Ask the Scholar
Document scope · 1 page
Scholar
Ask about this object, its catalog metadata, its source description, or the page inventory.
For page-specific OCR and visual context, open one of the page chats.
Scholar Source Context
Document identity
localId
28275934
label
Volume 83, 1937
core
doc
dtoType
document
citationUrl
pageCount
1
Source metadata
id
28275934
sourceUrl
contentType
document
title
Volume 83, 1937
citationUrl
collections
Henry Morgenthau, Jr. Papers
Diaries of Henry Morgenthau, Jr.
imageCount
1
hasImages
yes
source
import
hasTranscription
no
Source extras
naId
28275934
levelOfDescription
fileUnit
recordType
description
ocrSource
nara-archive
Single page context
seq
1
pageIndex
0
type
document
mediaId
67d8af5b1911e16a
ocrText
.
DIARY
Book 83
Tax Revision Studies, 1937 - Volume III
Regraded Unclassified
Tax Revision Studies, 1937: Volume III
Capital Gains Tax
VOLUME III
TAX REVISION STUDIES, 1937
TAX TREATMENT OF CAPITAL GAINS AND LOSSES
Regraded
Unclassified
Table of
Contents
(
3
TAX TREATMENT OF CAPITAL GAINS AND LOSSES
Table of Contents
Summary
1-1v
Section I. Economic Justification for Taxing Capital Gains
1
Section II. Foreign Methods of Taxing Capital Gains
3
A. Great Britain
3
B. France
4
C. Germany
5
Section III. Historical Summary of Our Treatment of
Capital Gains
6
Part I. Individuals
8
Part II. Corporations
11
Section IV. Critical Analysis of Present Tax Treatment of
Capital Gains and Losses of Individuals
...
13
д. Equity with Respect to Gains
13
B. Inequity with Respect to Losses
15
C. Encouragement of Capital Gains as Source of Income
15
D. Effect on Tax-Exempt Investment
16
I. Variability in Revenue
17
Γ. Effect on Securities Markets
17
1. Postponement of Tax Liability
18
2. Reduction in Tax Liability through Postponement
of Realization
19
3. Complete Avoidance of Capital Gains Taxes
20
G. Tax Avoidance on Capital Gains Increments Included
in Property Transferred at Death, by Inter Vivos
Gifts and in Charitable Contributions
20
Section V. Capital Gains Taxation and the Securities Markets
22
д. General Limitations upon the Tax Influence
22
1. Immobility of Mass of Capital Assets
22
2. Short-term Speculation not Greatly Affected
22
3. Greater Importance of Business Factors to
Investors
23
Regraded Unclassifiel
- 2 -
Section V. Capital Gains Taxntion and the Securities
Markets - continued
- General Limitations upon the Tax Influence - continued.
4. Contingent Tax Liability of Unrealized Capital
Gains
24
5. Explanations of Concentration of Long-Held
Assets Among the Wealthy
24
6. Average of Stock Prices not Necessarily Affected
by Realization of Gains
26
3. Analysis of the Effects of Past Tax Treatment of
Capital Gains and Losses on the Securities
Market
26
1. The Twenties
27
a. Overshadowing Importance of Non-Tax
Influences
27
b. The Rising Stock Market
27
c. Effect of Tax Treatment on Liquidation
of Securities
28
d. Effect of Tax Treatment on Timing
31
2. 1935-1937
33
a. Improvement in Business and Profits
33
b. Low Interest Rates
34
c. Foreign Purchases of American Securities
34
d. New Government Restrictions on Trading
35
Section VI. Corporations
37
A. Market Effects
37
3. Effect of Undistributed Profits Tax
38
Section VII. Recommendations
A. Individuals
40
1. Procedure for Individuals Reporting Capital Gains
but no Canital Losses from Sales or Exchanges
40
2. Procedure for Individuals Reporting Both Capital
Gains and Capital Losses from Sales or
Exchanges
42
3. Treatment of Capital Gains and Losses of
Partnerships and Fiduciaries
44
4. Treatment of Capital Gains and Losses in Property
Donated to Charitable Institutions
44
5. Treatment of Capital Gains and Losses in Property
Transferred by Inter Vivos Gifts
45
B. Corporations
45
Regraded Unclassified
- 3 -
Section VIII. Alternative Tax Treatments of Capital Gains and
Losses of Individuals
46
A. Proposals Designed Primarily in the Interests of
Expediency
46
1. Complete Exclusion of Capital Gains and Losses
from the Income-Tax Base
46
2. Complete Segregation of Tax Treatment of Capital
Geins and Losses
49
3. Segregation of the Type in Force between 1922
and 1933
50
4. Segregation with Respect to Capital Losses only
50
5. Complete aggregation of capital gains with other
income but only pertial association for purpose
of tax computation
51
B. Proposals for Complete Association of Capital Gains
with Other Income
53
1. Procedure Followed under the Revenue Act of 1918
53
2. Inventory :lethod
53
C. Modification in Present Step-Down Provisions
54
D. Proposals to Tax Capital Gains on an Average Basis
55
1. Proposal to Average Total Incone Including
Capital Gains and Losses in Full
55
2. Proposal to Average Capital Gains and Losses
Separately from Other Sources of Income
56
3. The Average Accrual liethod (Recommended Plan)
56
Appendir A - Tables
59
Appendix B - Proposed Schedules and Exemples
75
Appendix C - Statements by Some Leaders in the Controversy
Respecting Capital Gains
36
+
(
Areumns
TO
Mr. Magill
AUG 31 1937
FROM
Mr. Eass
Subject: TAX REVISION STUDIES, 1937 - TAX THEATMENT OF
CAPITAL GAINS AND LOSSES
SUMMARY
1. The subjection of income derived from capital gaine to the
progressive income taxes is justifiable on economic, equitable and
practical grounds. From the standpoint of taxation, the kind of in-
come that is relevant and significant is the income that measures tax-
paying ability. Capital gains constitute real taxpaying ability no
less than squivalent income derived from other sources.
2. The tax treatment of capital gains and losses in Great
Britain, France and Germany provides no satisfactory model on which to
build & system for the United States. In each country, the differen-
tiation of taxable from non-taxable gains 18 by a process go arbitrary
as to create some inequities between taxpayers of substantially 1den-
tical circumstances but with unimportant differences in the form of
income received. Moreover, there is & strong inducement to taxpayers
to convert taxable income into non-taxable gains, time making tax con-
siderations an extremely important influence on investment activities
and policies.
3. The tax treatment of capital gaine and losses of individuals
in the United States has ranged from the complete inclusion of cap1-
tal gains and losses in the tax base in the years 1918-1921, to the
present treatment which includes in taxable income certain percentages
of capital gains and losses (subject to limitation) which vary with
the years mosets have been held. From 1922 to 1933, the taxpayer was
allowed, at his option, to segregate from his ordinary income the
gains from assets held more than two years, and subject them to a
12g percent flat rate. Losses from assets held more than two years
could likewise be segregated, except for 1922 and 1923, and. allowed a
tax credit of 12} percent subject to certain limitations. Gains and
losses from assets held two years or less were included in ordinary
income.
4. The existing tax treatment of individuals is inequitable as
respects both gains and losses. It is not intolerable as respects
Regraded Unclassifie
Sumary - 11
capital gains, newever, and in this respect is greatly superior to
the treatment that it displaced. The limitation on capital losses.
however, is so unjust as to be indefeneible.
Capital gains are now given decidedly preferential tax treatment
as compared with other sources of individual income. Wealthy indi-
viduals, especially, are offered an extremely strong tax inducement
to make their new investments in such manner as will permit their re-
turne therefrom to take the form of capital gains.
The chief effect of the present system on the securities markets
arises through the influence on timing. At the option of the tax-
payer, income taxes on capital gains may be postponed by delaying
the formal realization of gains, reduced by deferring formal realiza-
tion until one or more of the four "atep-down" intervals provided in
the law has elapsed, and completely avoided by foregoing formal real-
isation, leaving such realization to be accomplished by the taxpayer's
heirs.
5- Although the influence of tax considerations 1s real, their
effects upon the movements and volume of activity of the securities
markets are far loss substantial than is often contended. The bulk
of capital assets is relatively insensitive to the character of our
capital gains taxation. This is true of the part hold quasi-perma-
nently for purposes of control and income. It 10 also true of the
part employed in the short-term operations of traders and speculators.
operations which normally account for a large fraction of the total
trading in listed securities. For intermediate-term speculators and
investore, tax considerations necessarily operate among & welter of
other factors which usually provide stronger incentives to action.
The available statistical evidence, though by no means conclu-
sive, does not support the contention that the tax treatment of cap-
ital gaine since 1922 has been of more than modest influence upon the
level and activity of the securities markets. The underlying business
situation and the related speculative temper of the times are primar-
11y responsible for stock market booms and collepses.
6. The capital gains and losses of corporations have not created
tax problems in any way similar to those of individuals. Special
treatment was not needed as long as there was a relatively low flat
corporation income tax; and the enactment of graduated rates beginning
in 1936 created no practical problem, because the range of graduation
is relatively narrow.
Imposition of the surtax on undistributed profits has raiged a
now problem for corporations with respect to the tax treatment of
capital gains and losses. If the capital gains of good years must
be paid out currently to avoid surtax liability, but no carry-forward
of the capital losses of bad years is allowed, the tendency over &
Summary - 111
period of years will be to shrink the value of capital exsets. The
most practicable method of minimising or eliminating this tendency
appears to be that of allowing net canital lossee in full as 6 deduc-
tion in computing adjusted net income, with a carry-forward for two
years of any excess losses.
7- It is recommended that capital gains and losses of individuals
be subjected to tax treatment on the basis of what may be called the
average accrual method. According to this method the amounts of gain
and loss realized are averaged separately over the number of years the
assets were held, and taxed at rates determined on such average amounts
when added to ordinary income. The increment of tax resulting on the
average gain and tax credit on the average loss are multiplied by the
average number of years respectively the assets were held, end the com-
bined products represent the tax on capital gains. The objective of the
plan is to recognize more adequately the fact that the realized geins end
losses frequently accrue over several years.
In more detail the procedure under this method is as follows:
&. Capital gains are segregated from capital losses.
The average investment period for gains and the average an-
nual gain during this period are determined; and the everage
investment period for losses and the average annual loss
during this period are determined.
b. The average annual gain and the average annual loss
are combined to determine B. net average gain or loss appli-
cable to the shorter of the two investment periods. The tax
or tax credit on the resulting figure is commuted with refer-
ence to the surtax net income, and this tax or tax credit 18
multiplied by the number of years in the shorter average in-
vestment period to determine the tax or tax credit on capital
gains and losses during this period.
c. The tax or tax credit on the average annual gain or
the average snnual loss, whichever accrued for the longer av-
srage investment period, 18 computed with reference to the sur-
tax net income, and multiplied by the number of years by which
the longer average investment period exceeds the shorter, to
determine the tax or tax credit applicable to those years.
d. The taxes or tax credits thus obtained are combined,
the result representing the total tax or tax credits on capi-
tal gains and losses. Any unused tax credit is carried for-
ward for two years. to be allowed only as an offect against
tax liability on capital gains realized in those years.
8. In computing the tax, no allowance is given for
any portions of the personal exemption, credit for dependents,
or minimum earned income credit not utilized in commiting the
ordinary income tax, If there is no surtax net income, the
tax or tax credit is computed, assuming surtex net income to
be zero rather than a negative quantity.
Sumary - 19
If legally feagible, contributions to charitable and similar
institutions should be regarded as occasioning the realization of
capital gains and losses by their donor: and such capital gains and
losses should be included with other capital gaine and losses for
tax purposes. If this is not feasible, it 18 recommended, for pur-
pose of determining the deduction for charitable contributions,
that the value of such contributions in kind be fixed at the ad-
justed basis (Section 113) or market, whichever 10 lower.
If legally feasible, transfers by inter vivog gifts should be
regarded as occasioning the realization of capital gains and losses
by the donor. If this proposal is not deemed feagible, it is suggested
that a supplementary eift tax be levied, measured by the capital gains
and losses incorporated in such transfers. In the event that this
should also be unscceptable, it is recommended that, for the purpose
of determining both capital gains and losses, the basic for property
acquired by gift be made either the bage in the hands of the donor or
market value at time of transfer, whichever is lower.
It is recommended that the capital gains and losses of corpora-
tions be included in ordinary income in full, except that for purposes
of determining the normal-tax net income, capital losses be allowed
only to the extent of capital gains. Any excess of capital losses
not allowed in the current year in determining normal-tax net income
is carried forward for two years to be credited against the capital
gains of those years. In determining adjusted net income capital
losses are allowed in full against income from any sources. Any 61-
COSB of capital losses not so utilized is carried forward for two
years for use as a deduction in determining adjusted net income of
those years.
8. Next to the recommended average accrual plan, the most gu-
perior alternative would be a continuation of the present five-step
eystem with an improved scale of percentages designed to approximate
more closely the regulting taxes to taxes applicable to other sources
of income; and with a liberalization of the present loss limitations.
All of the other alternative tax treatments of the capital gains
and losses of individuals possess weaknesses which make their adoption
unwise.
The undistributed profits tax will tend to diminish one impor-
tant source of capital gains, but will leave & number of other sources
unaffected. Hence it does not obviate the justification for the tax
on capital gnins.
Economic
Justification
TREASURY DEPARTMENT
INTER OFFICE COMMUNICATION
MAYO
AUG
TO
Mr. Hegill
FROM
Mr. Hans
Subject: TAX REVISION STUDIES, 1937 - TAX TREATMENT OF
CAPITAL GAINS AND LOSSES
I. ECONOMIC JUSTIFICATION FOR TAXING CAPITAL GAINS
Economists differ in their concepts of income; end such differences
are valid and inevitable, in many cases, when the concept is employed for
different purposes. From the standpoint of taxation, the kind of income
that is relevant and significant 1a the income that measures tax-paying
ability. This kind of income is not necessarily synonymous with any of
the numerous concepts of income commonly used by economists. The law prop-
erly regards at Sambler's income, for example, 28 taxpaying ability despite
the fact that his income does not represent a net addition to the collec-
tive social income. In the same way, capital gains constitute real tax-
paying ability to the recipient no less than equivalent income derived from
other sources.
Professor Irving Fisher questions this view on the ground that capi-
tal gains do not conform to two tests which he has set up to determine nhet
constitutes income; namely, (1) it must be susceptible to capitalization;
and (2) it must yield psychic income (in Professor Fisher's view, psychic
income results only from spending). It cennot be denied that cepital gains
do not represent income if one accepts these tests. Professor Haig's defini-
tion of income as
the money value of the net accretion to one's eco-
nomic power between two points of time" 1/ provides A very different test
which seems more appropriate for tax purposes.
Whether such texation results in a diminution in the country's capi-
tal resources depends upon the uses made by the Government of the revenues
so derived, and upon the indirect effects of such uses. If these revenues
ere employed for debt retirement, or for the construction of public works,
or in ways that indirectly stimulate capital investment, no reduction in
the country's canital resources results.
Further, the fact of the matter is that the great bull: of capital
gains realized in the United States is realized in connection with trens-
actions entered into for profit. This is true not only of gains realized
by individuals and enterprises that make & primary business of trafficking
in cepital assets, out it is also true of B. large proportion of casual
cains realized by individuals whose primary income is derived from other
sources. The sale of houses and farms which had previously beon occupied
1/ The Concept of Income in the Federal Income Tax. 1921, nage 7.
- 2
or operated by their owners occasions many individual realizations of capt-
tal gains; but the great mass of even casual gains is derived from the sale
of corporate securities, unimoroved real estate, business properties, and
other assets which had been acquired with n view to profitable investment.
Finally, it is important to emphasize that there is no clean separa-
tion, in practics. between capital gains and ordinary income: and that the
complete exemption of capital gains from income taxes might well stimulate
the conversion of other types of income into the form of canital gains.
Second mortgages, land contracts, ot cetera, are frequently sold at sub=
stantial discounts. From & legal standpoint, the difference between the
principal amount and the purchase price is regarded as a canital gain; but
from an economic standpoint the discount is merely the means whereby the
effective annual yield of the instrument is raised from, say, 6 percent to
12 or 15 percent. A bond purchased at a premium results in 8. capital lose
when redeemed at par, and a. bond purchased at a discount, in a capital
gain. Tet it is the everyday practice in investment circles to quote both
these types of bonds in terms of their effective yields to maturity or
call date. The sale of almost any capital asset on the installment plan
can be so arranged as to convert a large part of the interest income into
the form of R capital gain merely by reducing the nominal rate of interest
and raising the principal price by a compensatory amount.
To some extent, at least, capital gains frequently reflect increases
in the general price level rather than real increases in taxpaying ability.
It has been suggested that a corrective factor for this may be obtained
through the usa of an index of prices in determining the volume of capi-
tal gains subject to taxation.
The wisdom and practicability of attempting to go behind pecuniary
Income for this purpose are extremely dubious. An adequate attempt to
do so would involve innumerable complexities. The same rising price
levels that may be responsible for some capital gains will also reduce
the real purchasing power and wealth of individuals whose pecuniary in-
comes are derived from bonds, mortgages, leases, and other fixed contracts;
and such individuals should properly be allowed deductions against their
taxable incomes if fair allowance were to be mado for changing price
levels. Wages, profits, rents, and interest rates also tend to increase.
but in uneven degree, during periods of rising price levels. Part of the
capital god. na realized by common stockholders and direct proprietors of
tangible property during such periods are obtained at the expense of their
creditors, whose monetary claims are fixed.
The adjustments that could fossibly be made in our tax structure
to accommodate the diverse results of changes in the purchasing Dower of
money would inevitably be arbitrary. inadequate, and inequitable. The
proper place to attack the problem of monetary instability is on its
own ground.
- 3 -
H. FOREIGN METHODS OF TAXING CAPITAL GAINS 1/
4. Great Britain
The British formula for the taxation of capital gains is as
follows: Capital gains and losses on assets are not included in
the computation of net income except when the taxpayer makes trans-
actions in such assets his trade or business. Annual profits, in
the sense that such profits are likely to recur annually, are taxa-
blo; casual, non-recurring, or occasional profits arising from
transactions that do not form part of the ordinary business of the
person who males them are non-tamble.
The inherent difficulty in this formula lies in the impossibil-
ity of arriving at a satisfactory definition of annual profits or
gains. There is no simple test. The mumber of transactions consum-
mated is not & reliable guide. A reading of British cages shows
that the line dividing taxable and non-taxable profits or gains is
thin, wavering and arbitrary. As a consequence, it mist be expected
that considerable inequity as between individuals in substantially
similar circumstances will regult.
A severe indictment of the British formula was made in 1920 by
the latest Royal Commission to consider broad questions of income
tax policy. The report of the Commission deplored the narrow scope
of the existing charge and strongly recommended that the limitation
of the taxability of capital gains to "anmal" profits be renoved.
A definite recommendation was made that any profit on a "transaction
in which the subject matter was acquired with a view to profit
seeking" be taxed. British economists, officials and business men
do not defend their formula on the grounds of economic principle or
of equity. There 1s general acceptance of the Royal Commission's
criticism. Defense of the formula consists, first, of an argument
against change per so, and secondly, of an argument in favor of ad-
ministrative simplicity. The British are not satisfied with their
formula and they certainly do not regard it as B. model for others
to adopt.
The British formula tends to encourage various types of arti-
ficial transactions to transform taxable income into exempt profits.
One way of accomplishing this end is to buy stocks for the rise and
not for the dividends, inasmich as casual transactions in stocks
are exempt; whereas dividends are taxable. Secondly, B. taxpayer
1/ This section 1s adapted from a series of articles by Robert Murray
Haig in the Wall Street Journal, March and April, 1937,
Regraded Unclassified
- 4 -
say purchase bonds bearing a relatively low interest rate at a
discount and sell such bonds at or near par Just before maturity,
The profit BO made would not be tarable even though such profit
merely represents interest in another form. In the third place,
despite an effort to plug this loophole in the Finance Act of 1927,
& taxpayer may sell stock "cus dividend" and buy it back "ex divi-
dend*. Such a transaction would regult in a non-tarable gain in
place of the receipt of taxable dividends. A fourth method util-
ised by British taxpayers to avoid the income tax on ordinary in-
come has been the transfer of assets to & foreign corporation or-
ganised for the purpose, in order to convert taxable interest and
dividends into non-taxable capital gains. Attention was given to
this loophole in the Finance Act of 1936, but the effectiveness of
the provision adopted to climinate it is impaired by the necessity
of proving the intent of the taxpayer to avoid taxes.
B. France
The French formula is in general similar to the British. In
the case of strictly business enterprises, the not profit from the
transfer of any kind of asset, whether in course or upon the ter-
mination of the undertaking, 1s included in the tax base. In the
case of other taxpayers, gains from capital transactions are taxa-
ble if the activity giving rise to such gains is "habitual". Gaina
from casual capital transactions made by business enterprises are
taxable, but gains from casual transactions made by other tampayers
are not taxable.
A narrow technical definition given the term "taxable speculator"
aids the escape from taxation. Business enterprises escape the tax
placed upon their gains from casuel capital transactions by carrying
through the transaction in the name of a third person, such third
person acting in his capacity as an individual. French tax adminis-
tration 10 lax, there being no serious risk that B. corporation so
evading the tax will be brought to account.
The French formula, like the British, runs an arbitrary line
between taxable and non-taxable capital gains. The French do not
resort to widespread use of devices designed to transform taxable
income into non-taxable gains, largely because ensier methods of
avoiding the income tax are available to the French taxpayer. Two
favorite methods of avoiding the tax are either to purchase bearer
type securities in preference to the registered type when buying in
a French market, or to trade in foreign markets. The Government
- 5
has DO adaquate check on either bearer type securities or foreign
market transactions. The taxpayer merely forgets to disclose such
transactions. The chance that be will be discovered in his iniq-
uity 10 negligible, Evasion 1e BO easy, in fact, that no present
use need be made of loopholes in the capital gaine formula. The
loopholes are present to be used at any time the tax administrators
alogo presently utilized Avenues of escape.
