse Covid vaccination. State's premier Francois Legault announced this on Tuesday saying that the idea was too divisive.

Quebec, the Canadian province is scrapping a plan to tax adults who refuse Covid vaccination. State's premier Francois Legault announced this on Tuesday saying that the idea was too divisive. The proposed measure for a special health contribution from adults who refuse vaccination was unveiled by Legault last month. He had said that those who chose to avoid inoculations should help cover the extra costs imposed on the health system by the coronavirus. Experts said the idea would go against the spirit of Canada's universal public health system. Legault said he was worried about the divisions that COVID-19 and measures introduced to fight it had caused in Quebec, the second most populous of the 10 provinces. "My role is to try to bring Quebecers together to stay united. This is why we won't go ahead with the health contribution," he told reporters. "I understand that this divides Quebecers and right now we need to build bridges." Quebec and neighboring Ontario, which together account for around 61% of Canada's population, are starting to lift restrictions amid signs that the Omicron variant has peaked. But experts in Ontario on Tuesday said this meant infections and hospitalizations linked to the variant would start rising. Ontario removed some limits on businesses on Monday, allowing restaurants, malls, and cinemas to start operating with a 50% capacity. It plans to further relax curbs later in February and March. A report by the Ontario COVID-19 Science Advisory Table said Omicron infections had peaked around Jan. 11, but relaxing the measures "will increase the spread of COVID-19." The panel said "we expect hospitalizations to rebound after reopening on January 31, and to remain at a prolonged peak, except under the most favorable assumptions". A spokesperson for Ontario's health minister said the province had sufficient hospital capacity to respond to the panel's projections. (With inputs from agencies)

Canada: Quebec ditches plan of levying new tax on unvaccinated people

In a first, The UAE has introduced a Federal Corporate tax. The tax-haven expects businesses to start paying tax starting June, 2023. Will this force corporates to move out of Dubai? Palki Sharma brings you a report.

Gravitas: In a first, UAE introduces federal corporate tax

In order to provide equal treatment to both central and state government employees, Indian Finance Minister Nirmala Sitharaman, while presenting the Union Budget, proposed that the tax deduction limit should be increased from 10 per cent to 14 per cent on employer's contribution to the National Pension System (NPS) account of state government employees as well.&nbsp;

She further stated that this would help in enhancing the social security benefits of the state government employees and bring them to equivalence with the central government employees.&nbsp;

<a href="https://www.wionews.com/india-news/indian-union-budget-2022-startups-will-be-promoted-to-facilitate-drone-shakti-fm-nirmala-sitharaman-449441">Also read |&nbsp;Indian Union Budget 2022: Startups will be promoted to facilitate 'Drone Shakti': FM Nirmala Sitharaman</a>

Currently, the central government contributes 14 per cent of its employees' salary to the NPS. In the case of state government employees, it is only 10 per cent.

In the presence of PM Modi, FM Sitharaman presented the annual Union Budget for the year 2022-2023 in Parliament on Tuesday, February 1.&nbsp;In her opening remarks, Sitharaman said that India's growth is estimated to be at 9.2 per cent, which happens to be the highest among all large economies. As per the Finance Minister, this year's Union Budget seeks to lay the foundation and give a blueprint of the economy over 'Amrit Kal' of next 25 years - from India at 75 to India at 100.&nbsp;

Like last year, the budget was paperless. However, it will be available on an application named "Union Budget Mobile App".&nbsp;

In order to provide equal treatment to both central and state government employees, Indian Finance Minister Nirmala Sitharaman, while presenting the Union Budget, proposed that the tax deduction limit should be increased from 10 per cent to 14 per cent on employer's contribution to the National Pension System (NPS) account of state government employees as well.

In order to provide equal treatment to both central and state government employees, Indian Finance Minister Nirmala Sitharaman, while presenting the Union Budget, proposed that the tax deduction limit should be increased from 10 per cent to 14 per cent on employer's contribution to the National Pension System (NPS) account of state government employees as well. She further stated that this would help in enhancing the social security benefits of the state government employees and bring them to equivalence with the central government employees. Also read | Indian Union Budget 2022: Startups will be promoted to facilitate 'Drone Shakti': FM Nirmala Sitharaman Currently, the central government contributes 14 per cent of its employees' salary to the NPS. In the case of state government employees, it is only 10 per cent. In the presence of PM Modi, FM Sitharaman presented the annual Union Budget for the year 2022-2023 in Parliament on Tuesday, February 1. In her opening remarks, Sitharaman said that India's growth is estimated to be at 9.2 per cent, which happens to be the highest among all large economies. As per the Finance Minister, this year's Union Budget seeks to lay the foundation and give a blueprint of the economy over 'Amrit Kal' of next 25 years - from India at 75 to India at 100. Like last year, the budget was paperless. However, it will be available on an application named "Union Budget Mobile App".

Budget 2022: For parity between govt employees, tax deduction limit increased to 14%

The Democrat lawmakers have vowed to block US President Joe Biden's Build Back Better bill without the tax break.

US: Democrats vow to block President Joe Biden's Build Back Better bill without the tax break

Two Chinese smartphone makers operating in India may be fined Rs 10 <a name="_Hlk91924825">billion (US $134&nbsp;million approx.) </a>for violating a tax law relating to non-disclosures of transactions with associated enterprises.

On December 21, the Income Tax department had carried out search and seizure operations across India after receiving a tip-off on select foreign-controlled mobile communication and mobile handset manufacturing companies and their associated persons.

Several premises in Karnataka, Tamil Nadu, Assam, West Bengal, Andhra Pradesh, Madhya Pradesh, Gujarat, Maharashtra, Bihar, Rajasthan and Delhi NCR were covered.

“The search revealed that two major companies have made remittance in the nature of royalty, to and on behalf of its group companies located abroad, which aggregates to over Rs 5,500 crore. The claim of such expenses does not seem to be appropriate in light of the facts and evidence gathered during the search,” the I-T department said in a statement without naming the Chinese mobile manufacturers, but media reports confirmed the names Xiaomi and Oppo.

“It is gathered that both these companies had not complied with the regulatory mandate prescribed under the Income-tax Act, 1961 for disclosure of transactions with associated enterprises. Such lapse makes them liable for penal action under the Income-tax Act, 1961, the quantum of which could be in the range of more than Rs 1,000 crore (US $ <a name="_Hlk91924825">134&nbsp;</a>million approx.),” the CBDT statement added.

The tax sleuths also found that one of the companies utilised the services of another entity located in India but did not comply with the provisions of tax deduction at source introduced since April 1, 2020, and the quantum of liability of TDS on this account could be around Rs 3 billion (US $42 million).

(With inputs from agencies)

Two Chinese smartphone makers operating in India may be fined Rs 10 billion (US $134 million approx.) for violating a tax law relating to non-disclosures of transactions with associated enterprises.

