Advanced search Help
Searching for terms: EXACT: "Maguire, Steven" in: author
Clear all search criteria
Only 2/3! You are seeing results from the Public Collection, not the complete Full Collection. Sign in to search everything (see eligibility).
-
State Taxation of Internet Transactions [May 7, 2013]
"The United States Bureau of the Census estimated that $4.1 trillion worth of retail and wholesale transactions were conducted over the Internet in 2010. That amount was 16.1% of all U.S. shipments and sales in that year. Other estimates, based on different data, projected the 2011 so-called e-commerce volume at approximately $3.9 trillion. The volume, roughly $4 trillion, of ecommerce is expected to increase, and state and local governments are concerned because collection of sales taxes on these transactions is difficult to enforce. Under current law, states cannot reach beyond their borders and compel out-of-state Internet vendors (those without nexus in the buyer's state) to collect the use tax owed by state residents and businesses. The Supreme Court ruled in 1967 that requiring remote vendors to collect the use tax would pose an undue burden on interstate commerce. Estimates put this lost state tax revenue at approximately $11.4 billion in 2012. Congress is involved because interstate commerce typically falls under the Commerce Clause of the Constitution. Opponents of remote vendor sales and use tax collection cite the complexity of the myriad state and local sales tax systems and the difficulty vendors would have in collecting and remitting use taxes. Proponents would like Congress to change the law and allow states to require out-of-state vendors without nexus to collect state use taxes. These proponents acknowledge that simplification and harmonization of state tax systems are likely prerequisites for Congress to consider approval of increased collection authority for states."
Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service
Maguire, Steven
2013-05-07
-
State Taxation of Internet Transactions [April 19, 2013]
"The United States Bureau of the Census estimated that $4.1 trillion worth of retail and wholesale transactions were conducted over the Internet in 2010. That amount was 16.1% of all U.S. shipments and sales in that year. Other estimates, based on different data, projected the 2011 so-called e-commerce volume at approximately $3.9 trillion. The volume, roughly $4 trillion, of ecommerce is expected to increase, and state and local governments are concerned because collection of sales taxes on these transactions is difficult to enforce. Under current law, states cannot reach beyond their borders and compel out-of-state Internet vendors (those without nexus in the buyer's state) to collect the use tax owed by state residents and businesses. The Supreme Court ruled in 1967 that requiring remote vendors to collect the use tax would pose an undue burden on interstate commerce. Estimates put this lost state tax revenue at approximately $11.4 billion in 2012. Congress is involved because interstate commerce typically falls under the Commerce Clause of the Constitution. Opponents of remote vendor sales and use tax collection cite the complexity of the myriad state and local sales tax systems and the difficulty vendors would have in collecting and remitting use taxes. Proponents would like Congress to change the law and allow states to require out-of-state vendors without nexus to collect state use taxes. These proponents acknowledge that simplification and harmonization of state tax systems are likely prerequisites for Congress to consider approval of increased collection authority for states."
Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service
Maguire, Steven
2013-04-19
-
State Taxation of Internet Transactions [June 7, 2011]
"The United States Bureau of the Census estimated that $3.7 trillion worth of retail and wholesale transactions were conducted over the Internet in 2008. That amount was 16.5% of all U.S. shipments and sales in that year. Other estimates projected the 2011 so-called e-commerce volume at approximately $3.5 trillion. The volume of e-commerce is expected to increase and state and local governments are concerned because collection of sales taxes on these transactions is difficult to enforce. […] A related issue is the 'Internet Tax Moratorium.' The relatively narrow moratorium prohibits (1) new taxes on Internet access services and (2) multiple or discriminatory taxes on Internet commerce. Congress has extended the 'Internet Tax Moratorium' twice. The most recent extension expires November 1, 2014. The moratorium is distinct from the remote use tax collection issue, but has been linked in past debates. An analysis of the Internet tax moratorium is beyond the scope of this report. This report will be updated as legislative events warrant."
Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service
Maguire, Steven
2011-06-07
-
State Taxation of Internet Transactions [November 1, 2011]
"The United States Bureau of the Census estimated that $3.4 trillion worth of retail and wholesale transactions were conducted over the Internet in 2009. That amount was 16.8% of all U.S. shipments and sales in that year. Other estimates projected the 2011 so-called e-commerce volume at approximately $3.9 trillion. The volume of e-commerce is expected to increase and state and local governments are concerned because collection of sales taxes on these transactions is difficult to enforce. Under current law, states cannot reach beyond their borders and compel out-of-state Internet vendors (those without nexus in the buyer's state) to collect the use tax owed by state residents and businesses. The Supreme Court ruled in 1967 that requiring remote vendors to collect the use tax would pose an undue burden on interstate commerce. Estimates put this lost tax revenue at approximately $11.4 billion in 2012. […] In addition, H.R. 3179 (Representative Womack) would also grant states the authority to compel out-of-state vendors to collect use taxes provided selected simplification efforts are implemented. A related issue is the 'Internet Tax Moratorium.' The relatively narrow moratorium prohibits (1) new taxes on Internet access services and (2) multiple or discriminatory taxes on Internet commerce. Congress has extended the 'Internet Tax Moratorium' twice. The most recent extension expires November 1, 2014. The moratorium is distinct from the remote use tax collection issue, but has been linked in past debates. An analysis of the Internet tax moratorium is beyond the scope of this report. This report will be updated as legislative events warrant."
Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service
Maguire, Steven
2011-11-01
-
Legislative Options for Financing Water Infrastructure [June 3, 2013]
"This report addresses several options being considered by Congress to address the financing needs of local communities for wastewater and drinking water infrastructure projects and to decrease or close the gap between available funds and projected needs. Some of the options exist and are well established, but they are under discussion for expansion or modification. Other innovative policy options for water infrastructure have recently been proposed, especially to supplement or complement existing financing tools. Some are intended to provide robust, longterm revenue to support existing financing programs and mechanisms. Some are intended to encourage private participation in furnishing drinking water and wastewater services. Six options that are reflected in recent legislative proposals, including budgetary implications, are discussed. 1) Increase funding for the State Revolving Fund (SRF) programs in the Clean Water Act (H.R. 1877 in the 113th Congress) and the Safe Drinking Water Act (H.R. 5320 in the 111th Congress), 2) Create a federal water infrastructure trust fund (H.R. 1877 in the 113th Congress and H.R. 6249 in the 112th Congress), 3) Create a 'Water Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Act' Program, or WIFIA (S. 601 and S. 335 in the 113th Congress), 4) Create a National Infrastructure Bank (H.R. 2084 and H.R. 505 in the 113th Congress), 5) Lift private activity bond restrictions on water infrastructure projects (included in the Administration's FY2014 budget request and S. 939 and H.R. 1802 in the 112th Congress), and 6) Reinstate authority for the issuance of Build America Bonds (included in the Administration's FY2014 budget request and H.R. 535 and H.R. 789 in the 113th Congress). A number of these issues and options were examined in hearings by the House Transportation and Infrastructure Subcommittee on Water Resources and Environment and by the Senate Environment and Public Works Subcommittee on Water and Wildlife in the 112th Congress."
Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service
Mallett, William; Maguire, Steven; Copeland, Claudia
2013-06-03
-
Legislative Options for Financing Water Infrastructure [August 9, 2012]
"This report addresses several options being considered by Congress to address the financing needs of local communities for wastewater and drinking water infrastructure projects and to decrease or close the gap between available funds and projected needs. Some of the options exist and are well established, but they are under discussion for expansion or modification. Other innovative policy options have recently been proposed in connection with water infrastructure, especially to supplement or complement existing financing tools. Some are intended to provide robust, long-term revenue to support existing financing programs and mechanisms. Some are intended to encourage private participation in furnishing drinking water and wastewater services. […] Consensus exists among many stakeholders--state and local governments, equipment manufacturers and construction companies, and environmental advocates--on the need for more investment in water infrastructure. There is no consensus supporting a preferred option or policy, and many advocate a combination that will expand the financing 'toolbox' for projects. Some of the options discussed in this report may be helpful, but there is no single method that will address needs fully or close the financing gap completely. For example, some may be helpful to projects in large urban or multi-jurisdictional areas, while others may be more beneficial in smaller communities. It is unlikely that any of the recently proposed options could be up and running quickly, meaning that, at least for the near term, communities will continue to rely on the existing SRF [State Revolving Fund] programs, tax-exempt governmental bonds, and tax-exempt private activity bonds to finance their water infrastructure needs."
Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service
Copeland, Claudia; Mallett, William; Maguire, Steven
2012-08-09
-
Legislative Options for Financing Water Infrastructure [April 3, 2012]
"This report addresses several options being considered by Congress to address the financing needs of local communities for wastewater and drinking water infrastructure projects and to decrease or close the gap between available funds and projected needs. Some of the options exist and are well established, but they are under discussion for expansion or modification. Other innovative policy options have recently been proposed in connection with water infrastructure, especially to supplement or complement existing financing tools. Some are intended to provide robust, long-term revenue to support existing financing programs and mechanisms. Some are intended to encourage private participation in furnishing drinking water and wastewater services. […] Consensus exists among many stakeholders--state and local governments, equipment manufacturers and construction companies, and environmental advocates--on the need for more investment in water infrastructure. There is no consensus supporting a preferred option or policy, and many advocate a combination that will expand the financing 'toolbox' for projects. Some of the options discussed in this report may be helpful, but there is no single method that will address needs fully or close the financing gap completely. For example, some may be helpful to projects in large urban or multi-jurisdictional areas, while others may be more beneficial in smaller communities. It is unlikely that any of the recently proposed options could be up and running quickly, meaning that, at least for the near term, communities will continue to rely on the existing SRF [State Revolving Fund] programs, tax-exempt governmental bonds, and tax-exempt private activity bonds to finance their water infrastructure needs."
Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service
Copeland, Claudia; Mallett, William; Maguire, Steven
2012-04-03
-
Legislative Options for Financing Water Infrastructure [March 17, 2014]
"This report addresses several options being considered by Congress to address the financing needs of local communities for wastewater and drinking water infrastructure projects and to decrease or close the gap between available funds and projected needs. […] Some are intended to provide robust, long-term revenue to support existing financing programs and mechanisms. Some are intended to encourage private participation in financing of drinking water and wastewater projects. Six options that are reflected in recent legislative proposals, including their budgetary implications, are discussed. [1] Increase funding for the State Revolving Fund (SRF) programs in the Clean Water Act (H.R. 1877 in the 113th Congress) and the Safe Drinking Water Act (H.R. 5320 in the 111th Congress), [2] Create a federal water infrastructure trust fund (H.R. 3582 and H.R. 1877 in the 113th Congress), [3] Create a 'Water Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Act' Program, or WIFIA (S. 601 and S. 335 in the 113th Congress), [4] Create a national infrastructure bank (H.R. 2084, H.R. 2553, S. 1716, H.R. 505, and H.R. 3939 in the 113th Congress), [5] Lift private activity bond restrictions on water infrastructure projects (included in the Administration's FY2015 budget request and H.R. 3939 and H.R. 4237 in the 113th Congress), and [6] Reinstate authority for the issuance of Build America Bonds (included in the Administration's FY2015 budget request and H.R. 535, H.R. 789, and H.R. 3939 in the 113th Congress)."
Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service
Copeland, Claudia; Maguire, Steven; Mallett, William
2014-03-17
-
Legislative Options for Financing Water Infrastructure [May 16, 2014]
"This report addresses several options being considered by Congress to address the financing needs of local communities for wastewater and drinking water infrastructure projects and to decrease or close the gap between available funds and projected needs. Some of the options exist and are well established, but they are under discussion for expansion or modification. Other innovative policy options for water infrastructure have recently been proposed, especially to supplement or complement existing financing tools. Some are intended to provide robust, long-term revenue to support existing financing programs and mechanisms. Some are intended to encourage private participation in financing of drinking water and wastewater projects."
Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service
Mallett, William; Maguire, Steven; Copeland, Claudia
2014-05-16
-
Legislative Options for Financing Water Infrastructure [April 14, 2014]
"This report addresses several options being considered by Congress to address the financing needs of local communities for wastewater and drinking water infrastructure projects and to decrease or close the gap between available funds and projected needs. Some of the options exist and are well established, but they are under discussion for expansion or modification. Other innovative policy options for water infrastructure have recently been proposed, especially to supplement or complement existing financing tools. Some are intended to provide robust, long-term revenue to support existing financing programs and mechanisms. Some are intended to encourage private participation in financing of drinking water and wastewater projects. Six options that are reflected in recent legislative proposals, including their budgetary implications, are discussed. [1] Increase funding for the State Revolving Fund (SRF) programs in the Clean Water Act (H.R. 1877 in the 113th Congress) and the Safe Drinking Water Act (H.R. 5320 in the 111th Congress), [2] Create a federal water infrastructure trust fund (H.R. 3582 and H.R. 1877 in the 113th Congress), [3] Create a 'Water Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Act' Program, or WIFIA (S. 601 and S. 335 in the 113th Congress), [4] Create a national infrastructure bank (H.R. 2084, H.R. 2553, H.R. 2881, S. 1716, S. 1957, H.R. 505, and H.R. 3939 in the 113th Congress), [5] Lift restrictions on private activity bonds for water infrastructure projects (included in the Administration's FY2015 budget request and H.R. 3939 and H.R. 4237 in the 113th Congress), and [6] Reinstate authority for the issuance of Build America Bonds (included in the Administration's FY2015 budget request and H.R. 535, H.R. 789, H.R. 3939, and S. 2203 in the 113th Congress)."
Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service
Copeland, Claudia; Maguire, Steven; Mallett, William
2014-04-14
-
Legislative Options for Financing Water Infrastructure [February 18, 2016]
"This report addresses several options considered by Congress to address the financing needs of local communities for wastewater and drinking water infrastructure projects and to decrease or close the gap between available funds and projected needs. Some of the options exist and are well established, but they are under discussion for expansion or modification. Other innovative policy options for water infrastructure have been proposed, especially to supplement or complement existing financing tools. Some are intended to provide robust, long-term revenue to support existing financing programs and mechanisms. Some are intended to encourage private participation in financing of drinking water and wastewater projects."
Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service
Copeland, Claudia; Maguire, Steven; Mallett, William
2016-02-18
-
Legislative Options for Financing Water Infrastructure [June 1, 2016]
From the summary: "This report addresses several options considered by Congress to address the financing needs of local communities for wastewater and drinking water infrastructure projects and to decrease or close the gap between available funds and projected needs. Some of the options exist and are well established, but they are under discussion for expansion or modification. Other innovative policy options for water infrastructure have been proposed, especially to supplement or complement existing financing tools. Some are intended to provide robust, long-term revenue to support existing financing programs and mechanisms. Some are intended to encourage private participation in financing of drinking water and wastewater projects."
Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service
Copeland, Claudia; Maguire, Steven; Mallett, William
2016-06-01
-
Legislative Options for Financing Water Infrastructure [April 27, 2016]
"This report addresses several options considered by Congress to address the financing needs of local communities for wastewater and drinking water infrastructure projects and to decrease or close the gap between available funds and projected needs. Some of the options exist and are well established, but they are under discussion for expansion or modification. Other innovative policy options for water infrastructure have been proposed, especially to supplement or complement existing financing tools. Some are intended to provide robust, long-term revenue to support existing financing programs and mechanisms. Some are intended to encourage private participation in financing of drinking water and wastewater projects."
Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service
Copeland, Claudia; Maguire, Steven; Mallett, William
2016-04-27
-
Legislative Options for Financing Water Infrastructure [April 8, 2016]
"This report addresses several options considered by Congress to address the financing needs of local communities for wastewater and drinking water infrastructure projects and to decrease or close the gap between available funds and projected needs. Some of the options exist and are well established, but they are under discussion for expansion or modification. Other innovative policy options for water infrastructure have been proposed, especially to supplement or complement existing financing tools. Some are intended to provide robust, long-term revenue to support existing financing programs and mechanisms. Some are intended to encourage private participation in financing of drinking water and wastewater projects. Six options that are reflected in recent legislative proposals, including their budgetary implications, are discussed."
Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service
Copeland, Claudia; Maguire, Steven; Mallett, William
2016-04-08
-
Private Activity Bonds: An Introduction [March 9, 2018]
"The federal tax code classifies state and local bonds as either governmental bonds or private activity bonds. Governmental bonds are intended for governmental projects, and private activity bonds are for projects that primarily benefit private entities. Typically, the interest earned by holders of governmental bonds is exempt from federal income taxes. The federal tax code allows state and local governments to use tax-exempt bonds to finance certain projects that would be considered private activities. The private activities that can be financed with tax-exempt bonds are called 'qualified private activities.' Congress uses an annual state volume cap to limit the amount of tax-exempt bond financing generally and restricts the types of qualified private activities that would qualify for tax-exempt financing to selected projects defined in the tax code."
Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service
Maguire, Steven; Hughes, Joseph S.