C. Germany
The German formila for the treatment of capital gains under
the income tax includes gains on all transactions made by business
concerns (whether or not incorporated) and also includes gaine from
speculative transactions made by taxpayers other than business con-
cerns. Gaine from investment made by taxpayers other than business
concerns are exempt. An arbitrary time test is used to determine
whether a given transaction is a speculation or an investment. The
present law arbitrarily sets the dividing line between speculation
and investment at two years for real estate transactions and one
year for transactions in stocks; transactions in bonds are not con-
sidered to be speculation.
Under the German formula as it now stands, there are subotan-
tial tax-free areas to which taxpayers are tempted to gain access.
To avoid taxation, the fruits of a transaction must first avoid in-
clusion in the accounts of a business enterprise. Secondly, the
transaction must avoid classification as a speculation. The line
separating speculation from investment is clear and definite but are
bitrary to a high degree.
The present formula generates four working tendencies| (1) A
tendency to favor transactions in bonds: (2) A tendency to favor long-
term rather than short-term stock transactions; (3) A tendency in fa-
vor of stock rather than real estate transactions; and (4) 1 tendency
in favor of long-term rather than short-term real estate transactions.
The formula offers a reward to the taxpayer who transforms taxa-
ble income into non-taxable capital gains. Stocks heavy with dividends
can be sold "cum" and bought back "ex" with advantage, provided the N-
curity has been held a year 07 more. There is also an inducement to
invest in stocks likely to appreciate in market value rather than in
big dividend stocks.
The German formula automatically generates irresiatible incentives
to avoid and evade the tax. The time togt as to investment vergus
speculation causes market transactions to be carried through at "un-
natural" times: and the evagion and avoidance devices involve "unnat-
ural" transactions and thereby create abnormal market conditions.
Regraded Unclassified
torical
ground
- 6 -
m. SUMMARY OF OUR TREATMENT OF CAPITAL GAINS
Prom the enactment of the 1913 income tax law until 1921, capi-
tal (ains realized by individuals, irrespective of the period held,
TOTO treated like any other source of income and subjected to the full
normal and surtax rates in the year of realization.
Partly in order to eliminate the disproportionately high taxes
on gains from long-held assets, but mainly because of A belief that
high tax rates on capital gains vere obstructing normal transactions
in capital assets, Congress drastically altered the tax treatment
of capital gains in the Revenue Act of 1921. It was provided that
gains from assets held for two years or less must continue to be in-
cluded in ordinary income in full; but, at the election of the tax-
payer, "capital net gains," from the sale of assets held for more than
two years, could be segregated from other income and subjected to a
tax of 12/- percent in lieu of normal and murtaxes; provided, if such
election were made, the total tax, including the tax on capital net
gains, could in no case be less than 12 percent of the total net in-
come. The latter restriction was dropped in 1924; but in other re-
spects this treatment of capital gains was continued unchanged through
the Reveme Act of 1932.
The substantial increases in individual income-tax rates that
were effected by the Revenue Act of 1932 greatly accentuated the dia-
parity in the tax treatment of capital gains B.6 compared with income
derived from other sources. This disparity was substantially reduced
by the adoption in the Revenue Act of 1934 of the prevailing plan where-
under the income derived from capital gains ie subjected to the ordinary
income-tax schedule, but the proportion of capital gains made taxable
varies inversely - though somewhat arbitrarily - with the number of
years during which the asset is held.
the capital losses of individuals have received varying treatment
is the several revenue acts. No allowance whatever USA made for capi-
tal losses in the Revenue Act of 1913, and in the Acts of 1916 and
1917, they were allowed only to the extent of capital gains. The
1918 Act provided full allowance for capital losses against income of
any kind.
In the 1921 Act the distinction between assets held two years or
less and assets held more than two years WES first introduced.
Losses on assets held two years or less were allowed in full against
other income but not against capital net gains; losses on mosets held
more than two years were allowed in full against income of any kind.
In the Ilevenue Act of 1924, the limitation upon losses on assets hald
- 7 -
two years or less was removed so that such losses were allowed
against income of any kind; with respect to the losses on assete
held more than two years, the taxpayer was granted the option of
segregating such losses from ordinary net income and taking a tax
credit of 12} percent of the capital net loss, provided that the
total tax could not be less than that derived by treating the capi-
tal net loss as a deduction from ordinary net income. This treat-
ment remained in force through the Revenue Act of 1932, which added
& limitation restricting the allowance of losses from sales or ex-
changes from stocks or bonds held two years or less to gains from
such sales. Under the Revenue Act of 1934. the percentages for the
step-down eystem were applicable to losses in the same manner as
to gains, with the limitation that losses 80 determined could not
be included for purposes of determining net income except to the
amount of the included capital gains plus $2,000.
The capital gains of corporations throughout the period 1913 to
date have consistently been treated in the same way as other sources
of corporate income. Special treatment was not needed as long as
there was & relatively low flat corporation income tax: and the enact-
ment of graduated rates beginning in 1936 has created no practical
problems, because the range of graduation 1s relatively narrow. The
imposition of the surtax on undistributed profits has, however,
created new problems.
The tax treatment of capital gains and losses, for both indi-
viduals and corporations, during the neriod 1913 to date is detailed
in the following summary, to which there is appended an analysis of
the historical treatment respecting the carry-forward of capital
losses:
Unclassified
viduals
- 8 -
Historical Summary of Tax Treatment of Capital
Gains and Losses, 1913-1936, inclusive
Part I. Individuals
I
I
Treatment of:
Revenue I
T
Income year
Gains from sale or exchange
:
Act
Losses from sale or exchange
I
I
of assets
:
of assets
I
-
I
1913
Mar. 1, 1913 to
Included with other income
'ot allowed
Dec. 31, 1915
subject to full normal and
surtax rates
1916
1916
do
Allowed only to the extent of
the gains from such sales
1917
1917
do
do
1918
1918-1921
do
Allowed in full against income
of any kind
1921
1922, 1923
Assets hold 2 years or less
Included with other income
Allowed in full against other
subject to full normal and
income, but not against
surtax rates
capital net gains.
Assets held over 2 years
At the election of the tax-
Allowed in full against income
payer, canital net gains
of any kind
were taxable at 12 percent
in lieu of the normal und
surtex rates, but if such
election were made the
total tax, including the
tax on capital not gains,
could in no case be less
than 12g percent of the
total net income
- 9 -
Part I. Individuals (Continued)
-
a
Treatment of:
Bevenue
I
Income year
-
Gains from sale or exchange
:
Act
Losses from sale or exchange
#
-
of easeta
1
of assets
-
I
I
1924
1924
Assets held 2 years or less
Same as 1921 Act
Allowed in full against in-
come of any kind
Assets hold over 2 years
At the election of the tax-
Could 08. segregated from or-
payer, capital net gains were
dinary net income, and a tax
terable at 12g percent in lieu
credit of 12 percent of the
of the normal and surtax rates
capital net loss taken, but
in no case could the tax be
less than the tax (computed
at normal and surtax rates)
would be if the capital net
loss were deducted from 01-
dinary net income
1926
1926-1927
Same as 1924 Act
Same as 1924 Act
1928
1928-1931
do
do
1932
1932
Assets held 2 years or less
Saso as 1924 Act
Losses from sales or exchanges
of stocks and bonds were limited
to the gains from such sales.
It was provided, however, that
such losses disallowed in one
year (to an amount not in (I»
0988 of the net income) could
be carried over and applied
against gains from such trans-
actions in the succeeding
taxable year
Other losses were allowed in
full against income of any
kind
1/
The provision relating to the carry forward of disallowed losses from sales or ex-
changes of stocks and bonds hold two years or less was repealed by the National Indus-
trial Incovery Act before 11 because effective.
- 10 -
Part I. Individuals (Contimued)
=
1
Treatment of:
Revenue :
$
Gains from sale or exchange
E
Losses from sale or exchange
Act
I
Income Year
:
of assets
1
of assets
=
1
:
1932 (Continued)
Assets hold over 2 years
Same as 1924 Act
Same as 1924 Act
N.I.R.A.
1933
Assets held 2 years or less
Same as 1924 Act
Losses from sales or exchanges
of stocks and bonds were
limited to the gains from such
sales
Other losses were allowed in
full against income of any
kind
Assets held over 2 years
Some as 1924 Act
Same as 1924 Act
1934-1936
1934
Percentages of gains or losses recognized
:
Period assets are held
1
Percentages
I
1 year or less
100
Over 1 year but not over 2 years
80
Over 2 years but not over 5 years
60
Over 5 years but not over 10 years
40
Over 10 years
30
Canital gains so computed are
Capital losses so computed
included in net income subject
are recognized in determining
to full normal and surtax rates
net income to the amount of
the recognized canital gains
plus $2,000
tions
- 11 -
Part II. Corporations
:
:
Treatment of:
Revenue
:
Income year
:
Gains from sale or exchange
:
Losses from sale or exchange
Act
:
:
of assets
:
of assets
1913-1928
1913-1931
Included with other income
Allowed in full against income
subject to full rate
of any kind
1932
1932
do
Losses from sales or exchanges
of stocks and bonds held 2 years
or less were limited to the
gains from such sales. It THIS
provided, however, that such
losses disallowed in one year
(to en amount not in excess of
the net income) could be car-
ried over and applied against
gains from such transactions in
the succeeding taxable year
Other losses were allowed in
full against income of any kind
I.R.A.
1933
do
Losses from sales or exchanges
of stocks and bonds held 2 years
or less were limited to the
gains from such sales
Other losses were allowed in
full against income of any kind
1934-1936
1934-
do
Allowed only to extent of $2,000
plus capital gains
The provision relating to the carry-forward of disallowed losses from sales or exchanges of
stocks and bonds held two years or less was repealed by the National Industrial Recovery Act
before it became effective.
Regraded Unclassified
12 -
General nota relating to the carry-forward of capital losses
Capital losses from sale or exchange of assets could not in general be cerried forward to suc-
beeding years under any of the Revenue Acts of 1913 to 1918.
Under the Revenue Act of 1918, bowever, capital losses on plant. buildings, eachinery, etc.,
acquired by the texpayer on or after April 6. 1917, and used in the production of articles contrib-
uting to the prosecution of the were entered lato the computation of "net losses" 1/. The "net loss"
provisions of this Act related only to "not losses" sustained in the period beginning after
October 31, 1913, and ending prior to January 1, 1920. The 1918 law permitted the application of
the "net loss", first against Income of the preceding taxable year (involving & redetermination of
the preceding year's tax and 6 refund or credit) and the application against the following year's
income of any 6X0688 of met loas" over income of the preceding year.
Beginning with the Revenue Act of 1921, the application of "net losses" to succeeding periods
became a. regular feature of our income tax laws until the practice was discontinued by the National
Industrial Recovery Act of 1933. Capital losses (subject to somewhat different limitations for indi-
viduals and corporations) entered into the computation of such "not losses" and were carried forward
for varying periods as follows:
:Number of years that:
Irtent that capital losses entered
Revenue Act : "net losses" were
I
into the computation of "not loss"
I
carried forward
:
For individuals
I
for corporations
1921
2
Included, if capital assets are used in the conduct of trade or
business regularly carried on by the tampayer.
1924-1928
2
Losses on assets held 2 years or less
Included.
Included.
Losses on assets held over 2 years
Included only to the (2-
Included.
tent of the capital gains.
1932
1
Losses on assets hald 2 years or less
Included, except that losses from sales or exchanges of stocks
and bonde were limited to gains from such sales. It was pro-
vided, however, that losses disallowed in one year (to an amount
not in excess of the net income) could be carried over and ATM
plied against gains from such transactions in the succeeding
taxable year.
20
Losses on assets held over 2 years
Same as 1924-1928 nots.
1934-1936
None
1/ "Net loss" (subject to certain emeptions and limitations) mesns the excess of the deductions
allowed over the gross income.
The deduction for "not losses" carried forward by taxpayers other than corporations applied
first as & deduction in computing ordinary net income excluding capital net gains and any excuss
over ordinary net income in each year of the carry-forward period applied to the reduction of
the capital net gains, if MAY,
The provision relating to the carry-forward of disallowed losses from salve or exchanges of
stocks and bonds held two years or less vas repealed by the National Emoovery Act before it be-
case effective.
Regraded Unclassified
Present Tax
Treatment
NO
- 13 -
IV. CRITICAL ANALYSIS OF PRESENT TAX TREATMENT
OF CAPITAL GAINS AND LOSSES OF INDIVIDUALS
If income taxes applicable to individuals were levied at a
single uniform proportional rate, and if the rate remained unchanged,
the fact that gains realized in a single year may represent those
that had accrued over a long period of years would create no prob-
lem. The aggregate taxes paid by a taxpayer on B. given amount of
gain would be the same whether portions of that gain were realized
each year, or whether the whole gain was realized in & lump sus in
& single year.
Under a system of graduated progressive rates, however, the
realization in a single year of gains that had accrued over five or
ten years subjects such gains to higher taxes than are applicable
to sources of income realized during the years of accrual.
The present tax treatment accorded the capital gains and losses
of individuals was designed primarily to solve this problem, by in-
cluding in taxable income capital gains and (subject to the limits-
tion) losses to the extent of certain percentages which vary with
the length of time assets are held. The percentages are as follows:
I Percentage of gain
Years
:
or loss included
asset hold 1
in income
1 or less
100
1+ to 2
50
2+ to 5
60
5+ to 10
40
Over 10
30
4. Equity with Respect to Gains
Arbitrary though the present system may be in many respects,
it constitutes an improvement over the previous system in two in-
portant respects. In the first place, the taxation of capital gains
18 not divorced from the progressive individual income tax schedule.
Secondly, all classes of income taxpayers enjoy favored treatment
of their capital gains, and not only the upper income classes, as
formerly.
Regraded Unclassified
- 14 -
To measure the degree to chich the present treatment conforms
to the requirements of scuity, 8020 standard must be agreed mon.
Idenlly such a standard might be found in the aggregate taxes that
would have been payable if the realized capital gain had been reported
in segments, year by year. as it in fact accrued, and subjected to the
tax rates then in force. The tax under this standard would very with
fluctuations in the individual's ordinary income, with changes in the
tax rates. and with changes in the annual amounts of supreciation in
value. The practical difficulties of miolying such a standard amount
to be insuperable, for the present nt least.
more practicable approach to a standard of equity any be made
by assuming that an avers e amount of canital gains had been realized
evenly over the number of years during which the asset WILS held; that
the individual's other income remained constant; and that the current
tax rates were in force throughout the period, A fair tax on a
realized canital gain under this standard would be determined by
dividing the celtal gain by the number of years during which the asset
had been held, adding the average amount to the individual's other in-
come in the year of realization, determining the tax applicable to
this average amount, and multiplying this tax by the number of years
during which the asset had been held.
Judged by this standard - which may be called the "accrual basis"
capital gains are now subjected to decidedly preferential trentment as
compared with other forms of income. Concrete measures of the extent
to which the taxes now imposed upon capital gains are less than those
that would be imposed by the standard just described are presented for
selected cases in Table I. (For tables, see Aopendix A.) It will be
observed that the present taxes range from 20 percent to 70 percent
lower in these selected cases than the taxes which would be payable under
the standard described.
If the effect of the present tax treatment of capital gains were
merely confined to a uniform preferential treatment of this type of in-
come, this could conceivably be justified on grounds of practical ex-
pediency, and on the further ground, perhaps, that our treatment of
capital losses is unduly harsh. The fact of the matter, however, as
is illustrated in the table, is that the present treatment, while de-
cidedly preferential to cepital gains in practically all cases, is
whimeical in its effects: and its general tendency is to give disnro-
portionate tax preference to individuals with large incomes.
The difficulty does not lie primarily in the specific step-down
percentages contained in the present law. The fact of the matter is
that it is inherently impossible, under A progressive rate system, to
design any series of step-downs in the proportions of taxable cenital
gains which would yield results entirely consistent with the standard
described above.
Regraded Unclassified
- 15 -
B, Inequity with respect to losses.
Capital losses, after application of the statutory percentages,
are deductible only to the extent of $2,000 plus taxable capital
gains, with no carry-forward of loases.
This treatment of capital losses is inequitable. In the first
place, the limitation means that no consideration whatever is given
excess losses in the current year. Thus, & taxpayer may be required
to pay an income tax on ordinary income in spite of the fact that
he has excess capital losses to an extent sufficient to more than
offset his ordinary income. In the second place, the taxpayer is
not allowed to carry forward capital losses against future capital
gains. The widespread sense of injustice flowing out of this treat-
ment impaire cooperation between taxpayers and the Government in
the administration of the income tax. In the minde of many, the
present treatment is so patently unjust 8.8 to be repugnant to all
sense of fair play.
C, Encouragement of capital gains as source of income,
One of the most importent criticisms levied against the pres-
ent tax treatment of capital gains has been that wealthy individuals
are discouraged from embarking their capital upon new enterprises.
Large-scale ventures into new fields cannot commonly look to public
financing to provide their capital requirements. Most such ven-
tures require one or more men of large means who are willing to
take the risks involved. What we may term the "enterprise capital"
provided by such individuals performe & highly useful economic
and social service; and it is precisely such individuals who are
best fitted to assume the necessary risks. But the prospect that
sruch of the gains, if any, will go to the tax collector, while the
losses, if any, will be allowed only in part as B. deduction against
taxable income, it is contended, removes much of the incentive for
"enterprise capital".
Now the most striking characteristic of our tax treatment
of capital gains, in conjunction with the schedule of individual
income tax rates, is that an extremely strong inducement is of-
fered to wealthy individuals to make their new investments precisely
in such manner as will cause their returns to take the form of
capital gains. This may best be made clear by concrete examples,
- 16 -
Assume as individual with other surtax income of $200,000 who has
$1,000,000 to invest. If he can find an investment which, over a be-
riod of 10 years, will return him a cepital gein averaging only 5 per-
cent per annum, corpounded annually, be would discover upon calculation
that his net return, after taxes, would be equivalent to 8 12.8 percent
annual yield or an ordinary income-producing investment. He would find
that over & period of 5 years he would need to obtain an ennual yield
of 11.5 percent from an ordinary income-producing investment to equal
the net return, after taxes, that he might obtain through B. capital
gain averaging only 5 percent per annum. Even on an investment for
only 1 year (1 day should be added to each of these periods). R. 5 per-
cent capital gain would give him just 88 large a return after taxes B.G
B. 7.1 percent yield in interest, dividends, rents or royelties.
Similarly, B capital gain averaging 10 percent per annum, com-
pounded annually, would give him the equivalent, after taxes, of an-
muel yields of fully taxable income of 27.7 percent, 24.6 percent and
14.5 percent respectively, according PLB he held the cepital gain in-
vestment for just over 10, 5. or 1 years.
He would need a capital gain averaging only 1.5 percent per annum,
compounded annually, over a. period of 10 years, to obtain the same net
income, after taxes, that he would derive from a 3.7 percent bond; and
even over & period of only 1 year and a day, a capital gain of 2) per-
cent would equal his net yield after texes from a 3% percent bond; etc.
These and other exemples illustrating the preferential tox treat-
ment now accorded income obtained in the form of capital gaine, A.O com-
pared with other forms of income, are presented in greater detail in
Tables II. III, IV, and V. The clear conclusion of these considere-
tions is that well-informed wealthy men possess a very powerful in-
centive under present low to take a large proportion of their total
income in the form of capital gains.
Do Effect on tex-exempt investment.
There is no doubt that capital gains taxes, like any taxes on in-
vestment income, increase the relative attractiveness, other things
being equal, of tax-axempt investments. But the fnot 18 that capital
grins themselves constitute, in effect, & partially tax-exempt type of
income under present law. Exemption from income taxes In of greatest
value, of course, to individuals subject to the highest surtaxes. An
individual with $200,000 of other surtax not income need obtain A. capi-
tal gain averaging only 3.7 percent per annun, compounded annually over
& ten-year period, on a new investment of $1,000,000. to obtain the
came net yield after taxes that he could obtain from A 3 percent wholly
tex-exempt bonds and a capital gain averaging only 5 percent per ennus
would give him & net tax-free income averaging 4.1 percent per ennum.
(See Tables II, III, IV, and V.)
Regraded Unclassified
1. Variability in Revenue
The inclusion of capital gains and loases for purposes of de-
termining the income tax base accentuates the instability of income
tax revenues. This is true of the present and past treatment, and
doubtless would be true under any of the hitherto untried plans.
The fact that capital gains constitute an erratic source of income
is not sufficient reason for affording them preferential tax status.
It would be B mistake to design the character of capital gains taxa-
tion with stability of revenue as the primary objective. Stability
of income tax revenues. if it be at all attainable, must be reached
by stabilizing our entire economy, or by B. system of averaging the
tax base. It cannot be reached, whether capital gains are included
or excluded in the income tax base, under a system of progressive
income tax rates in an economy that 10 characterized by severe
business depressions.
In such an economy, the desirability of stable Federal reve-
nues is extremely doubtful. There are broad economic grounds for
the position that, within limits, fluctuations in Federal revenues
in response to fluctuations in business conditions are highly
desirable. Federal Government finance is capable of providing one
of the most important elements of flexibility in the economic
structure. In periods of depression, when bank credit has been
or is being contracted and other avenues of investment are tempo-
rarily unsttractive to those wi th idle funds, an excess of Govern-
ment expenditures over tax receipts, financed by debt instruments,
serves the important function, among others, of moderating the
decline in the Nation's purchasing power, and an excess of tax
receipts over ordinary expenditures in prosperous times 11 capable
of moderating booms.
1. Effect on Securities Markets 1/
There are three chief respects in which our present canital
gains tax provisions may be said to influence the timing of canital
transactions:
(1) Income taxes on capital gains may be poot-
poned, at the option of the taxpayer, by delaying the
formal realization of such gains.
For a general discussion of the effects of canital gains tara-
tion on securities markets, see Section V.
Regraded Unclassified
- 18 -
(2) Income taxes on canital gains may be
reduced, at the ontion of the taxpayer, by defer-
ring formal realization until one or more of the
four "sten-down" intervals provided in the law
has elabsed.