Two Chinese smartphone makers operating in India may be fined Rs 10 billion (US $134 million approx.) for violating a tax law relating to non-disclosures of transactions with associated enterprises. On December 21, the Income Tax department had carried out search and seizure operations across India after receiving a tip-off on select foreign-controlled mobile communication and mobile handset manufacturing companies and their associated persons. Several premises in Karnataka, Tamil Nadu, Assam, West Bengal, Andhra Pradesh, Madhya Pradesh, Gujarat, Maharashtra, Bihar, Rajasthan and Delhi NCR were covered. “The search revealed that two major companies have made remittance in the nature of royalty, to and on behalf of its group companies located abroad, which aggregates to over Rs 5,500 crore. The claim of such expenses does not seem to be appropriate in light of the facts and evidence gathered during the search,” the I-T department said in a statement without naming the Chinese mobile manufacturers, but media reports confirmed the names Xiaomi and Oppo. “It is gathered that both these companies had not complied with the regulatory mandate prescribed under the Income-tax Act, 1961 for disclosure of transactions with associated enterprises. Such lapse makes them liable for penal action under the Income-tax Act, 1961, the quantum of which could be in the range of more than Rs 1,000 crore (US $ 134 million approx.),” the CBDT statement added. The tax sleuths also found that one of the companies utilised the services of another entity located in India but did not comply with the provisions of tax deduction at source introduced since April 1, 2020, and the quantum of liability of TDS on this account could be around Rs 3 billion (US $42 million). (With inputs from agencies)

Two Chinese phone makers break tax laws in India, may face $134 million fine

Ghana parliament turned into a fight club on Monday because of a bill on increasing taxes. Parliamentarians hit each other.

Ghana parliament turns into a fight club

Amid a row over a proposed tax on electronic transactions, a rough fight breaks out between the lawmakers. The Finance Minister argues that the levy would widen the tax net.

Ghana Parliament Brawl: Fight breaks out on the Parliament floor over proposed tax on e-Transactions

Since July, all but the most affluent families across the country have been receiving child tax credits as monthly cash payments — a first-of-its-kind policy jujitsu that converted a tax break, usually given out as a lump sum at the end of the financial year, into an additional income that expanded America’s safety net.

The program represented the first significant shift of US&nbsp;government support for families in decades. Since the 1990s, the child tax credit was available only to parents who were actively working or looking for work, making the United States an outlier among other developed countries where subsidies for children are common.

President Joe Biden’s $1.9 trillion American Rescue Plan, in addition to refashioning the tax credit into monthly checks, expanded the total amount parents and other caregivers received and stripped it of any work-related conditions, making more money available to more households.

The initiative, which was initially set to run for six months, has now wound down with the last of the checks sent out Dec. 15.

Democrats had hoped to make the tax credits permanent as part of Biden’s Build Back Better plan. But this week, the administration’s vast domestic agenda was effectively blocked, at least for now, by centrist Sen. Joe Manchin D-W.Va., who voted for the child tax credit expansion when it was first introduced but did not support its extension.

“I cannot vote to continue with this piece of legislation,” Manchin said on “Fox News Sunday,” citing concerns that the Build Back Better plan would add to the national debt and rising inflation.

The argument echoed that of his Republican colleagues — Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C. and the senior Senate Budget Committee Republican, described the administration’s plan as an “inflation bomb” — who were united in their opposition to the Build Back Better legislation.

Experts have noted that since the payments of up to $300 per child started landing in bank accounts, alongside other COVID-related relief, child poverty dropped to record lows.

In an October report by the Census Bureau, around half of the roughly 300,000 recipients surveyed reported using the money on food — an indication that the tax credit was also helping to bring down hunger and food insufficiency. Many recipients also reported spending the funds on child care and school supplies.

Interviews with four families revealed other day-to-day expenses they used the funds for — from doctor’s appointments to car repairs — and the joys of a little breathing room for households that may otherwise live paycheck to paycheck.

Las Vegas

Miaya and Thaddeus Bennett

Children:&nbsp;Thaddeus Jr., 4; and Bailey, 3

Monthly Credit: $600

In 2019, months before the pandemic took hold, Miaya and Thaddeus Bennett, who are both 31, decided to pack up their lives in Connecticut and move to Las Vegas to be closer to family. Thaddeus gave up his job as a supervisor in the call center of a bank where he had worked for more than a decade. Miaya continued working as a medical dispatcher from Las Vegas.

But in April 2020, Miaya Bennett was let go from her job, and the couple suddenly found themselves living off unemployment checks for the first time in their lives. Miaya Bennett started studying to get a real estate license, and her husband took part-time jobs to keep an income coming in.

When the child tax credits arrived this summer, it was “a blessing and a relief,” she said.

For their two children, they received a total of $600 per month. The money helped pay for preschool for Thaddeus Jr., which costs roughly $200 a week for full-time care. “We don’t receive enough to put two kids into pre-K, so right now it’s just my son,” his mother explained.

But being able to use the checks to pay for one child’s preschool allowed the couple to keep paying for their children’s extracurricular activities — karate for Thaddeus Jr., ballet for Bailey.

“We consider ourselves blessed to be in a position to not have to say ‘not today’ to our kids for the simple things,” said Thaddeus Sr., who in May landed a full-time job at a mortgage company.

______

Christiansburg, Virginia

Kelly Bonner

Children:&nbsp;Jaden, 18; Gavin, 15; Liam, 11; and Mason, 10

Monthly Credit: $750

Last December, Kelly Bonner, 46, was down to just $50 in her bank account after being let go that April from her waitressing job. She and her children could afford only unhealthy meals, like ramen or processed foods. Some nights she didn’t eat at all so that there was enough food for her sons.

“The amount of food stamps that we were getting, I could use that entire monthly allotment in one week,” she explained.

She did everything she could to stretch her unemployment checks and food stamps as far as possible, but she was always left with very little cash. She dreaded having to tell her sons that they might not be able to celebrate Christmas.

It was only because a generous friend gave her some extra money that she was able to pay rent that December and cobble together a Christmas dinner for her family.

“Every month, it’s just been like, How do we make it through?” she said. Then, this past summer, her car broke down. Doctors appointments and therapy for her youngest son, who has autism and mild attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, became impossible to access.

When the first child tax credit check arrived in July — a total of $750 for three of her four boys — the timing could not have been better, Bonner said. It went straight to repairing her car, which cost $550. The other checks have helped her buy healthier food, like fresh produce, for her sons. Over the summer, she took the boys swimming in an indoor pool, which costs roughly $25 for the five of them. She could even afford to take her 15-year-old, Gavin, to a Dropkick Murphys concert.

“That was a real luxury,” she said, “but then I built that memory with him, which is so special to me.”

And this year, she said, she’ll have the money to cook an even better Christmas dinner.

______

Eau Claire, Wisconsin 

Blayne and Kayla Midthun

Children:&nbsp;Jonah, 12; Stella and Nora, 10

Monthly Credit: $750

As owners of an ice-cream parlor, Blayne and Kayla Midthun, who are both 38, had come to expect seasonal ups and downs in their business, but not the kinds presented to them during the pandemic. Like most other small-business owners, they thought that shuttering their store, Ramone’s, during the early lockdown would be swift and temporary. “I remember thinking, OK, we’ll be back to business by our peak season in the summer,” Blayne Midthun said.

Instead, they had to apply for loans from the Paycheck Protection Program, adding to the debt that their 4-year-old business had already accumulated. They pivoted their business model from being primarily driven by in-store dining to relying more on takeout and delivery.

