[ad_1]
Analyst Report: American Tower Corp.
[ad_2]
Tag: Tax
-
Justices strike down law Trump used to impose wide tariffs
[ad_1]
In a landmark decision, the Supreme Court ruled that President Donald Trump cannot use the International Emergency Economic Powers Act to levy tariffs on his own, blocking the primary tool he’s been using to reshape the U.S. and global economy.
In a 6-3 decision, the court ruled that “when Congress grants the power to impose tariffs, it does so clearly and with careful constraints. It did neither in IEEPA.”
Trump had justified his most far-reaching assertions of tariff power by citing IEEPA, a 1977 law that allows tariffs on all imports during an “unusual and extraordinary threat … to the national security, foreign policy or economy of the United States.”
Trump will still be able to levy tariffs using other laws, but these generally require more complicated processes.
“Trump cannot raise tariffs on his own, anywhere he pleases, any longer — that’s the biggest takeaway from SCOTUS this morning,” Ross Burkhart, a Boise State University political scientist who specializes in trade policy, said Feb. 20. Trump can still pursue his America First agenda, Burkhart said, but “he just has to convince more audiences of the national security threat than just himself and his advisors.”
The court’s decision would seem to end: the minimum 10% tariff Trump levied on most trading partners during his April 2025 “Liberation Day” announcement; higher rates that Trump misleadingly described as “reciprocal” tariffs for certain trading partners; the tariffs linked to drug trafficking on Canada, Mexico and China; and many of the tariffs placed on China, experts said.
These tariffs have been the main drivers of Trump’s second term increases in tariff revenues. Since January 2025, the U.S. has seen an increase over the existing tariff baseline of $223.5 billion.
Still in play for the administration would be other types of tariffs, including:
-
Section 301 of the 1974 Trade Act, which allows tariffs when the president determines that a foreign country “is unjustifiable and burdens or restricts United States commerce” through violations of trade agreements;
-
Section 232 of the 1962 Trade Expansion Act, which lets the president impose tariffs if national security is threatened. Trump and President Joe Biden used Section 232 as the basis for steel and aluminum tariffs imposed since 2018;
-
Section 122 of the 1974 Trade Act, which allows the president to address “large and serious” balance-of-payments deficits through import surcharges, quotas, or a combination;
-
Section 338 of the 1930 Tariff Act, which authorizes tariffs of up to 50% if a country “discriminates” against U.S. commerce.
“Even without IEEPA, the president retains ample statutory authority to quickly recreate much of the current trade policy chaos,” wrote the Cato Institute, a libertarian think tank skeptical of Trump’s tariff policy.
Trump learned of the decision during a meeting with governors at the White House, The New York Times reported. Citing two people familiar with the proceedings, the Times reported that Trump called the decision a “disgrace” and left the meeting early.
The Constitution says Congress holds the power to impose tariffs, not the president. However, over the years, Congress has passed multiple laws ceding some of that power to the president.
One of those was IEEPA, but small businesses challenged that position in court, making two key arguments. They contended that the law doesn’t explicitly let the president impose tariffs. And they argued that the tariffs didn’t rise to the level of an “unusual and extraordinary” emergency. The plaintiffs succeeded at the trial and appeals level, and now have convinced the Supreme Court as well.
Left unclear are how and when the billions in tariffs collected will be refunded; in the dissenting opinion, Justice Brett Kavanaugh, joined by justices Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas, wrote that this process “is likely” to be a “mess.”
RELATED: Year of the Lies: Farmer says some Trump tariff statements ‘as far from the truth as you can get’
[ad_2]
-
-
Rep. Dina Titus Makes New Push to Restore Full Gambling Loss Deductions
[ad_1]
Long-running efforts to roll back a controversial section of last year’s “One Big Beautiful Bill” are at a critical point as Nevada Rep. Dina Titus has taken an unusual procedural route to revive her stalled legislation. She aims to restore full deductions for gambling losses and enjoys broad support from players and industry representatives.
Titus Argues That Current Deduction Caps Are Unfair
The Nevada congresswoman recently filed a discharge petition to force a House vote on her FAIR BET Act, which has remained untouched in the House Ways and Means Committee since last summer. The bill would reverse a change included in the sweeping 2025 tax package signed by President Donald Trump that limits gamblers to deducting 90% of their losses against winnings.
While this adjustment may seem insignificant at first glance, it could have a substantial impact on the industry. Under the current rule, someone who wins $100,000 over the course of a year but also loses $100,000 will end up with $10,000 in taxable income. While such a player broke even in practice, in tax terms, they didn’t.
High-stakes and hobby gamblers are struggling, and local economies that depend on gaming revenue are hurting.
Nevada Rep. Dina Titus
Professional bettors and high-volume players argue that the measure is unfair and ignores economic realities. They point out that the new cap could result in tax bills tied to income that never truly existed. Titus also argues that other high-risk financial activities, such as trading stocks or commodities, are free from comparable limits.
Success Is Not Guaranteed
Industry groups, including the American Gaming Association, have intensified their lobbying efforts in recent weeks, warning lawmakers that the deduction cap, if left unchecked, could prompt gamblers to turn to unregulated offshore offerings that generate no taxes and lack critical safeguards. Jurisdictions like Nevada, where gaming remains a pillar of local employment and tax revenue, could be disproportionately affected.
Despite Titus’s efforts, the odds of success for a discharge petition are slim. The process requires 218 signatures to move a bill out of committee and onto the House floor. Even then, a vote is not guaranteed. With dozens of revenue-related measures already awaiting review, Titus’s proposal has yet to gain the needed attention.
My FAIR BET Act has been sitting in the Ways and Means Committee for eight months, despite commitments from House Republicans to restore the full gambling loss deduction.
Nevada Rep. Dina Titus
Legislators mostly regard discharge petitions as more symbolic than practical. However, several such maneuvers have successfully cleared the signature threshold since 2023, marking a resurgence for the practice. Even so, Titus’s petition has not received any additional signatures as of February 20. Its success will likely depend on the House’s willingness to revisit gambling policy during a crowded fiscal agenda.
[ad_2]
Deyan Dimitrov
Source link -
GOP lawmaker proposes measure to block key element of proposed California wealth tax
[ad_1]
WASHINGTON — As progressives seek to place a new tax on billionaires on California’s November ballot, a Republican congressman is moving in the opposite direction: proposing federal legislation that would block states from taxing the assets of former residents.
Rep. Kevin Kiley (R-Rocklin), who faces a tough reelection challenge under California’s redrawn congressional maps, says he will introduce the “Keep Jobs in California Act of 2026” on Friday. The measure would prohibit any state from levying taxes retroactively on individuals who no longer live there.
The proposed legislation adds another layer to what has already been a fiery debate over California’s approach to taxing the ultrawealthy. It has created divisions among Democrats and has placed Los Angeles at the center of a broader political fight, with Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) set to hold a rally on Wednesday night in support of the wealth tax.
Kiley said he drafted the bill in reaction to reports that several of California’s most prominent billionaires — including Meta Chief Executive Mark Zuckerberg and Google co-founders Larry Page and Sergey Brin — are planning to leave the state in anticipation of the wealth tax being enacted.
“California’s proposed wealth tax is an unprecedented attempt to chase down people who have already left as a result of the state’s poor policies,” Kiley said in a statement Wednesday. “Many of our state’s leading job creators are leaving preemptively.”
Kiley said it would be “fundamentally unfair” to retroactively impose taxes on former residents.
“California already has the highest income tax of any state in the country, the highest gas tax, the highest overall tax burden,” Kiley said in a House floor speech this month. “But a wealth tax is something unique because a wealth tax is not merely the taxation of earned income, it is the confiscation of assets.”
The fate of Kiley’s proposal is just as uncertain as his future in Congress. His 5th Congressional District, which hugs the Nevada border, has been sliced up into six districts under California’s voter-approved Proposition 50, and he has not yet picked one to run in for reelection.
The Billionaire Tax Act, which backers are pushing to get on the November ballot, would charge California’s 200-plus billionaires a one-time 5% tax on their net worth to backfill billions of dollars in Republican-led cuts to federal healthcare funding for middle-class and low-income residents. It is being proposed by the Service Employees International Union-United Healthcare Workers West.
In his floor speech, Kiley worried that the tax, if approved, could cause the state’s economy to collapse.
“What’s especially threatening about this is that our state’s tax structure is essentially a house of cards,” Kiley said. “You have a system that is incredibly volatile, where top 1% of earners account for 50% of the tax revenue.”
But supporters of the wealth tax argue the measure is one of the few ways that can help the state seek new revenue as it faces economic uncertainty.
Sanders, an independent who caucuses with the Democrats, is urging Californians to back the measure, which he says would “provide the necessary funding to prevent more than 3 million working-class Californians from losing the healthcare they currently have — and would help prevent the closures of California hospitals and emergency rooms.”
“It should be common sense that the billionaires pay just slightly more so that entire communities can preserve access to life-saving medical care,” Sanders said in a statement this month. “Our country needs access to hospitals and emergency rooms, not more tax breaks for billionaires.”
Other Democrats are not so sure.
