|
|
 |
| screen grab of Mass Budget webpage |
Showing posts with label Tax revenue. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Tax revenue. Show all posts
Wednesday, February 4, 2015
MassBudget: Mid-year solutions and long-term challenges
Friday, January 23, 2015
MassBudget: FY 2016 Budget Preview
|
|
Wednesday, February 13, 2013
Tax Tip of the Week
Sent to you by Steve Sherlock via Google Reader:
via Commonwealth Conversations: Revenue by Ann Dufresne-DOR Communications Director on 2/12/13
Here's a deduction you don't want to miss when filing your MA tax return--the rental deduction. You may be entitled to a tax deduction equal to one half of the rent you paid during calendar year 2012 up to $3,000 for your principal residence in MA. Rent includes the amount you paid for heat, hot water, gas, electricity, furniture or parking, if the landlord makes no separate charge for these items. In tax year 2011an estimated 818,726 taxpayers claimed the rental deduction reducing paying filers' taxes by $117.8 million.Go to the TheFilingZone for anything and everything you ever wanted to know about filing your state returns.
Things you can do from here:
- Subscribe to Commonwealth Conversations: Revenue using Google Reader
- Get started using Google Reader to easily keep up with all your favorite sites
Saturday, March 10, 2012
Tax Expenditure Budget Commission data on line
Sent to you by Steve Sherlock via Google Reader:
via Commonwealth Conversations: Revenue by Robert Bliss on 3/9/12
The 11-member Tax Expenditure Commission has posted a wide array of materials on DOR's website in an effort to make its work as transparent and accessible as possible.
What are tax expenditures? The introduction to the FY13 Tax Expenditure Budget puts it this way:
"In its simplest form, a tax is an across-the-board levy on a base, such as income, to which a specific rate applies and for which no modifications exist. Taxes are rarely levied in this manner, however. Instead, most state tax codes incorporate a number of exemptions, deductions, credits, and deferrals designed to encourage certain taxpayer activities or to limit the tax burden on certain types of individuals or endeavors. Known as 'tax expenditures', these provisions can have a significant impact on state tax revenues."
The FY13 Tax Expenditure Budget (TEB) is more than $26 billion, roughly $4 billion larger than projected FY13 revenues of nearly $22 billion. The Commonwealth collects less in revenue than it has chosen to forego.
The Commission is scheduled to issue a report by April 30. Agendas and minutes from Commission meetings are included on the web page, as are historic looks at TEBs from previous years and TEB's from other states.
The Commission unanimously approved a Statement of Principles (found on the agendas and minutes page) on Feb. 6 which makes it clear that the Commission believes tax expenditures merit regular scrutiny and should be subject to periodic cost-benefit analysis and review by the Executive and Legislative branches.
The eleven members of the commission are its chair, Administration and Finance Secretary Jay Gonzalez, Auditor Suzanne Bump, Treasurer Steven Grossman, House Ways and Means Committee Chair Brian Dempsey, Senate Ways and Means Committee Chair Stephen Brewer, House Revenue Committee Chair Jay Kaufman, Senate Revenue Committee Chair Katherine Clark, Rep. Steven Levy (designee of House Minority Leader Brad Jones), Sen. Michael Knapik (designee of Senate Minority Leader Bruce Tarr), Alan Clayton-Matthews (member of the Governor's Council of Economic Advisers), and James Stock (also a member of the Governor's Council of Economic advisers).
What are tax expenditures? The introduction to the FY13 Tax Expenditure Budget puts it this way:
"In its simplest form, a tax is an across-the-board levy on a base, such as income, to which a specific rate applies and for which no modifications exist. Taxes are rarely levied in this manner, however. Instead, most state tax codes incorporate a number of exemptions, deductions, credits, and deferrals designed to encourage certain taxpayer activities or to limit the tax burden on certain types of individuals or endeavors. Known as 'tax expenditures', these provisions can have a significant impact on state tax revenues."