“We literally had never had an online store before,” Kayla Midthun said. “So I had to set that up, watching online tutorial videos, getting pictures of our products done, with the kids running around.”

By the end of 2020, the ice cream parlor made $100,000 less than it did in 2019. “That was a big hit for us,” Blayne Midthun said.

He took on a few side gigs, installing drywall and painting, to keep money coming in. In November, the couple took out another business loan. But because they also own a few properties around town that they rent out, they remained financially stable with a little belt-tightening. When they started receiving a child tax credit of $750 a month for their three children, they put the money straight back into their business — to keep their operating expenses in check.

______

Las Vegas

Maria Silva and Orlando Granillo

Children:&nbsp;Miguel, 15; Elysia, 11; Eileen, 9; Evelyn, 6; Orlando Jr., 3.5; Emelia, 1.5, and one more on the way

Monthly Credit: $1,650

A couple of months into the pandemic, Maria Silva’s car was repossessed.

Her partner, Orlando Granillo, a barber, had lost his job in April 2020, and the unemployment checks were barely enough to cover rent and food. They put electric and internet bills on four different credit cards, piling up debt. “Every day we lived in fear of our water being turned off or our gas,” she said, so they simply could not keep paying for the car.

It was the lowest point of the pandemic for them. “It’s one of those things where you just don’t realize how lucky you are to have certain things, like a vehicle, until it’s gone,” Silva said.

Granillo, 37, eventually went back to work in September 2020, which Silva, 40, said was scary because of the risk of COVID-19 exposure, but they needed the money. He would borrow his mother’s car to get around.

The child tax credit has helped the Granillos get back on their feet: It covers utilities, Silva said, and is helping them pay off some of their credit card debt. It has also enabled them to lease a used car.

Receiving the monthly payments has been “surreal and unbelievable,” she said.

Since July, all but the most affluent families across the country have been receiving child tax credits as monthly cash payments — a first-of-its-kind policy jujitsu that converted a tax break, usually given out as a lump sum at the end of the financial year, into an additional income that expanded America’s safety net.

Since July, all but the most affluent families across the country have been receiving child tax credits as monthly cash payments — a first-of-its-kind policy jujitsu that converted a tax break, usually given out as a lump sum at the end of the financial year, into an additional income that expanded America’s safety net. The program represented the first significant shift of US government support for families in decades. Since the 1990s, the child tax credit was available only to parents who were actively working or looking for work, making the United States an outlier among other developed countries where subsidies for children are common. President Joe Biden’s $1.9 trillion American Rescue Plan, in addition to refashioning the tax credit into monthly checks, expanded the total amount parents and other caregivers received and stripped it of any work-related conditions, making more money available to more households. The initiative, which was initially set to run for six months, has now wound down with the last of the checks sent out Dec. 15. Democrats had hoped to make the tax credits permanent as part of Biden’s Build Back Better plan. But this week, the administration’s vast domestic agenda was effectively blocked, at least for now, by centrist Sen. Joe Manchin D-W.Va., who voted for the child tax credit expansion when it was first introduced but did not support its extension. “I cannot vote to continue with this piece of legislation,” Manchin said on “Fox News Sunday,” citing concerns that the Build Back Better plan would add to the national debt and rising inflation. The argument echoed that of his Republican colleagues — Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C. and the senior Senate Budget Committee Republican, described the administration’s plan as an “inflation bomb” — who were united in their opposition to the Build Back Better legislation. Experts have noted that since the payments of up to $300 per child started landing in bank accounts, alongside other COVID-related relief, child poverty dropped to record lows. In an October report by the Census Bureau, around half of the roughly 300,000 recipients surveyed reported using the money on food — an indication that the tax credit was also helping to bring down hunger and food insufficiency. Many recipients also reported spending the funds on child care and school supplies. Interviews with four families revealed other day-to-day expenses they used the funds for — from doctor’s appointments to car repairs — and the joys of a little breathing room for households that may otherwise live paycheck to paycheck. Las Vegas Miaya and Thaddeus Bennett Children: Thaddeus Jr., 4; and Bailey, 3 Monthly Credit: $600 In 2019, months before the pandemic took hold, Miaya and Thaddeus Bennett, who are both 31, decided to pack up their lives in Connecticut and move to Las Vegas to be closer to family. Thaddeus gave up his job as a supervisor in the call center of a bank where he had worked for more than a decade. Miaya continued working as a medical dispatcher from Las Vegas. But in April 2020, Miaya Bennett was let go from her job, and the couple suddenly found themselves living off unemployment checks for the first time in their lives. Miaya Bennett started studying to get a real estate license, and her husband took part-time jobs to keep an income coming in. When the child tax credits arrived this summer, it was “a blessing and a relief,” she said. For their two children, they received a total of $600 per month. The money helped pay for preschool for Thaddeus Jr., which costs roughly $200 a week for full-time care. “We don’t receive enough to put two kids into pre-K, so right now it’s just my son,” his mother explained. But being able to use the checks to pay for one child’s preschool allowed the couple to keep paying for their children’s extracurricular activities — karate for Thaddeus Jr., ballet for Bailey. “We consider ourselves blessed to be in a position to not have to say ‘not today’ to our kids for the simple things,” said Thaddeus Sr., who in May landed a full-time job at a mortgage company. ______ Christiansburg, Virginia Kelly Bonner Children: Jaden, 18; Gavin, 15; Liam, 11; and Mason, 10 Monthly Credit: $750 Last December, Kelly Bonner, 46, was down to just $50 in her bank account after being let go that April from her waitressing job. She and her children could afford only unhealthy meals, like ramen or processed foods. Some nights she didn’t eat at all so that there was enough food for her sons. “The amount of food stamps that we were getting, I could use that entire monthly allotment in one week,” she explained. She did everything she could to stretch her unemployment checks and food stamps as far as possible, but she was always left with very little cash. She dreaded having to tell her sons that they might not be able to celebrate Christmas. It was only because a generous friend gave her some extra money that she was able to pay rent that December and cobble together a Christmas dinner for her family. “Every month, it’s just been like, How do we make it through?” she said. Then, this past summer, her car broke down. Doctors appointments and therapy for her youngest son, who has autism and mild attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, became impossible to access. When the first child tax credit check arrived in July — a total of $750 for three of her four boys — the timing could not have been better, Bonner said. It went straight to repairing her car, which cost $550. The other checks have helped her buy healthier food, like fresh produce, for her sons. Over the summer, she took the boys swimming in an indoor pool, which costs roughly $25 for the five of them. She could even afford to take her 15-year-old, Gavin, to a Dropkick Murphys concert. “That was a real luxury,” she said, “but then I built that memory with him, which is so special to me.” And this year, she said, she’ll have the money to cook an even better Christmas dinner. ______ Eau Claire, Wisconsin Blayne and Kayla Midthun Children: Jonah, 12; Stella and Nora, 10 Monthly Credit: $750 As owners of an ice-cream parlor, Blayne and Kayla Midthun, who are both 38, had come to expect seasonal ups and downs in their business, but not the kinds presented to them during the pandemic. Like most other small-business owners, they thought that shuttering their store, Ramone’s, during the early lockdown would be swift and temporary. “I remember thinking, OK, we’ll be back to business by our peak season in the summer,” Blayne Midthun said. Instead, they had to apply for loans from the Paycheck Protection Program, adding to the debt that their 4-year-old business had already accumulated. They pivoted their business model from being primarily driven by in-store dining to relying more on takeout and delivery. “We literally had never had an online store before,” Kayla Midthun said. “So I had to set that up, watching online tutorial videos, getting pictures of our products done, with the kids running around.” By the end of 2020, the ice cream parlor made $100,000 less than it did in 2019. “That was a big hit for us,” Blayne Midthun said. He took on a few side gigs, installing drywall and painting, to keep money coming in. In November, the couple took out another business loan. But because they also own a few properties around town that they rent out, they remained financially stable with a little belt-tightening. When they started receiving a child tax credit of $750 a month for their three children, they put the money straight back into their business — to keep their operating expenses in check. ______ Las Vegas Maria Silva and Orlando Granillo Children: Miguel, 15; Elysia, 11; Eileen, 9; Evelyn, 6; Orlando Jr., 3.5; Emelia, 1.5, and one more on the way Monthly Credit: $1,650 A couple of months into the pandemic, Maria Silva’s car was repossessed. Her partner, Orlando Granillo, a barber, had lost his job in April 2020, and the unemployment checks were barely enough to cover rent and food. They put electric and internet bills on four different credit cards, piling up debt. “Every day we lived in fear of our water being turned off or our gas,” she said, so they simply could not keep paying for the car. It was the lowest point of the pandemic for them. “It’s one of those things where you just don’t realize how lucky you are to have certain things, like a vehicle, until it’s gone,” Silva said. Granillo, 37, eventually went back to work in September 2020, which Silva, 40, said was scary because of the risk of COVID-19 exposure, but they needed the money. He would borrow his mother’s car to get around. The child tax credit has helped the Granillos get back on their feet: It covers utilities, Silva said, and is helping them pay off some of their credit card debt. It has also enabled them to lease a used car. Receiving the monthly payments has been “surreal and unbelievable,” she said.

