Summary: Tax Exemption For Feminine Hygiene Products

Let’s begin with the obvious, all women have had their period. This process is as natural as eating, peeing, drinking and sleeping. Now have any of you ever walked into a bathroom and had to pay for the toilet paper? No, you haven’t. I’m sure that it also never occurred to anyone to carry around toilet paper in case they had to do their business away from home. For sanitary reasons we want people to wipe their behinds. For sexist reasons, we don’t offer the same concern for women who don’t want to bleed on furniture or their clothes. After years of women being shamed into not talking about periods more and more are speaking up.

The “Pink Tax,” the bane of women everywhere, and especially in corporate America. Women’s products and health lies in the hands of corporations who charge more for products geared towards women than their male counterparts. This is usually by a few cents on the dollar, but keep in mind that women are paid less than men. So, this can add up over time, and cause many frustrations.

Section 152(a) provides that for a taxpayer to take a dependency exemption, the potential dependent must satisfy either the qualifying child requirement or the qualifying relative requirement. Section 152(b)(2) indicates that the taxpayer is not permitted a dependency exemption for a married dependent if the married individual files a joint return. Pursuant to section 152(c), the term “qualifying child” refers to an individual who has not furnished over one-half of his or her own support and who has not attained the age of 19 or who has not attained the age of 24, if a full-time student, as of the close of such calendar year. The term “qualifying relative” under section 152(d) includes, but is not limited to, an individual whose gross income is less than the exemption amount and to whom the taxpayer provides over-half of the total individual’s support for the calendar year in which such taxable year begins. Under Reg. Sec. 1.152 (a), support received from the taxpayer is compared to the entire amount of support which the potential dependent received from all sources, including support which the individual supplied himself. Support includes food, shelter, medical and dental care, education, recreation,

The pool cost the petitioner over $19,000, and we cannot accept his contention that such amount was spent primarily for therapy for his leg in view of the limited need for such therapy and the alternatives which were then available.

AmeriSouth argued that cost-segregation study allocates $65,381 of Garden House's depreciable basis to “site preparation and earthwork,” depreciable over 15 years as a land improvement is allowable because it is a “site development,” but nowhere does it describe what work is included in this category. On the other hand, the Commissioner's expert claims that work papers show the expenses relate to the initial clearing and grubbing (i.e., tree removal) of the land which occurred before the apartments' construction in 1970.

I propose an amendment to the current Florida statutes and laws regarding the definition of marriage to include same-sex individuals

The Carters meet the gross income test because their income is not taxed and is not included into their gross income. They both also qualify as a qualifying relative. Florence’s support provided by John and Janet is $4,500 for the year. This includes the $3,500 for the lodging and food and the $1,000 paid for her dental work. Calvin’s support is only $3,500 for the year for lodging and food. His life insurance premiums are exempt and cannot be figured as support. Florence and Calvin spent $4,000 of their own money for their support. Florence passes the support test, but Calvin does not. Therefore, Florence qualifies as a dependent exemption because she passed all three tests. Calvin on the other hand only passed two of the three tests and cannot be claimed as a dependent exemption.

Taxes. Everyone and their mothers absolutely dread even thinking about taxes, let alone paying them. Oh well, your mom has to. It is called the Pink tax. The Pink tax refers to the extra amount tacked on to what women are charged for on particular products and/or services. (It is not a literal tax but it is the price difference in what is fundamentally the same exact product or service but marketed towards women.) Things like dry cleaning, personal care products, and vehicle maintenance costs noticeably more than what men have to pay. Not only is it upsetting to think about, but it is completely absurd due to the fact that women earn less and have to pay more. For half of Kentucky’s population, the Pink

In the article “Job One: Tax Code Rewrite,” William O’Keefe, an author who cares about tax reform, argues that the Obama Administration should rewrite the tax code in order to reduce the unemployment rate. He supports this claim with a formal tone by using opinions and anecdotes as evidence. According to William, we need “systematic reforms to our tax code and regulatory policy.” The author targets a tax reform audience that cares about the economy. William’s purpose is to persuade readers that Obama’s stimulus tax bill will not help the economy or business in the long run. This work is significant because it challenges the Obama Administration to rethink their priorities.

After the passage of the 16th Amendment, the nature and process of taxation changed many times. An author for the Virginia Law Review wrote in 1972, “Developing and maintaining an appropriate tax structure for a nation as economically complex and dynamic as the United States is a mammoth task” (Graetz, p. 1401). Because of this complexity, the nature of the Tax Code would need to be altered to keep up with what the country requires at a given time. Several significant changes have been made to the Tax Code, but none more significant than the passage of the Tax Reform Act of 1986 (TRA 86). TRA 86 was one of the most polarizing changes in tax law and where the current Code gets its name (Spilker et all., 2016, p. 2-11). It brought about more revisions than most people and businesses could keep up with, and it brought to light the deficiencies in implementing amendments to the Code, namely a disturbing lack of awareness from taxpayers of the alterations. Many businesses benefited from the changes—mostly large, well-established firms, but small mom-and-pop stores who have less stake in tax planning suffered (Scholes, Wilson, Wolfson, 1992, p.181). This negative effect would have been avoided if taxpayers had taken precautions and been aware of the impending changes in tax laws and if those changes had been communicated clearly to them.

Additional supporters of bringing back HB 90 to the legislative floor include NARAL Pro-Choice Texas, the Texas Freedom Network, National Katina Institute for Reproductive Health, League of Women Voters, National Association of Social Workers, and the Lilith Fund for Reproductive Women.

Since Colonial times, present day United States of America has experienced taxation exemptions among religious organizations and affiliates. Religious citizens have been protected beyond taxation as well. Louis Fischer found in his article Statutory Exemptions for Religious, “A Pennsylvania law in 1775, omitted military religious citizens to bear military arms. Instead, giving them other non-violent associated jobs among the militia” (292). The Continental Congress in 1775 stated, “some people for religious reasons cannot bear arms.” In 1863 the religious participants Quakers and Shakers were allowed to pay a 300$ fine to substitute military service (Fischer 292). The National Defense Act of 1916 excluded military exemptions from people with

Though there is no definitive date of when the pink tax began, news articles about it began to pop up in about 2009. Recently, there have been more articles about the “tax” as it is becoming more well known and it is growing to more products. Most women think this price difference

ask - “How do you ask a child to be the last child to die for a mistake? And yes; the

The LGBT community has made new laws all the time to bring about equality. One thing that has been having more equality is same-sex marriage. Since June of 2015 the U.S has said it is legal to have same-sex marriage. Lawmakers for years tried to get same-sex marriage approved. Finally, this happened “Lawmakers voted late Friday to legalize same-sex marriage, making New York the largest state where gay and lesbian couples will be able to wed and giving the national gay-rights movement new momentum from the state where it was born” (Confessore, Barbaro). Even though it was finally passed as a law to allow same-sex marriage in America in 2015, many people before that ruling that federal taxes should be used to gain the equality the LGBT move needed