I am sure you are aware of the U.S. tax regulation that allows homeowners to exclude a certain amount of capital gain from their income tax.

It works like this: If you sell a home that has been your primary residence for two out of the last five years you can exclude up to $500,000 in capital gains from income tax. The original intent was to prevent large capital gains tax liabilities from locking older homeowners into their homes.

That exclusion has been a wonderful break for clever real estate investors. You could buy a home that needed rehabbing. Move into the home and start doing the necessary repairs. After 18 to 20 months you could offer the home for sale with the stipulation that the deal could not close until after you passed the two year residency mark.

The idea here was that the home would be worth a great deal more after fix-up, yet you could avoid paying capital gains tax on your profit because you had lived in the property for the required two years. This is a terrific way for new real estate investors to get started. With the tax free profits from a couple of these deals you would have the cash need to make down payments on two or three properties and you would be off and flying.

No Tenants, Please

Some investors using this tactic rented the property before or after they used it as a primary residence. They may have bought a property that was already being used as a rental and it suited their needs to leave the tenant in place for a year or three, before they moved in. Until Jan. 1, 2009 they could still claim the tax exclusion if the home was used as their primary residence for two out of the five years they owned the property.

When it finally dawned on the politicians that the rule was curtailing the amount of tax income that they could frivolously spend, they, of course, changed the rules. Under the “The Housing Assistance Tax Act of 2008″ the amount of profits that can be excluded from your income tax becomes more complicated. Your gain will now be taxed based on the percentage of time you used the home as your primary residence.

Under the new act, any capital gain must be divided between qualifying and non-qualifying use. That means your non-qualifying use of the property will cut the amount of capital gain that can be excluded from your income tax.

It Now Works Like This

You avoid up to $250,000 in capital gains ($500,000 if married and filing jointly) when selling your home. To earn that exclusion you must own and live in the property as your primary residence for at least two years out of the five years ending on the date of sale.

Here’s where you must be careful. If the property isn’t used as a primary residence during the entire five-year period you will have to pay more capital gains tax. If you use the house as a rental, or a vacation home or as a second home; any of those would be non-qualifying use and would reduce the amount of your capital gains tax exclusion.

Just remember that “Qualifying Use” means the property must be used as a primary residence. Non-qualifying use means the property is not being used as a primary residence by either the homeowner or the homeowner’s spouse. If you use the home as your primary residence you will not need to allocate your gain.

Calculating Gain

In most cases calculating your gain will be simple. The gain from the sale just needs to be allocated between what gain is excluded and what gain is not excluded. The portion of capital gain that cannot be excluded is determined by dividing the period of non-qualifying use by the period of ownership:

Period of non-qualifying use

————————————–

Period of ownership

Until the new act, tax advisors suggested homeowners sell their home after living their for at least two years out of the five years ending on the date of sale. This allowed the owners to qualify for the capital gains exclusion, because the exclusion was based on the last five years of ownership.

Under the new regulations the exclusion is based on the period of time when the property is used as a primary residence. Any other use could mean you must pay more in capital gains tax.

Taxpayers owning second homes, vacation homes, and rental properties will need to revise their capital gains strategy accordingly. The use test is applied for the time period beginning January 1, 2009, until the property is sold. To get the most tax benefit, the property will need to be used entirely as a primary residence during this time period.

If you would like to review the many ways government can confuse a free market with an incomprehensible tax code, you will find a summary of the tax provisions in H.R. 3221 from the Ways and Means Committee here:

http://taxes.about.com/gi/dynamic/offsite.htm?zi=1/XJ&sdn=taxes&cdn=money&tm=30&gps=514_1681_1020_567&f=10&tt=13&bt=0&bts=0&zu=http%3A//waysandmeans.house.gov/media/pdf/110/eresummary.pdf

A British couple who took the Spanish tax authorities to court, have won £10,000 after they had been illegally charged more than twice the amount of capital gains tax than was charged to Spanish residents when they sold a property in 2004. After a battle lasting more than a year, they have successfully reclaimed their overpayment and the case now paves the way for thousands of other foreigners to make similar claims from the Spanish government.

Until recently, foreign nationals had to pay 35pc of any gains made on Spanish properties as tax. This compared to just 15pc paid by Spanish nationals. The European Union challenged the rules, claiming they were discriminatory, and since the start of 2007 the Spanish tax authorities have levied the same 15pc tax rate on Spanish and overseas property owners.