‘A blessing and a relief’: How four families used the child tax credit

Tesla Inc CEO Elon Musk took to Twitter to decide the fate his 10% stock in the electric car company and asked his 62.6 million followers in a poll if he should sell his stocks.

He has said that he would “abide by the results of this poll, whichever way it goes.”

Musk’s sudden announcement comes amid pressure in Washington to increase taxes on billionaires. Some Democrats have been wanting to impose a new tax on America’s wealthiest by taxing unrealized capital gains—a type of gains that is accrued when the price of the stocks they hold goes up, even if they do not sell any shares.

According to reports, Musk’s unrealized capital gains stand at roughly US $300 billion.

Also read |<a href="https://www.wionews.com/india-news/elon-musks-starlink-registers-business-in-india-targets-satellite-internet-access-426098">&nbsp;Elon Musk's Starlink registers business in India, targets satellite internet access</a>

“Much is made lately of unrealized gains being a means of tax avoidance, so I propose selling 10% of my Tesla stock. Do you support this?” he tweeted on Saturday afternoon.

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="twitter-block" draggable="false">
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet">
Much is made lately of unrealized gains being a means of tax avoidance, so I propose selling 10% of my Tesla stock. 
 
Do you support this?
— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) <a href="https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1457064697782489088?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">November 6, 2021</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script></div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="#" id="jqclosemark">×</a></div>

Much of Musk’s wealth is held in shares of Tesla, which does not pay him a cash salary.

“I only have stock, thus the only way for me to pay taxes personally is to sell stock," he tweeted.

By 10:30 am (Indian time), over 55 per cent have said yes out of a total of 2,262,895 votes.&nbsp;The poll is scheduled to end around 3 pm ET (2000 GMT) on Sunday.

Also read |&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/south-asia/tesla-ceo-elon-musk-wealthier-than-pakistans-gdp-425852">Tesla CEO Elon Musk wealthier than Pakistan’s GDP</a>

Musk's shareholding in Tesla comes to about 170.5 million shares as of June 30 and selling 10 per cent of his stock would amount close to $21 billion based on Friday's closing, according to Reuters calculations.

The so-called “Billionaires Income Tax” would apply solely to 700 taxpayers who have at least $1 billion in assets or $100 million in income for three straight years.

According to the proposal, the proposed tax would raise around “hundreds of billions of dollars.”

America's billionaires have seen their collected wealth surge 70% since the start of the pandemic to over $5 trillion, according to an analysis by the pro-wealth-tax Americans for Tax Fairness and the Institute for Policy Studies Program on Inequality.

That gain from March 18, 2020, is equal in size to Biden's spending plans over 10 years, news agency AP reported.

(With inputs from agencies)

Tesla Inc CEO Elon Musk took to Twitter to decide the fate his 10% stock in the electric car company and asked his 62.6 million followers in a poll if he should sell his stocks.

Tesla Inc CEO Elon Musk took to Twitter to decide the fate his 10% stock in the electric car company and asked his 62.6 million followers in a poll if he should sell his stocks. He has said that he would “abide by the results of this poll, whichever way it goes.” Musk’s sudden announcement comes amid pressure in Washington to increase taxes on billionaires. Some Democrats have been wanting to impose a new tax on America’s wealthiest by taxing unrealized capital gains—a type of gains that is accrued when the price of the stocks they hold goes up, even if they do not sell any shares. According to reports, Musk’s unrealized capital gains stand at roughly US $300 billion. Also read | Elon Musk's Starlink registers business in India, targets satellite internet access “Much is made lately of unrealized gains being a means of tax avoidance, so I propose selling 10% of my Tesla stock. Do you support this?” he tweeted on Saturday afternoon. Much is made lately of unrealized gains being a means of tax avoidance, so I propose selling 10% of my Tesla stock. Do you support this? — Elon Musk (@elonmusk) November 6, 2021 × Much of Musk’s wealth is held in shares of Tesla, which does not pay him a cash salary. “I only have stock, thus the only way for me to pay taxes personally is to sell stock," he tweeted. By 10:30 am (Indian time), over 55 per cent have said yes out of a total of 2,262,895 votes. The poll is scheduled to end around 3 pm ET (2000 GMT) on Sunday. Also read | Tesla CEO Elon Musk wealthier than Pakistan’s GDP Musk's shareholding in Tesla comes to about 170.5 million shares as of June 30 and selling 10 per cent of his stock would amount close to $21 billion based on Friday's closing, according to Reuters calculations. The so-called “Billionaires Income Tax” would apply solely to 700 taxpayers who have at least $1 billion in assets or $100 million in income for three straight years. According to the proposal, the proposed tax would raise around “hundreds of billions of dollars.” America's billionaires have seen their collected wealth surge 70% since the start of the pandemic to over $5 trillion, according to an analysis by the pro-wealth-tax Americans for Tax Fairness and the Institute for Policy Studies Program on Inequality. That gain from March 18, 2020, is equal in size to Biden's spending plans over 10 years, news agency AP reported. (With inputs from agencies)

Elon Musk proposes to sell 10% of his Tesla stock in Twitter poll

A British backpacker who spent her time in Australia as a waiter in Sydney has won a case against the government-imposed “backpacker’s tax”.<o:p></o:p>

The highest court of Australia ruled in favour of Catherine Addy on Wednesday as the tax was found to be discriminatory. <o:p></o:p>

"Backpacker's tax" started in 2017, under which the government levy a flat 15 per cent tax&nbsp;on every dollar that is earned by two categories of working holiday visas, which are linked to seasonal labour.