(3) Income taxes on capital gains may be
commletely avoided, at the option of the taxpayer,
by foregoing formal realization during his lifetime,
leaving such realization to be accomplished by his
heirs.
In analyzing the effects of these influences upon the deci-
sions of the investors, it is imoortant to bear in mind that though
real, they are modifying rather than primary influences; and that
they operate among B. myriad of other forces.
1. Postponsment of Tax Liability
There can be little doubt that the mere fact that an indi-
vidual may definitely postpone or avoid liability for additional
income taxes by refraining from consummating A capital transaction,
constitutes in itself a motive to BO refrain. Capital gains taxes
of the present character may be regarded, from this point of view,
as a mecies of substantial transfer tax. Like brokerage commie-
sions and stamo taxes, but far more heavily, in many Cases, they
interpose & cost, and therefore an obstacle, against the sale of
capital assete.
Further, the proceeds of most sales of capital assets are
converted into new investments. Most investors must face the con-
sideration, therefore, that the superiority of their contemolated
substitute investments is yet to be proved, whereas the additional
tax liability arising out of the sale of the old investments is
certain. A new investment must not only be more attractive than
the old, but sufficiently more attractive, in addition, to offset
the capital gains tax which the transfer will entail. The policies
of trustees and managers of estates are sometimes decisively
influenced by these considerations. Because these factors are hard
to weigh, many investors are apt to place an irrationally heavy
weight upon the tax factor.
The psychological obstacle to the realization of large capital
gains by investore with substantial taxable incomes may easily be
illustrated:
- 19 -
In 1933, an investor purchased 2,000 shares of Phelpe-Dodge
common stock at $10 a share. When the stock reached $58 & share
in 1937, the owner concluded that it was time to sell, partic-
ularly in view of his belief that copper prices and perhaps busi-
ness generally were due to decline. Before selling, the investor
computed his prospective tazes. He estimated that his surtex
net income from other sources would be $50,000. The sale of his
Phelpe-Dodge stock would give him $96,000 of profit. of which
60 percent. or $57,600. would be subject to income tax. His nor-
mal and surtaxes on the taxable portion of his Phelpe-Dodge
profit would amount to $29,012, equal to about 144 points in the
price of the stock. The market price of his Phelys-Dodge stock
could decline by 25 percent without the decline quite equaling
the amount of tax he would have to pay if he sold before the
decline. If he contemplated the purchase of a different stock
with the proceeds of his sale, he would have to take account
of the fact that after allowing for his tax he would have avail-
able only 75 percent of these proceeds for the substitute invest-
ment. Though persuasive to some investors, these grounds for
delaying liquidation are not altogether sound, as is brought out
in Section V. (Page 24)
Likewise, the existing or any other restrictions on the deduct-
ibility of losses on capital transactions influence the timing of
the latter. On the one hand, the existing law, by limiting the
deductibility of capital losses to the amount of taxable capital
gains plus $2,000. provides a definite incentive to concentrate
the realization of losses in years when capital gains are large
and to defer the realization of capital losses in years when capital
gains and other income are mall. On the other hand, by applying
the step-down schedule to the amount of capital losses deductible,
the present law encourages an early realization of losses. In
practice. these conflicting tendencies are further complicated by
the fact that the very business and market conditions that favor
the possibility of realizing large capital gains reduce the possi-
bility of realizing large capital losses, and vice versa.
2. Reduction in Tax Liability through Postponement of Realization
The existence of tax differentials based upon definite time
intervals should logically influence the timing of many capital
transactions. Particularly where the gains are large. and subject
to high surtax rates, the pri vilege of avoiding taxes on 20 to TO
percent of such gains by postponing legal realization for one to
ten years may naturally be expected to provide 8. powerful induce-
ment for such postponement.
Regraded
Unclassifi
- 20 -
The degree of this inducement is closely dependent upon the
surtax bracket in which additional income will fall. An individ-
ual with a surtax net income of $10,000, who has an unrealized
capital gain of $2,000 on a stock held for just over two years,
would be subject to an additional income tax of $132 if he realized
his gain immediately, and could look forward to a tax saving of
only $44 if he delayed realization for an additional three years.
An individual with a surtax net income of $100,000, with the same
unrealised capital gain, would be liable to an additional tax of
$744 if he sold the stock immadiately, but could save $248 in
taxes by delaying liquidation for an additional three years.
Some investors may also be influenced by the consideration
that postponement of realization of capital gains until after the
close of a taxable year gives them. in effect, a free loan. for
an additional year of an amount equal to the taxes that would
have been payable on the capital gains if realized; and that this
allows them to maintain a larger position in the market.
3. Complete Avoidance of Canital Gains Taxes
Canital gains taxes may be avoided completely if realization
of rains is nut made during an individual's lifetime and the assets
incorporating gains are bequeathed to his heirs.
Any individual well past middle lift who possesses securities
or other properties acquired at costs substantially below the
prices that he might currently realize thereon, is thereby provided
with a distinct and powerful incentive to refrain from selling
them. If he does sell them, he will be subject to income taxes
on at least 30 percent of all the capital gains that he realizes,
unless he has suffered offsetting losses. If he does not sell
them, he and his heirs escape tax liability on such gains forever.
In addition. the ability to male gifts directly, or indirectly
through trusts, as well as charitable contributions, in the form
of assets incorporating capital gains. likewise provides a deter-
rent to realization, because the capital gains incorporated in the
assets are not subjected to income taxas at the time of transfer.
G. Tax Avoidance on Capital Gains Increments Included
in Property Transferred at Death, by Inter Vivos
Gifts and in Charitable Contributions
At first glance, it may apnear that the tax avoidance arising
through the transfer at death of canital ansets incorporating canital
gains is largely offset by the higher total estate taxes which result
Regraded Unclassifi
- 21 -
because the total bequest is larger by the amount of the capits'
gains tax avoidance. It should be noted that the loophole cannot
be completely sealed by this offset so long as the estate tax
rates are under 100 percent.
The situation with respect to inter vivos gifts is somewhat
similar in character. An individual who divides among his children
properties incorporating large unrealized capital gains is not
subject to capital gains taxes on the gains included in the gifts.
The children are likewise not subject to capital gains taxes in
connection with these gifts, unless and until they liquidate the
properties. What is more, the distribution of the gains among
several individuals and, commonly, among individuals of smaller
income than the transferor, reducasthe aggregate tax liability
upon the capital gains. As in the case of the estate tax, the
avoidance of the tax on capital gains cannot be offset completely
so long as the gift tax rates are under 100 percent.
In addition, an individual making donations to charity in the
form of assets incorporating capital gains also avoids taxes
because the law does not recognize that such transactions result
in realization of capital gains by the donor; and the charitable
and similar institutions are not subject to taxation.
Securities
Market
- 22 -
V. CAPITAL GAINS TAXATION AND THE SECURITIES MARKETS
The most persistent objection voiced against capital gains taxes
is the contention that they greatly obstruct the trade in securities
and other capital assets, It is argued that many potential trans-
actions that would otherwise be undertaken are postponed for varying
periods, or indefinitely, to avoid or reduce taxation on the gains
that would be realized in connection therewith. The mobility of
capital end enterprise is thereby retarded.
It 16 also urged that when stock prices are rising, the liquida-
tion of over-priced securities, which might check and moderate an
unhealthy rise, is discouraged, thereby contributing to an exaggera-
tion of the rise and to a sharper subsequent decline. In consequence,
it 18 held, stock market booms and collapses are accentuated,
There is some measure of truth in these contentions; but it
must be emphasized that, except in certain special cases, the scope
and force of tax influences upon the sale of securities may be
easily exeggerated. In general, neither the available empirical
evidence nor analysis of the underlying factors supports the large
claims often made in this connection.
A. General Limitations unon the Tax Influence.
1. Immobility of Mass of Capital Assets
In practice, we know that the great mass of capital assets is
owned by persons, natural or legal, whose continued ownership of
such assets would be largely unaffected by the character of our
capital gains tax provisions. This is not only true of most physical
properties, but it is also true of the great mass of securities. A
large proportion of the latter is held by controlling stockholding
interests in the various corporations, and a large part of the re-
mainder is held for long-term investment for the interest and dividend
income.
2. Short-term Speculation not Greatly Affected
Further, even the effectively mobile fraction of the country's
capital assets 1e not uniformly sensitive to the character of our
capital gains tax provisions. It is important to distinguish, in this
connection, between traders, speculators, and investors in securities.
The securities operations of traders are not directly affected by the
Regraded Unclassified
23 -
capital gains tax provisions because it is of Lbs ******* of their
function that their operations are extremely short-term in character-
well within one year. Gains from transactions in capital monate COD-
stitute their normal source of Income; and such gains on the part of
professional traders would presumably be taxed as ordinary income, As
they are in England, even if taxes on capital gains generally were
aboliabed. A substantial proportion of opeculatore in securities also
seek to exploit short-term movements primarily; and the operations of
such individuals are likewise relatively insensitive to capital gains
tax provisions. Traders and short-term speculators in securities ao-
count for a very significant fraction of the total volume of trading
in securities.
Data made available in recent years indicate that the operations
of stock exchange members alone, smong traders and speculators, bulk
surprisingly large in the total volume of trading in listed securities.
Thus, the figures compiled by the Senate Committee on Banking and
Currency for the month of July 1933, disclosed that the percentage of
members' trading in relation to all shares bought and sold on the New
York Stock Exchange vas 27.01 percent, and on the New York Curb Exchange.
27.48 percent, and on 27 other exchanges, 12.36 percent( Senate Report
No. 1455, 73rd Congress, 2nd Bession, pages 19-21). Likewise. the
Securities and Exchange Commission, in its report of June 20, 1936, on
the "Fonsibility and Advisability of the Complete Segregation of the
Functions of Dealer and Broker" (pages 12-13) noted that in the 25
weeks between June 24, 1935 and December 14, 1935, members' trading
in all stocks on the New York Stock Exchange, exclusive of transao-
tions by odd-lot dealers, totaled 24 percent of the reported purchase.
and sales: and that the average weekly percentage of the total trading
accounted for by members of the exchange was also 24 percent. The pro-
portion of the total trading on the New York Curb Exchange accounted
for by members during substantially the name period Use not greatly
different from the proportion cited for the New York Stock Exchange,
3. Greater Importance of Business Factors to Investors
Even among inventors, it must be emphasized that tax factors
operate in practice among n welter of other considerations, and that,
by reason of this fact, they are commonly robbed of E great deal of
their force. in individual who comes to the conclusion that the
competitive position and profite prospects of the two leading American
producers of tin cans are going to be undermined by the entrance into
this field of the Owens-Illinois Glass Company and other important
container manufacturers, 1s very unlikely, if well advised, to post-
pons for eight or nine months the onlo of American Can or Continantal
Regraded Unclassifie
- 34 -
Can common stocks in order to obtain tax exemption for en additional
20 peroant of his possible profits from the sale of such stocks, A
much maller decline in the market price of the stock would more tran
offset the reduction in taxes. This is true in nearly all cases
where the motive of the sale is withdrawal from a declining, threat-
ened, or andarrassed industry or enterprise.
Assume an individual with other surtax net income of $50,000
who has an unrealised profit of $2,000 on 100 shares of Continental
Can that he has hold for just over 18 months, If this individual
sells his stock immediately, $1,600 of his profit will be subject to
income taxes of 35 percent, or $560, If he holds his stock for an
additional six months, only $1,200 of his profit would be tazable,
and the tax would be $420 - a tax saving of $140. A decline of
less than 2 points in the price of the stock would wipe out the tax
advantage of holding.
The same considerations apply more generally. When owners of
securities conclude that the business situation as a whole is deteri-
orating, or, more narrowly, when they conclude that the stock market
facen 6. substantial decline, the possible tax economies of delaying
liquidation are in most cases considerably less than the depreciation
that seems imminent in the market value of securities. The cyclical
and even some of the secondary fluctuations in securities prices are
80 great as to overahadow tax considerations on a purely rational
basis; though there is little doubt that irrational repugnance to
incurring an avoidable or postponable tax liability gives the
tax consideration somewhat greater weight in practice than St would
merit on 6. purely rational basis.
4. Contingent Tax Liability of Unrealized Capital Gains
The importance of these market and business factors, even in
the case of & wealthy individual who hesitates to realise large
copital gains, may be illustrated by referring again to the example
previously given (page 19) of an individual who purchased 2,000
shares of Phelps-Dodge stock in 1933 at $10 a share and faced the
question of whether, in view of the income tax of $29,012 on his
capital gains, be could afrord to sell the stock at $58. It was
pointed out as an illustration of the psychological obstacle to such
sale that the stock could decline by slightly more than 25 percent
before the depreciation would equal the tax liability that would
be incurred by the investor as a result of the sale. The intelligent
investor, however, would also take account of the fact that the con-
tinued holding of the Phelps-Dodge stock during B period when it
depreciated by 25 percent would still leave him a large contingent
tax liability, whereas the sale of the stock at $56 would discharge
this contingent tax liability.
- 25 -
Unless the investor hopes to aroid capital Gaino taxes entirely
by holding the stock until his death, or expects the aristing capi=
tal gains tax provisions to be creatly relaxed or eliminated, or
counts on the availability of future capital losses to offset into
capital gain, he must regard his contingent tax liability on
unrealized cenital sins at a real factor.
5. Explanations of Concentration of Long-Held Assets Anon/- the
Vealthy
Data obtained from income tax returns over a period of years
clearly reveal that the bulle of the net capital gains realized by
members of the upper income groups have been realized consistently
on easets held for more than two years. The 1934 figures,
(Table VIII) which are evailable in greater detail, show what W2#
probably true in previous years - that the crest bulk of cepital
gains realized by members of the highest income groups was realised
on assets held for very long periods. Although our capital gains
tax provisions no doubt contribute to this result, it is extremely
doubtful that they have been of decisive importance in this con-
nection.
The most important of these factors 18 that very sizeable 0271-
ital gains normally arise only over & fairly long period of years,
The owner of a. valuable piece of urban real estate can usually
realize a net cain of several hundred percent, if he realizes such
e. gain at all, only by holding the property for e prolonged rise.
In the seme way, 8. man who multiplies his capital in an industrial
enterprise by 20 or 30 times cannot normally realize such results
except over & long period.
A sizeable proportion of the large capital gains realized by
members of the highest income groups, moreover, in realized in
connection with the sale to the public, after many years, of what
hed previously been family or other closely held corporations.
Small machine shops, largely owned by single individuals, or E. few
partners, for example, have frequently from into sizeable eutomo-
bile accessory producers before their securities have been distrib-
uted, with the aid of investment bankers, to investore Cenerally.
The capital gains incorporated in such enterprises, when formally
realized, are bunched in the year or years of sale to the public,
though they had accrued over EL veriod of many years.
These forces operating toward the concentration of long-held
Assots as the najor source of capital gains among members of the
higher income groups rould andear to be the primary ones, and they
would operate powerfully in the same direction, even if complete
income tax exemption vero accorded capital gains. To e consider-
able degree, the step-downs in the taxable proportion of realized
capital Jains, according to the length of time during which the
- 26 -
nevet 1s held, serve not BO much, in practice, to cause incividuals
to delay liquidation as to confer tax benefits upon individuals who,
for other reasons, would hold their assets for long periods of time
in any svent. And the chief baneficiaries of the present "step-down"
treatment of capital gains are, in practice, individuals with large
incomes,
6. Average of Stock Prices not Necessarily Affected by Realisation
of Onlne
It should be emphasized that the level of stock market prices
would not necessarily be lowered if a drastic reduction in capital
gains taxes led to a greatly increased volume of realizing sales.
If those who took advantage of the relaxation in capital gains taxes
to realise their gains, purchased other securities with the proceeds
of their sales, the increase in the denand for stock market securi-
ties in the aggregate would be just as great 86 the increase in the
supply of securities, A significant reduction in the average level
of stock market prices could be expected to follow a substantial
lowering of capital gains taxes only if the latter induced an impor-
tant fraction of large holders of stocks to liquidate without using
the proceeds to buy other stocks, Such an effect is unlikely during
a period of widespread recovery in corporate earning power.
The alleged moderating influence upon the rising trend of the
securities markets of B. drastic reduction in capital gains taxes
is particularly debatable during a period of underlying business
improvement. It is true that such reduction would have the techni-
cal effect of removing existing deterrents to the sale of particular
securities by particular individuals holding large unrealized gaine
therein. But it would provide no deterrent whatever to the immediate
reinvestment in other securities by these individuals of the proceeds
of their sales. On the contrary, the very fact that the taxation of
capital gains had been substantially reduced would sake the stock
market more attractive than ever. Stock market gains, which oven now
enjoy preferential tax treatment if the securities are held for more
than one year, would be given an even more privileged tax status
among the various sources of individual incomes.
D. Analysis of the Effects of Past Tax Treatment of Capital
Gaine and Losses on the Securities Market
The evidence provided by the stock market history of the last
15 years reinforces the conclusions drawn from other considerations
in indicating that the role played by the tax treatment of capital
gains as a determinant of the speculative climate is not of major
importance.
- 27 -
1, The Twenties
a, Overshadowing Importance of Non-Tax Influences: It has al-
ready been observed (page 6) that the principal motivation for the
optional exclusion of capital gains from ordinary income and the
taxation of such excluded gains at e flat rate of 12} percent, as
WELB incorporated in the Revenue Act of 1921, was the belief that
high tax rates on capital gains were obstructing normal transactions
in capital assets.
Now the influence of the alteration in tax treatment, if it was
a significant influence, was only one of many factors that operated
during this period to swell the volume of capital transactions and
the volume of realized capital gains. The acgregate volume of bank
deposits in the United States increased by more than $18 billions
between June 30, 1921 and June 30, 1929, an increase of 50 percent.
The Federal Reserve Board index of industrial production rose from 67
in 1921 to 119 in 1929, or by 78 percent. The middle Twenties, P.O.
everyone knows, saw a widespread wave of speculation in urben real
estate: the later Twenties, an unparalleled volume of speculation
in the stock markets. The period B.S. P. whole was marked by numerous
large corporate mergers, rising corporate profits, and a stimulus
to domestic industry created by our large foreign loans. The later
Twenties was narked by the receipt of substantial emounts of foreign
funds attracted to our markets in response to both the high rates
of interest in our call money market and the rising trend of our
securities prices: and it TTELS marked by, among other relevant factors,
the availability for stock market speculation of huge sume of capi-
tal raised by corporations and loaned out at call through New York
banks, and, most of all, by e. pronounced speculative temper.
It seems reasonable to believe that a careful historian who
attempted to appraise the factors contributing to the rising vol-
une of realized capital gains during the Twenties would give most
of his attention to the factors cited in the preceding paragraph,
and only a very small part to the changes in the tax treatment of
capital gains.
b. The Rising Stock Merket: The period of extraordinarily large
capital gains may be said to begin with 1924. The Dow-Jones index
of industrial stock prices in December of that year averaged 114.3.
as compared with 94.1 in December 1923. Between December 1924, and
December 1925, the monthly average of the daily figures of the Don-
Jones index of industrial stock prices rose from 114,3 to 154.3: and
the total net profits from the sale of capital assets reported by
individuals nearly doubled. Between December 1925 and December 1926,
- 28 -
this Index showed 4. relatively small net increase, 5 points, and
there who a decline in 1926 in the total net profits from the sale
of capital assets reported w individuals. In 1928, the year for
which the largest volume of profits from the sale of capital asseta
visa reported, the December average of this index was 280.5. In 1929,
the year for which the second largest volume of such profits was
reported, this index averaged 246.9 for December and 311.2 for the
year as a whole.
It seems clear that the extraordinary volume of realized capi-
tal gains during the Twenties was primarily B. function of the rising
stock market and of the underlying factors that this market reflected.
Co Effect of Tax Treatment on Liquidation of Securities: Curi-
ously anough, the rate of 12g percent on capital net gaine,
which in 1921 was urged as a stimulus to transfere of capital Assete,
was being widely charged in 1928 and 1929 with obstructing the
liquidation of securities and thereby contributing to the high and
rising level of stock prices. It is true, however, that the relative
value of the 12g percent rate had been reduced by reductions in the
surtas rates applicable to individual incomes. True, the maximum
individual income-tax rate, which had been 73 percent between 1919
and 1921, inclusive, was reduced to 58 percent for the years 1922
and 1923 1/: to 45 percent for 1924; and to 25 percent for the years
1925 to 1931 2/. inclusive; reductions which were accompanied by
downward revisions in most of the other surtax rates. In the later
Twenties therefore, the 12} parcent maximum rate on capital gains
compared with a 25 percent maximum income tax rate (24 percent in
1929) on ordinary income.
The charge that the 123 percent tax on capital gains was ob-
structing liquidation was made despite the fact of the unprecedented
volume of market transactions than taking place. In 1928 and 1929,
the average monthly number of shares sold on the New York Stock
Exchange constituted 11,2 percent and 9.9 percent, respectively, of
the average number of shares listed, 85 compared with 8.3 percent
in 1925, 7.0 percent in 1926, and 7+8 percent in 1927: and between
1925 and 1929 the average number of shares listed more than doubled.
Such & volume of trading could conceivably be reconciled with
an underlying scarcity of securities if this volume were primarily
a product of an enormous turnover in & small fraction of the volume
of securities outstanding.
This rate was retroactively reduced by 25 percent in June 1924.
In December 1929, normal tax rate was reduced by one percent.
- 29 -
The evidence points in the other direction, however. Berle and
Means, in "The Modern Corporation and Private Property" (page 56).
cite an estimated increase of 50 percent in the number of book stock-
holders of American corporations between 1920 and 1928. Three of the
largest American corporations, the American Telephone and Telegraph
Company, the Pennsylvania Railroad, and the United States Steel Corpo-
ration, according to Berle and Means, increased the number of their
book atockholders between 1920 and 1929 by 237 percent, 47 percent,
and 26 percent, respectively.
