{
  "id": "R41364",
  "type": "CRS Report",
  "typeId": "R",
  "number": "R41364",
  "active": true,
  "source": "CRSReports.Congress.gov, EveryCRSReport.com",
  "versions": [
    {
      "source_dir": "crsreports.congress.gov",
      "title": "Capital Gains Tax Options: Behavioral Responses and Revenues",
      "retrieved": "2021-02-12T04:03:39.147393",
      "id": "R41364_10_2021-01-19",
      "formats": [
        {
          "filename": "files/2021-01-19_R41364_5de353b6b6a2bb2617f39336ab3a8611b577860d.pdf",
          "format": "PDF",
          "url": "https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/R/R41364/10",
          "sha1": "5de353b6b6a2bb2617f39336ab3a8611b577860d"
        },
        {
          "format": "HTML",
          "filename": "files/2021-01-19_R41364_5de353b6b6a2bb2617f39336ab3a8611b577860d.html"
        }
      ],
      "date": "2021-01-19",
      "summary": null,
      "source": "CRSReports.Congress.gov",
      "typeId": "R",
      "active": true,
      "sourceLink": "https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/details?prodcode=R41364",
      "type": "CRS Report"
    },
    {
      "source": "EveryCRSReport.com",
      "id": 625200,
      "date": "2020-05-20",
      "retrieved": "2020-05-20T22:15:06.186558",
      "title": "Capital Gains Tax Options: Behavioral Responses and Revenues",
      "summary": "Compared with most other tax provisions, the potential revenue gain scored for an increase in capital gains taxes is strongly affected by behavioral responses assumed by the Joint Committee on Taxation (JCT) and the Department of the Treasury. As an illustration, the Obama Administration estimated in February 2010 that allowing the Bush tax cuts for capital gains to expire would have raised $16 billion of revenue in FY2019. Yet, based on Congressional Budget Office (CBO) projections in January 2010, the current effective capital gains tax was 13.3% in 2008 and would have increased to 17.9% in 2019; applying the differential in these rates to the realizations in 2019 would have produced a revenue difference of $40 billion. Although some of this differential could arise from different forecasts, assumptions about behavioral responses are the main reason for the reduction in projected revenues.\nBecause these behavioral responses limit the potential revenue scored from a tax increase on capital gains and because of concerns that most income of very high-income individuals is in the form of capital gains (whether accrued or realized), proposals have been advanced to tax capital gains currently (as accrued) by marking to market publicly traded securities and imposing a look-back tax on difficult-to-value assets. Such a change faces a number of difficulties; thus it is important to understand the evidence of the behavioral responses. The analysis in this study suggests that the Administration\u2019s projections and those of the JCT, absent a change in their realizations response, may understate revenue gains from increasing capital gains tax rates.\nRealizations responses in revenue projections by the revenue-estimating agencies (Joint Committee on Taxation and the Treasury) were publicly discussed at the end of the 1980s, in the midst of a contentious debate. The larger the absolute value of the elasticity (the percentage change in realizations divided by the percentage change in taxes), the smaller the revenue gain; with elasticities larger than one in absolute value, a loss would occur. Estimated elasticities in the literature prior to 1990 ranged from 0.3 to almost 3.8, leaving limited guidance for revenue-estimating agencies. JCT used an elasticity of 0.76, whereas Treasury used an elasticity of one.\nConcerns were raised at that time that there were serious problems with this evidence. Perhaps the most significant concern was that the larger results from studies of individuals reflected a timing or transitory response (high-income taxpayers with variable income chose to realize gains when tax rates were temporarily low). This transitory response is not appropriate for assessing a permanent change.\nEvidence and studies since that time suggest that the permanent elasticity is considerably lower than what appeared to be the case in 1990. The surge in realizations in 1986 as a capital gains tax rate increase was preannounced provided compelling evidence of the importance of a transitory response. A study of the limits of realizations (which cannot exceed accruals in the long run) suggested the elasticity (percentage change in realizations divided by the percentage change in the tax rate) could be no more than 0.5 in absolute value (evaluated at a 22% tax rate), and a midpoint of 0.25. A number of new econometric studies, using new techniques to isolate the permanent response, suggested elasticities of around 0.5 or less. Other recent studies suggested larger responses. The JCT appears to maintain its original assumption, while the Treasury response has been reduced to be similar to JCT\u2019s; both appear to exceed the realizations limit. \nSimulations indicate that an increase in capital gains tax rates of five percentage points would raise slightly more than $40 billion on a static basis for 2019, about $30 billion using the 0.25 elasticity and $18 billion using the 0.5 elasticity. The JCT estimates would likely be around $10 billion, reflecting a 0.68 elasticity. Taxing gains on an accrual basis would eliminate this response in the long run and gain additional revenues on currently unrealized gains.",