2018-03-09
-
Legislative Options in the 114th Congress for Financing Water Infrastructure [December 30, 2016]
From the Document: "This report addresses several options considered by Congress to address the financing needs of local communities for wastewater and drinking water infrastructure projects and to decrease or close the gap between available funds and projected needs. Some of the options exist and are well established, but they have been under discussion for expansion or modification. Other innovative policy options for water infrastructure have been proposed, especially to supplement or complement existing financing tools. Some are intended to provide robust, long-term revenue to support existing financing programs and mechanisms. Some are intended to encourage private participation in financing of drinking water and wastewater projects. Six options reflected in legislative proposals in the 114th Congress, including their federal budgetary implications, are discussed. [...] A number of [the] options have been examined by congressional committees since the 112th Congress. [...] Nevertheless, interest in other financing options continues, in part due to long-standing concerns regarding the costs to repair aging and deteriorated U.S. infrastructure generally, and also in response to events in individual regions and cities [...] Consensus exists among many stakeholders--state and local governments, equipment manufacturers and construction companies, and environmental advocates--on the need for more investment in water infrastructure. There is no consensus supporting a preferred option or policy, and many advocate a combination that will expand the financing 'toolbox' for projects. Some of the options discussed in this report may be helpful, but there is no single method that will address needs fully or close the financing gap completely."
Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service
Copeland, Claudia; Maguire, Steven; Mallett, William
2016-12-30
-
Federal Deductibility of State and Local Taxes [November 10, 2014]
From the Introduction: "The interplay between the federal and state and local tax systems through the federal deductibility of state and local taxes is the focus of this report. Generally, individual taxpayers who itemize deductions are allowed to deduct real and personal property taxes, and state and local income taxes paid from federal taxable income. In 2004, the 108th Congress modified the deductibility of state and local taxes to include sales tax for the 2004 and 2005 tax years. This provision was extended by each Congress up through the 112th, until it was allowed to expire at the end of 2013. [...] In the 111th Congress, the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (P.L. 111-5) provided for an above-the-line deduction for sales and excise taxes paid on new vehicle purchases for nonitemizers. This deduction also expired after the 2009 tax year."
Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service
Maguire, Steven; Stupak, Jeffrey M.
2014-11-10
-
Federal Deductibility of State and Local Taxes [September 18, 2015]
From the Summary: "Under current law, taxpayers who itemize can deduct state and local real estate taxes, personal property taxes, and income taxes from federal income when calculating taxable income. In addition, a temporary deduction for sales taxes in lieu of income taxes was available, through December 31, 2014. The federal deduction for state and local taxes results in the federal government paying part of these state and local taxes through lower federal tax collections. Theory would suggest that taxpayers are willing to accept higher state and local tax rates and greater state and local public spending because of lower federal income taxes arising from these deductions. In addition, there is some evidence that state and local governments rely more on these deductible taxes than on nondeductible taxes and fees for services. Repealing the deductibility of state and local taxes would affect state and local government fiscal decisions, albeit indirectly. Generally, state and local public spending would decline, although the magnitude of the decline is uncertain. And, repealing the deduction for state and local taxes would shift the federal tax burden away from taxpayers in low-tax states to taxpayers in high-tax states. Maintaining the current deductibility would continue the indirect federal subsidy for state and local spending."
Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service
Maguire, Steven; Stupak, Jeffrey M.
2015-09-18
-
Tax-Exempt Bonds: A Description of State and Local Government Debt [January 9, 2015]
"This report provides information about state and local government debt. State and local governments often issue debt instruments in exchange for the use of individuals' and businesses' savings. This debt obligates state and local governments to make interest payments for the use of these savings and to repay, at some time in the future, the amount borrowed. State and local governments finance capital facilities with debt rather than out of current tax revenue in order to match the time pattern of benefits from these capital facilities with the time pattern of tax payments. […] State and local debt is issued as bonds, to be repaid over a period of time greater than one year and perhaps exceeding 20 years, and as notes, to be repaid within one year. General obligation bonds are secured by the promise to repay with general tax revenue, and revenue bonds are secured with the promise to use the stream of revenue generated by the facility built with the bond proceeds. Most debt is issued to finance new capital facilities, but some is issued to refund a prior bond issue (usually to take advantage of lower interest rates). […] One major policy issue in this area is tax reform proposals that would modify the tax treatment of state and local government bonds. Another policy issue is whether constraints should be relaxed on the types of activities, such as infrastructure spending, for which entities can issue tax-exempt debt. The list of activities that classify tax-exempt private-activity bonds--and whether they should be included in the volume cap--is another area of potential change or reform."
Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service
Maguire, Steven; Stupak, Jeffrey M.