<o:p>Also read |&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/nuclear-powered-submarines-for-australia-maybe-not-so-fast-424997">Nuclear-powered submarines for Australia? Maybe not so fast.</a></o:p>

Calling it a "disguised form of discrimination", two years ago, a Brisbane court had ruled that Addy should not be asked to pay the "backpacker’s tax" because of the double taxation treaty between Australia and Addy’s home country, the UK.<o:p></o:p>

However, this was overturned by the Federal Court which ruled in favour of the Australian Taxation Office. Addy's lawyers then appealed to the top court of Australia.<o:p></o:p>

"An Australian national deriving taxable income from the same source during the same period would have been taxed at a lower rate," the High Court ruled on Wednesday. "The more burdensome taxation was imposed on Ms Addy owing to her nationality."<o:p></o:p>

Addy argued that that if she earns $26,576, she would have been hit with $3,986, which is way higher in comparison with an Australian citizen who would have had to pay $1,591.<o:p></o:p>

"When the position of Ms Addy is compared with that of an Australian national, as it must be, that is the only conclusion which may be drawn," the five justices of the high court said. "She did the same kind of work and earned the same amount of income from the same source; yet an Australian national was required … to pay less tax."<o:p></o:p>

However, officials of the Australian Taxation Office said that this decision is only relevant for holiday-makers who are "both an Australian resident for tax purposes"&nbsp;or from one of the eight countries with similar tax treaties. "Most working holiday makers will be non-residents as they are in Australia to have a holiday and working to support that holiday," it said in a statement. "This decision will not change the tax rates for the majority of working holiday makers."<o:p></o:p>

A British backpacker who spent her time in Australia as a waiter in Sydney has won a case against the government-imposed “backpacker’s tax”. The highest court of Australia ruled in favour of Catherine Addy on Wednesday as the tax was found to be discriminatory.

A British backpacker who spent her time in Australia as a waiter in Sydney has won a case against the government-imposed “backpacker’s tax”. The highest court of Australia ruled in favour of Catherine Addy on Wednesday as the tax was found to be discriminatory. "Backpacker's tax" started in 2017, under which the government levy a flat 15 per cent tax on every dollar that is earned by two categories of working holiday visas, which are linked to seasonal labour. Also read | Nuclear-powered submarines for Australia? Maybe not so fast. Calling it a "disguised form of discrimination", two years ago, a Brisbane court had ruled that Addy should not be asked to pay the "backpacker’s tax" because of the double taxation treaty between Australia and Addy’s home country, the UK. However, this was overturned by the Federal Court which ruled in favour of the Australian Taxation Office. Addy's lawyers then appealed to the top court of Australia. "An Australian national deriving taxable income from the same source during the same period would have been taxed at a lower rate," the High Court ruled on Wednesday. "The more burdensome taxation was imposed on Ms Addy owing to her nationality." Addy argued that that if she earns $26,576, she would have been hit with $3,986, which is way higher in comparison with an Australian citizen who would have had to pay $1,591. "When the position of Ms Addy is compared with that of an Australian national, as it must be, that is the only conclusion which may be drawn," the five justices of the high court said. "She did the same kind of work and earned the same amount of income from the same source; yet an Australian national was required … to pay less tax." However, officials of the Australian Taxation Office said that this decision is only relevant for holiday-makers who are "both an Australian resident for tax purposes" or from one of the eight countries with similar tax treaties. "Most working holiday makers will be non-residents as they are in Australia to have a holiday and working to support that holiday," it said in a statement. "This decision will not change the tax rates for the majority of working holiday makers."

British woman fights Australia's 'Backpacker's tax' in highest court

Having stumbled in their attempts to raise taxes on the wealthy in the conventional way, Democrats in Congress moved to unconventional measures.

The proposal was to tax billionaires on their so-called unrealized gains — the growth in the value of assets, such as stocks and real estate, that have not yet been sold. To understand why lawmakers might look to a group of more than 700 billionaires to underwrite a massive spending program, consider this statistic: Since the beginning of the Covid-19 pandemic, billionaires have seen a 70 percent increase in their wealth, from nearly $3 trillion to an almost incomprehensible $5 trillion, according to Forbes data analyzed by Americans for Tax Fairness and the Institute for Policy Studies Program on Inequality and the Common Good.

Unsurprisingly, critics, the ultrawealthy and even some Democrats decried the idea as novel, untested and dangerous. Other experts worried about whether it would be too difficult to value billionaires’ assets or if the proposal could pass constitutional muster. These attacks ultimately killed the idea in Washington.

But a billionaire’s tax is not nearly as novel and untested as it sounds. The main concepts already exist in the tax code. It just happens that these provisions currently serve the interests of the ultrawealthy class, who have so far skirted most taxes aimed at wealth rather than income.

The ultrawealthy live starkly different financial lives from other people. They hardly make anything in wages, or what the rest of us know as income. Amazon’s Jeff Bezos has typically pulled down a middle-class base salary of around $80,000. Others, like Facebook’s Mark Zuckerberg, Oracle’s Larry Ellison and Google’s Larry Page, have, at various points, taken a symbolic $1 in salary.

But many ultrawealthy Americans have figured out how to fund a lavish lifestyle without owing any income tax. Their wealth is almost entirely in assets like stocks, such as the Tesla shares that account for the vast majority of Elon Musk’s $270 billion plus in wealth. Our tax code levies a 23.8 percent tax on capital gains for those with the highest incomes, but only when an asset is sold. Their holdings can grow by billions of dollars a year, but the wealthy owe nothing as long as they hang on to their shares. When they need money, they borrow it, as Mr. Ellison and Mr. Musk have done to the tune of billions, pledging the value of shares as collateral. It has been called “Buy, Borrow, Die,” and it’s a wonderful system for the superrich.

This system allows them to enjoy luxury cars, yachts, homes on multiple continents and occasional trips to outer space while reporting, in some cases, a salary of a dollar a year or less to the Internal Revenue Service.

This is why the ultrawealthy are able to pay negligible amounts in taxes, especially compared with the growth in their wealth, as ProPublica reported earlier this year, as part of our series “The Secret I.R.S. Files.” In 2018, Mr. Musk paid $0 in federal income taxes. (He declined to discuss his taxes with ProPublica.)

The proposal would have taxed billionaires on those unrealized gains. If shares of Amazon or Facebook or Berkshire Hathaway rise 20 percent in a year, Jeff Bezos, Mark Zuckerberg or Warren Buffett, respectively, would owe taxes on that gain — even if they don’t sell a single share. Assets that are harder to value, such as privately held companies or real estate, would also be subject to tax.

Part of the objection to the billionaire’s tax was that it is a dramatic change from the current tax system, which taxes people only when they realize gains.

That’s untrue. There are several provisions in the current tax code through which unrealized gains are taxed.