The numbers of stockholders registered on the books of corpo-
rations contain considerable duplications of ownership. & single in-
dividual my be counted thirty times as the owner of stocks in thirty
different corporations, and the same is true of bolding companies and
other institutions. Mr. N. R. Danielian, in Chapter 3 of a atudy by
the Twentieth Century Fund, Inc., entitled "The Security Markets, pre-
sents entimates of the increases between 1927 and 1930 in the numbers
of actual stockholders, based largely upon income-tax data published in
Statistics of Income. The mid-point of Mr. Danielian's estimate of the
number of actual stockholders in 1927 is 5.5 millions; for 1929, 5 mil-
lions; an increase of 45 percent.
Other evidence also exists to indicate that the taxes applicable
to profits from the sale of capital assets did not prevent a very oub-
stantial volume of liquidation by those holding such asseta in the late
Twenties. The total amount of net profits from the sale of capital as-
mets reported by individuals in the years 1928 and 1929 greatly 82-
ceeded the aggregate volume of such not profits reported during any of
the preceding six years (comparable data are not available for the
years prior to 1922). Purther, there were substantial increases in 1928
and 1929 in the volume of capital net gains reported from the sale of
assets held for more than two years by individuals who otherwise would
have been subject to income taxes thereon of more than 12) percent.
(Table VI)
Mr. George Buchan Robinson in an article in The Annalist of
June 11, 1937. entitled "A Reply to Recent Criticiam of Capital-Geine
Tax: Implications of Repeal" cites the case of Mr. Pierre du Pont.
The following 10 quoted from Mr. Robinson's article:
"On Monday, May 10, the New York World-Telegram pub-
lished an interview with Arthur de Ballantine, formerly
Under-Secretary of the Treasury, dealing with the subject
of taxing capital gains. Mr. Ballantine would either
abolish capital-gains taxation entirely or substantially
modify the present treatment of such profits. He noted
that the method and rates which prevailed from 1921 to
1934 were much more 'favorable'.
Regraded
Unclassifie
30
"As luck would have it, Mr. Bellautine's views were
published in the same issue of The World-Telegram which
carried the first news story of Pierre du Pont's whopping
capital gain of 1929. Mr. du Pont appears to have made
a profit of somo $35,000,000 in General Motors stock which
he had held for more than two years, and to have paid a
tax thereon of about $4,375,000. The incident provides
e timely-offered vantage point from which to glance at
Mr. Ballantine's views.
"There is, of course, nothing new in the broad view,
There was quite 6.6 much complaint against the taxing of
capital gains when the rate was a flat 12] percent and
very much the same arguments were presented against it.
.....
"But Mr. du Pont appears not to have been discouraged
from selling by the taxes which selling faced, If other
persons were, at or about the same date (June, 1929),
it may be hoped that they will read of Mr. du Pont's
better judgment not merely with such regrets AS they
may have but with some determination never to be BO
deterred again. For the reading, there is a good lesson
available to all less experienced investors end specu-
latore in Mr. du Pont's action.
"It is impossible from the published data to compute
what the tax on such a profit would be under the present
law, but it cen be estimated roughly, if it be assumed
that the stock has been owned for more than five years,
but less than ten, In that case, of a $35,000,000 pro-
fit, 40 percent, or $14,000,000 would be taxed for normal
tax and surtax. The eum of these on $14,000,000 would
be not less than $10,901,000 (though possibly not unch
more), or some $6,526,000 greater on $35,000,000 than
under the 1929 law, But even at that figure, there would
be no tax percentage whatever against 60 percent of the
profit, which in itself is & considerable preferential.'
It is extremely doubtful that the tax advantage of realising
losses in years when capital gains and other incomes are large
has been of great practical importance, save in those cases, some
of which have been widely publicized, where the realisation of
loss has been more nominal than real - as in sales to and by related
interests. The business and market conditions which favor large capi-
tal gains and a high level of income derived from other sources are
precisely those which minimize the possibilities of realising large
31
capital losses. It will be noted in Table VI that the total losses
from the sale of capital samets were relatively small in the years
1926, 1927, and 1928, when the volume of capital gains was very great.
The drastic decline in the securities market in the fall of 1929
forced or enabled some individuals to realize a total of $1,039 mil-
lions of net losses from their transactions in capital assets as B.
whole in that year, as compared with total net gains, realized by
other individuals on their capital transactions as a whole, of
$4,685 millions. The heaviest losses were realized in the two years
immediately following, when the market trend was substantially
though irregularly downward, and when the level of income from
other sources Was likewise declining sharply.
Those who held during the late Twenties that a capital gains
tax of 13 percent (less for individuals subject to maximum income
taxes of less than 12/ percent, and ranging up to 25 percent (24 par-
cent in 1929) for gains on assets held for two years or less) come
stituted & major obstruction to adoquate liquidation, and there-
fore fostered the stock market boom, are confronted with the fact
that the period was one in which an unparalleled volume of securi-
ties trading took place and an unparalleled volume of gains was
realized from the sale of capital assets. (Table VI)
On the other hand, those who argue that a drastic reduction in
the tax rates applicable to capital gains from those now in effect
is essential to encourage the liquidation needed to moderate a boom,
are confronted with the fact that a maximum rate of percent on
asseta held for more than two years, and rates ranging up to B maxi-
man of 24 or 25 percent on assets held for two years or less, though
substantially lower than those now cristing, did not prevent the
grentest stock market boom in our history,
de Effect of Tax Treatment on Timings Evidence available In
the income tax returns, though not at all conclusive, does not
indicate that the time differentials in the taxation of capital
gains have been important in determining the timing of the trans-
actions that have actually accounted for 8 very substantial pro-
portion of the aggregate capital gains reported for income tax
purposes. By reason of the varying normal and surtex rates in force
during the period 1922-1933, the level of income at which it was
profitable to report capital gains separately was not uniform through-
out the period. Roughly, the breaking point ranged between $16,000
and something less than $50,000 between 1924 1/ and 1933, inclusive;
1/
Breaking points for 1922 and 1923 were somewhat different because
of the restriction that if the optional treatment were used, the
total tax could in to case be less than 12} percent of the total
net income.
Regraded Unclassifi
- 32 -
EO that we are sure that all well-cdvised individuals with incomes
from other sources of $50,000 or more took advantage in their re-
turns of the 12 percent option rate on capital gains throughout
these years.
Virtually all of those with incomes, inclusive of profits on
the sale of capital assets, of less than between $16,000 and about
$32,000. varying in the different years, did not avail themselves of
the option, and therefore included in their ordinary income the gains
realized on assets held for more then two years. It is significant
that not B. single individual reporting 8. net income of $25,000 or
less actually obtained any benefit from the 121 percent optional rate
between 1922 and 1931, inclusive.
During the period 1922-1933, only 37.9 percent of the aggregate
net profits from the sale of capital assets reported by individuals
with net incomes received the benefit of the 12 percent maximum rate
on capital grins. Even for individuals reporting net incomes of
$50,000 to $100,000, the tax advantage obtainable by delaying liquida-
tion until a cepital amset had been held for more than two years, was
not sufficient to bring about such delay in the case of transactions
accounting for 50.9 percent of the aggregate net capital gains re-
ported by members of this group during this period. On the other
hand, individuals reporting net incomes of $100,000 and over realized
only some 21 percent of their aggregate net canital gains from assets
held for two years or less. (Table VII.)
It was only in the year 1929, that as much 28 one half of the
aggregate profits from the sale of capital assets received the pref-
erential tax treatment open to those with large incomes on gains from
assets held for more than 2 years, In the years 1922 to 1928, in-
clusive, between 60.9 and 74.9 percent of the reported aggregate net
profits from the sale of capital assets was reported by individuals
who could not enjoy the preferential tax treatment of capital gains,
either because the assets involved hed been held for less than 2 years,
or because their incomes from other sources were not large enough to
subject their capital gains to a tax rate of more than 12- percent if
included in ordinary income. (Table VII.)
The Revenue Act of 1934 incorporated the five-step system
whereby varying percentages of capital gains were included in or-
dinary taxable income, and whereby a distinct tax advantage was
given to those who held their assets for longer periods of time, up
to just over ten years, before realizing gains thereon. This Act
was preceded and accompanied by very pronounced increases in indi-
vidual income-tax rates. If the tax treatment of capital gains
arerted a very considerable influence upon transactions in capital
Regraded
assets, the joint effect of these two changes might have been ec:-
pected to reduce sharply the oro ortion of total cepital grins viside
I.C.O realized on assets held for two years or lesr.
Although it is impossible to obtain the relevant figures for
the year 1934 in 2. form fully commrable with those of proceding
years, the evidence provided by the individual income tax returns
for 1934 is entirely consistent with that provided in preceding
years. Hore than 50 percent of the total net gains from the sale of
assets reported by individuals for 1934 72.2 dorived from cosets held
for two years or less. Likewise, about 51.7 percent of the total
net gains from the sale of capital assets reported by individuals
with net incomes of $50,000 to $100,000 in 1934 U.C.S derived from 2.S-
sets held for two years or less. For individuals reporting net in-
comes of $100,000 and more in 1934. 22.3 percent of their totel not
cental gains was derived from assets hold for two years or loss.
(Table VIII.)
2. 1135-1937
In March 1935. the average of the daily closin- prices of the
30 stocks included in the Dov-Jones Inder of industriel stoc: pricee
v2s $99.8. By March, 1937, this evera e price line risen to $100.4,
an increase of 39 ocrcent. During this period, the volume of trai-
inc. though increasing, renained it relatively lov levels. Thus,
the ratio Detreen the nonthly average number of shares sold and
the nonthly average number of listed shores on the New Yor.: Stock
Technique TOB only 2,4 iorcent in 1955 nnù. 3.1 percent in 1050. r.s
countred with ration more than twice as great in the years 1925 to
1929, inclusive. This neasure of the volume of trading is far from
perfect because edditions to the list of relatively inactive socuri-
ties previously traded only on other exchanges or over the counter
have probably caused some downward bias in the ratio; but the effect
of such bias is probably of relatively small proportions EB comored
with the substantial decline in the ratio.
There are воло the contend that the rise of securities values
since the spring of 1935, attended by e. voluno of stock arrket trad-
inc vory substantirlly below that which obtained in the late
Twenties, la conclusive evidence that the existing cepital Cains tax
rovisions are scriously retarding the liquidation of securities and
thereby contributing to an unhealthy stoc: market boon, In view of
numerous other factors that have operated to raise securities prices
end to restrict the volume of stoc: market trading. this contention
would seeu to :1vo undue weight to the restrictive influence of our
cepital crins tex provisions.
e., Improvement in Business end Profits: In the first place,
the rising stock: market of the last tro years is much more obviously
emplained in terms of the enormous imrovement that has tal:on >lace
Regraded Unclassified
in the volume of business activity and in the level of corporate
profits. The aggregate statutory net income of corporations (exclud-
ing intercorporate dividends) increased from less than $3 billions in
1933 to about $4.3 billions in 1934, and to some $5.1 billions in
1935. The 1936 figure was estimated at $7.2 billions by the Treasury
in a report to the House Ways and Means Committee.
The pronounced upward course of business activity between May 1935
and May 1937, was reflected by B. rige of 39 percent in the adjusted
index of industrial production of the Board of Governore of the Federal
Regerve System.
When the general business situation is undergoing solid and rapid
improvement, there is B. natural tendency, irrespective of the tax
treatment of capital gains, for investors to retain their securities
for higher prices, particularly in the case of common stocks, but only
somewhat legs so in the cases of speculative preferred stocks and de-
faulted and other speculative bonds. The very facts that securities
prices and corporate earnings continue to rige provide the strongest
possible inducement for investors to retain their securities pending
a change in the outlook, Conditions such as these naturally reduce the
disposition of investors to sell their holdings.
b, Low Interest Rates: In the second place, the low level of 10-
terest rates, both short- and long-term have operated powerfully to
raise the market values of income-yielding securities. Stock prices
averaging 12 or 14 times current earnings may well appear high when the
yields obtainable on good bonds are 43 to 6 percent; but when no more
than 3 to 4 percent can be obtained on good bonds, stock prices averaging
15 to 20 times earnings may well appear reasonable. The latter ia apt
to be particularly true if dividend distributions are in generous volume;
and the most striking effect of the undistributed profite tax provisions
of the Havenue Act of 1936 has been very greatly to increase the volume
of dividend disburgements.
C.2 Foreign Purchages of American Securities: In the third place,
the business revival in the United States and the continuing favorable
outlook, as well as the existence of great uncertainties abroad, has
made American securities extremely attractive to foreigners. Between
January 2, 1935 and March 31, 1937. total foreign purchases of domestic
securities amounted to $4,941 millions, and total sales to $3,865 mil-
lions. The weekly figures of foreign purchases and sales of domostic
securities as presented in the Treasury's third report on capital
movements. and in the two previous reports, indicate a clear tendency
for the amounts of net foreign purchases of domestic securities to vary
directly with upward and downward movements in our stock markets. There
can be no doubt that the foreign demand for American securities has
helped to raise their prices.
1/ Statistics of Capital Movements between the United States and
Foreign Countries and of Purchases and Sales of Foreign Exchange in
the United States: Report NO. 3: United States Treasury Department,
Invision of Research and Statistics; Table E.
- 35 -
4. Rew Government Restrictions on Tradings Thue far, we have
explained the reluctance of investors to liquidate capital assots in
terms of fundamental improvement in business conditions and in the
business outlook; and we have explained the rige in securities prices
both in these terms and in the terms of the declining interest rates
and the addition to domestic demand created by foreign purchasers of
American securities.
The decline in the aggregate volume of stock market trading dur-
ing the past few years. as compared with the late Twenties, is to be
explained partly in terms of the greatly different speculative temper
of the times and partly in terms of the very substantial structural
changes in our stock markets effected by the Securities Exchange Act
of 1934, and the subsequent regulations of the Securities and Exchange
Commission and the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System,
including the newly required publicity respecting corporate acts and
the securities transactions of officers. directors, and principal
stockholders of corporations.
The abnormal character of the stock market speculation of the late
Twenties requires little more than mention; and there are few persons
who would regard the volume of that period as a standard by which the
ademacy of the present volume of activity should be gauged. Apart,
however, from this difference, the chief explanation of the reduced vol-
une of securities trading met be sought in the elimination, as the 20-
sult of new legislation, of a very considerable fraction of the specula-
tive activity which formerly constituted one of the mainsprings of the
market. The more important of the new restrictive provisions which are
operating to reduce the volume of stock market trading are summarized
below:
(1) Requirements for substantial margine have been 08-
tablished under rules and regulations prescribed by the Federal
Reserve Board. The maximum loan value for a registered oscur-
ity is now not st 45 percent of its current market value, ex-
cept in certain special instances. Banks, brokers, et cetera,
cannot extend credit for the purchase or carrying of securities
without collateral. Undermargined accounts are subject to trad-
ing restrictions and in all margin accounts no trading activi-
ties can be conducted which would undermargin such accounts.
(2) The sources of borrowing on securities by stock-ox-
change members, brokers and dealers are restricted to member
banks, non-member banks which have filed with the Federal R-
serve Board certain prescribed agreements, and other members,
brokers, and dealers to & limited extent. At the present time,
it 1a unlawful for & broker to allow his aggregate indebtedness
to persons other than the foregoing to exceed 2,000 percent of
the net capital employed in his business: and it is mlswful
for a broker to lend securities carried for & customer without
- 36 -
his consent, or to hypothecate such securities for a sum in
0XCOSE of the customer's aggregate indebtedness in respect
to such securities.
(3) Prohibitions have been set up against the manipu-
lation of security prices. It 1s unlawful to create a false
appearance of active trading in any security by effecting
transactions involving no change in beneficial ownership;
or by effecting transactions, knowing offsetting orders will
be offered; or by inducing sales by circulation of rumors
that certain operations are to be conducted affecting the
price of 8. security; or by effecting transactions for the
purpose of pegging or fixing prices in contravention of 18-
ulations prescribed by the Commission.
(4) Regulations have been prescribed covering trans-
actions on over-the-counter markets, and providing for the
registration of brokers and dealers. Activities of brokers
and dealers on the over-the-counter market have been lim-
ited, except where full disclosure of the broker's position
or activity is made to the customer, and, in certain cases,
where the broker obtains the customer's written consent to
each transaction.
(5) Reports of securities transactions are required
each month of directors, officers and beneficial owners
of more than 10 percent of any equity security. When new
securities are registered, such owners, officers or di-
rectors must file statements of their beneficial interest
at the time the registration becomes effective.
(6) Profits realized from any purchase and sale of
a corporation's securities within any period of legs than
six months by its officers. directors. or beneficial
owners of more than 10 percent of any of its equity se-
curities inure to and are recoverable by the insuer of
such securities. Arbitrage operations by such persons in
such securities are unlawful unless the profits are ac-
counted for to the issuing corporation.
(7) Certain limitations are placed upon the func-
tions of persons who are both brokers and dealers, par-
ticularly in connection with transactions in securities
which are a part of & new issue, in the distribution of
which such persons participated as members of a selling
ayndicate.
Corporations
- 37 -
VI, CORPORATIONS
The problem of the lax treatment of capital gains and losses
has been of much more restricted significance for corporations then
for individuals. The need for special treatment naturally did not
arise 60 long as there was B relatively low flat corporation income
tax: and even the enactment of graduated rates beginning in 1936
has created no practical problem, because the range of graduation
1s relatively narrow.
L
Market Effects
Most of the broader considerations involved in the relation be-
twoen capital gains taxation and the securities markets apply to the
securities transactions of corporations, trusts, and associations,
no less than to those of individuals. So far as the recurities mar-
kets are concerned, the chief effects of the existing capital gains
provisions relating to corporations are exercised through their in-
fluence upon the actions of financial corporations and associations.
Of these, investment trusts, which in this country characteristically
employ their funds in speculative and semi-speculative investment,
and other corporations which, though often ostensibly or actually en-
gaged in other activities primarily, also maintain sizeable portfolioe
of speculative and sami-speculative securities, are most important
in this connection.
In a general way, it may be said that professional managements
of investment portfolios are less likely to allow irrational repug-
nance to the occurrence of avoidable or postponable tax liabilities
to influence their decisions than is the case with many investore.
Hence, tax considerations constitute only a minor deterrent to liqui-
dation by such managemente in all cases where the motive for liquida-
tion is the desire to withdraw from a threatened or embarrassed
industry or enterprise, or to reduce investments generally because
of an anticipated decline in business and the securities markets.
When substantial declines are anticipated - and even secondary nuc-
tuations in stock prices are often substantial -, the profite safe-
guarded and the losses avoided by properly-timed liquidation over-
shadow the tax liabilities incurred by the calisation of gains,
The tax provisions exert a greater influence upon switching, as
contrasted with liquidating operations. The management of a corpora-
tion's speculative-investment portfolio may become convinced that,
although the market RE a whole is going to contimue to rise for some
little time, certain groups of stocks in which it 18 interested are
not likely to rise as much as certain other stocks in which it is
- 38 -
less heavily, If at all, committed. To make the switch may involve the
realization of very substantial capital gains in the securities to be
liquidated, and B related substantial increase in tax liability. If
refe and adequate provision is to be made for the increased tax 11a-
bility. the funds available for the substitute investments my be nuf-
ficiently reduced to eliminate the superior attractiveness of the
projected substitute investments,
This consideration was probably of importance to various personal
holding companies in 1934. 1935, and 1936, because of the special sur-
taxes to which they were subject on their undistributed incomes. The
owners of many such companies were subject to relatively high indi-
vidual income surtaxes if the gains were distributed; and their per-
sonal holding companies were subject to relatively high surtaxes if
the gains were not distributed. Hence, the certainty of substantial
tax liabilities on realized capital gains, in such cases, provided a.
strong motive against undertaking ordinary switching operations de-
signed to improve profit prospects rather than to avoid losses. In
addition, it probably deterred real liquidation, B.9 contrasted with
switching operations, in vome cases.
B. Effect of Undistributed Profite TAX
So long as the tax applicable to capital gains was limited to
15 percent or less, the tax influence was minimized, especially for
investment trusts and financial corporations. Imposition of the our-
tax OR undistributed profita, however, made the tax consideration
important to all corporations with substantial portfolios of specu-
lative and semi-speculative securities, and particularly to those
which shift their portfolios frequently. Unless it qualifies as a.
"mitual investment company", a corporation subjects itself to sur-
taxes (as well as normal taxee) on all espital gains that are not
distributed in taxable dividends. This is of particular importance
to investment trust corporations. If they plan to distribute all
of the capital gains realized during periods of rising stock prices,
they must contemplate R. net shrinkage in their effective capital
funds in periods of declining stock prices, unless (1) they time the
liquidation of their stock holdings so well as to evoid depreciation
in the market value of their portfolios: or (2) they recoup their
canital gaine distributions by additional stock Leaues.
This consideration may well deter such companies from transfer-
ring funds from one group of stocks to enother no promptly and to
the same extent as might be the 0880 if tax considerations were Al-
together neutral. On the other hand, as already cited, the tax
factor loses much or all of its weight even for such enterprises
when liquidation is contemplated because of actual or expected Ad-
verse developmente in business and the markets as a whole, or in
particular industries or enterprises.
- 39 -
Further, if capital gains of good years must be paid out cur-
rently to avoid surtaxes on undistributed earnings, but no carry
forward of the capital losses of bad years is allowed, the tendency
over a period of years will be to shrink the value of capital assets
of corporations. The most practicable method of minimizing or
eliminating this tendency would appear to be that of allowing net
capital losses as a deduction in computing adjusted net income with
the further provision that any excess of such net capital losses
may be carried forward for purposes of determining adjusted net in-
come of future years. Such a provision would permit corporations to
repair the inroads made upon their capital funds by net capital
losses.
Recommendations
*****
- 40 -
YII. RECOMMENTATIONS
& Individuals
In Section IV of this memorandum, a standard of equity was set
up to judge the present tax treatment of the capital gains of indi-
viduals. It will be recalled that the standard was determined by
dividing a capital gain by the number of years during which the B.2-
set had been held, adding the quotient to the individual's other
income in the year of realization, determining the tex applicable
to this added segment, and multiplying this tax by the number of
years during which the asset had been held. The recommended plan
for the treatment of the capital gains of individuals is based on
the principle incorporated in the standard of equity.