The Spanish court ruled that the initial case put forward by solicitors Costa, Alvarez, Manglano & Associates on behalf of Mr and Mrs Roy from the UK was so convincing that there was no need for it to be passed on to the European Courts of Justice (ECJ), which is the usual procedure.

“Anyone else who believes they have been affected should come forward now with their cases,” said Emilio Alvarez, from the law firm. Six hundred other British couples are now putting cases forward, and all the cases will be decided separately by the Spanish court.

Taxpayers are also entitled to claim a refund for missing interest at a rate of 6pc from the date the reclaim is presented, making the total reclaim even higher. You are eligible if you sold a property in Spain between July 2004 and December 31 2006 and were not a fiscal resident in Spain when you sold it. You also have to have paid capital gains tax on the property to claim and need to have sold the property as an individual rather than a company.

 

Hopefully, before selling a business, you meet with a CPA or tax accountant and get an estimate on how much of your proceeds will be going directly to Uncle Sam if you pay them in a lump sum at time of sale. You don’t want to save this surprise for after all is said and done, because not only will it most likely be a shock, but you will have given up your chance to do anything about it.

Planning is everything. For this article I will assume you are not doing a 1031 business exchange, that is selling your business and buying another similar business taking into consideration all the IRS guidelines and timelines. It’s pretty rare to see this, but it can defer all of your capital gains tax if done correctly. A 1031 Exchange is more commonly implemented with real estate.

Depending on how the business is sold, the gains may be taxed as long term capital gain, short term capital gain, ordinary income, etc. and if you are selling an asset in a C-Corp you may face double taxation. So, the idea is to minimize your tax bill and maximize your proceeds no matter what situation you are in.

One option is with a Self Directed Installment Sale. The structure must be in place before the buy/sell agreement is signed. The gist is to receive the sale proceeds in installments and only pay capital gains tax as you receive the income. This has the effect of allowing the majority of money you would have paid immediately in taxes to continue earning compounded interest for you for many years, thus increasing your bottom line by a significant amount.

The details are a bit too complex to fully outline in a short article, but both an LLC and a Trust are created for you and set up meet IRS criteria for favorable taxation of installment sales. Your asset gets transferred to the LLC prior to sale, and your buyer purchases from your LLC. The trust buys the shares of your LLC from you via an installment agreement and you pay taxes on your gain only as you receive the payments.

You, the seller, are able to control when the payments begin and how long they will be spread out. This allows for maximum flexibility to control your income, and plan for future tax savings as well. Since your buyer paid cash in exchange for your property, you are not dependent on them to make the installment payments and you have transferred the risk of refinance or default. This is done by using an independent third party administrator and your money is safely invested in a principle protected insurance product to be used solely for the purpose of paying the installments.

If you pass on before receiving all of the payments due, the remainder of the installment payments pass to the beneficiaries of your choice.

Seeing an example of a taxed sale vs. a Self Directed Installment Sale side by side will show you how much of a difference in overall return this strategy will provide. This can make the process of the sale more palatable and provide a dependable income stream for retirement.

The tax benefit of this approach is similar to your 401K or IRA account. You reduce your current income by the amount of your annual contribution and thus defer the tax you would have paid on that income amount. Those funds are invested in stocks and bonds and grow in value, sometimes dramatically, for the period before you retire and start taking distributions. When you start distributions, the amount is treated as ordinary income and you are taxed at your much lower (you are no longer working and earning a big salary) income tax rate at the time.

The Self Directed Installment Sale allows you to similarly defer your capital gains tax from the sale of your business. Instead of paying all of your capital gains at time of sale, you set up your SDIS to pay out your sale proceeds over time. If you pay all of your capital gains tax at time of sale, that money is gone forever. However, with this vehicle, you spread your receipt of the sales proceeds out over, 15 years for example. When you receive your distribution, you are then taxed for the portion of that distribution that is attributed to the capital gains - generally about 15%.

The difference in after tax proceeds are dramatic and are demonstrated by a complex analysis called an illustration. I will try in an abbreviated fashion, however, to demonstrate the potential impact. If you sold your business and you had a capital gain of $3.46 million, your lump sum capital gains tax payment at a 15% rate would be $519,000. In the SDIS you would keep the entire sale proceeds of $3.46 million and take distributions over a 20 year period or whatever period you chose. You receive an annual payment over 20 years, that would consist of 1/20 of the principal, 1/20 of the capital gains, plus investment returns.

