<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
	>

<channel>
	<title>USLegal Reporter &#187; Tax</title>
	<atom:link href="http://reporter.uslegal.com/category/tax/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://reporter.uslegal.com</link>
	<description>Just another USLegal Blogs weblog</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Wed, 18 Nov 2009 15:47:29 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.2</generator>
	<language>en</language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
			<item>
		<title>Pet Care Tax Deduction Proposed</title>
		<link>http://reporter.uslegal.com/2009/10/20/pet-tax-deduction-proposed/</link>
		<comments>http://reporter.uslegal.com/2009/10/20/pet-tax-deduction-proposed/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 20 Oct 2009 14:57:42 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Dana Altman</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Tax]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[HAPPY Act]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[pet care]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[tax deduction]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Thaddeus McCotter]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://reporter.uslegal.com/?p=924</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[A Michigan legislator has proposed a bill to allow up to a $3,500 tax deduction for pet care. Rep. Thaddeus McCotter says that the bill is needed to prevent pet owners from being forced to give up their pets due to their inability to afford pet care costs in hard economic times.
The bill, Humanity and [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>A Michigan legislator has proposed a bill to allow up to a $3,500 tax deduction for pet care. Rep. Thaddeus McCotter says that the bill is needed to prevent pet owners from being forced to give up their pets due to their inability to afford pet care costs in hard economic times.<span id="more-924"></span></p>
<p>The bill, Humanity and Pets Partnered Through the Years, or &#8220;HAPPY Act&#8221;, was introduced in July 2009.  It has now been referred to the House Committee on Ways and Means. Expenses for acquiring the pet are not allowed to be deducted. The text of the bill can be read here:</p>
<p><a href="http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c111:H.R.3501">http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c111:H.R.3501</a>:</p>
<p>Source: <a href="http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=113791908&amp;sc=fb&amp;cc=fp">http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=113791908&amp;sc=fb&amp;cc=fp</a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://reporter.uslegal.com/2009/10/20/pet-tax-deduction-proposed/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>1</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Most U.S. Companies Pay No Income Tax</title>
		<link>http://reporter.uslegal.com/2008/08/13/most-us-companies-pay-no-income-tax/</link>
		<comments>http://reporter.uslegal.com/2008/08/13/most-us-companies-pay-no-income-tax/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 13 Aug 2008 19:27:10 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Dana Altman</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Tax]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://reporter.uslegal.com/?p=354</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Congress has reported that  between 1998 and 2005, two-thirds of U.S. corporations paid no federal income tax. According to a study by study by the Government Accountability Office (GAO), roughly 68 percent of foreign companies doing business in the U.S. paid no corporate taxes.
The GAO said some companies may avoid paying such taxes due [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Congress has reported that  between 1998 and 2005, two-thirds of U.S. corporations paid no federal income tax. According to a study by study by the Government Accountability Office (GAO), roughly 68 percent of foreign companies doing business in the U.S. paid no corporate taxes.</p>
<p>The GAO said some companies may avoid paying such taxes due to operating losses or because of tax credits. Some have blamed the abuse of  transfer prices, which are amounts charged on transactions between companies in a group, such as a parent and subsidiary. Some multinational companies can manipulate transfer prices to shift income from higher to lower tax jurisdictions, thereby reducing tax liability. The GAO did not study why corporations weren&#8217;t paying federal income taxes or corporate taxes and corporations weren&#8217;t individually identified.</p>
<p>Source: <a href="http://www.breakinglegalnews.com/category/Tax?TSSESSION=78683186664a3262702336837667ede3">http://www.breakinglegalnews.com/category/Tax?TSSESSION=78683186664a3262702336837667ede3</a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://reporter.uslegal.com/2008/08/13/most-us-companies-pay-no-income-tax/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Federal Tax Changes Reduce Car Donations</title>
		<link>http://reporter.uslegal.com/2008/07/15/federal-tax-changes-reduce-car-donations/</link>
		<comments>http://reporter.uslegal.com/2008/07/15/federal-tax-changes-reduce-car-donations/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 15 Jul 2008 18:44:30 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Dana Altman</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Tax]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Uncategorized]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://reporter.uslegal.com/2008/07/15/federal-tax-changes-reduce-car-donations/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[New tax laws passed in 2004 changed the rules to generally limit vehicle donation deductions of over $500 to either the actual proceeds from a vehicle&#8217;s sale or the vehicle&#8217;s fair market value, whichever is less. Before 2005, taxpayers were allowed to deduct the fair market value of donated cars.
Grant Thornton&#8217;s National Tax Office reports [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>New tax laws passed in 2004 changed the rules to generally limit vehicle donation deductions of over $500 to either the actual proceeds from a vehicle&#8217;s sale or the vehicle&#8217;s fair market value, whichever is less. Before 2005, taxpayers were allowed to deduct the fair market value of donated cars.</p>
<p>Grant Thornton&#8217;s National Tax Office reports that car donations of over $500 dropped by two-thirds between tax year 2004 and 2005, the last year for which the IRS has detailed data available. Car donation deductions were claimed on 900,000 tax returns in 2004, compared to 900,000 tax returns claiming such deductions in 2005.</p>
<p>Source: <a href="http://www.breakinglegalnews.com/">http://www.breakinglegalnews.com/</a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://reporter.uslegal.com/2008/07/15/federal-tax-changes-reduce-car-donations/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>9th Circuit Rejects Texaco Request for Tax Refund</title>
		<link>http://reporter.uslegal.com/2008/06/13/9th-circuit-rejects-texaco-request-for-tax-refund/</link>
		<comments>http://reporter.uslegal.com/2008/06/13/9th-circuit-rejects-texaco-request-for-tax-refund/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 13 Jun 2008 23:09:18 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>carrie</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Tax]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://reporter.uslegal.com/2008/06/13/9th-circuit-rejects-texaco-request-for-tax-refund/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals today said Texaco was not entitled to receive a tax refund of more than $101 million that the company felt should be returned after it settled a dispute with the Department of Energy.