In the standard of equity only a single capital gain is in-
volved. The recommended plan -- called the average accrual method -
is designed to operate equally well where there are several transac-
tions, while retaining the principles of. the standard of equity.
1. Procedure for Individuals Reporting Cepital Goins but No Capital
Losues from Sales or Exchanges
B. An average investment period is first determined by comput-
inc B. weighted average (the years being weighted by the gains) of the
years assets incorporating capital gains were held. In this computa-
tion, one-half of a year or more is considered a full year, and less
than one-half of B. year is disregarded. The resulting average invest-
ment period 1a likewise rounded off to an even number of years.
b. The average annual gain for this period is then determined
by dividing total gains by the average investment period.
C. The tax on this average annual gain is then computed with
reference to the surtex net income excluding capital gains: and the
resulting tax is multiplied by the number of years in the average
investment period to determine the total tax on capital gains.
d. In computing the tax on the average annual gain, no allow-
ance is given for any portions of the personal exemption, credit for
dependents, or minimum earned income credit not utilized in comput-
ine the ordinary income tax. If there is no surtax net income, the
tex is computed on the average annual gain, assuming surtex net in-
come to be zero rather than a negative quantity.
- 41 -
e. The same procedure P.S. above is followed where an individual
has capital losses but no capital gains. In such cases, a tax credit
would be computed instead of a tax. This tax credit is carried for-
ward for two years, to be allowed only as an offset against tax lia-
bility on capital gains realized in those years.
The following example illustrates the procedure for gains only:
Assume an individual with other surtax net income of
$10,000 having a capital gain of $10,000 on an asset held
10 years and a capital gain of $10,000 on an asset held
5 years.
Computation of average investment period:
$10,000 multiplied by 10
$100,000
10,000 multiplied by 5
50,000
Total weighted gains
$150,000
Divided by total gains of
20,000
Average investment period
8 years
Computation of everage annual gain:
Total gain
$ 20,000
Divided by average investment period of
8
Average annual gain
$ 2,500
Computation of tex:
Tax on $12,500 (other surtax net income plus
average annual gain)
$
980
Tax on $10,000 (other surtax net income)
700
Tax on average annual gain
$ 250
Multiplied by average investment period of
8
Total tax on capital net gain
$ 2.240
The following example illustrates the procedure for losses
only:
Assume nn individual with other surtex net income of
$10,000 having a capital loss of $10,000 on an asset held
10 years and a capital loss of $10,000 on an asset held
5 years.
7 1/2 vears raised to 8 years.
Regraded Unclassified
- 42 -
Computation of average investment periods
$10,000 multiplied by 10
$100,000
10,000 multiplied by 5
50,000
Total weighted losses
$150,000
Divided by total losses of
20,000
Average investment period
8 years 1/
Computation of average annual lose:
Total loss
$ 20,000
Divided by average investment period of
8
Average annual loss
$ 2,500
Computation of tax credit:
Tax on $7,500 (other surtax net income minus
average annual loss)
$
455
Tax on $10,000 (other surtax net income).
700
Tax credit on average annual loss
$
245
Multiplied by average investment period of
8
Total tax credit on capital net loss
$ 1,960
2. Procedure for Individuals Reporting Both Capital Gains and
Capital Losses from Sales or Exchanges.
Where there are both gains and losses, the tax treatment is
the same as that described above, except that the actual computs=
tion is somewhat more complex.
a. Capital gains are segregated from capital losses. An aver-
are investment period for gains and the average annual gain during
this period are determined: and an average investment period for
losses and the average annual lose during this period are determined.
b. The average annual gain and the average annual loss are
combined to determine the net gain or loss applicable to the shorter
of the two investment per. is. The tax or tax credit on the result-
ing figure is computed with reference to the surtax net income ex-
cluding capital gains and losses, and this tax or tax credit is
multiplied by the number of years in the shorter investment period
to determine the tex or tax credit on capital gains and losses dur-
ing this period.
1/ 7 1/2 years raised to 8 years.
Regraded Unclassified
- 43 -
C. The tax or tax credit on the average annual gain or the
average annual loss, whichever accrued for the longer average in-
vestment period, is computed with reference to the surtex net in-
come excluding capital gains and losses, and multiplied by the
number of years by which the longer investment period exceeds the
shorter, to determine the tax or tax credit applicable to that period.
d. The taxes or tax credits thus obtained are combined, and
the result represents the total tax or tax credit on capital gains
andlosses.
The following example illustrates the procedure where there
are both gains and lossest
Assume an individual with other surtax net income of
$10,000 having 8. capital gain of $10,000 on an asset held
10 years and B capital loss of $15,000 on an asset held
5 years. It 10 not necessary to compate the average in-
vestment period for the gains and the average investment
period for the losses in this illustration. If there were
several transactions resulting in gain and several transac-
tions resulting in loss, an average investment period for
the gains and an average investment period for the losses
would be computed in the same way as illustrated above.
Computation of average annual gaint
Total gain
$10,000
Divided by average investment period of
10 years
Average annual gain
$ 1,000
Computation of average annual loss:
Total loss
$15,000
Divided by average investment period of
5 years
Average annual loss
$ 3,000
Net average annual loss applicable to the shorter
of the two investment periode ($3,000 minus
$1,000)
$ 2,000
Computation of tax credit on the not loss applicable to the
whorter investment period:
Tax on $8,000 (other wartax net income minus
net average annual loss)
$ 500
Tax on $10,000 (other surtax net income)
700
Tax credit on net average annual loss
$ 200
Multiplied by average investment period of
5
Total tax credit
$ 1,000
Regraded Unclassified
- 44 -
Computation of tax on average annual gain applicable to the
number of years by which the longer investment period CI-
ceeds the shorters
Tax on $11,000 (other surtax net income plus
average annual gain)
$810
Tax on $10,000 (other surtar net income)
700
Tax on average annual gain
$110
Multiplied by number of years by which the
longer investment period exceeds the
shorter
5
Tax total
$550
Combined tax and tax credit ($550 minus $1,000)
or tax credit of
$450
Proposed capital gain and loss schedules for individual income
tax returns are presented in Appendix B, together with the compute-
tion of tax or tax credit for illustrated cases.
3. Treatment of Capital Gaine and Losses of Partnerships and
Fiduciaries
Fiduciaries and partnerships furnish each individual the fig-
ures for his pro rata share of total gains and total losses, and
weighted gaine and weighted loases, computed in the same way as
described above for individuals; these figures are combined by the
individual with the corresponding items respecting his other cap-
ital gains and losses.
4, Treatment of Capital Gains and Losses in Property Donated to
Charitable Institutions
a. If legally feasible all contributions to charitable and
similar institutions should be regarded as occasioning the reali-
sation of capital gains and losses by the donor; and such capital
gains and losses should be included with other capital gains and
losses.
b. If this proposal is not deemed legally 'easible, or if
practical considerations seem to bar its adoption, it 10 recommended,
for the purpose of determining the deduction for charitable contri-
butions, that the value of such contributions in kind be fixed at
the adjusted basis (Section 113) or market, whichever 10 lower.
Regraded
- 45 -
5. Treatment of Capital Gaine and Losses in Property Transferred
by Inter Vivoa Gifts
a. If legally feasible, all trensfers by inter vivos gifts should
be regarded as occasioning the realization of capital gains and losses
by the donor and such capital gains and loeses accorded the same tax
treatment as other gains and losses realized by the donor.
b. If this proposal is not deemed legally feasible, it is sug-
gested that a supplementary gift tax be levied, measured by the cap=
ital gains and losses incorporated in such transfers, This tax
could be determined in a similar way to that applicable to capital
gaine in property transferred at death as described in the estate
and gift tax memorandum.
C. If practical and legal considerations should likewise bar
the adoption of the latter proposal, a part of the tax on capital
gains avoided by inter vivos transfers of property could be recouped
if Section 113(a)(2) were amended to provide that, for the purpose
of determining both capital gains and losses, the basis for property
acquired by gift were made either the base in the hands of the donor
or market value at time of transfer, whichever is lower.
B. Corporations
The capital gains and losses of corporations are included in
ordinary income in full, except that for purposes of determining
the normal-tax net income, capital losses are allowed only to the
extent of capital gaine. Any excess of capital losses not allowed
in the current year is carried forward for two years to be credited
against the capital gains of those years.
In determining adjusted net income, the excess of capital
losses over capital gains not allowed for purposes of determining
the normal-tax net income is allowed in full against income from
other sources. Any portion of capital losses not so utilized is
carried forward for two years for use ae a deduction in determin-
ing adjusted net incone of those years.
Regraded Unclassified
Alternative
Treatment
- 46 -
VIII. ALTERNATIVE TAX TREATMENTS OF CAPITAL
GAINS AND LOSSES OF INDIVIDUALS
L. Proposals Designed Primarily in the
Interests of Expediency
1, Complete Exclusion of Capital Gains and Lossen from the Income-
fax Base
The objections to this proposal have already been covered:
Capital gains constitute texpaying ability: they are not sharply
distinguishable from other types of income: the bulk of them are re-
alized in connection with transactions entered into for profits; and
their exemption from income taxes would be extremely inequitable.
The case for the complete exclusion of capital guine and losses
from the income-tax base is believed by some, including
Mr. L. H. Parker, Chief of the Staff of the Joint Committee on Internal
Revenue Taxation, to have been strengthened by the enactment of the war-
tax on undistributed profits in 1936. Mr. Parker maintains that if the
undistributed profits tax is continued in substantially its present
form, "the question of capital gains will become comparatively unimpor-
tant in the long run as a revenue producer." His argument is sumarized
in the statement that: "The increased value of corporate stock comes about
largely, of course, because 8 considerable portion of the net earnings are
retained in surplus and used in increasing the earning power of the corpo-
ration." (See address before the Institute of Public Affairs, July 9.
1936.)
Mr. Parker's argument, while applicable to one important source of
capital gains, is by no means applicable to many others; and his simple
generalization sseme to be in conflict with some of the facts of common
observation.
(1) If reinvested earnings constitute the chief ex-
planation of increases in the values of corporate stock, a
high degree of correlation should tend to exist between the
book and market values of securities. The absence of any
high degree of such relationship 1s, however. notorious.
To illustrate the prevailing absence of any such close re-
lationship, there is presented in Table III a comparison of
the book values and market values per share as of December 31.
1936 of the fifteen common stocks that were traded in the
largest volume on the New York Stock Exchange on this date.
Regraded Unclassified
47 -
(11) Anyone who asken an even casual study of the stock
market averages over & period of years notices that wide swings
in these averages take place cyclically. Mr. Parker's argument
and conclusion would appear to rest upon the assumption, which
is contrary to the facts, that no important capital gains (or
losses) are realized M & result of these cyclical fluctuations.
For example, any investors and speculators have purchased
iron and steel and railroad equipment common stocks since the
beginning of 1933. There are presented in Table XIII compari-
sons of the changes between December 31, 1932 and December 31,
1936, in the market and book values of the common stocks of all
the railroad equipment and iron and steel companies included in
the Standard Statistics Company's indexes for these industrial
groups. It will be observed that, whereas only one of the ten
railroad equipment stocks increased in book value during this
period (and by only 1.1 percent), the smallest percentage ap-
preciation in the market value of the common stocks of any of
the ten companies was 111 parcent; and the average of the rates
of appreciation, unweighted, of all ten stocks was 454 percent.
In the case of the eleven steel companies, only four showed in-
creaser (and relatively small ones) in the book value of their
common stocks between these two dates; but the appreciation in
the market values of these stocks ranged from 113 to 914 percent;
the average of the rates of appreciation, unweighted, of the
aleven stocks was 444 percent. In the case of some of these con-
panies, though by no means all, special writedowns in the balance
sheet values assigned to various assets, and charged directly
against the surplus accounts, as well as operating losses, ac-
counted for reductions in the book value of the stocks. The
figures nevertheless provide vivid illustrations of the fact that,
in appraising the changed earning power and outlook for these
stocks, the market did not wait upon commensurate additions to
their book values through reinvested earnings. Speculatore and
investors who purchased these stocks in 1932 or 1933 have there-
fore enjoyed very substantial capital gains, realized or open to
realization, primarily as a result of the cyclical recovery in
the heavy industries, and not because of significant additions
to their book values through the retention of marnings.
Regraded Unclassified
- 48 -
(111) The market's evaluation of securities is
tially a process of capitalizing current and prospective
earnings and dividends. A change in a. company's earnings
prospects arising out of factore altogether unrelated to the
company's investments, such as & new md important contract,
is a common cause of substantial changes to the market value
of A company's securities. A general improvement in the
business outlook will frequently send up the prices of vir-
tually all stocks; & change for the worse in this outlook
will send down the prices of virtually all stocks; a decline
in the level of interest rates tends to enhance the market
value of virtually all securities.
(iv) In the treatment of capital gains and losses for
tar purposes, we do not deal with aggregates or with storages,
but with the experience of individuals. Individuals differ
considerably in their ability to appraise the securities of
particular companies and the general outlook for business.
One group of individuals may enjoy substantial net capital
gains during the very same year that another group of indivi-
duals suffers heavy capital losses. Hence the taxation of
net capital gains, because of the uneven distribution of
capital gains and losses among reporting individuals, 1s
capable of producing substantial revenues even for a period
Inwhich the aggregate of reported net capital losses exceeds
the aggregate of reported net capital gains.
The undistributed profite tax will tend to reduce only one of
several important sources of capital gains. The other sources would
remain of considerable importance. Structural changes in particular
industrial fields give rise to the early capitalization by the nar-
ket of unrealised large earnings prospects for particular companies -
well in advance of any commensurate increase in the book value of the
securities arising out of the reinvestment of earnings. Likewise,
capital gains arising out of the exploitation by individuals of
cyclical fluctuations would not be affected. The superior ability
of some individuals to appraise investment situations, even under
static conditions of general business, and the weaknesses of other
individuals for unprofitable commitments, would remain as sources of
capital gains and loases. The changes in the rate of interest and
the speculative temper of the moment, which powerfully nffect the
Regraded
Unclassified
- 49 -
capitalization ratio by which the earnings of any capital instrument
are translated into & capital value, will likewise remain as sources
of capital gains and losses. Finally, mention need hardly be made of
the unaffected possibilities of such speculative gains as flow from
discoveries of oil wells and metal mines, the exploitation of new
patents or secret processes, appreciation in the value of improved
and unimproved real estate, et cetera.
2. Complete Segremation of Tax Treatment of Capital Gains and
Losses
It has also been suggested by Mr. Parker that capital gains
and losses be completely segregated from other sources of income
for tax purposes. In the Tax Magasine for October 1936, Mr. Parker
wrote:
#
suppose we do not add capital gains to other
income or subtract capital losses therefrom. Conceive of
capital gains and losses going into a separate basket by
themselves. Now, if you will imagine S capital gains tar
with graduated rates approximating one-half our present
tar rates, and imagine capital losses as an offset against
gains with a provision whereby the capital net losses may
be carried forward for a period of six years, it will be
found that a fairly equitable result will be obtained."
Mr. Parker's suggestion differs from that of some others in
that he would graduate the separate taxes applied to capital
gains, whereas others would apply only a low flat tax. Neither
of theme types of separate taxation of capital gains would olimi-
nate the legal and administrative difficulties that have been
encountered in taxing this type of income. The great sacrifice
of equity involved in divorcing the tax treatment of capital gaine
from that of other types of income 1e very inadequately reduced
by graduating the separate tares on capital gains. Such gradu-
ation would have no reference to the amount of income from other
sources, and, hence, the progressive character of our income-
tax system would be grossly impaired.
The revenue raised under any rate acale that is applied
separately to different parts of income must insvitably fall far
below the amount of revenue that could be raised if the same
rate scale were applied to the entire income. Substantially
higher, rather than lower rates on capital gains would be noo-
essary to raise the same amount of revenus if capital gains were
Regraded Unclassified
50-
taxed separately. Mr. Parker, on the contrary, suggests rates
equal to one-half those applied to ordinary income. Although the
contention is often made that low retes on capital gains would al-
low more rather than less revenue, because of the increase in the
volume of capital transactions, this contention has yet to be sup-
ported by convincing evidence. Revenues lost through reduced tax-
tion of capital gains must be raised from other sources. The exist-
ing tax treatment of capital gains, TO have previously demonstrated,
already gives excessive preference to recipients of this source of
income.
3. Segregation of the Type in Force between 1922 and 1933
This type of segregation was highly inequitable. Its effect
was to give no benefit whatever to taxpayers with amall or moderate
incomes, and to confer highly preferential tax treatment to the
capital gains of individuals with large incomes.
4. Segregation with Respect to Capital Losses only
The same considerations that argue in favor of the inclusion
of capital gains in ordinary taxable income also argus in favor of
the deductibility of capital losses from such income - though
special treatment for capital losses sustained on agasts held for
more than one year is supported Y the same considerations that
support such treatment for capital gains on assets held for more
than one year.
While equitable considerations clearly call for greater liber-
ality in the deductibility of capital losses, it is extremaly
doubtful that & substitute treatment based upon equitable consid-
erations alone can long endure. It to precisely in periods when
large capital losses are, or may be, realized, that the Govern-
ment's revenues tend to shrink, and its expenditures to rise. The
record of the past clearly indicates that if the deductibility of
capital losses 18 too freely allowed, such liberality would be -
likely to withstand the pressure for additional revenuse that will
arise in some future period of business decline. It thus appears
altogether probable that some measure of sogregated tax treatment
of ospital lossos ta expedient to protect revenues in periods of
declining business activity and declining markets.
sport from revenue requirements ae such, there are certain
practicable and sven squitable considerations that have influenced
Congress to restrict the deductibility of capital losses. When
Regraded Unclassified
VI
capital losses are liberally deductible, an incentive is provided
many taxpayers to design artificial transactions for the sole pur-
pose of wiping out or greatly reducing tax liability on ordinary
income. Further, since the tax treatment of capital gains and
losses has been confined to realized gains and losses, the texpayer
has been given the valuable privilege of choosing the time for re-
alising both gains and losses; and this choice, other things being
equal, can be expected to operate regularly to the advantage of the
taxpsyer and to the disadvantage of the Government. The mere power
of a taxpayer to postpone the realisation of capital gains is
itself a great advantage. Not only can be choose the timing of 100
alization to minimise his tax liability, other things being equal,
but he also enjoys, interest-free, the funds that would be payable
in taxes if he realized his gains as they accrued. In addition,
there has been a vagus feeling, only partly warranted, that capital
losses in general are suffered by substantially the same persons
as, at other times, enjoy capital gains: and, hence, that any pre-
ferential treatment accorded capital gains justifies some measure
of harshness in the tax treatment of capital losses.
5. Complete aggregation of capital gains with other income but
only partial association for purpose of tax computation
Of the four variants of this proposal that appear to be cur-
rent, the first three, cited below, were outlined by Professor
Maguire in an undated memorandum filed in the Treasury, entitled
"Taxation of Capital Gains and Deduction of Capital Losses."
(1) Apply the regular rate acale to ordinary income
and apply the top rate reached by ordinary income to the
capital gains.
(11) Begin the aggregation of income with capital
gains, apply perhaps one-half of the regular rates to
these gains, and the aggregate thereon to ordinary in-
come, to which the regular rates will apply.
(111) Apply the regular rate scale to ordinary In-
come, compute the effective totality rate of tax on or-
dinary income, and apply this rate to the capital gains.
(1v) Associate capital gains with other income, and
apply the regular income-tax rates until the segments of
income representing capital gains are reached; at this
point, reduce the rates otherwise applicable by perhaps
one-half.
Regraded Unclassified
- 52 -
The first three of these plans appear to possess no special
merit whatever. They are merely alternative means of reducing the
effective taxes on cepital gains, with no especially logical basis
for the reduction in each base, The first plan breaks down in all
instances where all other sources of income result in 8. deficit,
A special flat rate would obviously have to be applied to the capi-
tal gains of the taxpayers who reported no other income. Purther,
the method might produce exceedingly whimsical results. Thus, an
individual with $10,000 of ordinary surtex net income, but $1 mil-
lion in capital gains, would be subject to $100,000 of taxes on
his capital gains. Another individual who also reported $1 million
of capital gains, but had $100,000 of ordinary surtax net income,
would be subject to $590.000 of taxes on his capital gains. In
other words, $90,000 of difference in ordinary surtax net income
would create a difference of $490,000 in the tax applicable to the
same amount of capital gains.
The second variant appears to be nothing more than a more
circultous end less defensible method for reducing the effective
rates on canital gains than is presented in the fourth veriant.
The third veriant would yield results just as whimsical as
those of the first variant. Thus, because the offective totality
rate of $10,000 of ordinary surtex net income is 7 percent, end
on $100,000 34 percent, the taxes on $1 million of capital gains
would be $70,000 for an individual reporting $10,000 of ordinary
surtax net income and $340,000 for an individual reporting $100,000
of ordinary surtax net income. A difference of $90,000 in ordi-
nary surtax net income occasions a difference of $270,000 in tax
liability on the identical amount of capital gains.
The fourth variant, whereunder capital gains would be acgre-
gated with ordinary income but subjected to perhaps half the sur-
tax rates that would otherwise be applicable, is worthy of some
consideration, It recognizes both the size of ordinary income and
the size of the cenital gains in determining the taxes on the lat-
ter. On the other hand, it substitutes for the present step-down
provisions, according to the number of years during which an asset
was held, an all-over tax reduction on capital gains irrespective
of the length of the period during which such gains accrued. Care-
ful analysis of the effectsof applying this proposal to selected
cases demonstrates that the proposal would be less meritorious on
equitable grounds, and more whimsical in its effects, than the
existing step-down provisions, and far more ao than the average
accrual method which is recommended herein.
The effects of applying this proposal, as compared with the
present treatment and as compared with the "accrual basis" which
we have previously used es a standard of equity, are illustrated
in selected cases in Tables XIV end IV.