The FY13 Tax Expenditure Budget (TEB) is more than $26 billion, roughly $4 billion larger than projected FY13 revenues of nearly $22 billion. The Commonwealth collects less in revenue than it has chosen to forego.
The Commission is scheduled to issue a report by April 30. Agendas and minutes from Commission meetings are included on the web page, as are historic looks at TEBs from previous years and TEB's from other states.
The Commission unanimously approved a Statement of Principles (found on the agendas and minutes page) on Feb. 6 which makes it clear that the Commission believes tax expenditures merit regular scrutiny and should be subject to periodic cost-benefit analysis and review by the Executive and Legislative branches.
The eleven members of the commission are its chair, Administration and Finance Secretary Jay Gonzalez, Auditor Suzanne Bump, Treasurer Steven Grossman, House Ways and Means Committee Chair Brian Dempsey, Senate Ways and Means Committee Chair Stephen Brewer, House Revenue Committee Chair Jay Kaufman, Senate Revenue Committee Chair Katherine Clark, Rep. Steven Levy (designee of House Minority Leader Brad Jones), Sen. Michael Knapik (designee of Senate Minority Leader Bruce Tarr), Alan Clayton-Matthews (member of the Governor's Council of Economic Advisers), and James Stock (also a member of the Governor's Council of Economic advisers).
Things you can do from here:
- Subscribe to Commonwealth Conversations: Revenue using Google Reader
- Get started using Google Reader to easily keep up with all your favorite sites
Saturday, February 11, 2012
Discover Tax program generates business expense audits
Tax season is upon us. This article from the Dept of Revenue highlights what they use to flag returns for audits. Deviations from the norm is the simple way to explain what they look for.
Sent to you by Steve Sherlock via Google Reader:
via Commonwealth Conversations: Revenue by Robert Bliss on 2/10/12
Banker & Tradesman (subscription only) ran a story this week on the subject of mortgage loan originators subject to DOR audits. The story also discussed how DOR generates taxpayer audits in general.
The piece was pegged to a notice from the Massachusetts Mortgage Bankers Association urging loan originators to "consult with your tax accountant or adviser" to best preserve the deductibility of appropriate unreimbursed business expenses for outside sales people. By the way, it is the IRS that defines what are acceptable unreimbursed expenses.
The story posed the question: Was DOR singling out mortgage loan originators for special attention? The answer, as reported in Banker & Tradesman, and we'll repeat it here, is simply, "no."
DOR uses a program called Discover Tax to review information on tax returns against many different kinds of databases. If, for example, a tax return reports relatively low income, but the taxpayer owns a $1 million home and two Bentleys, Discover Tax will flag that incongruity and generate an audit. DOR has no idea what type of employment or employer the taxpayer has; it's the numbers that jump out.
Similarly, if a taxpayer has an unusual amount of unreimbursed business expenses relative to income, Discover Tax will recognize that and kick out an audit.
Any individual taxpayer -- including mortgage loan originators -- may encounter a problem if they claim unreimbursed business expenses on the same basis as afforded to outside salesman.
DOR's view, articulated in 1989 and maintained since then, is that outside salesman sell for their employer outside the employer's office. Thus, a mortgage loan originator who works in an office is not an outside sales person.
If mortgage loan originators claim unreimbursed business expenses in amounts that bubble up to an audit after a Discover Tax run, they face the question not only of justifying and documenting the expenses, but they must also make sure of their legitimate claim to them in the first place.
The piece was pegged to a notice from the Massachusetts Mortgage Bankers Association urging loan originators to "consult with your tax accountant or adviser" to best preserve the deductibility of appropriate unreimbursed business expenses for outside sales people. By the way, it is the IRS that defines what are acceptable unreimbursed expenses.
The story posed the question: Was DOR singling out mortgage loan originators for special attention? The answer, as reported in Banker & Tradesman, and we'll repeat it here, is simply, "no."
DOR uses a program called Discover Tax to review information on tax returns against many different kinds of databases. If, for example, a tax return reports relatively low income, but the taxpayer owns a $1 million home and two Bentleys, Discover Tax will flag that incongruity and generate an audit. DOR has no idea what type of employment or employer the taxpayer has; it's the numbers that jump out.