If we did an illustration of this case and compared selling the business and paying all the capital gains up front and invested the remaining proceeds in a 6.85% compound growth portfolio versus the SDIS paying 1/20 of the capital gains annually, you would gain an $831,000 advantage in after tax proceeds. Not to bad for a little advanced planning.

When you buy a real estate in Maryland and sell it for a higher price, the difference between the selling price and the purchase price is known as capital gain. In other words, profit from selling a property for a higher price is the capital gain on the property. Capital gains may be short-term or long-term.

Short-term gain: If you sell your property within 3 years after purchasing it, the gain is called short-term capital gain.

Long-term gain: When a gain occurs from selling a property after 3 years of its purchase, it is a long-term capital gain.

Calculation of capital gain: Capital gain is the difference between the selling price or the transfer price and the total cost of acquisition of the property.

The cost of acquisition includes purchase price of the property, cost incurred in registration of the real estate property in Maryland, its repairs, storage expenses, etc. In short, all the expenses of capital nature are part of the cost of acquisition.

The transfer price includes commission or brokerage paid by the seller, registration fees, cost of stamp papers, traveling and litigation expenses incurred while transferring the real estate property in Maryland.

Capital gains tax:

Capital gains tax is charged on the gain that you make on selling a real estate for profit in Maryland. It is calculated by subtracting the cost of acquisition of real estate from the transfer price of the property. The difference is added to your taxable income and charged according to the tax bracket you fall into.

The tax rates for short-term and long-term capital gains are often different. You must be alert of the tax structure of Maryland to know what tax bracket you fall under and what tax rates are applicable for your capital gains.

Criticism: It is often argued that capital gains tax results in double payment of taxes. The property’s value that is sold might have been included in the value of assets sold by you while calculating wealth tax. Thus, including capital gain in the income tax statement in the same year may result in double-payment of taxes.

For more read at http://www.marylandrealestatesecrets.com

“I would rather expire at my desk than to sell my business and pay Uncle Sam one dime in taxes.” How many owners that have paid their fair share of taxes for twenty years of building their business feel this way? The tax bite is the single biggest factor in an owner’s reluctance to sell his/her company.

I have previously written articles discussing various aspects of transaction structures to minimize taxes. As a result, I am often contacted by a panicked seller that is a week from closing his business sale as he looks in disbelief at his accountant’s spreadsheet detailing the tax burden of his impending sale.

Recently, the seller of a Sub Chapter S Corporation with an $8 million transaction value contacted me. The tax basis was below $200,000 and $4 million of the transaction value was the assumption of debt. When the dust settled, he was looking at a capital gains tax liability of a staggering $965,000 while only receiving the remainder of proceeds after the assumption of debt. The assumption of debt is considered as part of the capital gain for tax purposes.

The owner sent his accountant’s spreadsheet to me and since I am not a tax accountant, I sent it to my tax wizard at BDO Seidman. He found a few small tweaks, but said that there was not much that could be done from an accounting standpoint for this owner. When I reported this back to the seller I could feel his disappointment and frustration.

So I began my quest for a better solution. After several dozen phone calls to my professional network, I was directed to a little known vehicle called a Private Annuity Trust. This vehicle has passed the scrutiny of the IRS and the Tax Court. It is not a way to avoid the payment of taxes, rather a method of deferring them with substantial economic benefit to the owner’s beneficiaries.

Below is a simplified description of the process. As the owner contemplates the sale of his business (or any highly appreciated asset for that matter) he “sells” it to a trust PRIOR to its ultimate sale. This trust purchases the asset at FMV and exchanges an annuity payment stream complete with IRS life expectancy tables and interest rates. The trust then sells the company to the buyer to fund the annuity.

The transaction is accompanied by a gift to the trust in the amount of 7% of the face value of the annuity. This is so it qualifies as a trust by creating an entity with economic value. Remember, the private annuity is viewed as having zero economic value because the asset minus the obligation theoretically equals zero.

The trust is in the name of the owner’s beneficiaries and all aspects of the trust are controlled by the trustees/beneficiaries and not by the owner. The trust for the benefit of the heirs owns the assets and owns the annuity payment obligation. The trust can be structured to defer the annuity payments for a period of time to coincide with the owner’s need to receive these payments, lets say, for example, ten years During those ten years the trust’s investments or a commercial annuity grow without incurring a tax bite for the business sale.