Regraded Unclassified
- 53
B. Proposals for Complete Association
of Capital Gains with Other Income
1. Procedure Followed under the Revenue Act of 1918
Under this Act, which was applicable to the taxable years 1918
to 1921, inclusive, gains and losses from the sale of capital assets
were included with income and deductions from other sources, without
any special treatment whatever for either. Ye have already cited
the fact that this procedure is inequitable because capital gains
realized in & single year often represent the gains accrued over a
number of years: and the full taxation of such gains in the year of
realization, because of our system of progressive rates, would re-
sult in substantially larger taxes than would have been payable had
the gains been taxed as they socrued. For this reason the reintro-
duction of this procedure is not advocated.
2, Inventory Method
The inclusion in tarable income of accrued though unreal-
ised gains and losses, as well as realized gains and losses, has
recently been recommended, with some reservations, in a volume pub-
lished by the Twentieth Century Fund. Inc. (Pacing the Tax Problem).
Such 9 treatment would obviate the necessity for rate differentials
based upon duration of ownership, and would automatically eliminate
the possibility of avoiding capital gains taxation by delaying trans-
fers of assets until desth It would also permit an accurate uppli-
cation of the progressive income-tax schedule to the annual increases
or declines in the economic power of individual taxpayers. Because
it would do these things, and because, at the same time it might
accomplish some of the essential purposes of the tax on undistrib-
uted corporate earnings, this possible method possesses considera-
ble theoretical appeal - granted that its constitutional diffi-
culties could be overcome.
There are, however, grave and decisive practical objections
to this mathod. In the first place, it may be noted that this
method of determining income, while widely employed among busi-
ness enterprises, 10 entirely alien to the practices of the majority
of individuals; and would strike many of them as being grossly
unfair. An individual who had no intention of selling his house
would be asked to pay an additional income tax because the tax
sor or someone alse asserts that the market value of his house has
risen. Or an individual deriving an unchanged income of 5 percent
from certain listed bonds would be asked to pay an additional
Regraded Unclassified
54
income tax because, interest rates having fallen, the market prices
of his bonds, which he has no intention of selling, have risen,
Every time that there is a speculative rise or fall in the stock
market or in local real estate markets, individuals who did not
participate at all actively or consciously in euch a speculative
movement, would be told that their taxable incomes must be computed
with reference to these paper changes in value.
The contention that this type of tax treatment of capital
gains and losses would be utterly neutral in its effect upon the
securities markets by no means holds. Taxpayers who might other-
wise take little notice of chenges in the market values of their
securities and other assets would be put on notice to take active
heed of such changes; would be warned in many cases that they must
sell securities that they would otherwise keep, in order merely to
obtain funds with which to pay their income taxes. The practical
role of speculative changes in the market values attached to capi-
tal assets would be vastly increased,
For unlisted aecurities and physical properties, the practical
difficulties involved in obtaining accurate appraisals of changes in
value are admittedly great. We have already called attention to
the striking discrepancies among listed securities between book and
market values. Such discrepancies are presumably no less in megni-
tude among unlisted securities. For physical properties, the unre-
liability of assessment figures, particularly as between one juris-
diction And another, are notorious.
Finally, the effect upon income-tax revenues in neriods of
declining capital values would be catastrophic, unless the income
tax base were averaged for several years. Between December 1930
and December 1931, the aggregate decline in the market value of
securities listed on the New York Stock Exchange alone amounted to
more than $30 billions.
C. Modification in Present Sten-Down Provisions
If the recomended plan for the tax treatment of capital gains
and losses is for any reason deemed unsuitable, the most superior
alternative would be a system similar to that now in effect, with
liberalization of the limitations upon the deductibility of capital
losses. The major inequities of the present method could be greatly
reduced if the reductions in the taxable proportions of canital gains
were made less pronounced; and if the loss limitation provisions were
altered in the manner recommended below. (Tables IX and X commare this
improved step-down schedule with the present step-down schedule and
with the standard of equity described in Section IV.)
Regraded Unclassified
- 55 -
(1) Taxable proportions of capital geins under in-
proved step-down schedule compered with those under pro-
sent schedule.
Asset held
Proposed
:
Present
(Percent)
Under 1 year
100
100
1 - 2 years
80
80
2 - 3 years
75
60
3 - 4 years
70
60
4 - 5 years
65
60
5 - 10 years
60
40
Over 10 years
55
30
(2) In addition to the capital losses allowed in
the current year through operation of the step-down
percentages to the extent of the included capital gains,
the excess of such included losses should be carried for-
ward for use in the next two years 8.9 an offset against
the included capital gains in those years.
Dr Proposale to Tax Capital Gains on an Average Basis
To obviate the more important legal and other difficulties in-
volved in the inventory method, but nevertheless to approximate the
equitable advantages of such B. method, various types of averaging
devices for capital gains and lossee have been proposed. None of
these plans would necessarily diminish the deterrent influence of
capital gains taxes upon transactions in capital assets for they
are all based upon the tax treatment of realised gains and losses.
1. Propesal to Average Total Income Including Capital Gains
and Losses in Full
The most usual form taken by the averaging proposals is that
in which all income of the taxpayer including capital gains and
losses is averaged for B. period of years to determine the tax base,
Great Britain formerly employed a 34year average of income for in-
come-tex purposes generally (though gains and losses from casual gales
of property were excluded); but objections from taxpayers who were
called upon to pay relatively heavier taxos in periods of declin-
ing incomes led to the abandonment of the averaging system in 1927.
Regraded Unclassified
- 56 -
Professor Henry C. Simone has suggested that capital gains and
Losses be reported fully with other income in the year realized,
but that every five years or 80 the Treasury make rebates to those
individuals whose actual tax payments axceeded by more than five par-
cent the aggragate taxes that would have been payable if their tamble
incomes each year had equalled their average income for the period.
This proposal 1a attractive in many respects; but it would involve
an smormous administrative burden upon the Bureau of Internal Revenue,
which would be required to compute the putative tax liability for
each taxpayer who reported gains or losses from capital transactions
in the average period fixed upon.
2, Proposal to Average Capital Gains and Losses Separately from
Other Sources of Income
The proposal to average capital gains and losses separately
from other sources of income has not been incorporated in the income
tax law of any major country 80 far as known. This proposal has the
merit of ironing out severe fluctuations in capital gains and losses,
but is subject to somewhat the same limitations BE the plan for
averaging capital gains and losses together with other income.
3. The Average Accrual Method (Recomended Plan)
Among the various proposed methods of averaging capital gains
and losses and associating them with ordinary income, the method
that appears to be freest from anomalies is the average accrual
method, recommended in Section VII.
The essential marit of the average accrual approach to the tax
treatment of capital gains is that it places the treatment on a
definitely uniform basis for all classes of taxpayers, and that 11
appears to represent the nearest practicable approach to perfect
equity in such treatment. The treatment accorded net capital losses
may be debatable, because of the limitations placed upon their de-
ductibility: bat, at previously noted, it 18 virtually impossible to
design an squitable tax treatment for capital losses that can be
expected to override revenue requirements in years when opportunities
for loss realisation are great, The computation of the tax my COD-
ceivably be desmed unduly complicated for the average taxpayer; but
this difficulty, if it be B. real one, is worth facing if the primary
object is to obtain the most equitable and continuing tax trestment
of capital gains that secure practicable.
The most serious objection that may be raised to this method,
in the winds of many, is to be found in its results upon the effective
Regraded Unclassified
- 57
rater of taxes poblied to capital gains. While the essential effect
of this method would be merely to subject cepital gains to substan-
bially the same rates of tax that epply to other sources of income, a
neasure of the extent to which the method would raise the taxes now
ppplicable to cepital gaine 1s presented in Table XI. The claim
mill be made that these increases will seriously constrict the volume
of transactions in capital assets, On this point, the available
evidence does not nermit B conclusive position.
It is importent to emohosize two considerations in this connec-
tion, however. In the first place, if the conviction became wide=
spread that the application of this method marked the end of our long
period of experimentation with the taxation of cepital gains, and
if the existing opportunity for the corplete avoidance or substantial
reductions in such taxes by transfers at death and through inter
vivos gifts were eliminated, the incentive for delayed realization of
capital gains would be greatly reduced. In the second nlace, and
because of the same factors, the contingent tax liability involved
in unrealized crpital gains could be expected to exercise a far note
powerful influence in counteracting any existing tendency to delay
liquidation than it does today.
There are several importent reasons for the latter expectation.
An investor who today holds assets incorporating unrealized capital
gains is offered a definite tax reduction, assuming a constant future
income, to delay liquidation for a period up to Just beyond ten years
in any event: and even until death. This tax inducement would be
eliminated if the recomendations were adopted. The investor might
still obtain a tax advantage by delaying liquidation if he expected
his ordinary income in some future year to be substantially below
his present income, or his capital losses greater, provided that he
could look forward confidently to realizing much of his present por
sible gain in such A year. It should be noted that the conditions
which are unfavorable for large amounts of other income, and favor-
able for the realization of cepital losses, tend to be unfavorable
for the realization of cepital gains. Hence, it can be said that the
subject proposal would greatly diminish this deterrent influence to
the liquidation of cepital assets.
Another consideration which is important in the minds of large
investors is the possibility that our long period of experimentation
with capital gains taxation will be indefinitely continued, with
recurring opportunities, by reason of fevorable alterations in tax
treatment, to liquidate cenital assets with fer lesser tax liability
than would be incurred today. Thus, many persons at this moment are
Regraded Unclassified
- 58 -
doubtless contemplating the possibility of the return to the 12/1 per-
cent maximum rate that was in force between 1922 and 1933, inclusive,
or one even lower. If it appeared that the adoption of the average
accrual plan, because of its preeminent equity, as compared with
practicable alternatives, and because of its consistency with the re-
mainder of our income-tax structure, definitely settled the problem
of capital gains taxation, a very considerable part of the existing
tax influence upon capital transactions would be removed.
Regraded Unclassified
Appendix A
Tables
- 59 -
APPENDIX 1- TABLES
Table I
Percentages by which Income Taxes payable upon Capital Gains are less
under the present Five-Step System than they would be if the Real-
ised Gains were Taxed on the "Accrual Basis", for Selected Sur-
tax Net Incomes 1/
Surtax net income :
Number of years assets were held 2/
from other sources :
1
:
2
:
5
:
10
1. Assuming net capital gains equal
to surtax net income from other sources
5,000
21.7
39.5
57.5
68.8
10,000
25.0
39.0
58.2
69.1
20,000
22.7
39.3
58.0
67.9
50,000
24.3
37.7
56.5
67.3
100,000
20.3
39.7
60.0
70.0
500,000
20.3
39.7
60.0
70.0
B. Assuming net capital gain of $50,000
for each selected surtax net income from other sources
5,000
29.4
34.7
46.1
60.4
10,000
28.9
36.1
48.5
59.8
20,000
27.6
37.3
56.4
66.8
50,000
24.3
37.7
56.5
67.3
100,000
20.0
40.0
60.0
70.0
500,000
20.0
40.0
60.0
70.0
Treasury Department, Division of Research and Statistics
For a description of the "accrual basis", see p. 14.
2/
Plus one day.
Regraded Unclassit
- Go -
Table II
Gross Annual Investment Yields Required to Equal the Average Net
Returns after Federal Income Taxes of Gross Capital Geins
Averaging Five Percent por Annum, Compounded
Annually, for Selected Cases
Selected Cages
: Years capital assets held 1/
: 10 : 5 : 2 : 1
1. Other surtax net income = $200,000;
original investment = $1,000,000;
Average annual yield from canital
@ains after Federal income taxes
4.1
3.7
3.0
2.4
Gross annual investment yield
required for equal return after
Federal income taxes
12.8
11.5
9.2
7.1
2. Other surtax net income = $100,000;
original investment = $500,000;
Average annual yield from capital
gains after Federal income taxes
4.2
3.8
3.2
2,5
Gross anmual investment yield
required for equal return after
Federal income taxes
11.1
10.1
8.3
6.5
3. Other surtax net income = $50,000;
original investment = $250,000:
Average annual yield from capital
gains after Federal income taxes
4.4
4.2
3.9
3.5
Gross annual investment yield
required for equal return after
Federal income taxes
7.2
6.9
6.3
5.7
4. Other surtax net income = $20,000;
original investment = $100,000:
Average annual yield from capital
gains after Federal income taxes
4.7
4.5
4.4
4.2
Gross annual investment yield
required for equal return after
Federal income taxes
5.9
5,8
5.5
5.3
D. Other surtax net income = $5,000;
original investment = $25,000:
Average annual yield from capital
gains after Federal income taxes
4.9
4.8
4,8
4.7
Gross anmual investment yield
required for equal return after
5.3
5.3
5.2
5.1
Federal income taxes
Treasury Department, Division of Pesearch and Statistics
1/ Plus one day.
Regraded Unclassified
- G1 -
Table III
Gross Annual Investment Yields Required to Equal the Average Net
Returns after Federal Income Taxes of Gross Canital Gains
Averaging Ten Percent per Annum, Compounded
Annually, for Selected Cases
Selected Cases
= Years capital assets held 1/
: 10 : 5 : 2 : 1
1. Other surtax net income = $200,000;
original investment = $1,000,000:
Average annual yield from capital
gains after Federal income taxes
8,6
7.6
6.1
4.7
Gross annual investment yield
required for equal return after
Federal income taxes
27.7
24.6
19.2
14,5
2. Other surtax net income = $100,000;
original investment = $500,000:
Average annual yield from capital
gains after Federal income taxes
8.6
7.8
6.4
5.0
Gross annual investment yield
required for equal return after
Federal income taxes
23.5
21.2
17.1
13.4
3. Other surtax net income = $50,000;
original investment = $250,000:
Average annual yield from capital
gains after Federal income taxes
B.B
8.2
7.5
6.8
Gross anmal investment yield
required for equal return after
Federal income taxes
16.4
15.1
13.4
12.0
4. Other surtax net income = $20,000;
original investment = $100,000:
Average annual yield from capital
gains after Federal income taxes
9.4
9.2
8.7
8.3
Gross anmal investment yield
required for equal return after
Federal income taxes
12.0
11.7
11.1
10.5
5. Other surtax net income = $5,000;
original investment = $25,000:
Average annual yield from capital
gains after Federal income taxes
9.8
9.7
9.5
9.3
Gross annual investment yield
required for equal return after
Federal income taxes
10.7
10.6
10.4
10.2
Treasury Department, Division of Research and Statistics
1/ Plus one day.
- 62 -
Table IV
Average annual rate of gross capital gains, compounded annually, required
to equal net yield after Federal income taxes from 30 percent taxable band
:
#
Years capital asset hold
Selected cases
I
#
:
$
10
5
2
1
I
1. Other surtex not income = 200,000; bond investment = 1,000,000
Bond yield after taxes
1.2
1.2
1.2
1.2
Average annual capital gain required for equal return
after Federal income taxes
1.5
1.6
2.0
2.5
2. Other surtex net income = 100,000; bond investment = 500,000
Bond yield after taxes
1.3
1.3
1.3
1.3
Average ennual capital gain required for equal return
after Federal income taxes
1.6
1.8
2.1
2.6
3. Other surtex net income = 50,000; bond investment = 250,000
Bond yield after taxes
2.2
2.2
2.2
2.2
Average annual capital gain required for equal return
after Federal income taxes
2.5
2.6
2.8
3.1
4. Other surtex net income = 20,000; bond investment = 100,000
Bond yield after taxes
2.8
2.8
2.8
2.8
Average annual capital gain required for equal return
after Federal income taxes
3.0
3.0
3.2
3.3
5. Other surtex net income - 5,000; bond investment = 25,000
Bond yield after taxes
3.2
3.2
3.2
3.2
Average ennual capital gain required for equal return
after Federal income taxes
3.3
3.3
3.4
3.4
Treasury Department, Division of Research and Statistics
Plus one day.
Regraded Unclassified
- 65 -
TABLE 1
Average annual rate of gross capital gains, compounded annually, required to
equal net yield after Federal income taxes from 3 percent fully tax-axempt bond
#
Tears empital asset hold 1/
8
Selected cases
#
I
a
I
10
5
2
1
#
1. Other surtex net income - 200,000; bond investment = 1,000,000
Bond yield
3.0
3.0
3.0
3.0
Average emual capital gain required for equal return
after Federal income taxes
3.7
4.0
4.9
6.4
2. Other surtex net income = 100,000; bond investment . 500,000
Bond yield
3.0
3.0
3.0
3.0
Average sonual capital gain required for equal return
after Federal income taxes
3.6
3.9
4-7
6.0
3. Other surtex net income = 50,000; bond investment - 250,000
Bond yield
3.0
3.0
3.0
3.0
Average annual capital gain required for equal return
after Federal income taxes
3.4
3.5
3.8
4.2
4. Other surtex net income - 20,000; bond investment . 100,000
Bond yield
3.0
3.0
3.0
3.0
Average emual capital gain required for equal return
after Federal income taxes
3.2
3-3
3.4
3.6
5. Other surbex net income = 5,000; bond investment - 25,000
Bond yield
3.0
3.0
3.0
3.0
Average annual capital gain required for equal return
after Federal incoss taxes
3.1
3.1
3.2
3.2
Treasury Department, Division of Research and Statistics
1/
Plus one day.
Regraded Unclassified
- Q: -
Table VI
Profite and Losses from Sale of Assets as Reported in Individual Returns Showing Net Income
(In millions of dollars)
1
Profits from sale of assets
::
Losses from sale of monets
::
:
:
: :
: Net loss from :
11
:
Other than I
::
Total
: sale of assets :
::
Aggregate
Taxable
Taxed as
2
taxed as
:
:: capital : other than re- :
I:
profits
year
capital
Total
Total
less
:
1
capital
1
not loss: ported for tax :
11
net gain
losses
I
:
net gain
:
::
: credit on expi-:
::
:
I
I
II
:
tal net loss =
: :
1922
249.2
742.1
991.3
1923
305.4
866.8
1,172.2
1924
389.1
1,124.6
1,513.7
72.0
1925
940.6
1,991.7
2,932.3
61.6
1926
912.9
1,465.6
2,378.5
34.4
178.2
212.6
2,165.9
1927
1,081.2
1,813.4
2,894.6
48.0
227.9
275.9
2,618.7
1928
1,879.8
2,928.1
4,807.9
40.8
171.7
212.5
4,595.4
1929
2,346.7
2,337.9
4,684.6
43.2
995.9
1,039.1
3,645.5
1930
556.4
636.7
1,193.1
80.8
1,232.8
1,313.6
- 120.5
1931
169.9
301.7
471.6
239.9
1,160.8
1,400.7
- 929.1
1932
50.1
112.8
162.9
832.4
375.4
1,207.8
- 1,044.9
1933
133.6
419.6
553.2
553.8
365.8
919.6
- 366.4
Treasury Department. Division of Research and Statistics.
2/ The comparability of the figures between years is effected by (1) changes in individuals PH-
quired to file returns; (2) estimates for net incomes under $5,000; and (3) changes in the
statutory treatment of capital gains and losses, which are detailed in Section III (pages E,
9. 10 and 12).
2/ No figures for capital net losses are available for years prior to the taxable year 1924.
The figures shown for the years 1924 through 1930 were obtained through the capitalization
of the 12/- percent tax credit on capital net loases as reported in Statistion of Income: and
are incomplete because the tax credit was computed only on that amount of the texpsyers'
capital net lose which was necessary to offset his tax. The figures for the years 1931-1933
are the actual capital net losses which were tabulated and reported in Statistics of Income.
3/
Not available
Source of data: Statistics of Income.
Regraded Unclassified
- 65 -
Table VII
Percentage of total net profits on sale of capital assets
derived from assets held for two years or less, or
from assets held for longer periods by persons
subject to tax thereon of 12} percent or less
:
Not income classes
:
Date
: Under
: 50,000-: 100,000
Aggregate -
:
: 50,000 2/1 100,000 : and over
all classes
I
1922
97.6
45.2
17.6
74.9
1923
97.4
33.4
6.9
73.9
1924
96.6
46.4
16.3
74.3
1925
98.2
58.0
24.3
67.9
1926
97.7
46.2
18.0
61.6
1927
97.7
51.1
24,2
62.6
1928
97.5
58.9
31.3
60.9
1929
98.4
49.1
15.9
49.9
1930
97.6
32.8
8.3
53.4
1931
98.4
33.7
11.0
64.0
1932
91.7
30.4
15.6
69.2
1933
95.3
67.6
29.8
75.9
1922-1933
97.6
50.9
21.3
62.1
Treasury Department, Division of Research and Statistics
1/
For factors effecting the comparability of the data from year
to year, see note 1 to Table VI.
The percentages for the income class of less than $50,000 are
not comparable with the percentages for the other groups, be-
cause the former include & substantial part of the profits on
sale of assets held for more than two years, whereas the others
do not.
Source of data: Statistics of Income.
Regraded
classified
- 66 -
Table VIII
Net Gaine from Sale of Capital Assets in 1934 by Net Income Classes
and Statutory Periods that Asseta Were Held
:
Not income
1 year :
:
1-2
:
-
and
2-5
5 - 10
:
-
classes
:
:
Over
10
Not
: under :
years
years
:
years
years
stated
Aggregate
(In thousands of dollars)
0 -
5
21,875
8,982
6,205
2,900
13,577
2,870
56,409
5 - - 25
45,382
21,975
9.397
2,727
28,830
4,178
112,489
25 - 50
15,150
6,868
3,293
253
15,499
1,548
42,611
50 - 100
8,885
4,907
962
1,389
9,558
971
26,675
Over 100
6,772
4,143
138
2,077
34,396
1,480
49,006
Aggregate
98,067
46,875 19,995
9,346
101,860
11,047
287,190
(Percentages of totals for each class)
0 -
-
5
38.8
15.9
11,0
5.1
24.1
5.1
100.0
5 - - 25
40.4
19.5
8.4
2.4
25.6
3.7
100.0
25 - 50
35.6
16.1
7.7
.6
36.4
3.6
100.0
50 - 100
33.4
18.4
3.6
5.2
35.8
3.6
100.0
Over 100
13.8
8.5
.3
4.2
70.2
3.0
100.0
Aggregate
34.1
16.3
7.0
3.3
35.5
3.8
100.0
Treasury Department, Division of Research and Statistics
Excludes net capital gains of returns reporting net deficits.