Here’s one example of something in the code today. Certain hedge fund managers can do what’s called a 475 election, a maneuver named after Section 475 of the tax code. Using this provision, their entire fund is taxed on its market value at the end of the year. They have to pay taxes on gains, whether they sell the underlying stock or not. Are these hedge fund managers nuts? Nope. They do it because it confers several benefits for certain types of funds (particularly those doing rapid-fire trading every nanosecond), including freeing them from complying with trading rules they may find onerous.

Hedge fund managers are intimately familiar with the concept of placing a value on unrealized gains. Their compensation depends on it. Each year, they get a small percentage, typically 2 percent, of the assets they manage. If they do well and the fund goes up, they get a performance fee, often 20 percent of the increase in the fund’s value. How do they determine that 20 percent? They figure out the unrealized gains. On Dec. 31, they tell their clients that their assets went up and get paid 20 percent of that amount. If those stocks fall on Jan. 1, they don’t have to give the money back.

The mirror image of unrealized gains also exists in the tax code. Today, businesses that buy equipment get to take a deduction intended to approximate the amount that it loses in value each year. This concept is called depreciation. In other words, you get a deduction based on an estimate, not when you sell something. You could call it an unrealized loss.

And then there’s the wealth tax on unrealized gains that millions of Americans already pay: property taxes, which every owner of a house or apartment is responsible for. Property taxes are a town or city’s estimate of the value of your home or land, almost always in a year you didn’t sell.

The proposal is not a wealth tax, but it has a similar goal of raising money only from the ultrawealthy. Its elegance is that it equates the gain in wealth with income. In theory, a wealth tax, which has its own complexities and constitutional questions, could be layered on top.

When people complain that the new billionaire tax is unconstitutional, they may be forgetting about all of these provisions that exist today that do similar things.

Another argument against such a tax is that it would be too hard to enforce because it’s difficult to value assets accurately. Stock markets reflect a clear value for publicly held companies, but the value of privately held companies, real estate holdings, art and other assets is harder to determine.

That may have been more true 40 years ago, but there are now entire industries dedicated to valuing private assets. Commercial real estate, for example, relies on the work of research and investment banking companies that analyze and value office buildings. And if banks are willing to lend to the ultrawealthy against their assets, presumably they are comfortable valuing them. If all these entities can do it, so can the I.R.S.

It’s a measure of how much the political conversation about wealth inequality has shifted that this new tax was even considered seriously. While a tax on billionaires for their unrealized gains is not as new as people want to pretend, it clearly would be complex to implement. Perhaps, however, not as complex as getting all Democrats on board.

Having stumbled in their attempts to raise taxes on the wealthy in the conventional way, Democrats in Congress moved to unconventional measures. The proposal was to tax billionaires on their so-called unrealized gains — the growth in the value of assets, such as stocks and real estate, that have not yet been sold.

Having stumbled in their attempts to raise taxes on the wealthy in the conventional way, Democrats in Congress moved to unconventional measures. The proposal was to tax billionaires on their so-called unrealized gains — the growth in the value of assets, such as stocks and real estate, that have not yet been sold. To understand why lawmakers might look to a group of more than 700 billionaires to underwrite a massive spending program, consider this statistic: Since the beginning of the Covid-19 pandemic, billionaires have seen a 70 percent increase in their wealth, from nearly $3 trillion to an almost incomprehensible $5 trillion, according to Forbes data analyzed by Americans for Tax Fairness and the Institute for Policy Studies Program on Inequality and the Common Good. Unsurprisingly, critics, the ultrawealthy and even some Democrats decried the idea as novel, untested and dangerous. Other experts worried about whether it would be too difficult to value billionaires’ assets or if the proposal could pass constitutional muster. These attacks ultimately killed the idea in Washington. But a billionaire’s tax is not nearly as novel and untested as it sounds. The main concepts already exist in the tax code. It just happens that these provisions currently serve the interests of the ultrawealthy class, who have so far skirted most taxes aimed at wealth rather than income. The ultrawealthy live starkly different financial lives from other people. They hardly make anything in wages, or what the rest of us know as income. Amazon’s Jeff Bezos has typically pulled down a middle-class base salary of around $80,000. Others, like Facebook’s Mark Zuckerberg, Oracle’s Larry Ellison and Google’s Larry Page, have, at various points, taken a symbolic $1 in salary. But many ultrawealthy Americans have figured out how to fund a lavish lifestyle without owing any income tax. Their wealth is almost entirely in assets like stocks, such as the Tesla shares that account for the vast majority of Elon Musk’s $270 billion plus in wealth. Our tax code levies a 23.8 percent tax on capital gains for those with the highest incomes, but only when an asset is sold. Their holdings can grow by billions of dollars a year, but the wealthy owe nothing as long as they hang on to their shares. When they need money, they borrow it, as Mr. Ellison and Mr. Musk have done to the tune of billions, pledging the value of shares as collateral. It has been called “Buy, Borrow, Die,” and it’s a wonderful system for the superrich. This system allows them to enjoy luxury cars, yachts, homes on multiple continents and occasional trips to outer space while reporting, in some cases, a salary of a dollar a year or less to the Internal Revenue Service. This is why the ultrawealthy are able to pay negligible amounts in taxes, especially compared with the growth in their wealth, as ProPublica reported earlier this year, as part of our series “The Secret I.R.S. Files.” In 2018, Mr. Musk paid $0 in federal income taxes. (He declined to discuss his taxes with ProPublica.) The proposal would have taxed billionaires on those unrealized gains. If shares of Amazon or Facebook or Berkshire Hathaway rise 20 percent in a year, Jeff Bezos, Mark Zuckerberg or Warren Buffett, respectively, would owe taxes on that gain — even if they don’t sell a single share. Assets that are harder to value, such as privately held companies or real estate, would also be subject to tax. Part of the objection to the billionaire’s tax was that it is a dramatic change from the current tax system, which taxes people only when they realize gains. That’s untrue. There are several provisions in the current tax code through which unrealized gains are taxed. Here’s one example of something in the code today. Certain hedge fund managers can do what’s called a 475 election, a maneuver named after Section 475 of the tax code. Using this provision, their entire fund is taxed on its market value at the end of the year. They have to pay taxes on gains, whether they sell the underlying stock or not. Are these hedge fund managers nuts? Nope. They do it because it confers several benefits for certain types of funds (particularly those doing rapid-fire trading every nanosecond), including freeing them from complying with trading rules they may find onerous. Hedge fund managers are intimately familiar with the concept of placing a value on unrealized gains. Their compensation depends on it. Each year, they get a small percentage, typically 2 percent, of the assets they manage. If they do well and the fund goes up, they get a performance fee, often 20 percent of the increase in the fund’s value. How do they determine that 20 percent? They figure out the unrealized gains. On Dec. 31, they tell their clients that their assets went up and get paid 20 percent of that amount. If those stocks fall on Jan. 1, they don’t have to give the money back. The mirror image of unrealized gains also exists in the tax code. Today, businesses that buy equipment get to take a deduction intended to approximate the amount that it loses in value each year. This concept is called depreciation. In other words, you get a deduction based on an estimate, not when you sell something. You could call it an unrealized loss. And then there’s the wealth tax on unrealized gains that millions of Americans already pay: property taxes, which every owner of a house or apartment is responsible for. Property taxes are a town or city’s estimate of the value of your home or land, almost always in a year you didn’t sell. The proposal is not a wealth tax, but it has a similar goal of raising money only from the ultrawealthy. Its elegance is that it equates the gain in wealth with income. In theory, a wealth tax, which has its own complexities and constitutional questions, could be layered on top. When people complain that the new billionaire tax is unconstitutional, they may be forgetting about all of these provisions that exist today that do similar things. Another argument against such a tax is that it would be too hard to enforce because it’s difficult to value assets accurately. Stock markets reflect a clear value for publicly held companies, but the value of privately held companies, real estate holdings, art and other assets is harder to determine. That may have been more true 40 years ago, but there are now entire industries dedicated to valuing private assets. Commercial real estate, for example, relies on the work of research and investment banking companies that analyze and value office buildings. And if banks are willing to lend to the ultrawealthy against their assets, presumably they are comfortable valuing them. If all these entities can do it, so can the I.R.S. It’s a measure of how much the political conversation about wealth inequality has shifted that this new tax was even considered seriously. While a tax on billionaires for their unrealized gains is not as new as people want to pretend, it clearly would be complex to implement. Perhaps, however, not as complex as getting all Democrats on board.