When the annuity payments start, the owner is taxed at his then current tax rate for the portion of the annuity payment attributable to the capital gains, his basis (no tax), and depreciation recapture from the sale, and the income produced from the annuity. The annuity pays the owner and spouse this annuity payment until last to die or until the annuity investments run out. If the owner and spouse die, any remaining assets are transferred to the beneficiaries outside of estate tax liability.

If your investments perform at the rate used in the annuity calculation and the last to die lives to their exact life expectancy, theoretically the trust value will be whatever the gift portion (7% of the selling price) has grown to. However, if the investments do very well and you outlive the life expectancy tables, you could receive payments well in excess of the original annuity face value. Those excess payments would be taxed at your then current income tax rate.

If the investments do well and the value grows above the required annuity reserve amount, the excess can be distributed to the beneficiaries as income.

In the simplest of views, this acts like an IRA. You are not currently taxed on the amount you put in, it grows tax deferred and you pay taxes upon distribution, hopefully at a far more favorable tax rate. In the case of the frustrated seller from above, what if he deferred all payments by ten years on the full sale price and the $965,000 in capital gain taxes owed? He had a life expectancy of 20 years beyond the start of the distributions. The $965,000 that he did not pay in taxes grows at 7% to $1,939,323 by the time distributions start.

Every annuity payment contains a portion of the capital gain or 1/20th of the total capital gain annually. Therefore, the bulk of the resulting investment value of the capital gains tax deferral provides huge returns for years to come.

If it seems too good to be true, remember it is tax deferral and not tax avoidance. The owner has sold his business first to the trust in return for an annuity payment stream. The owner cannot control the trust. To the extent that the owner wants immediate access to some of the sales proceeds, he would pay all taxes in proportion to the amount he is receiving. In cases like the one above, this tax deferral tool can have a dramatic impact on the financial status of the owner and his heirs by allowing the tax deferred funds to compound for many years before their ultimate distribution and the payment of any tax.

Real Estate is something that everybody wants, and invests in. One reason is to have your own house, and the other is to take advantage of a possible rise in real estate values. Both are subject to the laws regarding how it will be treated in real estate tax laws. Therefore, it is important to know something, if not everything about what are the tax laws governing real estate taxes. Of course, your tax consultant is the best person to brief you on this. This article skims over the surface of the tax laws. Remember your tax consultant is the right person to advise you.

Capital gains tax is not levied on the sale of your ‘primary’ residence, so long as you have declared it as your ‘primary’ residence. You must have lived in the house you sold for at least two years before you can claim it as your ‘primary residence’.If your profit from the sale is not greater than $ 250,000, if you are a bachelor/spinster, and $ 500,000 if you are married. You pay capital gains tax on the balance of the amount over the limits specified above. To make it clear, let’s say you are a bachelor and you sell your primary residence for $ 260,000. You will have to shell out capital gains tax on $ 10,000, which is exactly the difference between the limit fixed under law. If you are married, then you don’t pay capital gains tax! Why because the limit above which capital gains tax is payable is $ 500,000. If the sale is above that price, you only pay, as shown, on the differential between the limit, and what you sold it for.

One can use the definition of primary residence to still make money on real estate, and not pay the capital gains tax.

You buy a house, and live in it for two years. That qualifies it as a primary residence. Meanwhile you let out your old house (where you stayed before for at least two years), for say two years, and you sell this old house within five years of shifting to your new home, which becomes your primary home in reality and then sell the old house, you would not have to pay the capital gains tax. Let us be clear. You stay in a house for 2 years, it becomes your primary residence. You move into another house,(now your primary residence after two years) and let out this old house for say another 2 years. As long as you sell the old house within 5 years of moving out, there is no capital gains tax to be paid. Read this very carefully.

One more way that provides you exemption from capital gains tax is that the sum for which you sold your real estate should be reinvested by purchasing another piece of real estate. This has to be done within two years of your selling the real estate you had earlier. In other words, the tax authorities want you to reinvest the money you made from real estate into another real estate property within two years of the sale of the real estate. Read this again please carefully.

Please do consult with a tax consultant. This article cannot be construed as a genuine construction of the law relating to real estate tax laws.

Tax revenue is a vital part of the United States government. The income generated from taxes allows the government to finance public works programs, build infrastructure and maintain a military. When the government needs to raise more revenue it generally raises the tax rate to create more income. The idea of raising taxes to raise revenue generally works; however, history has show that more revenue is not gained from the capital gains tax. When the capital gains tax rate rises there is less revenue generated, investment capital decreases, and the economy slows.

