Lawmakers Seal Deal On Historic Wall St Reform

Lawmakers delivered a win for the Obama administration when the reached an agreement on the historic Wall Street reform bill after a 21 hour-long session debate. The bill is meant to institute tighter restrictions, more oversight, and hedge profits of the financial industry.

As this article from Reuters.com explains, the legislation represents the most sweeping financial rules revamp since the 1930s. The bill is expected to get final congressional approval next week although the new rules will not be implanted for months.

The legislation would set up a new financial consumer watchdog, create a protocol for dismantling troubled financial firms and mandate higher bank capital standards, all in an effort to avoid a repeat of the 2007-2009 credit crisis that hammered the economy and triggered taxpayer bailouts of floundering firms.

To secure agreement, lawmakers reached deals in the final hours on the most controversial sections, which restrict derivatives dealing by banks and curb their proprietary trading to shield taxpayer-backed deposits from more risky activities.

Banks will be allowed to keep most swaps dealing activity in-house, although the riskiest trading would be pushed out into an affiliate. They will also be permitted small investments in hedge funds and private equity funds.

The concessions could lessen the impact on bank profits.

The KBW bank stock index, which registered its worst performance since October last month, was 1.6 percent higher in late-morning trade, with both Goldman Sachs Group Inc and Morgan Stanley, two of the banks that will be most affected, showing gains.

Online Gambling Tax May Be Jackpot for Congress, Lawmaker Says

A tax on online transactions has already been instituted in several state and local governments, but Congressman Jim McDermott is suggesting the Federal government begin taxing one specific type of online transaction – gambling over the Internet. McDermott said making this bold move could raise as much as $42 billion over a 10 year period. Check out a portion of the BusinessWeek.com story below.

“It’s a human activity that people are going to do and it’s a good place to pick up some dough,” said McDermott, a Washington Democrat, in an interview. “I’ve gotten a thousand ideas pumped at me about what we should do with the money.”

The House Ways and Means Committee tomorrow will consider his proposal, which depends on passage of a separate bill to legalize some Internet gambling and roll back a law designed to block wagering beginning June 1. That bill would let U.S. residents gamble online with companies licensed by the Treasury Department.

Las Vegas-based Harrah’s Entertainment Inc., the world’s biggest casino company, is among companies and groups lobbying Congress to legalize online gambling.

Lawmakers Push to Add Bonus Tax to $150 Billion Bill Before Senate

From the WallStreetJournal.com:

Two Democratic senators were pushing for a vote Thursday on a measure that would levy a one-time tax on bonuses paid to executives at firms that received significant infusions of taxpayer cash during the economic crisis.

If Sens. Barbara Boxer (D., Calif.) and Jim Webb (D., Va.) are successful, it would bring the contentious issue of executive compensation back to the fore.

"It's a one-time amendment based on a unique situation in this country when the American taxpayers had to bail out our major companies in order to stabilize our economy," Mr. Webb said on the floor of the Senate Thursday.

The tax would be a one-off 50% levy on bonuses above $400,000 paid to executives at institutions that received $5 billion or more of taxpayer support.

It would apply to 11 institutions, all financial firms except for car maker General Motors Co., which has one of the largest outstanding debts to the Treasury. Housing guarantee agencies Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac would also be hit by the measure.

Only bonuses paid in 2010 related to performance in 2009 would be impacted.

Lawmakers Want to tax Amazon Sales in California

According to LA Times, lawmakers in my home state of California are hoping to bring in over $150 per year in new revenue by levying sales taxes on purchases made online from businesses without a physical presence in the state. The company that would be hit hardest by this new law would be Amazon, who has had a competitive advantage over retail stores in California for years thanks to a 1992 Supreme Court decision.

Consumers here are required to pay sales tax on the goods they purchase at Amazon but almost never do, because the state has no mechanism for tracking Amazon purchases and collecting the money.

Now California is one of several cash-strapped states exploring a novel legal strategy that could force Amazon and others like it, including Overstock.com, to start collecting tax from their customers. New York launched the effort with a law that took effect in 2008. North Carolina and Rhode Island have passed similar laws; other proposals have advanced in the statehouses of Virginia, Illinois, Colorado and Hawaii.

The Democrats who control California's Legislature plan to put their own bid on the governor's desk this month in hopes of reaping up to $150 million annually for state and local coffers. The revenue would make only a tiny dent in the state's $20-billion deficit, but supporters say every dollar counts in tight times, and there's a principle at stake.

Continued at LA Times…

Lawmakers Want IRS To Suspend Tax Shelter Penalty

Lawmakers are asking the IRS to suspend tax shelter penalties, which are hitting some small businesses with fines as much as $300,000, while they work out ways to reduce them. The Associated Press recently published an interesting article on the story, check out a snippet of it below.

Some small businesses are being hit with big fines for not disclosing the use of questionable tax shelters to the IRS, an unintended consequence of a law aimed at corporations that use the shelters to avoid taxes.

The penalties, which can reach $300,000 a year, are automatic under the law. But a bipartisan group of lawmakers asked the IRS Monday to temporarily stop imposing them while they work on legislation to reduce them.

A 2004 law setting up the automatic penalties was designed to stop large corporations from exploiting tax shelters known to be illegal. But the lawmakers said some small businesses have been penalized for using the tax shelters to reap tax savings that are smaller than the penalties.

The lawmakers, led by Sen. Max Baucus, chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, said the penalties are excessive.