As part of a consent decree, Texaco paid the government $1.25 billion plus interest in the late 1980s and [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals today said Texaco was not entitled to receive a tax refund of more than $101 million that the company felt should be returned after it settled a dispute with the Department of Energy.</p>
<p>As part of a consent decree, Texaco paid the government $1.25 billion plus interest in the late 1980s and early 1990s.</p>
<p>It then attempted to deduct the settlement amount on it taxes as an ordinary and necessary business expense. However, the deductions were denied. </p>
<p> The Department of Energy had taken administrative action against Texaco after finding its oil sales between 1973 and 1981 exceeded prices set by federal petroleum regulations.</p>
<p>Texaco is now part of Chevron Corporation. </p>
<p>Source:</p>
<p><a href="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/8CAE8097FCFA1108882574660080165E/$file/0616098.pdf?openelement">http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/8CAE8097FCFA1108882574660080165E/$file/0616098.pdf?openelement</a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://reporter.uslegal.com/2008/06/13/9th-circuit-rejects-texaco-request-for-tax-refund/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Tax Rebate Delivery Now Underway</title>
		<link>http://reporter.uslegal.com/2008/04/28/tax-rebate-delivery-now-underway/</link>
		<comments>http://reporter.uslegal.com/2008/04/28/tax-rebate-delivery-now-underway/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 28 Apr 2008 21:03:22 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>carrie</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Tax]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://reporter.uslegal.com/2008/04/28/tax-rebate-delivery-now-underway/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The Internal Revenue Service began distributing payments today to taxpayers who are eligible to receive rebates as part of The Economic Stimulus Act of 2008. Rebates are going out ahead of schedule as announced by President Bush last Friday.
Rebates are being issued through a process based on the last two digits of the main tax filer&#8217;s Social Security [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>The Internal Revenue Service began distributing payments today to taxpayers who are eligible to receive rebates as part of The Economic Stimulus Act of 2008. Rebates are going out ahead of schedule as announced by President Bush last Friday.</p>
<p>Rebates are being issued through a process based on the last two digits of the main tax filer&#8217;s Social Security number. The first wave of payments will go to those who requested to receive them via direct deposit. Paper checks will begin being mailed on May 9th.</p>
<p>The IRS expects all payments to be distributed to eligible recipients no later than July 11th.</p>
<p>Source: <a href="http://www.irs.gov/irs/article/0,,id=180250,00.html">http://www.irs.gov/irs/article/0,,id=180250,00.html</a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://reporter.uslegal.com/2008/04/28/tax-rebate-delivery-now-underway/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Congress Approves Ban on Internet Access Taxes</title>
		<link>http://reporter.uslegal.com/2007/10/30/congress-approves-ban-on-internet-taxes/</link>
		<comments>http://reporter.uslegal.com/2007/10/30/congress-approves-ban-on-internet-taxes/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 30 Oct 2007 22:05:16 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>carrie</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Tax]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://reporter.uslegal.com/2007/10/30/congress-approves-ban-on-internet-taxes/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The House of Representatives voted 402-0 today to pass a bill which would extend a moratorium on state and local Internet access taxes through 2014. The Senate unanimously approved the measure last week.
The bill has been extended twice before. Without it, taxes for Internet subscribers could increase as much as 17%. It does not prohibit sales taxes on items purchased [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>The House of Representatives voted 402-0 today to pass a bill which would extend a moratorium on state and local Internet access taxes through 2014. The Senate unanimously approved the measure last week.</p>
<p>The bill has been extended twice before. Without it, taxes for Internet subscribers could increase as much as 17%. It does not prohibit sales taxes on items purchased online.</p>
<p>The measure now goes to President Bush who is expected to sign it in time to meet a November 1st deadline.</p>
<p>Source: <a href="http://www.informationweek.com/news/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=202800352">http://www.informationweek.com/news/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=202800352</a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://reporter.uslegal.com/2007/10/30/congress-approves-ban-on-internet-taxes/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>IRS and Department of Justice Sue Jackson Hewitt Franchises</title>
		<link>http://reporter.uslegal.com/2007/04/05/irs-and-department-of-justice-sue-jackson-hewitt-franchises/</link>
		<comments>http://reporter.uslegal.com/2007/04/05/irs-and-department-of-justice-sue-jackson-hewitt-franchises/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 05 Apr 2007 16:29:35 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Dana Altman</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Tax]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://reporter.uslegal.com/2007/04/05/irs-and-department-of-justice-sue-jackson-hewitt-franchises/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The IRS announced on Tuesday that it has filed suit against five Jackson Hewitt franchises for fraudulent tax return preparation practices. The government alleges that illegal practices by the defendants, such as claiming refunds based upon phony W-2 forms and exagerrating claims, has cost the U.S. Treasury a loss of over $70 million.
The lawsuit seeks an [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>The IRS announced on Tuesday that it has filed suit against five Jackson Hewitt franchises for fraudulent tax return preparation practices. The government alleges that illegal practices by the defendants, such as claiming refunds based upon phony W-2 forms and exagerrating claims, has cost the U.S. Treasury a loss of over $70 million.</p>
<p>The lawsuit seeks an injunction against the defendants to prevent them from preparing further tax returns. In July 2006, a federal court in Miami, Florida barred a large Jackson Hewitt franchise from making frivolous claims on tax returns.<br />
Source: http://www.irs.gov/newsroom/article/0,,id=169251,00.html</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://reporter.uslegal.com/2007/04/05/irs-and-department-of-justice-sue-jackson-hewitt-franchises/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