Similarly, if a taxpayer has an unusual amount of unreimbursed business expenses relative to income, Discover Tax will recognize that and kick out an audit.
Any individual taxpayer -- including mortgage loan originators -- may encounter a problem if they claim unreimbursed business expenses on the same basis as afforded to outside salesman.
DOR's view, articulated in 1989 and maintained since then, is that outside salesman sell for their employer outside the employer's office. Thus, a mortgage loan originator who works in an office is not an outside sales person.
If mortgage loan originators claim unreimbursed business expenses in amounts that bubble up to an audit after a Discover Tax run, they face the question not only of justifying and documenting the expenses, but they must also make sure of their legitimate claim to them in the first place.
Things you can do from here:
- Subscribe to Commonwealth Conversations: Revenue using Google Reader
- Get started using Google Reader to easily keep up with all your favorite sites
Saturday, December 31, 2011
Corporate tax rate drops to 8.0 percent effective January 1
Sent to you by Steve Sherlock via Google Reader:
via Commonwealth Conversations: Revenue by Robert Bliss on 12/30/11
DOR announced earlier this month a drop in the personal income tax rate effective for tax years beginning on or after Jan. 1 from 5.3 percent to 5.25. This reduction extends to gains from investments held for more than a year (gains on investments held for less than a year are still taxable at 12 percent).
A second tax reduction also kicks in on Jan. 1, when the corporate tax rate drops from 8.25 percent to 8.0 percent.
And, as was the case with the personal income tax reduction, there is a backstory to the drop in the corporate tax rate.
Gov. Deval Patrick in his first year in office, in 2007, proposed to change the way the Commonwealth levies the corporate income tax with the introduction of a proposal to adopt combined reporting, a system that is now in place in about half the states. The idea was to come up with a corporate tax system that made it harder for corporations to shift taxable profits earned in Massachusetts to low-tax or no-tax states.
The Legislature rebuffed the governor's initial effort, but agreed to the appointment of a special commission to look at corporate taxation. In December 2007, the commission issued its report, and on the basis of recommendations in the report, the governor filed legislation to implement combined reporting.
In July of 2008, the governor and legislative leadership signed into law combined reporting. Importantly, the law included a gradual reduction in the corporate tax rate, which at the time was 9.5 percent. The rate was to be gradually lowered, to 8.75 percent effective for tax years beginning on or after Jan. 1, 2010; to 8.25 percent effective for tax years beginning on or after Jan. 1, 2011, and to 8.0 percent effective for tax years beginning on or after Jan. 1, 2012.
Combined reporting, in tandem with the rate cut, meant that the big multi-state or multi-national corporations would often pay more, while the in-state corporations in would in certain cases pay less, with the net effect producing a fairer corporate tax system.
In a press release issued yesterday, the Patrick Administration noted that the 2008 tax reform law meant that "Massachusetts-based businesses are paying a lower corporate tax rate while several thousand multi-state or multi-national companies are also paying at a lower rate, but reporting more in taxable income because they can no longer shift taxable profits to low-tax or no-tax jurisdictions."
The corporate tax reform law of 2008 also gradually reduced the financial institution tax rate from 10.5 in FY08 percent down to 9.0 percent effective Jan. 1, 2012.
The rate for S corporations with more than $9 million in annual receipts was modified so that the corporate rate (for a business corporation or financial institution as applicable) for the year minus the personal income tax rate for the year equalled the rate for the large S corporations.
The rate for S corporations with between $6 and $9 million in annual receipts was modified to 2/3 of the rate applicable to larger S corporations.
Corporate and business tax collections have risen and fallen with the economy since enactment of the law. In FY07, before the law took effect, corporate tax collection was $2.476 billion. In FY08, corporate tax collection hit $2.549 billion, but dropped to $2.099 billion in FY09 as revenues overall crashed. Since then, corporate revenues have recovered modestly, in line with the overall economy, to $2.119 billion in FY10 and $2.228 billion in FY11.