2015-01-09
-
Legislative Options for Financing Water Infrastructure [November 27, 2013]
"This report addresses several options being considered by Congress to address the financing needs of local communities for wastewater and drinking water infrastructure projects and to decrease or close the gap between available funds and projected needs. Some of the options exist and are well established, but they are under discussion for expansion or modification. Other innovative policy options for water infrastructure have recently been proposed, especially to supplement or complement existing financing tools. Some are intended to provide robust, longterm revenue to support existing financing programs and mechanisms. Some are intended to encourage private participation in furnishing drinking water and wastewater services. Six options that are reflected in recent legislative proposals, including budgetary implications, are discussed. [1] Increase funding for the State Revolving Fund (SRF) programs in the Clean Water Act (H.R. 1877 in the 113th Congress) and the Safe Drinking Water Act (H.R. 5320 in the 111th Congress), [2] Create a federal water infrastructure trust fund (H.R. 1877 in the 113th Congress and H.R. 6249 in the 112th Congress), [3] Create a 'Water Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Act' Program, or WIFIA (S. 601 and S. 335 in the 113th Congress), [4] Create a National Infrastructure Bank (H.R. 2084 and H.R. 505 in the 113th Congress), [5] Lift private activity bond restrictions on water infrastructure projects (included in the Administration's FY2014 budget request and S. 939 and H.R. 1802 in the 112th Congress), and [6] Reinstate authority for the issuance of Build America Bonds (included in the Administration's FY2014 budget request and H.R. 535 and H.R. 789 in the 113th Congress). A number of these issues and options were examined in hearings by House and Senate committees in the 112th Congress. Legislation to create a WIFIA program (S. 601) has been passed by the Senate and is being considered by a House-Senate conference committee."
Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service
Copeland, Claudia; Maguire, Steven; Mallett, William
2013-11-27
-
State and Local Government Debt: An Analysis [April 14, 2011]
"The financial consequences of the recession that spanned from December 2007 through June 2009 have increased congressional interest in the financial health of state and local governments. State and local tax revenues declined, expenditures climbed, and debt increased. Even though tax revenue has begun to rebound, expenditures for unemployment benefits and other social programs remain elevated. Also, federal aid to states, which had increased as part of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, has begun to recede. Federal outlays for grants in aid to state and local governments rose from $538 billion in FY [fiscal year] 2009 to $608.4 billion in FY2010 and are estimated to be $625.2 billion in FY2011. The FY2012 budget provides $584.3 billion in outlays for aid to state and local governments in 2012. [...] This report first provides a broad overview of state and local government finances and how these governments incorporate borrowing into their budgets. The second section reports data on state and local government debt and how that debt has changed over time. This section includes a comparative analysis of these debt parameters for each state. The third section discusses different economic perspectives on the use of debt by governments and if governments are intrinsically biased toward borrowing more than is considered economically optimal. The discussion provides background for Congress as it deliberates potential changes in the oversight of the primary and secondary markets for state and local government debt. Issues related to state and local government finances, such as government pensions and health benefits, are also addressed. This report will be updated as legislative events warrant."
Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service
Maguire, Steven
2011-04-14
-
State and Local Government Series (SLGS) Treasury Debt: A Description [May 6, 2011]
"The U.S. Treasury projects the federal debt will reach its statutory limit before May 16, 2011. On May 2, 2011, in anticipation of reaching the statutory debt limit, U.S. Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner sent a letter to Congress indicating that he would declare a debt issuance suspension period on May 16 to extend Treasury's borrowing capacity until early August 2011. In the same letter, Secretary Geithner also indicated that Treasury would use its existing authorities to extend borrowing capacity. One example of this is that on May 6, 2011, the Treasury Department will 'suspend until further notice the issuance of State and Local Government Series (SLGS) Treasury securities.'1 As of April 30, 2011, SLGS represented 1.27% ($180.8 billion) of total debt outstanding (approximately 0.5% of outstanding debt is not subject to the debt limit). Suspending SLGSs will not change the debt limit, rather just delay the date when it is reached. Some have expressed concern that this suspension will have a negative impact on state and local government finances. This report explains SLGS, a nonmarketable custom tailored security, and how suspension may impact state and local government issuers."
Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service
Maguire, Steven
2011-05-06
-
Fiscal Year 2007 Homeland Security Grant Program and H.R. 1: Description and Analysis
"This report summarizes and compares the FY2007 program guidance and H.R. 1 Homeland Security Grant Program distribution methods; it presents rough estimates of the State Homeland Security Grant Program and the Law Enforcement Terrorism Prevention Program grant allocations following each of the two methods and assuming a $900 million appropriation; it also compares the estimates with actual FY2006 allocations. Both the FY2007 guidance and H.R. 1 address critical infrastructure protection, homeland security information sharing, interoperable communications, radiological and nuclear detection capabilities, catastrophic planning, and National Incident Management System compliance. These homeland security activities and programs are, however, outside the scope of this report."
Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service
Reese, Shawn; Maguire, Steven
2007-02-02
-
FEMA's Community Disaster Loan Program [Updated February 21, 2006]
"Areas struck by disasters, both natural and man-made, often experience a destruction of property and decline in economic activity. Tax collections for affected local governments may fall substantially as a consequence. At the same time, the financial and public service obligations of local governments persist and may actually increase. The unexpected loss of revenue coupled with the increased financial needs for responding to a natural disaster or terrorist act may lead local governments to seek assistance from the federal government. This report examines the federal Community Disaster Loan (CDL) program, authorized by Section 417 of the Stafford Act and administered by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). The CDL program is intended to assist local governments that experience revenue losses and/or increased municipal operating expenses as the result of a presidentially declared major disaster."
Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service
Maguire, Steven; Noto, Nonna A.
2006-02-21
-
Impact of Hurricane Katrina on the State Budgets of Alabama, Louisiana, and Mississippi [November 15, 2005]
"After major disasters, affected state and local governments face the dual challenge of responding to the crisis and absorbing the economic losses associated with the disaster. Typically, tax revenue collections, both state and local, decline immediately following a disaster. The severity and range of the destruction determine when and to what level tax revenue will rebound. For states, the revenue loss is inopportune given both the cost of repairing government infrastructure and providing assistance to affected local governments and individuals. Most states have emergency funds to tap into when disaster strikes. For catastrophic disasters on the scale of Hurricane Katrina, however, the emergency fund may be insufficient. In cases where the scale of the disaster overwhelms the fiscal capacity of state governments, the states may borrow to finance emergency spending. Each of the states most severely affected by Hurricane Katrina--Alabama, Louisiana, and Mississippi--could be forced to address budget shortfalls with increased borrowing. This report outlines the budget issues facing each of these states. The last section of the report provides a rough approximation of the potential state tax revenue loss in the month (September 2005) following Hurricane Katrina. CRS estimates that if the disaster region lost about half of its economic activity in September 2005, then the state of Alabama would have lost $38.0 million in revenue, Louisiana $179.6 million, and Mississippi $108.0 million."
Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service
Maguire, Steven
2005-11-15
-
Federal Deductibility of State and Local Taxes [September 20, 2012]
From the Summary: "Under current law, taxpayers who itemize can deduct state and local real estate taxes, personal property taxes, and income taxes from federal income when calculating taxable income. In addition, a temporary deduction for sales taxes in lieu of income taxes is available, though it expires December 31, 2011. The federal deduction for state and local taxes results in the federal government paying part of these taxes through lower federal tax collections. Theory would suggest that taxpayers are willing to accept higher state and local tax rates and greater state and local public spending because of lower federal income taxes arising from the deduction. In addition, there is some evidence that state and local governments rely more on these deductible taxes than on nondeductible taxes and fees for services. Repealing the deductibility of state and local taxes would affect state and local government fiscal decisions, albeit indirectly. Generally, state and local public spending would decline, although the magnitude of the decline is uncertain. And, repealing the deduction for state and local taxes would shift the federal tax burden away from low-tax states to high-tax states. Maintaining the current deductibility would continue the indirect federal subsidy for state/local spending."
Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service
Maguire, Steven
2012-09-20
-
Rum Excise Tax Cover-Over: Legislative History and Current Issues [September 20, 2012]
"Under current law, the excise tax on rum is $13.50 per proof gallon and is collected on rum produced in or imported into the United States. Through 2011, $13.25 per proof gallon of imported rum is transferred or 'covered over' to the Treasuries of Puerto Rico (PR) and the United States Virgin Islands (USVI). In FY2011, PR received over $449.0 million in revenue and the USVI received over $133.5 million. The law does not impose any restrictions on how PR and USVI can use the transferred revenues. Both territories use some portion of the revenue to promote and assist the rum industry. The cover-over provisions for rum extend as far back as 1917 for PR and 1954 for USVI. Recently, the United States Virgin Islands has dedicated a larger share of current and future covered-over revenue to help finance public and private infrastructure that would directly benefit the rum industry. In the 112th Congress, legislation has been introduced to expand federal control over the use of covered-over revenue. Passage of H.R. 1883 (or similar legislation, S. 986) would result in limits on Puerto Rico's and the USVI's ability to use covered-over revenue to subsidize the rum industry in the islands. The legislation is likely in response to the recent economic development initiatives in the USVI financed in part by rum cover-over revenue. The President's FY2013 budget proposal includes an extension of the $13.25 cover-over, as does S. 3521. This report provides a history and analysis of the rum cover-over program and current legislative efforts to modify the program. The congressional debate on this legislation could also lead to debate on the broader issue of the cover-over program more generally."
Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service
Maguire, Steven
2012-08-20
-
Alternative Minimum Taxpayers by State: 2009, 2010, and Projections for 2012 [December 4, 2012]
"The alternative minimum tax (AMT) is a second federal income tax that operates along side the regular income tax. The AMT is intended to ensure that all taxpayers pay at least a minimum amount of tax on income. The AMT disallows or otherwise limits a variety of exemptions and deductions to achieve this objective. Specifically, personal exemptions, itemized deductions for state/local taxes, and miscellaneous itemized deductions account for 96% of the preference items that are subject to tax under the AMT but not subject to tax under the regular income tax. As a result, over certain income ranges, taxpayers who claim itemized deductions for state and local taxes, claim miscellaneous deductions, or have large families are more likely to fall under the AMT than taxpayers who do not have these characteristics. In 2010, 4.02 million taxpayers were subject to the AMT, a slight increase from 3.88 million taxpayers in 2009. In 2010, New Jersey, Connecticut, the District of Columbia, and New York had the highest percentage of taxpayers subject to the AMT. Mississippi, Tennessee, Alabama, and South Dakota had the lowest percentage of taxpayers subject to the AMT. In 2012, absent an increase of the AMT exemption amount, 32.4 million taxpayers will be subject to the AMT. At that time, whether a married taxpayer has itemized deductions for state and local taxes or miscellaneous deductions will become a much less important factor than it is at present in determining AMT coverage. This occurs because, whether they itemize their deductions or not, married taxpayers across a wide range of incomes will be subject to the AMT because personal exemptions are not allowed against the AMT."
Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service
Maguire, Steven
2012-12-04
-
National Infrastructure Bank: Overview and Current Legislation [December 14, 2011]
"Conceptually, an infrastructure bank is a government-established entity that provides credit assistance to sponsors of infrastructure projects. An infrastructure bank can take many different forms, such as an independent federal agency, a federal corporation, a government-sponsored enterprise, a state government entity, or a private-sector, nonprofit corporation, but is distinguished from a commercial bank or private-sector infrastructure fund by being government established. Unlike government departments that mainly fund infrastructure through grants, an infrastructure bank would be expected mainly to provide credit assistance, typically loans, loan guarantees, and lines of credit. As with a traditional commercial bank, infrastructure bank borrowers would be expected to repay their loans with interest, and may have to pay other fees associated with the bank's credit instruments. But unlike a commercial bank, an infrastructure bank takes no deposits and conducts no other 'over-the-counter' transactions. Examples of existing infrastructure banks are the European Investment Bank (EIB) and, in the United States, state infrastructure banks, and possibly the Export-Import Bank."
Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service
Mallett, William; Maguire, Steven; Kosar, Kevin R.
2011-12-14
-
Department of Homeland Security Grants to State and Local Governments: FY2003 to FY2006 [Updated October 12, 2007]
"This report analyzes federal grants to state and local governments that were administered by the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) between FY2003 through FY2006. These grants, which were allocated primarily at the discretion of DHS, were intended to enhance homeland security. This report summarizes seven DHS grant programs -- the State Homeland Security Grant Program (SHSGP), the Urban Area Security Initiative (UASI), the Law Enforcement Terrorism Prevention Program (LETPP), the Emergency Management Performance Grant Program (EMPG), the Metropolitan Medical Response System (MMRS), the Citizen Corps Program (CCP), and the Critical Infrastructure Protection Program (CIP -- funded only in FY2003). These seven DHS programs were chosen for analysis because the allocations were made to state and local governments, not to private individuals or entities. These seven programs accounted for $1.85 billion in FY2006. The report also provides a state-by-state analysis of state and local spending on public safety more generally. The homeland security grants described in this report were likely included in the public safety categories of spending as reported by the states and tabulated by the U.S. Census Bureau. The federal grants identified in this report were a relatively small portion of overall public safety spending, ranging from 0.48% in Virginia to a maximum of 5.6% in North Dakota. This report will not be updated."
Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service
Reese, Shawn; Maguire, Steven
2007-10-12