      "type": "CRS Report",
      "typeId": "REPORTS",
      "active": true,
      "formats": [
        {
          "format": "HTML",
          "encoding": "utf-8",
          "url": "https://www.crs.gov/Reports/R41364",
          "sha1": "dd9a993bec29273f90360dca2383d72becf68898",
          "filename": "files/20200520_R41364_dd9a993bec29273f90360dca2383d72becf68898.html",
          "images": {}
        },
        {
          "format": "PDF",
          "encoding": null,
          "url": "https://www.crs.gov/Reports/pdf/R41364",
          "sha1": "51485fe9d40e8f555d131661a23cc9b140fbeceb",
          "filename": "files/20200520_R41364_51485fe9d40e8f555d131661a23cc9b140fbeceb.pdf",
          "images": {}
        }
      ],
      "topics": []
    },
    {
      "source": "EveryCRSReport.com",
      "id": 597390,
      "date": "2019-04-30",
      "retrieved": "2019-05-03T14:12:39.415400",
      "title": "Capital Gains Tax Options: Behavioral Responses and Revenues",
      "summary": "Compared with most other tax provisions, the potential revenue gain scored for an increase in capital gains taxes is strongly affected by behavioral responses assumed by the Joint Committee on Taxation (JCT) and the Treasury Department. As an illustration, the Obama Administration estimated in February 2010 that allowing the Bush tax cuts for capital gains to expire would have raised $16 billion of revenue in FY2019. Yet, based on Congressional Budget Office (CBO) projections in January 2010, the current effective capital gains tax was 13.3% in 2008 and would have increased to 17.9% in 2019; applying the differential in these rates to the realizations in 2019 would have produced a revenue difference of $40 billion. Although some of this differential could arise from different forecasts, assumptions about behavioral responses are the main reason for the reduction in projected revenues.\nBecause these behavioral responses limit the potential revenue scored from a tax increase on capital gains and because of concerns that most income of very high-income individuals is in the form of capital gains (whether accrued or realized), proposals have been advanced to tax capital gains currently (as accrued) by marking to market publicly traded securities and imposing a look-back tax on difficult-to-value assets. Such a change faces a number of difficulties; thus it is important to understand the evidence of the behavioral responses. The analysis in this study suggests that the Administration\u2019s projections and those of the JCT, absent a change in their realizations response, may understate revenue gains from increasing capital gains tax rates.\nRealizations responses in revenue projections by the revenue-estimating agencies (Joint Committee on Taxation and the Treasury) were publicly discussed at the end of the 1980s, in the midst of a contentious debate. The larger the absolute value of the elasticity (the percentage change in realizations divided by the percentage change in taxes), the smaller the revenue gain; with elasticities larger than one in absolute value, a loss would occur. Estimated elasticities in the literature prior to 1990 ranged from 0.3 to almost 3.8, leaving limited guidance for revenue-estimating agencies. JCT used an elasticity of 0.76, whereas Treasury used an elasticity of one.\nConcerns were raised at that time that there were serious problems with this evidence. Perhaps the most significant concern was that the larger results from studies of individuals reflected a timing or transitory response (high-income taxpayers with variable income chose to realize gains when tax rates were temporarily low). This transitory response is not appropriate for assessing a permanent change.\nEvidence and studies since that time suggest that the permanent elasticity is considerably lower than what appeared to be the case in 1990. The surge in realizations in 1986 as a capital gains tax rate increase was preannounced provided compelling evidence of the importance of a transitory response. A study of the limits of realizations (which cannot exceed accruals in the long run) suggested the elasticity (percentage change in realizations divided by the percentage change in the tax rate) could be no more than 0.5 in absolute value (evaluated at a 22% tax rate), and a midpoint of 0.25. A number of new econometric studies, using new techniques to isolate the permanent response, suggested elasticities of around 0.5 or less. Other recent studies suggested larger responses. The JCT appears to maintain its original assumption, while the Treasury response has been reduced to be similar to JCT\u2019s; both appear to exceed the realizations limit. \nSimulations indicate that an increase in capital gains tax rates of five percentage points would raise slightly more than $40 billion on a static basis for 2019, about $30 billion using the 0.25 elasticity and $18 billion using the 0.5 elasticity. The JCT estimates would likely be around $10 billion, reflecting a 0.68 elasticity. Taxing gains on an accrual basis would eliminate this response in the long run and gain additional revenues on currently unrealized gains.",
      "type": "CRS Report",
      "typeId": "REPORTS",
      "active": true,
      "formats": [
        {
          "format": "HTML",
