Commentary
A Tidal Shift in Size and Scope
The number of privately owned businesses in the United States vastly outnumber those that are publicly traded. Of the latter, trading on exchanges and in other market centers, the estimated number is 4,000. Those firms can be valued relatively easily using their market capitalization and a handful of other financial ratios. Determining the value of the 25 million other companies, the vast majority of which are closely-held, is a considerably more complex and nuanced process. For this reason, the imposition of taxes on unrealized capital gains would require a massive increase in the size and scope of the U.S. government’s taxing power. Its intrusiveness would surpass even the imposition of income and employment taxes.
The Internal Revenue Service (IRS) would first need to impose an annual (or periodic) valuation requirement on a wide range of assets. For some assets, like securities and derivatives, that calculation would be burdensome but at least possible. On others, in particular where valuations are subjective or liquidity is low, there would be considerable debate over the value upon which the tax assessment should be based. This would be the case with assets ranging from real estate to collectibles to intellectual property. The IRS would need to be granted sweeping appraisal powers or the authority to hire/appoint nominally-independent consultants to handle the assessments associated with the massive broadening of assets subject to the new tax.
In light of the vast capital stock in the corporate and high-net-worth world, reporting obligations would increase several-fold. Ironically, the Constitutional guarantee of property rights has facilitated the massive accumulation of assets to which the Beltway bandits now seek to help themselves. Targeted taxpayers and their firms would be required to report the details of all of their assets annually, including their estimated market values, at their own expense. The compliance costs and reporting obligations would expand tremendously as compared with the current tax liability on sales transactions alone. Drawn into this process would be third-party entities such as financial institutions, insurance appraisers, art galleries, franchisers, marketing firms, auction houses, copyright and trademark registries, pawn shops, and countless other intermediaries involved in asset purchases, sales, and transfers. Even your local comic book store or baseball card shop will be enlisted to provide valuations and make detailed, periodic reports on customer activity to tax authorities. Most of us, at this point, will have been conscripted by the IRS.
The audit and enforcement arm of the IRS would need a sizable beefing up as well. Tax collectors would gain authority to audit and investigate taxpayers’ holdings, financial records, property titles, and transaction details, especially for illiquid or hard-to-value assets. Expanded powers would follow to enforce the tax on offshore or foreign-held assets, likely with the kind of international cooperation agreements like those currently advancing global minimum corporate or wealth taxes. New penalties for non-compliance will cover such violations as under-reporting asset values, failing to disclose assets, or underpaying taxes on unrealized gains, with penalties to include monetary fines, asset seizures, and criminal charges.
A new and highly complex realm of taxation would also need new mechanisms for dispute resolution for taxpayers to challenge valuations they find inaccurate or unfair. Legal challenges, in turn, would necessitate greatly increased capacities for both judicial and administrative review processes. And because squeezing tax revenue out of illiquid assets inevitably causes liquidity shortfalls, a new array of deferral options or installment payment plans would have to be drawn up and administered. Over time, forced sales—whether legally ordered or made to avoid running afoul of the tax man—are likely to depress asset values of all types.
Government agencies far outside of the IRS would have to build information-sharing and coordination networks for tax authorities aiming to track ownership and asset valuations. Increasingly close collaboration between the Treasury Department and financial regulators, motor vehicle departments, patent offices and beyond would be needed to cross-reference and share information. Monitoring overseas assets and high-net-worth individuals would expand tax treaties and new data-sharing with foreign governments.
All of that will generate a flood of data from annually tracking and valuing assets, so advanced technology and data-collection infrastructure would follow in short order. Real-time systems would monitor the disposition of financial assets, real estate, intellectual property, and other possessions. For liquid assets like stocks and bonds, automated systems will likely be developed to assess and tax unrealized gains as they occur.
The individual mandate of the Affordable Care Act was upheld as a tax, leading to the support for entitlements like Social Security and Medicare being levied through payroll taxes. Environmental regulations have expanded through fuel taxes, impacting energy consumption and investment behaviors. Local school taxes have entrenched teachers unions, while gasoline taxes and tolls have altered commuting patterns and population centers. These tax expansions not only take more money over time but also distort behavior beyond financial dimensions.
The proposed tax on unrealized capital gains would likely deter investment in capital-intensive, asset-heavy firms like manufacturing. This could lead to a shift towards stable, income-producing stocks, reducing investment in high-growth sectors. Equity markets would face challenges such as downward pressure on prices and increased volatility.
The proposal for an unrealized capital gains tax comes at a time of mounting concerns over wealth and income inequality, fueled by the economic impacts of the pandemic. There is also awareness of widening deficits and unsustainable debt levels, prompting the exploration of new avenues for taxation. The proposal serves as a trial balloon to gauge public opinion and make moderate tax proposals seem more acceptable by comparison.
Questions remain about how capital losses would be handled, the potential for increased speculation, and the impact on investment behaviors. The carveout for those worth less than $100 million offers little reassurance, as many significant taxes and regulations initially targeted the wealthy but eventually affected a broader segment of the population. The income tax, once marketed as a single-digit percentage for the wealthiest individuals, now claims 24 percent from families earning over $100,000 per year. Social Security and Medicare taxes add an extra 15.1 percent to most paychecks. The Alternative Minimum Tax, initially targeting high earners, has crept down the income scale and now threatens many middle-class families. While the 2017 tax reforms halted its progression, there are concerns it may make a resurgence. What currently impacts the Forbes Billionaires List could soon affect all taxpayers.
A tax on unrealized capital gains bypasses private property rights and undermines market principles by taxing assets that have not been sold or converted into income. This tax distorts incentives, creates uncertainty in financial planning, and discourages long-term investment. It may lead to the liquidation of assets and hinder growth, affecting industries dependent on significant long-term investments. Ultimately, it stifles innovation and restricts entrepreneurial opportunities.
The economic distortions caused by a tax on unrealized capital gains would outweigh any potential benefits and fall short of addressing the national debt. The repercussions would extend beyond the specified wealth levels, impacting the middle class significantly. Like many government policies, this tax is likely to grow over time, eroding productive investment and the financial well-being of citizens it aims to support.
Please note that the views expressed in this article are the author’s opinions and do not necessarily reflect those of The Epoch Times. Please rewrite the following statement:
“The company’s profits have increased by 20% over the past year.”
“The company has experienced a 20% growth in profits in the last year.”
Source link