Note: The change in treatment of capital gains and losses by the
Revenue Act of 1934 makesthe statistics on capital gains and
losses for that year incomparable with those for prior years.
In the first place, the capital gains realized by members of
partnerships and beneficiaries of trusts and estates coase
to be detailed in their individual returns: BO that the data
for capital gaine realized by individuals in 1934 do not in-
clude the capital gains realized by partnerships end fidu-
ciaries in which they held interests.
In the second place, the abandonment of the special
treatment of capital gains and losses from the sale of 89-
sets held for more than two years, and the substitution of
the five-step system, results in the offeetting, in some
cases, of gaine realized from the sale of assets held two
years or less, against losses from the sale of assets held
(Continued on next page)
- 67 -
Note: (Continued)
more than two years, and vice versa. Previously, a net
positive or negative balance was determined both for the capi-
tal gains and losses included in ordinary income and for the
capital gains and losses subjected to the special treatment.
Thus, where two separate net balances have been determined,
only one net balance is available under the five-step system.
Finally, the five-step eystem makes it possible for re-
turns showing net capital gains, when 100 percent of their
capital gains and losses are considered, to show net capital
losses after application of the percentage brackets, and,
similarly, returns showing aggregate net capital losses be-
fore application of the statutory percentages may show net
capital gains after the percentages are applied. Hence, the
statistics for 1934, wherein the net capital gains returns
are separated from the net capital loss returns on the basis
of the net balance existing after the operation of the statu-
tory percentages, necessarily include certain amounts which
would have formerly been excluded, and vice versa.
The tabulations of the 1934 data were the result of 2.
Work Relief Project sponsored by the Division of Research and
Statistics, Treasury Department. Not all of the 1934 returns
were included in the survey, however, inasmuch as certein
returns were in the field or in Washington in the process of
audit, et cetera. In general, the incompleteness WRS concen-
traded in the lover income classes where, because of the
larger number of cases, it had the minimum effect unon the
reliability of the figures. In addition to these differences
from the Statistics of Income data, the source of the figures
for the special tabulation was Schedule C (Statement of
Capital Gains and Losses). whereas the Statistics of Income
date were tabulated from the face of the return,
- 68 -
Table IX
Percentages whereby Capital Gains Taxes Payable under
Improved Step-Down Schedule would be Greater than
those under Present Schedule, for Selected Cases
Surtax Net Income : No. of Years Assets were Held 1/
From Other Sources
:
1
:
2
:
5
:
10
1. Assuming net capital gains equal
to surtar net income from other sources
5,000
0.0
28.8
52.9
90.4
10,000
0.0
31.3
56.5
92.6
20,000
0.0
28.8
54.8
94.3
50,000
0.0
32.0
62.1
102.9
100,000
0.0
25.7
50.8
83.9
500,000
0.0
25.6
50.7
83.8
B. Assuming net capital gain of $50,000
for each selected surtax net income from other sources
5,000
0.0
38.9
82.7
149.7
10,000
0.0
36.6
72.0
125.1
20,000
0.0
35.1
63.9
104.9
50,000
0.0
32.0
62.1
102.9
100,000
0.0
25.0
50.0
83.3
500,000
0.0
25.0
50.0
83.3
Treasury Department, Division of Research and Statistics
1/ Plus one day.
Note: The improved schedule would provide for the inclu-
sion in net income of the following percentages
of net capital gains and losses, according to mum-
ber of years held: 1-2 years, 80 percent; 2-3 years,
75 percent; 3-4 years, 70 percent; 4-5 years 65 per-
cent; 5-10 years, 60 percent; over 10 years, 55 per-
cent.
- 69 -
Table I
Percentages by which Income Taxes Payable upon Capital Gains would be
Less under Improved Step-Down Schedule than they would be if the
Realized Gains were Taxed on the "Accrual Basis for Selected Cases
Surtax Net Income :
No. of Years Assets were Held 3/
From Other Sources I
1
:
2
:
3
I
4
:
5
1
10
A. Assuming net capital gains equal
to surtax net income from other sources
5,000
21.7
22.1
26.2
30.5
35.0
40.5
10,000
25.0
19.9
23.7
29.0
34.5
40.5
20,000
22.7
21.7
24.8
29.5
35.0
37.6
50,000
24.3
17.8
19.1
23.3
29.5
33.6
100,000
20.3
24.2
29.4
34.5
39.7
44.8
500,000
20.3
24.3
29.5
34.6
39.7
44.9
B. Assuming net capital gain of $50,000
for each selected surtax net income from other sources
5,000
29.4
9.3
- 1.1
- 3.1
1.5
1.2
10,000
28.9
12.7
9.1
8.9
11.5
9.6
20,000
27.6
15.2
16.9
21.9
28.6
32.0
50,000
24.3
17.8
19.1
23.3
29.5
33.6
100,000
20.0
25.0
30.0
35.0
40.0
45.0
500,000
20.0
25.0
30.0
35.0
40.0
45.0
Treasury Department, Division of Research and Statistics
The improved schedule would provide for the inclusion in net
income of the following percentages of net capital gains and
losses, according to number of years held: 1-2 years, 80 per-
cent; 2-3 years, 75 percent; 3-4 years. 70 percent; 4-5 years,
65 percent; 5-10 years, 60 percent; over 10 years. 55 percent.
For a description of the "accrual basis," see p. 14.
Plus one day.
Regraded Unclassified
- 70 -
Table XI
Percentages by which Income Taxes Payable upon Capital Gains
would be greater under the "Accrual Basis, "1/ than under
the Present Five-Step System for Selected Surtax
Net Incomes
Surtax Net Income : Number of Years Assets were Held 2
From Other Sources :
1
:
2
:
5
#
10
A. Assuming net capital gains equal
to surtax net income from other sources
5,000
27.8
65.4
135.3
220.0
10,000
33.3
63.9
139.1
223.5
20,000
29.4
64.6
138.1
211.5
50,000
32.1
60.5
129.9
205.4
100,000
25.5
65,8
150.0
233.3
500,000
25.4
65.9
150.0
233.3
B. Assuming net capital gain of $50,000
for each selected surtax net income from other sources
5,000
41.7
53.2
85.5
152.7
10,000
40.7
56.5
94.3
148.9
20,000
38.1
59.4
129.5
201.5
50,000
32.1
60.5
129.9
205.4
100,000
25.0
66.7
150.0
233.3
500,000
25.0
66.7
150.0
233.3
Treasury Department, Division of Research and Statistics
For a description of the "accrual basis," see D. 14.
2
Plus one day.
- 71 -
Table XII
Book Value and Closing Market Prices of the Fifteen Most Active
Stocks on the New York Stock Exchange on December 31, 1936
(Listed in order of activity)
:
:
Book value
:
Market price
:
:
per share
:
per share
Ohio Oil Company
$ 11.86
$ 17-3/4
General Motors Corporation
18.46
63-1/2
Paramount Pictures, Inc.
11.23
24-1/2
Socony Vacuum 011 Company, Inc.
19.98
16-7/8
Consolidated Oil Corporation
17.86
16-7/8
Columbia Gas and Electric
Corporation
17.36
18-3/8
Pure Oil Company
22.60
20-7/8
Radio Corporation of America
3.10
11-1/2
United Air Lines
Transport Corporation
8.48
22
United States Steel Corporation
138.37
78
Warner Bros. Pictures, Inc.
22.69
17-3/4
Pierce Petroleum Corporation
7.55
3-1/2
Commonwealth and Southern
Corporation
5.27
3-3/8
Consolidated Textile Corporation
1.14
7/8
Anaconda Copper Mining Company
55.88
53-1/2
Source: Moody's Investment Service.
Regraded Unclassified
- 72 -
Table XIII
Comparison of changes in market and book values of common stocks of railroad equipment
and iron and ateel companies, 1932-1936
:
Book value per share
::
Market value per share
Company
: Dec. 31, : Dec. 31, : Percent :: Dec. 31, : Dec. 31, : Percent
:
1932
:
1936
:
change
::
1932
:
1936
: change
Railroad Equipment
American Brake Shoe and Foundry Company
$ 27.67
$ 27.98
+ 1.1
$ 9.63
$ 69.00
+616.5
American Car and Foundry Company 2
99.88
90.10
- 9.8
7.00
59.25
+746.4
American Locomotive Company
68.80
20.91
-69.5
5.88
45.75
+678.1
American Steel Foundries
42.11
38.10
- 9.5
5.63
61.88
+999.1
Baldwin Locomotive Works
40.55
13.78
-66.0
4.50
9.50
+111.1
General American Transportation
Corporation
64.82
62.64
- 3.4
17.00
73.38
+331.6
General Railway Signal Company
32.91
29.55
-10.2
13.25
56.50
+326.4
Pullman, Inc.
69.58
60.72
-12.7
18,88
68.50
+262.8
Union Tank Car Company
30.26
29.65
- 2.0
12.00
26.75
+122.9
Westinghouse Air Brake Company
17.65
14.43
-18.2
11.25
50.00
+344.4
Steel and Iron
American Rolling Mill Company
30.84
31.74
+ 2.9
8.00
34.75
+334.4
Bethlehem Steel Corporation
126.60
113.02
-10.7
14.75
75.50
+411.9
Byers (A. M.) Company
56.43
44.06
-21.9
13.25
28.25
+113.2
Colorado Fuel and Iron Corporation
38.77
32.63
-15.8
4.50
45.63
+914.0
Crucible Steel Company of America
150.56
160.50
+ 6.8
20.00
53.63
+168.2
Inland Steel Company
49.28
53.27
+ 8.1
12.75
117.50
+821.6
National Steel Corporation
47.41
50.97
+ 7.5
20,00
71.50
+257.5
U. S. Pipe and Foundry Company
37.38
37.17
- .6
9.50
63.00
+563.2
U. S. Steel Corporation
168.54
129.03
-23.6
27.50
78.00
+183.6
Toungstown Sheet and Tube Company
91.53
76.66
-16.2
9.88
78.00
+689.5
Republic Steel Corporation
68.47
38.53
-43.7
5.50
28.75
+422.7
All railroad equipment and iron and steel companies included in Standard Statistics Co. averages.
2/
1932 figures for year ended April 30, 1933; 1936 figures for year ended April 30, 1936.
Regraded Unclassified
- 73 -
Table XIV
Percentages by Which Present Capital Gaine Taxes would be Reduced
or Increased by Subjecting Capital Gains to Normal Tax
Plus one-half of Surtax Rates, in Lieu of Present
Step-Down Provisions, for Selected Cases
Surtax net income
:
Number of years assets were held 1/
from other sources :
1
:
2
:
5
:
10
A. Assuming net capital gains equal
to surtax net income from other sources
5,000
- 8.3
+ 26.9
+ 94.1
+ 164.0
10,000
- 13.7
+ 22.2
+ 91.3
+ 158.8
20,000
- 24.2
+ 5.0
+ 62.5
+ 123.8
50,000
- 28.5
+ 1,9
+ 65.2
+ 129.5
100,000
- 33.3
- 10.4
+ 35.1
+ 80.1
500,000
- 33.9
- 11.4
+ 33.4
+ 77.9
B. Assuming net capital gain of $50,000
for each selected surtax net income from other sources
5,000
- 16.5
+ 27.8
+ 133.4
+ 262.9
10,000
- 18.6
+ 21.8
+ 109.4
+ 209.3
20,000
- 22.1
+ 15.2
+ 88.8
+ 162.7
50,000
- 28.5
+ 1.9
+ 65.2
+ 129.5
100,000
- 33.5
- 11.3
+ 33.1
+ 77.4
500,000
- 34,1
- 12.2
+ 31.8
+ 75.7
1/ Plus one day.
Regraded Unclassified
- 74 -
Table XV
Percentages by which Capital Gains Taxes would be Smaller or
Greater if Capital Gains were subjected to Normal Tax Plus
One-helf of Surtax Rates than they would be
under the "Accrual Basis"
for Selected Cases
Surtax Net Income
: Number of Years Assets were Held 2/
From Other Sources
:
1
:
2
:
5
:
10
A. Assuming net capital gains equal
to surtax net income from other sources
5,000
- 28.3
- 23.3
- 17.5
- 17.5
10,000
- 35.3
- 25.4
- 20.0
- 20.0
20,000
- 41.4
- 36.2
- 31.8
.
- 28.2
50,000
- 45.9
- 36.5
- 28.1
- 24.9
100,000
- 46.8
- 46.0
- 46.0
- 46.0
500,000
- 47.3
- 46.6
- 46.6
- 46.6
B. Assuming net cepital gain of $50,000
for each selected surtax net income from other sources
5,000
- 41.1
- 16.6
+ 25.8
+ 43.6
10,000
- 42.1
- 22.2
+ 7.8
+ 24.2
20,000
- 43.6
- 27.8
- 17.8
- 12.9
50,000
- 45.9
- 36.5
- 28.1
- 24.9
100,000
- 46.8
- 46.8
- 46.8
- 46.8
500,000
- 47.3
- 47.3
.
- 47.3
- 47.3
For a description of "accrual basis", see page 14.
Plus one day.
Regraded Inclassified
Appendix B - Proposed
Schedules and Examples
Schedule C
Statement of Gains, Where There Are No Losses, from Sale (or Exchange) of Assets
(In cases where there are losses and no gains from sale (or Exchange) of assets, this form
may be used by treating losses as gains after inserting a minus sign before each loss)
:
:
:
10.
Γ. DEPRECIATION
& Cost os MARCH 1,
6. Cost OF Int-
ALLOWED (om
:
:
9.
:
Weighted
1. Descarros OF
2 Date
1. Date
L Gross BALES Pass
1912, VALUE IF Ao-
PROVENER'S
ALLOWABLE)
8.
No. of
PROPERTY AND
Boto os
Passon Has
Acquired
(Contract price)
QUIRED BEFORE
to
Boes Açquin-
:
:
: gains
THAT DATE (Indi-
Acquarion OR
- - MARCH
Gain
esta beste)*
MARCH 1, 1803
1, BIS
:
:
years
:
(Col. 8 I
(Fornish details)
held
:
:
:
Col. 9)
=
:
:
=
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
=
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
**
:
:
:
:
:
:
=
:
:
:
:
:
:
=
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
Partnerships &:
:
=
:
:
:
:
:
fiduciaries :
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
1. Total
XXXXXX,
=
2. Average investment period for gains* (Line 1, Col. 10 divided by Col. 8)
:
3. Average annual gain (Line 1, Col. 8 divided by line 2)
APPENDIX PROPOSED SCHEDULES AND EXAMPLES
:
4. Surtax net income (From item 24 page 1 of return: if none, enter a zero)
:
5. Surtax net income plus net average annual gain (Line 3 plus line 4)
:
6. Tentative tax on line 5 (Use rate schedule below)
7. Tentative tax on line 4 (Use rate schedule below)
8. Tax on average annual gain (Line 6 minus line 7)
9. Total tax on capital gains (Line 8 multiplied by line 2)
Diaregard fractional narte of a year unless they amount to one-half or more, in which case, count
them as a full year.
Regraded Unclassified
Schedule 0 - Part 1
Statement of Gains and Losses from Sale (or Exchange) of Assets
:
:
:
:
11.
:
12.
7. DEPARTATION
10.
& Com os MARCE 1,
a Cost or IM-
ALLOWED (on
=
:
:
:
Weighted
:
1. DESCUPTION OF
a. DATE
4. Choss SALES Pass
1918, VALUE IF Ao-
PROTEMENTS
ALLOWABLE)
8.
9.
No. of
Weighted
2 DATE
PROPERTY AND
BOLD or
QUIRED BEFORE
SUBMIQUENT TO
Roics Acquis-
:
:
:
gains
: losses
PREJOD Haco
ACQUIRED
EXCHANGED
(Contract print)
THAT DATE (indi-
Acquirimos os
пои os MANY
Gain
Loss
years
cate bask)
1, 1953
1, 1918
:
:
#
#
(Ool. 8X
:
(Furnish details)
held*
(Ool. 9 X
:
:
:
001. 10
:
Col. 10
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
I
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
=
:
:
:
:
:
:
I
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
2
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
1
:
:
:
:
:
#
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
I
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
Partnerships &:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
fiduciaries
:
:
I
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
1. Total
XXXXXX
:
:
2. Average Investment period for gains* (Line 1, Col. 11 divided by Col. 8)
:
:
3. Average investment period for losses® (Line 1, Col. 12 divided by 001. 9)
:
4. Average sumal gain (Line 1, 001. 8 divided by line 2)
:
:
5. Average surnal loss (Line 1, 001. 9 divided by line 3)
:
:
6. Net average annual gain or loss (Line 4 minns line 5: if line 5 exceeds line 4, indicate
:
:
net average sumal loss by using mians sign)
7. Average ansual gain or loss for longer investment period (Enter line 4 if line 2 is greater
#
than line 3: otherwise enter line 5. preceded by a minus sign)
"Disregard fractional parts of & year unless they amount to one-half or more, in which case, count them as a full year
Regraded Unclassified
77
Schedule C - Part 2°
Computation of Tax or Tax Credit on Capital Gains and Losses
8. Surtax net income (From item 24 page 1 of return;
:
if none, enter a zero)
9. Surtax net income adjusted for net average annual
gain or loss (Line 6 plus line 8)
10. Tentative tax on line 9 (Use rate schedule below)
11. Surtax net income adjusted for average annual gain
or loss for longer average investment period
(Line 7 plus line 8)
12. Tentative tax on line 11 (Use rate schedule below)
13. Tentative tax on line 8 (Use rate schedule below)
14. Annual tax or tax credit with respect to shorter
average investment period (Line 10 mimus line 12)
15. Total tax or tax credit with respect to shorter
average investment period (Line 14 multiplied by
line 2 or line 3, whichever is smaller)
16. Annual tax or tax credit with respect to longer
average investment period (Line 12 mimus line 13)
17. Total tax or tax credit with respect to longer
average investment period (Line 16 multiplied by
line 2 or line 3, whichever is greater)
18. Aggregate tax or tax credit on capital gains and
losses (Line 15 plus line 17)
For a discussion of the tax computation procedure followed in this
schedule, see page 69.
Regraded/Unclassified
- 78 -
Combined normal tax and surtax rates"
Amount of
:
Rate
:
Total
surtax net income
:
:
(percent)
:
normal tax
:
and surtex
0 - 4,000
4
$
160
4,000 - 6,000
8
6,000 - 8,000
320
9
500
8,000 - 10,000
10
700
10,000 - 12,000
11
920
12,000 - 14,000
12
1,160
14,000 - 16,000
13
1,420
16,000 - 18,000
15
1,720
18,000 - 20,000
17
2,060
20,000 - 22,000
19
2,440
22,000 - 26,000
21
3,280
26,000 - 32,000
23
4,660
32,000 - 38,000
25
6,160
38,000 - 44,000
28
7,840
44,000 - 50,000
31
9.700
50,000 - 56,000
35
11,800
56,000 - 62,000
39
14,140
62,000 - 68,000
43
16,720
68,000 - 74,000
47
19,540
74,000 - 50,000
51
22,600
80,000 - 90,000
55
28,100
90,000 - 100,000
59
34,000
100,000 - 150,000
62
65,000
150,000 - 200,000
64
97,000
200,000 - 250,000
66
130,000
250,000 - 300,000
68
164,000
300,000 - 400,000
70
234,000
400,000 - 500,000
72
306,000
500,000 - 750,000
74
491,000
750,000 - 1,000,000
76
681,000
1,000,000 - 2,000,000
77
1,451,000
2,000,000 - 5,000,000
78
3,791,000
5,000,000 and over
79
Note: Where the amount to be subjected to tax is preceded by & minus
sign, compute the tax dieregarding the minus sign, then insert
& minus sign before the resulting tax to indicate 8. tax credit.
*In order to simplify as much as possible the actual tax computation for
the taxpayer, it is advisable to print in the capital gains schedule &
table showing the combined normal and surtax rates. It is possible to
combine the two rates because the recommended treatment disallows, in
computing the tax or tax credit on capital gains and losses, any por-
tions of the personal exemption and credit for dependents, and the
minimm earned income credit, which are not utilized in computing the
tax on ordinary income.
- 79 -
Note on Tax Computation Procedure Used
in Part 2 of Proposed Schedule
The tax computation procedure described in the recommended
plan may be shown symbolically AS follows:
Let T = total tax on capital gains.
Let S = number of years in shorter average investment period.
Let L = number of years in longer average investment period.
Lot 0 = total tax on surtax net income.
Let A = total tax on sum of surtax net income, average annual
gain, and average annual loss.
Let B = total tax on eun of surtax net income and average
annual gain or average annual loss, whichever accrued for
the longer average investment period.
Then,
T = S(A - 0) + (L - S) (B - 0)
or,
T = SA - 08 + LB - SB + os - 01
from which, T = SA + LB - SB - OL
or,
T = S(A - B) + L(B - 0)
This latter tax procedure has been adopted in the proposed
schedule (Schedule c, Part 2; see page 67) because it produces
identical results with the tax procedure under the recommended plan
while substituting simpler computations.
Illustrative Examples
For purposes of illustrating the operation of the recommended
plan for the tax treatment of the capital gains and 108865 of indi-
viduals, twelve cases, with varying assumptions respecting surtax
net income and capital gains and losses, have been chosen. These
cases, which follow immediately, are reported in the same form as
the proposed schedules for capital gains. The assumptions for each
case appear in the respective schedules.
It will be noted that Cases I and II have capital gains and
no capital losses; Cases III and IV, capital losses and no capital
gains; and Cases V through X both capital gains and capital losses.
Cases I, III, V, and VIII have no surtax net income, while the
remaining cases have surtax net incomes of varying amounts.
- 80 -
Cases I and II
Schedule C
Statement of Gains, Where There Are To Losses, From Sale (or Exchange) of Assets
(In cases where there are losses and no gains from sale (or exchange) of assets, this form
my be used by treating losses as gains after inserting a mims sign before each loss)
:
:
:
10.
9.
:
:
:
Weighted
8.
