This is an introduction to a package of five articles offering opinions on what kind of tax reform would be best. Scroll down below the introduction to see the articles.

There’s one thing about corporate tax reform that everyone agrees on: that we should have it. But what should it look like? On that point, opinions are scattered.

It was not difficult for CFO to find strong opinions on this topic. We’ve gathered the perspectives of a CFO, a principal of a Big Four firm, a university professor, an attorney, and an audit partner at a regional accounting firm.

The CFO, Frank Calderoni of Red Hat, argues that current tax policy discourages companies from making investments in the United States. He advocates lowering the corporate tax rate, adopting the territorial system of taxation that most other countries use, and strengthening incentives for U.S.-based R&D.

The Big Four principal, John Gimigliano of KPMG, insists that no matter what kind of tax reform is undertaken, it should make the tax code shorter and less complex. The audit partner at the smaller accounting firm, Rick Smetanka, believes that with a simpler code companies could halve the amount of time it takes to report accurate and transparent financial information to shareholders.

The attorney, former Senate Finance Committee tax counsel Christopher Condeluci, lays out a case for replacing the hated Cadillac Tax provision of the Affordable Care Act. And the professor, Philip Cohen of Pace University, suggests that it won’t be possible to achieve the kind of tax reform we need, unless those in Congress stop taking campaign contributions from special interests seeking beneficial tax treatment.

We hope that you enjoy reading about these opinions and, as always, that you will participate in the discussion by posting comments to the articles and offering your own opinions.

, , , , , ,

One response to “What Kind of Tax Reform Do We Need?”

  1. Income is wealth (goods and services) created. Consumption is wealth destroyed. Savings is wealth conserved and invested to create more wealth. Do not tax the creation of wealth. Do not tax wealth conserved. Tax wealth consumed. SIMPLE. All income, including savings converted to income, less what is saved (not consumed) leaves consumption. Progressive, graduated, rates and brackets would discourage consumption and encourage investment in wealth creation.

    All of the complications of income determination should be replaced with “receipts less savings equals consumption”. Imagine devotion to making money, not taxation.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *