• 0Shopping Cart
American Horse Council
  • About Us
    • Leadership
      • Board Of Trustees
      • Governance
      • Staff
      • AHC Committees
    • Membership
      • FAQ’s
      • Become A Member
      • Sponsors
      • AHC Discount Programs
    • Annual Reports
    • Employment Opportunities
    • AHC Internships
  • Issues
    • Legislation
    • Regulations
    • Take Action
      • Congressional Scorecard
  • ELECTION CENTER
    • Get Involved
    • Vote Early!
    • Congressional Scorecard
    • Political Action Committee
    • Legislative Process and How A Law is Enacted
  • AHC Programs
    • AHC Foundation
    • United Horse Coalition
    • Marketing Alliance
    • Equine Disease Communication Center
    • American Horse Council Microchip Look-Up
    • Coalition of State Horse Council
    • DEI – Diversity Equity Inclusion
    • Equine Industry Executive Forum
  • Member Portal
  • Resources
    • ANNUAL CONFERENCE
      • AMERICAN HORSE COUNCIL 2023 CONFERENCE
      • AMERICAN HORSE COUNCIL 2022 CONFERENCE
      • AMERICAN HORSE COUNCIL 2021 CONFERENCE
      • AMERICAN HORSE COUNCIL 2020 CONFERENCE
    • Horse Industry Directory
    • Webinars
    • Publications
    • Library and Resources
    • Economics
    • Tax Bulletins For Members
    • 2023 Economic Impact Study
    • Safe Sport
    • National Welfare Code
    • ELD, CDL and Transport Issues
    • Youth Resources
    • National Trails Directory
  • News
  • Calendar
  • CONTACT
    • Submit a question
    • Leave a comment or suggestion
  • Join
  • Search
  • Menu Menu
  • About Us
    • Leadership
      • Board Of Trustees
      • Governance
      • Staff
      • AHC Committees
    • Membership
      • FAQ’s
      • Become A Member
      • Sponsors
      • AHC Discount Programs
    • Annual Reports
    • Employment Opportunities
    • AHC Internships
  • Issues
    • Legislation
    • Regulations
    • Take Action
      • Congressional Scorecard
  • ELECTION CENTER
    • Get Involved
    • Vote Early!
    • Congressional Scorecard
    • Political Action Committee
    • Legislative Process and How A Law is Enacted
  • AHC Programs
    • AHC Foundation
    • United Horse Coalition
    • Marketing Alliance
    • Equine Disease Communication Center
    • American Horse Council Microchip Look-Up
    • Coalition of State Horse Council
    • DEI – Diversity Equity Inclusion
    • Equine Industry Executive Forum
  • Member Portal
  • Resources
    • ANNUAL CONFERENCE
      • AMERICAN HORSE COUNCIL 2023 CONFERENCE
      • AMERICAN HORSE COUNCIL 2022 CONFERENCE
      • AMERICAN HORSE COUNCIL 2021 CONFERENCE
      • AMERICAN HORSE COUNCIL 2020 CONFERENCE
    • Horse Industry Directory
    • Webinars
    • Publications
    • Library and Resources
    • Economics
    • Tax Bulletins For Members
    • 2023 Economic Impact Study
    • Safe Sport
    • National Welfare Code
    • ELD, CDL and Transport Issues
    • Youth Resources
    • National Trails Directory
  • News
  • Calendar
  • CONTACT
    • Submit a question
    • Leave a comment or suggestion
  • Join
  • Raising Taxes Stalemates Action to Raise Debt Ceiling

RAISING TAXES STALEMATES ACTION TO RAISE DEBT CEILING

By Thomas A. Davis, Esq., Davis & Harman LLP, Washington, D.C.

The failure to raise the current debt ceiling, and the potential catastrophic impact that failure would have on the U.S. economy, looms over Washington like few issues have in recent times. At stake, is the inability of the U.S. to make payments on its obligations here and abroad unless the debt ceiling is raised. Until this issue is resolved, most other legislative action has been put on the back burner.

The current amount of debt the U.S. can legally incur is $14.3 trillion. It is estimated by the U.S. Treasury that the government will reach this limit in early August of 2011. After that time, the U.S. will not be able to fully pay its financial obligations unless Congress acts to raise the ceiling. Raising the debt ceiling is necessary to pay what is already due. The U.S. is now required to borrow about 40 cents for every dollar of expenditures due. The Treasury will not be able to borrow that 40 cents if the debt ceiling is not raised. Never has the Treasury failed to meet any obligation as a result of a debt limit impasse.

Over the years, Congress has routinely raised the debt ceiling, but this time around circumstances are different. The fall 2010 congressional elections sent 87 new Republican members to the House of Representatives, giving the majority to the Republicans. Most of them won because they campaigned on a platform of stopping the insatiable spending appetite of the federal government and putting the government’s financial house in order.

The Republicans also gained six seats in the Senate, giving them a total of 47. Most of those new Republican Senators also campaigned on a message similar to that of the new House members.

At about the same time the new members of the House and Senate were in Washington attending orientation sessions, the National Debt Commission, a bi-partisan group appointed by President Obama which included current and former Senators and House members, released a report entitled “The Moment of Truth.” The report found that “our nation is on an unsustainable fiscal path.”

Under the circumstances, members of both parties and on both sides of the Capitol are all saying the same thing – we have to deal with the budget deficits. They also say that we cannot let the federal government default on its obligations, obligations for such things as Social Security payments, Medicare payments, salaries for military personnel, and interest on the national debt. While most legislators agree that default would have extremely catastrophic worldwide consequences and must not happen, they are far from agreement on how to solve the “unsustainable” deficits.

In order to raise the debt ceiling, the Republicans say that some $2.7 trillion of spending must be cut over the next ten years. They maintain that none of the $2.7 trillion should come from any tax increases. The reduced spending would have to come in part from reduction in projected spending on entitlements such as Medicare and Medicaid.

On the other hand, the Democrats say that the deficit reduction should come from spending cuts and higher taxes on the wealthy. They are less inclined to cut entitlements, and certainly not as much as the House Republicans have proposed. The President has said he wants a plan that reduces the debt by $4 trillion over 12 years. This plan would probably mean cuts to Medicare and Medicaid, something that would be hard for the Democrats in Congress to accept.

While not the only hurdle to be cleared, the Republicans and Democrats are at an impasse over reducing any part of the deficits by raising revenues from taxes. The Republicans favor tax reform legislation next year, but insist that reform not be used to produce additional taxes on the American people and businesses. The Democrats insist that tax increases on wealthy Americans have to be included in the solution.

The differences appear more serious than usual because there is no obvious compromise if both sides stay wedded to their positions. House Speaker John Boehner has consistently said that tax increases will not be used to pay down the deficits. Most of the large number of new Republican members say there must be spending cuts, no tax increases, and a constitutional balanced budget provision. In fact, many of these members have signed a “no tax increase” pledge. While the Speaker can probably steer a solution through the House acceptable to his members, it is unlikely that a Senate controlled by the Democrats will accept such a bill. If the Senate responds by passing a bill which includes tax increases, it will be hard for the Speaker to get his members to vote for that bill.

It takes two to tango, and at this point in the process finding a way to get the decision makers to the dance floor, much less dance, will be difficult. Hopefully the stakes are high enough to make it happen.

WINNINGS OF NONRESIDENT ALIEN SUBJECT TO 30% WIHHOLDING TAX

In 2006, the taxpayer, a nonresident Korean national, won 138 slot machine jackpots of $1,200 or more, with total winnings of $431,658. The casino withheld a total of $30,460. A report provided by the casino showed he had losses which exceeded winnings by $4,663 in 2006.

In 2007, he had 43 slot machine jackpots of $1,200 or more totaling $103,874. The casino withheld a total of $1,632. The report provided by the casino showed that he had losses that exceeded winnings by $45,130 in 2007.

The gentleman from Korea challenged the 30% withholding tax in the U.S. Tax Court. He argued that the winnings were not subject to the tax because of the Treaty of Friendship, Commerce, and Navigation. The Court found that the most-favored nation treatment under the treaty does not extend to South Korean nationals the more favorable tax treatment regarding exemption from U.S. income tax of gambling winnings as provided for in some bilateral income tax treaties that the United States has entered into with other foreign countries.

The Korean national also argued that even if the treaty did not exempt him from the withholding tax on gambling winnings, his gambling activities were personal services taxable as income effectively connected with a U.S. trade or business. Therefore, the income should be subject to tax in the same manner and at the same rates as that of a U.S. tax person, which would allow him to deduct his gambling losses up to the amount of his gambling winnings. Since he had losses in excess of winnings in 2006 and 2007, the Korean national would not owe any U.S. income tax.

The Tax Court first agreed that the phrase “trade or business within the United States” generally includes the performances of personal services within the U.S. However, the Court found that the Korean national had not addressed the factors in the regulations under Section 183 of the tax code, which relates to activities not engaged in for profit, and he did not persuade the Court that his primary purpose for engaging in the gambling activity was for income or profit. Thus, he had not shown that his gambling activities were a trade or business within the U.S. [Sang J. Park, et al. v. Commissioner, 136 T.C. 28]

Editorial Note – It is interesting that the Court found that the taxpayer’s gambling activities was not a business by applying Sec. 183 of the tax code, the same section used to determine whether a horse related activity is engaged in as a business for profit.