          "encoding": "utf-8",
          "url": "https://www.crs.gov/Reports/R41364",
          "sha1": "2a191d2954e199cb51ba99365dd2e7ad37b599b6",
          "filename": "files/20190430_R41364_2a191d2954e199cb51ba99365dd2e7ad37b599b6.html",
          "images": {}
        },
        {
          "format": "PDF",
          "encoding": null,
          "url": "https://www.crs.gov/Reports/pdf/R41364",
          "sha1": "509fe16e26bb50a7abc41bf35ac2b510b725a29c",
          "filename": "files/20190430_R41364_509fe16e26bb50a7abc41bf35ac2b510b725a29c.pdf",
          "images": {}
        }
      ],
      "topics": []
    },
    {
      "source": "EveryCRSReport.com",
      "id": 422213,
      "date": "2010-08-10",
      "retrieved": "2016-04-06T22:15:43.559028",
      "title": "Capital Gains Tax Options: Behavioral Responses and Revenues",
      "summary": "Among the expiring Bush tax cut provisions is a lower 15% rate for long-term capital gains and dividends, with a 0% rate for taxpayers with ordinary tax rates of 15% or less. With no change, capital gains tax rates will revert to a top rate of 20% (10% for those with a 0% rate). Dividends will be taxed at ordinary rates. For FY2010 (for example), Treasury has projected revenue gains from these provisions to be $16 billion for capital gains and $30 billion for dividends.\nPresident Obama has proposed to retain the 15% and 0% rates for lower- and middle-income taxpayers, but to tax both dividends and capital gains at 20% for married couples with income of $250,000 or more and single taxpayers with income of $200,000 or more. Because the increase in dividend tax rates was limited, about 80% of the projected $15 billion gain from this revision (for FY2019) is estimated to be from capital gains tax increases.\nCompared with most other tax provisions, the potential revenue gain scored for an increase in capital gains taxes is strongly affected by behavioral responses assumed by the Joint Committee on Taxation (JCT) and the Treasury Department. The analysis in this study suggests that the Administration\u2019s projections and those of the JCT, absent a change in their realizations response, may likely understate revenue gains from allowing lower capital gains tax rates to expire.\nRealizations response in revenue projections by the revenue estimating agencies (Joint Committee on Taxation and the Treasury) were publicly discussed at the end of the 1980s, in the midst of a contentious debate. The larger the absolute value of the elasticity (the percentage change in realizations divided by the percentage change in taxes) the smaller the revenue gain, and with elasticities larger than one in absolute value, a loss would occur. Estimated elasticities in the literature prior to 1990 ranged from 0.3 to almost 3.8, leaving limited guidance for revenue estimating agencies. JCT used an elasticity of 0.76, whereas Treasury used an elasticity of one.\nConcerns were raised at that time that there were serious problems with this evidence. Perhaps the most significant concern was that the larger results from studies of individuals reflected a timing or transitory response (high income taxpayers with variable income chose to realize gains during times that tax rates were temporarily low). This transitory response is not appropriate for assessing a permanent change.\nEvidence and studies since that time suggest that the permanent elasticity is considerably lower than what appeared to be the case in 1990. The surge in realizations in 1986 as a capital gains tax rate increase was pre-announced provided compelling evidence of the importance of a transitory response. A study of the limits of realizations (which cannot exceed accruals in the long run) suggested the elasticity could be no more than 0.5. And a number of new econometric studies, using new techniques to isolate the permanent response, suggested elasticities of around 0.5 or less. The JCT appears to maintain their original assumption, while the Treasury response has been reduced to be similar to JCT\u2019s.\nAlthough projected revenues for FY2019 would be smaller than that estimated in January 2010 by the Administration, due to the Medicare tax, the revenue gain from allowing the capital gains tax to rise could be up to twice as much as that projected by the JCT for FY2019 if the smaller responses estimated in more recent studies were applied. It is reasonable to expect revenue gains of $28 billion, rather than the $13 billion likely to be projected by JCT if they maintain their current realizations response assumptions, and the gain is unlikely to be less than $18 billion.",
      "type": "CRS Report",
      "typeId": "REPORTS",
      "active": true,
      "formats": [
        {
          "format": "HTML",
          "encoding": "utf-8",
          "url": "http://www.crs.gov/Reports/R41364",
          "sha1": "1ce81511f943baceb780b817709cbeacc6cfdbfc",
          "filename": "files/20100810_R41364_1ce81511f943baceb780b817709cbeacc6cfdbfc.html",
          "images": null
        },
        {
          "format": "PDF",
          "encoding": null,
          "url": "http://www.crs.gov/Reports/pdf/R41364",
          "sha1": "3225305745e7c88af8a4d62d1ed95a125002d078",
          "filename": "files/20100810_R41364_3225305745e7c88af8a4d62d1ed95a125002d078.pdf",
          "images": null
        }
      ],
      "topics": []
    }
  ],
  "topics": [
    "Economic Policy"
  ]
}