Gov. Gavin Newsom, who is eyeing a presidential bid in 2028, has opposed the measure. He has warned a state-by-state approach to taxing the wealthy could stifle innovation and entrepreneurship.
Some of the wealthiest people in the world are also taking steps to defeat the measure.
Brin is donating $20 million to a California political drive to prevent the wealth tax from becoming law, according to a disclosure reviewed by the New York Times. Peter Thiel, the co-founder of PayPal and the chairman of Palantir, has also donated millions to a committee working to defeat the proposed measure, the New York Times reported.
[ad_2]
Ana Ceballos
Source link -
Stocks Settle Slightly Higher as Bond Yields Fall
[ad_1]
The S&P 500 Index ($SPX) (SPY) on Friday closed up +0.05%, the Dow Jones Industrial Average ($DOWI) (DIA) closed up +0.10%, and the Nasdaq 100 Index ($IUXX) (QQQ) closed up +0.18%. March E-mini S&P futures (ESH26) rose +0.03%, and March E-mini Nasdaq futures (NQH26) rose +0.14%.
Stock indexes recovered from early losses on Friday and settled higher. Falling bond yields were bullish for stocks on Friday after US January consumer prices rose less than expected, which may prompt the Fed to keep cutting interest rates. The 10-year T-note yield fell to a 2.25-month low of 4.05% on the tame inflation news.
Also, a recovery in software stocks was supportive of the overall market. However, metal companies retreated on reports that the Trump administration is working to narrow its tariffs on steel and aluminum products.
Stocks initially moved lower today, with the S&P 500 and Nasdaq 100 posting 1-week lows. Worries over AI weighed on stocks and dampened market sentiment. Concerns have surfaced that the latest tools released by Google, Anthropic, and other AI startups are already good enough to disrupt many sectors of the economy, including finance, logistics, software, and trucking.
US Jan CPI rose +2.4% y/y, weaker than expectations of +2.5% y/y and the smallest pace of increase in 7 months. Jan core CPI rose +2.5% y/y, right on expectations and the smallest pace of increase in 4.75 years.
Q4 earnings season is in full swing, as more than two-thirds of the S&P 500 companies have reported earnings results. Earnings have been a positive factor for stocks, with 76% of the 371 S&P 500 companies that have reported beating expectations. According to Bloomberg Intelligence, S&P earnings growth is expected to climb by +8.4% in Q4, marking the tenth consecutive quarter of year-over-year growth. Excluding the Magnificent Seven megacap technology stocks, Q4 earnings are expected to increase by +4.6%.
The markets are discounting a 10% chance for a -25 bp rate cut at the next policy meeting on March 17-18.
Overseas stock markets settled lower on Friday. The Euro Stoxx 50 closed down by -0.43%. China’s Shanghai Composite closed down -1.26%. Japan’s Nikkei Stock 225 fell closed down -1.21%.
[ad_2]
-
Unexpected money? Here’s what Canada taxes—and what it doesn’t – MoneySense
[ad_1]
With an April 30 tax-filing deadline fast approaching, you might now be starting to wonder: How much am I going to owe from all that? The answer, tax specialists say, is probably nothing.
Inheritance and windfall are two examples of money streams that people in Canada typically don’t pay tax on. Experts say it’s important to raise awareness of those and other common tax-free income sources, especially given how difficult it can be to navigate the ins and outs of the system during the thick of tax-filing season.
What counts as taxable income—and what doesn’t
H&R Block Canada tax expert Yannick Lemay said those exemptions can add up to significant savings. “With taxes, there’s a lot of nuances,” he said. “We have to be careful to know exactly the nature of the amounts we have received and how it has to be reported on your tax return because there are severe penalties for not declaring all your income.”
Lemay said it’s important to consider how certain money was earned to determine whether it’s taxable. For instance, while lottery and gambling winnings for the average person in Canada aren’t usually taxed—something often misunderstood due to differing rules in the United States—that’s not the case for a professional poker player.
“If, for example, you just casually go to the casino once in a while and you earn some money during the year, that is true that this money is tax-free,” he said. “But for someone else, maybe the casino winnings are the main source of income.”
For the latter, someone who likely puts additional time and training into the craft, any winnings would be classified as business income, therefore making it taxable. “So, same source of money, same payer, but different treatment depending on who’s receiving it,” said Lemay.
Income Tax Guide for Canadians
Deadlines, tax tips and more
The key is whether you’re attempting to bring in “recurring” income, said Gerry Vittoratos, tax specialist at UFile. That comes into play for those working in the gig economy or managing a side hustle—like running an Etsy store or delivering Uber Eats orders. “All of that is usually considered business income and the key is that it’s recurring,” he said. “You are regularly trying to earn income off of it.”