"We're asking the IRS to temporarily suspend the collection of certain penalties while we work on legislation," said Baucus, D-Mont. "I don't condone investments in tax shelters, but I also want to make sure our small businesses survive and thrive."

The lawmakers sent a letter Monday to IRS Commissioner Doug Shulman, asking him to temporarily suspend efforts to collect penalties that exceed the tax benefits achieved through the tax shelter.

The letter also was signed by Sen. Chuck Grassley of Iowa, the top Republican on the Senate Finance Committee; Rep. John Lewis, D-Ga., chairman of the House Ways and Means Subcommittee on Oversight; and Rep. Charles Boustany of Louisiana, the top Republican on the subcommittee.

"When I advanced the legislation to shut down tax shelters, I did not intend to bankrupt small businesses that had no ill intent," Grassley said. "The penalty should be commensurate with the transgression."

Internal Revenue Service spokeswoman Michelle Eldridge said the agency was reviewing the lawmakers' request.

Top Lawmaker Wants Mileage-Based Tax On Vehicles

From the Associated Press:

A House committee chairman said Tuesday that he wants Congress to enact a mileage-based tax on cars and trucks to pay for highway programs now rather than wait years to test the idea.

Rep. James Oberstar, D-Minn., said he believes the technology exists to implement a mileage tax. He said he sees no point in waiting years for the results of pilot programs since such a tax system is inevitable as federal gasoline tax revenues decline.

"Why do we need a pilot program? Why don't we just phase it in?" said Oberstar, the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee chairman. Oberstar is drafting a six-year transportation bill to fund highway and transit programs that is expected to total around a half trillion dollars.

A congressionally mandated commission on transportation financing alternatives recommended switching to a vehicle-miles traveled tax, but estimated it would take a decade to put a national system in place.

"I think it can be done in far less than that, maybe two years," Oberstar said at a House hearing. He was responding to testimony by Rep. Earl Blumenauer, D-Ore., who recommended that the transportation bill include pilot programs in every state to test the viability of a mileage-based tax.

Blumenauer said public acceptance, not technology, is the main obstacle to a mileage-based tax.

Pilot programs "would be able to increase public awareness and comfort and it would hasten the day we could make the transition," Blumenauer said.

Oberstar shrugged off that concern.

"I'm at a point of impatience with more studies," Oberstar said. He suggested that Rep. Peter DeFazio, D-Ore., chairman of the highways and transit subcommittee, set up a meeting of transportation experts and members of Congress to figure out how it could be done.

The tax would entail equipping vehicles with GPS technology to determine how many miles a car has been driven and whether on interstate highways or secondary roads. The devices would also calculate the amount of tax owed.

"At this point there are a lot of things that are under consideration and there is also a strong need to find revenue," Oberstar spokesman Jim Berard said. "A vehicle miles-traveled tax is a logical complement, and perhaps a future replacement, for fuel taxes."

Gas tax revenues — the primary source of federal funding for highway programs — have dropped dramatically in the last two years, first because gas prices were high and later because of the economic downturn. They are forecast to continue going down as drivers switch to fuel-efficient and alternative fuel vehicles.

Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood has ruled out raising gas taxes to make up for the funding shortfall, and the White House has rejected a mileage-based tax. They have not offered an alternative.

Lawmakers Debate Tax on Health Benefits

From the Wall Street Journal.com:

As lawmakers wrestle with how to pay for a proposed health-care system overhaul, an emerging flashpoint of debate is whether higher-income employees should face steeper taxes on health benefits than those with more-modest income.

Senate Finance Committee staff this month began talks in earnest aimed at reaching bipartisan agreement on a broad health-care rewrite. The greatest chance for bipartisan accord, for now, is in the hands of two Senate players -- Finance Chairman Max Baucus (D-Mont.) and his Republican counterpart, Sen. Charles Grassley of Iowa.

Sen. Baucus favors taxing some employer-provided health benefits. In an informal "white paper" released earlier this year, Sen. Baucus said this could be done without disrupting the employer-based health-benefits system, where nearly three-fifths of Americans get health insurance.

But congressional Democrats and Republicans may have difficulty finding common ground on how to limit the tax benefits that currently favor employer-based health plans. One way to do that is to impose a dollar cap on the cost of health benefits that may be excluded from taxable income.

An alternative, suggested by Sen. Baucus, is to deny the exclusion to individuals above a certain income threshold. Republicans are resisting that approach, according to aides with knowledge of staff discussions.

A third possibility would be to combine the two approaches, by allowing tax-free health benefits to the lowest earners but taxing health benefits above a certain income threshold on a sliding scale that increases as income rises.

For instance, single workers with income under $62,500 could have all their employer-based health benefits excluded from income tax, while benefits eligible for exclusion could be capped for those with income between $62,500 and $125,000. Above $125,000 all benefits may be taxed.

Also under consideration is a plan that would allow for adjustments in the tax treatment of benefits depending on where the employee lived. There is significant variation in health-care costs among states.

Labor unions are warning lawmakers against capping the exclusion for lower- and middle-income workers. They argue that to do so would single out workers at firms with large numbers of older workers and retirees, and small firms that may pay more for health-care because they have less ability to spread risk.

"If you had to choose, an income threshold would be better," said JoAnn Volk, a health-care lobbyist at the AFL-CIO. "But anything that might undermine the place where most workers get coverage is a concern."