A second tax reduction also kicks in on Jan. 1, when the corporate tax rate drops from 8.25 percent to 8.0 percent.
And, as was the case with the personal income tax reduction, there is a backstory to the drop in the corporate tax rate.
Gov. Deval Patrick in his first year in office, in 2007, proposed to change the way the Commonwealth levies the corporate income tax with the introduction of a proposal to adopt combined reporting, a system that is now in place in about half the states. The idea was to come up with a corporate tax system that made it harder for corporations to shift taxable profits earned in Massachusetts to low-tax or no-tax states.
The Legislature rebuffed the governor's initial effort, but agreed to the appointment of a special commission to look at corporate taxation. In December 2007, the commission issued its report, and on the basis of recommendations in the report, the governor filed legislation to implement combined reporting.
In July of 2008, the governor and legislative leadership signed into law combined reporting. Importantly, the law included a gradual reduction in the corporate tax rate, which at the time was 9.5 percent. The rate was to be gradually lowered, to 8.75 percent effective for tax years beginning on or after Jan. 1, 2010; to 8.25 percent effective for tax years beginning on or after Jan. 1, 2011, and to 8.0 percent effective for tax years beginning on or after Jan. 1, 2012.
Combined reporting, in tandem with the rate cut, meant that the big multi-state or multi-national corporations would often pay more, while the in-state corporations in would in certain cases pay less, with the net effect producing a fairer corporate tax system.
In a press release issued yesterday, the Patrick Administration noted that the 2008 tax reform law meant that "Massachusetts-based businesses are paying a lower corporate tax rate while several thousand multi-state or multi-national companies are also paying at a lower rate, but reporting more in taxable income because they can no longer shift taxable profits to low-tax or no-tax jurisdictions."
The corporate tax reform law of 2008 also gradually reduced the financial institution tax rate from 10.5 in FY08 percent down to 9.0 percent effective Jan. 1, 2012.
The rate for S corporations with more than $9 million in annual receipts was modified so that the corporate rate (for a business corporation or financial institution as applicable) for the year minus the personal income tax rate for the year equalled the rate for the large S corporations.
The rate for S corporations with between $6 and $9 million in annual receipts was modified to 2/3 of the rate applicable to larger S corporations.
Corporate and business tax collections have risen and fallen with the economy since enactment of the law. In FY07, before the law took effect, corporate tax collection was $2.476 billion. In FY08, corporate tax collection hit $2.549 billion, but dropped to $2.099 billion in FY09 as revenues overall crashed. Since then, corporate revenues have recovered modestly, in line with the overall economy, to $2.119 billion in FY10 and $2.228 billion in FY11.
Things you can do from here:
- Subscribe to Commonwealth Conversations: Revenue using Google Reader
- Get started using Google Reader to easily keep up with all your favorite sites
Friday, December 23, 2011
Hamilton Storage Technology
The following press release confirms the last step in the process for Hamilton Storage Technology to get the tax incentive that the Town Council approved. Hamilton Storage has purchased 3 Forge Parkway for its new headquarters facility.
The tax incentive allows the company to pay a smaller amount initially on the improvements they are making and gradually the amount increases over ten years. So whatever the tax would be on the base value they pay full and then only 5% for the first year on the improvement amount. The improvement amount increases to 10% the next year and ten percent each year thereafter.
Franklin gets revenue and an increasing amount of revenue over time. The company gets to develop their property bringing jobs to the area. A good win-win proposition.
Press Release - Hamilton Storage Technologies
Related posts on Hamilton Storage Technology
June http://www.franklinmatters.org/2011/06/needs-to-open-its-doors-in-franklin.html
Sep http://www.franklinmatters.org/2011/09/real-time-reporting-legislation-part-1.html
Sep http://www.franklinmatters.org/2011/09/hamilton-storage-technologies.html
The tax incentive allows the company to pay a smaller amount initially on the improvements they are making and gradually the amount increases over ten years. So whatever the tax would be on the base value they pay full and then only 5% for the first year on the improvement amount. The improvement amount increases to 10% the next year and ten percent each year thereafter.