A Billionaire’s tax isn’t as crazy as it sounds

The cash-strapped Taliban regime in Afghanistan is making the country's distressed farmers pay the so-called charity or 'zakat' taxes on their land and harvests,

War, drought, and COVID-19 have devastated farmers across Afghanistan. Now, these farmers who have lost money trying to grow crops over the past year say that the Taliban is dealing them another crippling blow, the report said.

Also Read |&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/south-asia/talibans-leader-sheikh-haibatullah-akhundzada-makes-first-ever-public-appearance-in-kandahar-425362">Taliban's leader Sheikh Haibatullah Akhundzada makes first-ever public appearance in Kandahar</a>

The charity taxes are being collected despite the fact that farmers themselves are among the 14 million Afghans that the World Food Program says are already facing acute hunger.

Farmers say they have to pay a 2.5 per cent tax on the value that Taliban tax collectors estimated his property is worth.

The Taliban justifies its charity taxes as one of the five pillars of Islam that are considered obligations for all Muslims.

Zakat'&nbsp;differs from the voluntary act of giving charitable gifts out of kindness or generosity, the report said.

It is meant to be compulsory for those who earn incomes above a certain amount, and it is based on a person's income as well as the value of their possessions.

Recipients of 'zakat'&nbsp;are meant to be the poor and needy, struggling converts to Islam, people who are enslaved or in debt, stranded travellers, and soldiers who fight to protect the Muslim community.

Those who collect 'zakat'&nbsp;are also compensated for the work they do.

Critics of the tax include Islamic scholars and aid workers who note that the practice has failed to alleviate poverty in the Muslim world, the report added. They argue that the funds often are wasted and mismanaged.

Residents of Ghor province refute the Ministry's claim that the Taliban is not delivering tax payment notifications, the report added.

Taliban's tax collection process began when local militants posted so-called night letters at local mosques and on the walls of residential compounds, the report added.

Also Read |&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/south-asia/failure-to-recognise-government-can-create-problems-for-the-world-taliban-warn-us-425441">Failure to recognise government can create problems for the world, Taliban warn US</a>

Farmers in the central Afghan province also say that Taliban gunmen have stormed their homes at night to demand that they pay tithes and charity taxes.

Those without money to make the payments say the Taliban has seized their livestock instead -- making their families even more dependent on humanitarian aid in the months ahead, the report added.

In Kabul, the Taliban-led government's Agriculture Ministry says it is collecting charity taxes from farmers, ranchers, and people with small garden plots in order to bolster revenues and increase the "self-sufficiency" of the country.

The cash-strapped Taliban regime in Afghanistan is making the country's distressed farmers pay the so-called charity or 'zakat' taxes on their land and harvests, War, drought, and COVID-19 have devastated farmers across Afghanistan.

The cash-strapped Taliban regime in Afghanistan is making the country's distressed farmers pay the so-called charity or 'zakat' taxes on their land and harvests, War, drought, and COVID-19 have devastated farmers across Afghanistan. Now, these farmers who have lost money trying to grow crops over the past year say that the Taliban is dealing them another crippling blow, the report said. Also Read | Taliban's leader Sheikh Haibatullah Akhundzada makes first-ever public appearance in Kandahar The charity taxes are being collected despite the fact that farmers themselves are among the 14 million Afghans that the World Food Program says are already facing acute hunger. Farmers say they have to pay a 2.5 per cent tax on the value that Taliban tax collectors estimated his property is worth. The Taliban justifies its charity taxes as one of the five pillars of Islam that are considered obligations for all Muslims. Zakat' differs from the voluntary act of giving charitable gifts out of kindness or generosity, the report said. It is meant to be compulsory for those who earn incomes above a certain amount, and it is based on a person's income as well as the value of their possessions. Recipients of 'zakat' are meant to be the poor and needy, struggling converts to Islam, people who are enslaved or in debt, stranded travellers, and soldiers who fight to protect the Muslim community. Those who collect 'zakat' are also compensated for the work they do. Critics of the tax include Islamic scholars and aid workers who note that the practice has failed to alleviate poverty in the Muslim world, the report added. They argue that the funds often are wasted and mismanaged. Residents of Ghor province refute the Ministry's claim that the Taliban is not delivering tax payment notifications, the report added. Taliban's tax collection process began when local militants posted so-called night letters at local mosques and on the walls of residential compounds, the report added. Also Read | Failure to recognise government can create problems for the world, Taliban warn US Farmers in the central Afghan province also say that Taliban gunmen have stormed their homes at night to demand that they pay tithes and charity taxes. Those without money to make the payments say the Taliban has seized their livestock instead -- making their families even more dependent on humanitarian aid in the months ahead, the report added. In Kabul, the Taliban-led government's Agriculture Ministry says it is collecting charity taxes from farmers, ranchers, and people with small garden plots in order to bolster revenues and increase the "self-sufficiency" of the country.

Taliban forcing distressed Afghan farmers to pay 'zakat' tax

Leaders of the Group of 20 leading industrial nations are set to sign off on the most sweeping overhaul of the international tax system in a century when they gather in Rome this weekend, ushering in a 15% global minimum tax and changes to how governments can impose levies on large, profitable multinational companies.

The agreement is the result of years of sputtering international negotiations that gathered pace this year when the Biden administration took office. When the pact is fully enacted, most likely by 2023, it could have significant implications for the global economy, corporate investment and government coffers.

Some details will continue to be refined in the coming months. But tax experts and officials around the world have hailed the agreement as an achievement that will reverse decades of a “race to the bottom” in corporate taxation that has deprived nations of revenue as companies sought low-tax jurisdictions for their headquarters.

Here’s a look at how the deal will work.

<h2>A 15% Global Minimum Tax</h2>

The most prominent feature of the deal is the 15% global minimum tax, which is expected to be enacted by each country that has agreed to the deal. That rate will apply to multinational corporations with annual revenues of more than $867 million. The idea is to discourage companies from being able to avoid paying taxes by finding havens with low rates. Companies that park money in a country that is not part of the deal will be required to pay the difference between that nation’s rate and the 15% minimum rate to their home country.