Back to Tax Bulletin

Editor-in-Chief

Thomas A. Davis, Esq

Davis and Harman

Washington, DC

www.davis-harman.com

AHC Tax Bulletin Advisory Board

Robert B. Dale, III, Esq

Yount, Hyde & Barbour, PC

Middleburg, VA

www.yhbcpa.com

B. Paul Husband, Esq

Husband Law Group

Universal City, CA

www.husbandlaw.com

John Kropp, Esq

Graydon, Head & Ritchey

Cincinnati, OH

www.graydonhead.com

Douglas Romaine, Esq

Stoll Keenon Ogden, PLLC

Lexington, KY

www.skofirm.com

Joel B. Turner, Esq

Frost Brown Todd

Louisville, KY

www.frostbrowntodd.com

    • The Issues
    • Take Action
    • Library and Resources
    • Economics
    • Update Password
    • Renew Your Account
  • The American Horse Council is a Guidestar Silver Participant

    The AHC believes that the more opportunities available to use horses in various activities, the better the overall health of the industry and those who participate.


    1775 Tysons Blvd
    5th Floor
    Suite 6110
    McLean VA, 22102
    General Phone: 202.296.4031
    E-Mail: info@horsecouncil.org

    About Us

    • Membership
    • Board Of Trustees
    • AHC Internships
    • AHC Programs
    • AHC Membership Directory
    • Annual Reports

    Issues

    • Legislation
    • Regulations
    • Take Action

    Resources

    • Webinars
    • Publications
    • ELD, CDL and Transport Issues
    • Library and Resources
    • National Welfare Code
    • Economics
    • National Equine Health Plan
    • Safe Sports

    NEWS

    • Washington Updates
    • Press Releases
    • Archives
    • Calendar
    • Contact Us

    © Copyright - American Horse Council
    Scroll to top
    en English
    ar Arabiczh-CN Chinese (Simplified)nl Dutchen Englishfr Frenchde Germanit Italianpt Portugueseru Russianes Spanish

    Lynda is the membership and communications specialist for the American Horse Council. Lynda grew up in Pasadena, Maryland with a passion for horses. She relocated to San Diego, California, where her dream of owning and riding horses came true. Lynda has worked with several law enforcement mounted units and has participated in several national and international horse associations.

    Lynda believes horses play a major role in our society from therapy horses helping children learn to walk again, to helping military veterans and emergency service personnel learn to cope with stress, to keeping our parks and cities safe through law enforcement mounted units. Along with our equine partners assisting in burial services at Arlington National Cemetery. Horses impact our lives in ways others cannot.

    Lynda believes the horse industry as a whole needs to have a voice and working at the American Horse Council is a way for her to help and keep the industry alive and informed.

    Interested in a Free Microchip for your Horse?

    The United Horse Coalition is offering up to 5 free microchips (while supplies last). Click below for more info on how to get your free chip.

    Click here for more info (don’t worry, we made it easy!)
    Login to your Dashboard
    Lost your password?
    • Lost your password?

    Cliff Williamson is the Director of Health and Regulatory Affairs for the American Horse Council based in Washington D.C.

    He grew up in Reva, VA on his family’s horse farm, participating in both horse and livestock 4-H activities. In 2008 he graduated from Virginia Tech with a degree in Animal Science, where he was an active member of both the animal science club Block & Bridle as well as the agricultural fraternity Alpha Gamma Rho. After graduation he spent 27 months in Nicaragua with the Peace Corps for their Food Security Program. Upon his return to the United States he spent four years in the animal export industry as the Director of Animal Logistics for T.K. Exports, Inc. In that time he was honored to be appointed to a seat on the Board of Directors for the Culpeper chapter of the Farm Bureau Federation.

    For information regarding any equine health issues, welfare issues, and state, federal and international requirements regarding the movement of horses, please contact Cliff. 

    cwilliamson@horsecouncil.org

    Bryan Brendle is the Director of Policy & Legislative Affairs for the AHC.

    For information regarding public policy, government relations and advocacy, please contact Bryan.

    bbrendle@horsecouncil.org

    With over 30 years of leadership experience in both for-profit and non-profit sectors, Julie holds a BS, MBA, Executive Certificate in Non-Profit Leadership  and is Certified Association Executive®. She’s a life-long horse enthusiast ranging from recreational rider, breeder, and show competitor. A native of NC, she and her husband now reside in DC along with their Pembroke Welsh Corgis and Morgan horses.

    In her down time she enjoys volunteering (she’s president of the board of PATH International), horseback riding, gardening and cooking. “I’m passionate about the equine industry because horses have enhanced my life and well-being so profoundly,” said Julie. “Working at the AHC is a way to give back to the equine community and ensure the long term health of the industry.”

    jbroadway@horsecouncil.org

    X