Franklin gets revenue and an increasing amount of revenue over time. The company gets to develop their property bringing jobs to the area. A good win-win proposition.
Press Release - Hamilton Storage Technologies
Related posts on Hamilton Storage Technology
June http://www.franklinmatters.org/2011/06/needs-to-open-its-doors-in-franklin.html
Sep http://www.franklinmatters.org/2011/09/real-time-reporting-legislation-part-1.html
Sep http://www.franklinmatters.org/2011/09/hamilton-storage-technologies.html
Saturday, May 8, 2010
New England Dental - 233 West Central St
Inquiring minds were wondering what is going on at the former Franklin Baptist Church on West Central St. Construction is underway, finally.
Digging into the Planning Board meeting archives, reveals that in the minutes for the Jan 25, 2010 meeting, a site plan extension was granted for one year.
One view above, second view below
By the size of the hole in the ground, there is an addition being made to the existing building.
Hurrah, more tax revenue for Franklin!
Franklin, MA
Digging into the Planning Board meeting archives, reveals that in the minutes for the Jan 25, 2010 meeting, a site plan extension was granted for one year.
One view above, second view below
By the size of the hole in the ground, there is an addition being made to the existing building.
Hurrah, more tax revenue for Franklin!
Franklin, MA
Thursday, October 1, 2009
In the News - hotel tax
The first non-property tax to create additional revenue for Franklin goes into effect today. Read more about this in the Milford Daily News:
Optional meals, hotel tax hikes go into effect in Franklin
Thursday, May 7, 2009
"hearings are slated to begin next week"
Dining out at restaurants, registering your car, and even watching satellite television would get more expensive under a plan that will be recommended today by a special legislative panel hunting for new revenue to aid cities and towns.
The commission's report contains a potentially big money maker for municipalities. It says local officials should have the option of raising meal taxes by 2 percentage points and increasing taxes on hotel rooms by 4 percentage points.
The increases, along with a variety of other taxes and fees, would raise at least $409 million to benefit municipalities as state lawmakers are reducing local aid payments. It would be a crucial boost for struggling cities and towns, panel members and city leaders said.
"It's the first light we've seen in a dark tunnel," Mayor Thomas M. Menino of Boston said in an interview yesterday. "It seems positive to me. We've been advocating for local options for several years, and if this says cities can have their own local option, it's a good beginning."
The Boston Globe today reports on some progress made to enable local communities to obtain revenue. Read more about this attempt to reduce our dependency on local property taxes here
Thursday, December 11, 2008
single tax rate stays
GHS
FRANKLIN —
Town Council unanimously voted a slight increase in the tax rate for fiscal 2009, also keeping a single tax rate for residential and business properties last night.
As recommended by the Board of Assessors, the council approved raising the tax rate from $10.23 per $1,000 of property to $11.17 per $1,000.
Doing so will bump up the average residential bill by about 2.1 percent, or $88 for the average house, which is less than past annual increases, said Town Administrator Jeffrey D. Nutting.
Read the full article in the Milford Daily News here.
The tax rate is somewhat misleading. It will fluctuate as the residential valuations go down (next year is likely to see a greater decrease) the rate will increase.
Bottom line, the overall tax revenues the town can receive are capped at less than 2.5% unless there is an override. The override in June failed so the increase is 2.1%.
![Reblog this post [with Zemanta]](https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/blogger_img_proxy/AEn0k_uSiojO-9xfR0H-iWBjuDO1IaOsXQHn-Zxl7gaWCQUhkPyCUGQ_AObTOBGlZ6zqAtZsEtU42MoleBaYEm4Ygn5xCP-0mg8wstX4bnX-3s5KssL_tWkxbhxYeKIwq1ym1CXWHX-etfYun6K6tqIrQJLd=s0-d)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)