Governments will apply the tax on a country-by-country basis, so that companies cannot lower their tax bill simply by seeking out tax havens and “blending” their tax rates. That will ensure that companies actually pay the 15% minimum rate regardless of where they locate within the 136 countries that are part of the deal.

The Biden administration has said it would impose a penalty rate on any foreign corporations based in countries that did not abide by the agreement.

The United States already has its own form of global minimum tax, which it applies to the foreign profits of American companies. To comply with the agreement, Congress will have to raise that tax rate from 10.5% to at least 15% and switch to the country-by-country system. It is expected to include this in the spending bill that is being negotiated among Democrats and count revenue from the tax to help pay for that legislation.

<h2>Pay Where You Play</h2>

Another crucial part of the agreement involves a shift in how governments can tax companies in the digital era. Taxes have traditionally depended on where a company operates, but the deal will update rules for the 21st century and allow countries to levy taxes on some large and profitable companies based on where their goods and services are sold.

The agreement was a response to an attempt by European countries to impose digital services taxes on U.S. technology giants such as Google and Facebook, which operate all over the world, even if they do not have a physical presence in every country. Those taxes prompted the United States to threaten retaliatory tariffs.

The global pact reached a compromise that allows countries to impose an additional tax on some of the profits of about 100 of the world’s richest companies based on where their sales are. The right to tax a total of $125 billion of profits will be reallocated among countries around the world. The taxes will be applied to companies with global sales of more than $23 billion and profit margins of at least 10%. A quarter of a company’s profit above that threshold will be taxed, with the revenue divvied up around the world.

U.S. companies are expected to bear the brunt of this new policy. Treasury Department officials contend that, on balance, the United States will gain about as much tax revenue as it loses once the plan is enacted. However, some analysts predict that the United States would be a net loser.

<h2>The Money at Stake</h2>

The Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development estimates that the agreement will raise $150 billion a year globally from companies that have parked their operations in low-tax nations, avoiding a higher tax bill.

The Biden administration hopes that the agreement will make U.S. companies more competitive globally while reducing incentives for them to move jobs abroad.

The White House estimates that the changes it is making to the international side of the tax code will raise $350 billion in revenue over a decade as U.S. companies are forced to pay higher taxes on profits they earn abroad and are more likely to invest in operations in the United States.

<h2>What’s Next</h2>

In some respects, reaching the agreement was the easy part. Now 136 countries must enact it. That will be easier in some countries than others.

It could be most challenging in the United States, which took a leading role in brokering the deal this year. Democrats are likely to be able to make the required changes to comply with the new minimum rate in the tax and social welfare package that they hope to pass next month.

However, the other part of the deal, which gets rid of the digital services taxes and applies largely to technology giants, could require changes to tax treaties. That would probably mean that some Republicans, who have resisted nearly all of the Biden administration’s tax proposals, would have to offer their support in separate legislation that lawmakers will tackle next year.

Other countries will have to deal with their own legislative challenges to comply with the agreement.

Leaders of the Group of 20 leading industrial nations are set to sign off on the most sweeping overhaul of the international tax system in a century when they gather in Rome this weekend, ushering in a 15% global minimum tax and changes to how governments can impose levies on large, profitable multinational companies.

Leaders of the Group of 20 leading industrial nations are set to sign off on the most sweeping overhaul of the international tax system in a century when they gather in Rome this weekend, ushering in a 15% global minimum tax and changes to how governments can impose levies on large, profitable multinational companies. The agreement is the result of years of sputtering international negotiations that gathered pace this year when the Biden administration took office. When the pact is fully enacted, most likely by 2023, it could have significant implications for the global economy, corporate investment and government coffers. Some details will continue to be refined in the coming months. But tax experts and officials around the world have hailed the agreement as an achievement that will reverse decades of a “race to the bottom” in corporate taxation that has deprived nations of revenue as companies sought low-tax jurisdictions for their headquarters. Here’s a look at how the deal will work. A 15% Global Minimum Tax The most prominent feature of the deal is the 15% global minimum tax, which is expected to be enacted by each country that has agreed to the deal. That rate will apply to multinational corporations with annual revenues of more than $867 million. The idea is to discourage companies from being able to avoid paying taxes by finding havens with low rates. Companies that park money in a country that is not part of the deal will be required to pay the difference between that nation’s rate and the 15% minimum rate to their home country. Governments will apply the tax on a country-by-country basis, so that companies cannot lower their tax bill simply by seeking out tax havens and “blending” their tax rates. That will ensure that companies actually pay the 15% minimum rate regardless of where they locate within the 136 countries that are part of the deal. The Biden administration has said it would impose a penalty rate on any foreign corporations based in countries that did not abide by the agreement. The United States already has its own form of global minimum tax, which it applies to the foreign profits of American companies. To comply with the agreement, Congress will have to raise that tax rate from 10.5% to at least 15% and switch to the country-by-country system. It is expected to include this in the spending bill that is being negotiated among Democrats and count revenue from the tax to help pay for that legislation. Pay Where You Play Another crucial part of the agreement involves a shift in how governments can tax companies in the digital era. Taxes have traditionally depended on where a company operates, but the deal will update rules for the 21st century and allow countries to levy taxes on some large and profitable companies based on where their goods and services are sold. The agreement was a response to an attempt by European countries to impose digital services taxes on U.S. technology giants such as Google and Facebook, which operate all over the world, even if they do not have a physical presence in every country. Those taxes prompted the United States to threaten retaliatory tariffs. The global pact reached a compromise that allows countries to impose an additional tax on some of the profits of about 100 of the world’s richest companies based on where their sales are. The right to tax a total of $125 billion of profits will be reallocated among countries around the world. The taxes will be applied to companies with global sales of more than $23 billion and profit margins of at least 10%. A quarter of a company’s profit above that threshold will be taxed, with the revenue divvied up around the world. U.S. companies are expected to bear the brunt of this new policy. Treasury Department officials contend that, on balance, the United States will gain about as much tax revenue as it loses once the plan is enacted. However, some analysts predict that the United States would be a net loser. The Money at Stake The Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development estimates that the agreement will raise $150 billion a year globally from companies that have parked their operations in low-tax nations, avoiding a higher tax bill. The Biden administration hopes that the agreement will make U.S. companies more competitive globally while reducing incentives for them to move jobs abroad. The White House estimates that the changes it is making to the international side of the tax code will raise $350 billion in revenue over a decade as U.S. companies are forced to pay higher taxes on profits they earn abroad and are more likely to invest in operations in the United States. What’s Next In some respects, reaching the agreement was the easy part. Now 136 countries must enact it. That will be easier in some countries than others. It could be most challenging in the United States, which took a leading role in brokering the deal this year. Democrats are likely to be able to make the required changes to comply with the new minimum rate in the tax and social welfare package that they hope to pass next month. However, the other part of the deal, which gets rid of the digital services taxes and applies largely to technology giants, could require changes to tax treaties. That would probably mean that some Republicans, who have resisted nearly all of the Biden administration’s tax proposals, would have to offer their support in separate legislation that lawmakers will tackle next year. Other countries will have to deal with their own legislative challenges to comply with the agreement.

A global tax deal is at hand. Here’s how it would work

Tax, News on Tax, stories on Tax, articles on Tax, Tax stories at Wion, Tax news, Tax latest news