The capital gains tax is a tax charged to the profit realized from the sale of an asset that was purchased at a lower price. Capital gains are commonly realized from the sale of stocks, bonds and property. A capital gain is treated as an income and like any income, it is taxed. Under current United States tax code there are two different types of capital gains, short term and long-term gains. A short-term gain is considered to be the purchase and sale of an asset for a gain in less than one year. Long-term capital gain requires a year or more between the purchase of an asset and the sale of the asset for a gain. Short-term capital gains are taxed at the ordinary income tax level of the investor, however; long-term capital gains are taxed differently. Currently investors in the 10% to 15% income tax range pay no long term-capital gains tax and everyone else pays a 15% tax on capital gains. (Beach, Hederman & Guinevera, 2008)

Economic growth in America is important and relies on the input of two factors: input of capital and labor, and the productivity of the inputs. For the economy to grow capital and labor in the market must increase or a more efficient way to produce products is found, or both situations occur. The need to invest in capital is directly related to the growth of the economy by increasing the amount of capital available in the economy and by enhancing labor productivity.  Labor productivity can be directly complemented capital in the economy for investment in more productive operations. (The Economic Effects of Capital Gains Taxation, 1997)

When capital gain tax rates raise the return on an investment is lowered and the cost to acquire capital increases.  When the return on investment is lower there is less investment and the amount of available capital in the economy decreases. The inverse to an increase in the capital gains tax would be a decrease to the capital gains tax. A decrease in the capital gains tax rate is believed to stimulate investing and the amount of capital in the economy by producing more profitable and successful businesses, because they are able to acquire the funds required to under go new potential income projects.  The trickledown effect would produce higher wages, raising the standard of living and create jobs. (Throning, 1995)

A recent study was conducted by DRI/McGraw-Hill it was estimated that the reducing individuals long-term capital gains taxes by 50% and corporations capital gains tax by 25% the level of business spending would have been $18 billion dollars higher than it was in 2007 creating the GDP of America to be roughly 0.4 percent higher. The conclusion of the study notes “the evidence suggests to almost all economists that a capital gains cut is good for the economy and roughly neutral for tax collections.”(Jorgenson, Dale, Yun & Kun-Young) The lower tax rate would only have positive effects on the economy such as higher standards of living, increased productivity and increased investment. A lower capital gains tax would increase individual wealth that could be re-invested or contributed to a personal savings account.

Over one hundred million Americans own stock, the majority of Americans that hold stock hold them in mutual funds. (Chait, 2008)  In 2007 mutual fund holders paid over $16 billion dollars in long-term capital gains taxes.  Congressman Jim Saxton, the ranking member of the Joint Economic Committee states: “…Under current law, if shareholders do nothing more than buy and hold mutual fund shares, they will be hit with taxes on long-term capital gains realized by the fund, even if they are immediately reinvested in the fund.”(Mutual Fund Shareholders Slammed Again by Higher Taxes, 2008) As stated that is capital transferred directly to the federal government rather than directly re-invested in the economy.  One recent study by the National Bureau of Economic Research stated that the each dollar in federal tax increase has led to an additional $1.07 in federal spending. (Tax Increase Would Damage Economic Outlook, 2008) 

The federal government requires large amounts of funds to continue operation and generally overspends, the current solution it to raise taxes to help pay for large expenses. Despite normal intuition a decrease in the capital gains tax rate has yielded higher tax revenues. Using historical evidence as proof that a lower capital gains tax increases revenue, in 1978 when the capital gains tax was lowered, tax revenue began to increase. When the tax was reduced again in 1981 tax revenue increased again drastically until 1987 when the capital gains tax increased and revenue began to decline. In 1986 the tax revenue generated from the capital gains tax at the lowest point it has been in fifty years, was over three times of that in 1977. The lower tax rate and higher tax revenue suggests that more investors are placing capital gaining on capital investments. With larger amounts of capital investments businesses are able to easily acquire working capital and continue operations. As stated earlier, more capital invested in the economy will increase the stand of living, increase income and lower unemployment. (The Economic Effects of Capital Gains Taxation, 1997)

An increase in the standard of living will allow households to purchase more good and good of higher quality. A higher standard of living allow for more money to be spent and an even larger inflow of capital into the economy. An increase in household income will allow for a larger household savings and investing rate. If households invested the extra income, there would be a snowball effect of new capital pumped into the economy. The circuitous effect of increasing capital into the economy would also result in a decrease in unemployment. Historically when unemployment is low, interest rates are higher, allowing for an increase in investor capital gains and one more stream for more capital gains tax revenue. 