How to deal with gifts, inheritances, and scholarships
Lemay pointed to other money sources that aren’t taxable, such as gifts. No matter the size, gifted cash you receive isn’t taxable—however, any income generated from that sum of money would be.
Similarly, cash or property that’s inherited isn’t considered taxable income, however any income earned after you receive it, like interest or rental income, is taxable.
Other tax-free income sources could include child support payments, most life insurance payouts, and certain government payouts, such as the GST credit or Canada Child Benefit.
Lemay cautioned that some non-taxable amounts still need to be reported even if no tax is actually paid on it, as it can affect eligibility for such credits and benefits.
For young adults enrolled in academic programs, scholarships, and bursaries are a common source of money that may not be taxed. That’s the case for full-time students enrolled in the current, prior, or next year, said Vittoratos. However, part-time students need to report amounts above certain thresholds.
“If you’re a full-time student … you don’t even declare it on the return. It’s income that you just pocket directly,” he said. “If, though, you’re a part-time studentand you weren’t a full-time student in one of those three years, you only get a $500 exemption. Anything above that will become taxable and you have to declare it on the return.”
Reporting unusual income: when in doubt, declare it
Other income sources that don’t usually get taxed include union strike pay meant to help cover living expenses, personal injury or wrongful death compensation, and workers’ compensation benefits.
When in doubt, Vittoratos said it’s better to report income than to omit information and potentially suffer the consequences. However, he noted it’s possible to amend your tax return later on. “The biggest mistakes people make on their returns is omissions,” he said. “It’s always, ‘Oh look I found this receipt three months later’ and then I have to amend the return.”
Vittoratos added it’s important to remember that although January to April is generally considered tax season, it should never be “just a four-month process” for filing. The more time you give yourself to plan before the filing deadline, the less likely you are to make such errors. “January to April is when you’re actually filing your return, but your tax return is the year that just passed,” he said.
[ad_2]
The Canadian Press
Source link -
Preparing taxes for someone who died – MoneySense
[ad_1]
Contacting the CRA
You should contact the government as soon as possible. This includes steps like cancelling a provincial health card, driver’s license, and applying for Canada Pension Plan (CPP) death and survivor benefits.
From a tax perspective, you should contact the CRA by phone or by mail. If you call CRA Individual Tax Enquiries at 1-800-959-8281, you should make sure you have on hand the person’s:
- Date of death
- Social Insurance Number (SIN)
- Mailing address
- Last tax return or notice of assessment
You should report their date of death and stop any ongoing benefits that may need to be repaid.
There are several other government agencies you should also notify.
Executors and next of kin
To formally represent someone who has died with CRA, you can do so as a legal representative or name an authorized representative. A legal representative is generally the executor of the deceased’s estate named in their will. In Québec, this representative is called a liquidator.
If you want to have online access to the CRA account of the deceased, you have to register for CRA’s Represent a Client service. You can do so with your CRA user ID and password, or with the Interac sign-in service to select a sign-in partner using your online banking.
On the welcome page, select Add Account → Representative Account → Register with Represent a Client → Register Yourself.
Once registered, you can submit documents using the Submit Documents service in Represent a Client. You need to provide a copy of the death certificate and a copy of the will, grant of probate, or letters of administration listing you as executor.
If the deceased had no will, you can fill out and submit Form RC552, Register as Representative for a Deceased Person.
If you would prefer the old-fashioned way, you can also mail or fax these documents to the CRA without registering for Represent a Client. You should send them to the tax centre that serviced the deceased based on their mailing address.
Income Tax Guide for Canadians
Deadlines, tax tips and more
Once you are authorized as the legal representative, you can appoint an authorized representative, like an accountant or lawyer. You do this from your own Represent a Client portal by entering the social insurance number of the deceased to access their online tax account.
Under the Related Services Section, select Authorized Representative(s), Authorize a New Representative, and follow the instructions. You must provide the representative’s RepID, CRA Business Number, or GroupID to appoint them.
Tax returns
You must file a final tax return up to the date of death reporting income for that year. There is also a deemed disposition of assets at death that may trigger tax on registered accounts like registered retirement savings plan (RRSPs) or registered retirement income funds (RRIFs).
Capital assets like non-registered investments, cottages, and rental properties may also be subject to capital gains tax.
Assets in other countries are also relevant, as Canadian residents are taxed on their worldwide income.
Certain elections may be available to defer tax on death, most notably a spousal rollover that allows assets to pass tax deferred to a surviving spouse or common law partner.
[ad_2]
Jason Heath, CFP
Source link