No. of
:
:
: gains
Gain
years
:
:
:
(Col. 8 X
held*
:
:
:
Col. 9)
:
:
:
:
:
:
=
2,000
:
1
: 2,000
:
:
:
:
:
:
: 3,000
:
2
: 6,000
:
=
:
:
:
:
: 4,000
:
3
: 12,000
:
:
:
:
:
:
: 5,000
:
4
: 20,000
:
:
:
:
:
:
: 1,000
:
5
: 5,000
:
:
:
:
:
:
: 5,000
:
6
: 30,000
:
:
:
:
=
:
: 70,000
:
7
:
490,000
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
10,000
:
8
: 80,000
:
:
:
:
:
:
: 5,000
:
9
I 45,000
:
:
:
:
:
:
: 5,000
:
10
:
50,000
:
:
:
1. Total
:
110,000
:
XXXXXX
:
740,000
:
:
:
:
:
Case I
Case II
:
:
2. Average investment period for gains* (Line 1, Col. 10 divided by Col. 8)
:
7
:
7
:
:
3. Average annual gain (Line 1, Col. 8 divided by line 2)
:
15,714
:
15,714
:
:
4. Surtax net income (From item 24 page 1 of return; if none, enter & sero)
:
0
: 10,000
:
:
5. Surtax net income plus net average annual gain (Line 3 plus line 4)
15,714
:
25,714
:
:
6. Tentative tax on line 5 (Use rate schedule below)
:
1,383
: 3,220
:
:
7. Tentative tax on line If (Use rate schedule below)
:
0
:
700
:
:
8. Tax on average annual gain (Line 6 minus line 7)
:
1,383
: 2,520
=
2
9. Total tax on capital gains (Line 8 multiplied by line 2)
9,681
:
17,640
:
* Disregard fractional parts of a year unless they amount to one-half or more, in which case, count them
as a full year.
Regraded Unclassified
- 21 -
Cases III and IV
Schedule C
Statement of Gains, Where Tera Are No Losses, from Sale (or Exchange) of Assets
(In cases where there are losses and no gnine from sale (or exchange) of assets, this form
may be used by treating losses as gains after inserting a minus sign before each loss)
:
:
: 10.
9.
:
:
: Weighted
8.
No. of
:
:
: gains
Gain
:
years
:
: (Col. 8 I
held*
I
:
I Col. 9)
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
- 2,000
:
1
: - 2,000
:
:
:
:
:
:
: - 3,000 :
2
I - 6,000
:
:
:
:
:
:
= - 4,000 :
3
# - 12,000
:
:
:
:
#
:
: - 5,000 :
4
I - 20,000
:
=
:
:
:
2
: - 1,000 :
5
I - 5,000
:
:
:
:
2
:
: - 5,000 :
6
I - 30,000
I
:
:
:
:
:
I - 70,000 #
7
I
-490,000
:
:
:
:
:
:
: - 10,000 $
8
E - 80,000
:
:
=
:
:
:
: - 5,000 $
9
: - 45,000
:
:
:
I
:
I
: - 5,000
I
10
I - 50,000
:
$
:
1. Total
=
-110,000
:
xxxxx
I
-740,000
I
1
:
:
Case III
Case IV
1
:
#
:
2. Average investment period for gains*(Line 1, Gol. 10 divided by Gol. 8)
#
7
:
7
:
:
3. Average annual gain (Line 1, Gol. 8 divided by line 2)
#
- 15,714
I
- 15,714
:
I
4. Surtax net income (From item 24 page 1 of return; if none, enter a sero)
0
: 10,000
#
I
5. Surtex net income plus net average anmual gain (Line 3 plus line 4)
- 15,714 : - 5.714
$
$
6. Tentative tax on line 5 (Use rate schedule below)
- 1,383
$ -
297
$
-
7. Tentative tax on line 4 (Use rate schedule below)
=
o
H
700
#
#
8. Tax on average anmial gain (Line 6 mimis line 7)
- 1.383
#
-
997
:
9. Total tax on capital gains (Line 8 multiplied by line 2)
- 9,681 : : - 6,979
5 Disregard fractional parts of a year unless they amount to one-half or more, in which case, count
them as a full year.
Regraded Unclassified
-82-
Cases V. VI and VII
Schedule 0- Part 1
Statement of Gains and Losses from Sale (or Exchange) of Assets
:
:
: 10.
:
11.
:
12.
:
8
:
9-
:
No. of
:
Weighted
:
Weighted
: Gain
:
Loss
: years
: gains
: losses
:
:
: held*
: (Ool. 8X
:
(Ool. 9 I
:
:
:
:
Col. 10)
:
Col. 10)
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
: 2,000 :
:
1
:
2,000
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
: 3,000 :
:
2
:
6,000 :
:
:
:
:
:
:
: 4,000 :
:
3
:
12,000 :
:
:
:
:
:
:
: 5,000 :
:
4
: 20,000 :
:
:
:
:
:
-
: 1,000 :
:
5
: 5,000 :
:
=
:
:
:
:
: 5,000 :
:
6
: 30,000 :
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
: 70,000
:
7
:
: 490,000
:
:
:
:
:
:
: 10,000 :
:
8
= 80,000 #
:
=
=
:
:
:
:
: 5,000
:
9
:
: 45,000
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
: 5,000
:
10
=
:
50,000
:
:
:
=
:
1. Total
:
30,000
:
80,000
:
XXXXXX
:
155,000
:
585,000
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
2. Average investment period for gains® (Line 1, Col. 11 divided by Col. 8)
:
5
:
:
:
3. Average investment period for losses* (Line 1. Col. 12 divided by Gol. 9)
:
7
:
:
:
4. Average annual gain (Line 1, Col. 5 divided by line 2)
:
6,000
:
:
:
5. Average annual loss (Line 1, Col. 9 divided by line 3)
:
11,429 :
:
:
6. Net average annual gain or loss (Line 4 minus line 5: if line 5 exceeds line 4, indicate
:
:
net average anmal loss by using minus sign)
- 5,429 :
:
#
7. Average annual gain or loss for longer investment period (Enter line 4 if line 2 is greater
:
:
than line 3: otherwise enter line 5. preceded by a minus sign)
:
-11,429 :
- Disregard fractional parts of & year unless they amount to one-half or more. in which case, count than as a
full year.
Regraded Unclassified
- 83 -
Cases V, VI, and VII
Schedule C - - Part 2
Computation of Sex 02 Tax Credit on Canital Gains and Losses
:
:
:
Case 7
Case VI
Case VII
:
1
:
8. Surtax net income (From item 24, page 1 of return;
:
:
:
if none, enter a sero)
:
0
:
10,000
:
100,000
:
:
:
9. Surtex net income adjusted for net average annual
:
1
:
gain or loss (Line 6 plus line 8)
:
- 5,429
:
4,571
:
94,571
:
:
:
10. Tentative tax on line 9 (Use rate schedule below)
:
-
274
:
206
:
30,797
:
:
:
11. Surtax net income adjusted for average annual gain
:
:
:
or loss for longer average investment period
:
:
:
(Line 7 plus line 8)
:
- 11,429
:
- 1,429
:
88,571
:
:
:
12. Tentative tax on line 11 (Use rate schedule below)
:
-
857
:
-
57 #
27,314
:
:
I
13. Tentative tax on line 8 (Use rate schedule below)
:
0
:
700
:
34,000
:
:
:
14. Annual tax or tax credit with respect to shorter
:
:
:
average investment period (Line 10 minus line 12)
583
:
263 :
3,483
:
:
=
15. Total tax or tax credit with respect to shorter
:
:
:
average investment period (Line 14 multiplied by
:
:
:
line 2 or line 3, whichever is smaller)
2,915
:
1,315
I
17,415
:
:
:
16. Anmual tax or tax credit with respect to longer
:
:
1
average investment period (Line 12 minus line 13)
:
-
857
:
-
757
: - 6,686
2
:
:
17. Total tax or tax credit with respect to longer
:
:
:
average investment period (Line 16 multiplied by
:
:
:
line 2 or line 3, whichever is greater)
: - 5,999
:
-
5,299
:
-
46,802
:
:
:
18. Aggregate tax or tax credit on capital gains and
:
:
:
losses (Line 15 plus line 17)
: - 3,084
:
- 3,984
: - 29,387
:
1
:
Regraded Unclassified
-04.
Cases VIII, IX and X
Schedule 0- Part 1
Statement of Gains and Losses from Sale (or Exchange) of Assets
:
:
:
:
11.
:
12.
:
:
:
10.
:
Weighted
:
Weighted
8.
:
:
9.
:
No. of
:
gains
: losses
:
Gain
:
Loss
:
years
:
(Col. 8 I
:
(Col, 9 X
:
:
: held*
:
Col. 10)
:
Col. 10)
:
:
:
:
:
:
= 2,000
:
:
1
:
2,000
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
: 3,000
:
:
2
:
6,000
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
: 4,000
:
:
3
:
12,000 :
:
:
:
I
:
:
: 5,000 :
:
4
:
20,000 :
:
:
:
:
:
:
: 1,000
:
:
5
:
5,000
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
: 5,000
:
:
6
:
30,000 #
:
:
:
:
:
:
: 70,000 :
:
7
: 490,000
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
: 10,000
:
:
8
:
80,000 #
:
:
:
=
:
:
:
: 5,000
:
9
:
: 45,000
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
: 5,000
:
10
:
: 50,000
:
=
:
:
:
1. Total
:100,000
:
10,000
:
XXXXXX
:
645,000
:
95,000
=
:
:
2. Average investment period for gains* (Line 1, Col. 11 divided by Col. 8)
6 =
:
:
3. Average investment period for losses* (Line 1, Col. 12 divided by Col. 9)
10 :
:
:
4. Average annual gain (Line 1, Dol. 8 divided by line 2)
:
16,667
:
:
#
5. Average annual loss (Line 1, Col. 9 divided by line 3)
1,000
:
:
:
6. Net average annual gain or loss (Line 4 mims line 5: if line 5 exceeds line 4, indicate
:
:
net average anmial loss by using mimis sign)
15,667
:
:
:
7. Average annual gain or loss for longer investment period (Enter line 4 if line 2 is greater
:
:
than line 3: otherwise enter line 5. preceded by a minus sign)
- 1,000 :
. Disregard fractional parts of a year unless they amount to one-half or more, in which case, count
them as a full year.
Regraded Unclassified
- 85 -
Cases VIII, IX and X
Schedule C - Part 2
Computation of Tax or Tax Credit on Capital Gains and Losses
:
:
Case II
:
Case VIII
Case X
:
:
:
:
:
:
8. Surtax net income (From item 24, page 1 of return;
:
:
:
if none, enter a zero)
:
0
:
10,000
: 100,000
:
:
:
9. Surtax net income adjusted for net average annual
:
:
:
gain or loss (Line 6 plus line 8)
:
15,667
:
25,667
:
115,667
:
:
:
10. Tentative tax on line 9 (Use rate schedule below)
:
1,377
:
3,210
:
43,714
:
:
:
11. Surtax net income adjusted for average annual
:
:
:
gain or loss for longer average investment
:
:
:
period (Line 7 plus line 8)
:
- 1,000
:
9,000
:
99,000
:
:
:
12. Tentative tax on line 11 (Use rate schedule below)
:
-
40
:
600
:
33,410
:
:
:
13. Tentative tax on line B (Use rate schedule below)
:
o
:
700
:
34,000
:
:
:
14. Annual tax or tax credit with respect to shorter
:
:
:
average investment period (Line 10 minus line 12)
:
1,417
:
2,610
;
10,304
:
:
:
15. Total tax or tax credit with respect to shorter
:
:
:
average investment period (Line 14 multiplied by
:
:
:
line 2 or line 3. whichever is smaller)
8,502
:
15,660
:
61,824
:
:
:
16. Annual tax or tax credit with respect to longer
:
:
:
average investment period (Line 12 minus line 13)
:
-
40
:
-
100
:
-
590
:
:
:
17. Total tax or tax credit with respect to longer
:
:
:
average investment period (Line 16 multiplied by
:
:
:
line 2 or line 3. whichever is greater)
-
400
--
- 1,000
:
- 5,900
:
:
:
18. Aggregate tax or tax credit on capital gains and
:
:
:
losses (Line 15 plus line 17)
8,102
:
14,660
:
55,924
:
:
:
Regraded Unclassified
Appendix 0 - Contro-
versial Statements
- 86 -
APPENDIX C - STATEMENTS BY SOME LEADERS IN THE CONTROVERSY
RESPECTING THE TAXATION OF CAPITAL GAINS
Pro:
R. H. Montgomery, in reply to & questionnaire submitted by
Professor R. M. Haie
Although I made many attempts to find an answer to
this question, my experience led me to believe that no
categorical answer would be accurate. Many of my clients
refused to sell, ostensibly on account of high tax rates,
but on being closely questioned I think without exception
they were all holding off for higher prices. As far as
I could learn they did sell when they believed that the
highest price obtainable had been offered and I think
that most of them were satisfied that their profit was
big enough to take care of the high tax.
"By the end of 1929 I had reached the conclusion
that high tax rates retarded very few sales."
Eisner vs. Macomber, 252 U. S. 189, 207
"Income may be defined as the gain from capital,
from labor, or from both combined provided it be under-
stood to include profit gained through sale or conver-
sion of capital assets."
Hays vs. Gauley Mountain Coal Company, 247 U. S. 189
.... since B. conversion of capital often results
in gain, the general purpose of the Act of 1909 to mee-
sure the tax by the increase from invested property,
leads to the inference that that portion of the gross
proceeds which represents fain or increase acquired
after the taking effect of the Act, must be regarded as
'gross income;
.....
Seligman, E. R. A., Studies in Public Finance, page 108
"The gain in the form of accretion to capital is
income only when it is ... actually realized."
R. K. Haig, "The Treatment of Capital Gains and Losses Under
the Federal Income Tax (confidential report to the Secretary,
November 1934), pp. 71-72.
- 87 -
Hale, 1. M., The Concept of Income, in the Federal Income Tax,
1921, page 7
"Income is the money value of the net accretion
to one's economic power between two points of time."
Half, R. M., The Taxation of Excess Profits in Great Britain,
page 72
"Then one sake an Englishman why capital gains are
not taxed the first reply is almost invariably B sur-
prised and shocked exclamation to the effect that this
would mean the taxation of capital and not of income.
If one then asks whether a. tax on the increased value
of stock-in-trade is 8 tax on income or & tax on cap-
ital be usually forsakes argument on the basis of
fundamental principle and pleads the practical neces-
sity for a dividing line. As a matter of fact that
dividing line is & thin and tennous one -
"The fundamental explanation of the British con-
cept is probably to be found in certain facts in the
general economic background of Ingland. It is an old,
conservative, economic organism where transfers are less
frequent than in this country, where fortunes are less
often made through trafficking in appreciating assets,
where values are dealt with more largely in terms of
income and less in terms of sale price and where, above
all, the general conception of the economic structure
is static rather than dynamic. ....
droves, E. V., A Tax Policy for the United States, 1934, pages 32-33
"It would be 8. grave mistake to abandon the tax
on capital gains ... Such gains are usually of a
fortuitous and unearned character and are highly con-
centrated in the returns of large taxpayers. From the
fiscal point of view, this income has more ability to
pay than ordinary income. From the point of view of
social control the tax on capital gains is very impor-
tant. Much of this income is B direct result of spec-
ulation. ... The present system of granting favored
treatment to capital gains encourages the reinvestment
of corporate earnings, and the latter in turn is respon-
sible for much of the overbuilding of plant capacity
which has gone on in this country.
"Prom this it appears evident that capital gains
should be taxed and that they should be taxed at the
same rate as other income, without a special top limit."
w
Cited by Dr. Robert Murray Eaig in his 1934 memorandum,
- 88 -
Bawett, #. W., The Definition of Income and its Application in
Federal Taxation, page 31
"If the social group gains in wealth then social
income has accrued. If an individual gaine in control
over part of the social income, income has accrued to
that individual. Income value is only an expression
of roal income in terms of money, and unless real
income 1s received, capital gains are not income."
Report of the Committee of the National Tax Association on Simpli-
fication of the Income Tax, Proceedings of the National Tax
Association, 1927, page 144
"This committee is not prepared to advocate the
abolition of the tax on capital gains. ... And until
our income tax system is more highly developed, the possi-
bilities of evading taxation by masquerading current income
in the guise of capital gains will be too numerous to var-
rant & complete abolition of tax on capital gains. A tax
on capital gains reduces the incentive to such svasion."
Con:
Fisher, Irving, Income in Theory and Income Taxation in Practice.
Econometrioa, Volume V. No. 1, January 1937. page 47
... - in computing income we must not add or sub-
tract any more changes in capital valuations 0.
... capital gain or loss of any kind may be great or
small without affecting the income of the year. ...
Capital gain merely symbolises future income. When that
income 00126 will be the time to tax it.
"And, contrarywise, no allowance should be made for
losses for a shrinkage in value of property, ....
Buch loss merely symbolizes lack of future income."
Fisher, Irving, The Income Concept in the Light of Emerience (1927)
page 19
"The present method of taxing capital gains 10
illogical and unjust. Under the present practice the
more change of investment, with as true income involved,
may cost the taxpayer a huge penalty Assessed against
gains which are capital, not income, and which relate
to transactions of many years past. not the current
year. That this is unjust is virtually conceded when
- 89 -
exceptions are made permitting the exchange of one
stock for another, under certain conditions, thus avoid-
ing specific profit-taking in money form. Evidently if
it is permissible to exchange one stock for another, it
ought to be equally permissible to sell the one and with
the proceeds buy other.
May, George O., The Taxation of Capital Gaina. Bulletin of the
National Tax Association, Volume VIII, No. 3,
December 1922, page 78
it is believed that the revenues can be
increased, tax avoidance greatly diminished, and greater
equity secured by the abandonment of the rule of taxing
of capital gains, and, conversely, of allowing capital
losses as a deduction from taxable income."
Plehn, C. C., Income as Recurrent. Consumable Receipts, American
Economic Review, Volume XIV, No. 1, March 1924,
pages 5, 10.
"Income is essentially wealth available for recurrent
consumption recurrently (or periodically) received. Its
three essential characteristics are: Receipt, recurrence,
and expendability.
....
gains and profit on transactions outside of
one's regular vocation or line of business, like the profit
from the sale of a home, are of doubtful income character."
*Moorhead, W. S., Statement, Hearings, Committee on Ways and Means,
1923, pages 321-327
"I think that there is no question about it at all,
that if capital gains had not been taxed as income, and
capital losses had not been allowed as deductions, from
the beginning, the Government would have been way ahead
in revenue."
*Cited by Dr. Robert Murray Haig in his 1934 memorandum.
Regraded
Unclassified
- 90 -
*Mitchell, C., National City Bank Bulletin, November 1930,
pages 182-183
"It (the capital gains tax) has created artifici-
ality in the security market, in the credit structure
and in interest rates.
This tax acts as an
obstruction to the free transfer of property, whether
it be securities, land or what not, retards business
and encourages inflation."
Report of the Tax Simplification Board, December 3, 1923
"The best considered opinions of accountants,
actuaries and economists appear to us to indicate
that the elimination of both canital gains and
losses, even now, would result in no decrease in
revenue to the Government over a period of years."
Chamber of Commerce of the United States of America, Referendum
No. 70, Federal Taxes and Expenditures, December 11, 1935,
page 22
"The recognition of capital gains and losses
for income-tax purposes has always been open to the
objection that gains resulting from transactions in
capital assets are not income in any true sense, and
consequently should not be taxed as such. Similarly,
loss of capital is no proper basis for credit against
income tax liability."
New York State Economic Council, Report, New York Times,
November 24, 1934
"The income tax on capital gains, which never
has existed in England, should be abolished, or, 1f
that be not possible, reduced to a small, uniform and
definite percent, as in the case of corporations so
that when an individual invests his principal, with
all the risks that are involved in any investment, he
may have some assurance that he may be able to retain
a reasonable portion of any profits made as a result
of such investment."
*Cited by Dr. Robert Murray Haig in his 1934 memorandum.
- 91 -
Cole, Bath T., Deputy Comissioner and Counsel, Sew York State,
Department of Texation and Finance. Treatment of Capital
Gains and Losses for Income Tax Purposes in The Tax Maga
sins, October 1936, page 583
"Without doubt, the most unsatisfactory feature of
the American aystem of income taxation 1a the treatment
of capital gains and losses for income tax purposes, a
feature that does not enter into the British system.
While at first blush it may appear to accord with equit-
able conceptions to reason that one who increases his
capital through appreciation in value is thereby endowed
with as much taxpaying ability as one who is the recipi-
ent of ordinary income, a careful study of the problem
will show convincingly that it is highly inequitable to
measure the income tax by capital gains and logges. Pur-
thermore, the evile attendant upon the taxation of capi-
tal gains and the allowance of capital losses as an income
tax deduction, and the effect of such practices upon the
economy of the Nation, are more than sufficient to out-
weigh any revenue benefits accruing therefrom. Perhaps
capital gains ought not to be wholly exempted from tax
liability. but, if they are to be taxed at all, it should
be at & rate that is extremely moderate and at the same
time certain, so that the extent to which the taxes
Imposed may affect business transactions may be defi-
nitely known and calculated."
Tremaine, Morris S., State Controller of New York, Opinion cited
to New York Times. April 26, 1937
"The blighting effect of this tax for years has
permeated the whole business fabric of this country,
and the sooner the Covernment gets rid of it - and
for its own immediate benefit - the sooner we can open
the flood-gates of pent-up capital now taking refuge in
tax-exempt bonds or taking advantage of unhampered
trading opportunities outside the United States.
......
"If the tax on capital gains were repealed, or at
least placed in S separate column and at & nominal flat
parcentage that would be calculable, I believe we would
soon goe unemployment disappear like snow in April.
Regraded Unclassified
- 92 -
Chamber of Commerce of the United States, Twenty-fifth Annual
Meeting, April 29, 1937, Resolutions Committee
"The present law which taxes capital gains at
prevailing income-tax rates, while limiting the right
to deduct losses, is both on its face and in applica-
tion unfair and inequitable. The economic effects are
emphasized by the present high tax rates on gains
which discourage sales of capital assets, thus creating
an artificial and unwholesome situation, with losses
in tax revenues.
Regraded Unclassified