A reduction in the capital gains tax could counter the lock-in effect, which occurs when capital assets are not sold because the gains on capital are taxed at a high rate. When investors lock-in the tax base for the capital gains tax is lowered. Unlocking assets allows holders capital to sell holdings and achieve desired returns.  It is estimated that there are billions of dollars of equity that are currently locked into assets.  (The Economic Effects of Capital Gains Taxation, 1997)

            When a decrease in the capital gains tax yields higher tax revenue it is time to examine the position of the tax rate on the Laffer curve. It is reasonable to assume that when the tax is high it falls on the downward side of the curve. When the tax rate falls on downward side of the Laffer curve the government is limiting the revenue it can receive.  Investors are motivated to find ways to avoid paying the tax. To avoid paying capital gains tax investors could not enter into activities what will produce gains on capital such as stock ownership thus limiting the amount of capital in the economy available for companies to acquire. (Thorning, 1995)

            With a very tenuous relationship between revenue from the capital gains tax rate and the level of investment based on the level of the capital gains tax rate and the effect on the entire economy it is important to look towards the future. With current capital gains tax law set to expire and rise by 2011 and a presidential election just around the corner, it is critical to know each candidates position on capital gains tax. What each candidate plans to do with the capital gains tax could have a critical effect on the economy.

            On December 31, 2010, the tax rates on capital gains and dividends enacted in 2003 is set to expire. The current long-term capital gains tax rate of 15% will increase to 25%. With the tax higher a lock-in effect could occur where capital is not sold after January of 2011. Prior to the tax rate increase many investors will liquidate assets early to avoid paying the higher taxes.  Senator Barack Obama said that he would not renew the current capital gains tax rate and allow the tax to increase.  (Satow, 2008)  Senator John McCain has stated he want to keep capital gains taxes at current rats. With the current credit crunch and many businesses unable to rise capital from banks they must turn to investors. If investors are motivated not to invest capital back into the economy because of higher taxes, many businesses will fail. 

            In all sectors of the economy there is a need for capital funding. Many businesses require funds to continue operation that are in turn repaid to the investor along with an incentive for taking the risk of lending money. When the capital gains tax rates are raised the incentive for taking the risk of investing is diminished.  When there is a lack of investors the ability to raise capital for industries becomes limited and very expensive so new projects are not taken further limiting the amount of capital in the economy.  When the taxes of investing are reduced it has been proven that there is more money into the economy and the government receives more from tax revenue.

 References

Beach, W., Hederman, R., & Nell, G. (2008, Oct. 15). Economic Effects of Increasing the Tax Rates on Capital Gains and Dividends. Heritage Foundation. Retrieved Oct. 6, 2008, from http://www.heritage.org/Research/taxes/wm1891.cfm.

Chait, J. (2008, September 24). Capital Offense: How the rich rolled Barack Obama. The New Republic, pp. 5.

Jorgenson, W Dale, Yun, and Kun-Young. “2. Taxation of Income from Capital.” Tax Reform and the Cost of Capital (0): 17-39.

Mutual Fund Shareholders Slammed Again by Higher Taxes: Damage would raise with Increasing Capital Gains Rate, a report of the members of the Joint Economic Committee, U.S. Congress, 110th Cong, 2nd sess. (C. Prt. 110-41). (2008)

Satow, J. (2008, July 15). Obama Capital Gains Tax Hike Would Hit N.Y. Hard. The New York Sun. Retrieved Oct. 6, 2008, from Http://www.nysun.com/business/obama-capital-gains-tax-hike-would-hit-new-your-hard.

Tax Increase Would Damage Economic Outlook, a report of the members of the Joint Economic Committee, U.S. Congress, 110th Cong, 2nd sess. (C. Prt. 110-40). (2008)

The Economic Effects of Capital Gains Taxation, a report of the members of the Joint Economic Committee, U.S. Congress, 105th Cong., 1st sess. (JEC). (1997)

Thorning, M. (1995). Trends in Investment and Tax Policy: Time For a Change?. Business Economics, 30, 23.