|An aspect of fiscal policy|
|This section requires expansion. (June 2008)|
In many jurisdictions, companies are required to withhold at least the standard tax, paying this to the national revenue authorities and paying out only the balance to the shareholders.
||This section has been nominated to be checked for its neutrality. (July 2012)|
||The examples and perspective in this section may not represent a worldwide view of the subject. (November 2013)|
Depending on the jurisdiction dividend income along with interest income, collected rents, or other "unearned income" may also be taxed and is the subject of recurring debate as to whether or not these taxes should be eliminated.
Arguments in favor
A corporation is a legal entity that can own property, sue or be sued, and enter into contracts. The corporation is, therefore, separate from its shareholders with a "life" of its own. As a separate entity, a corporation has the right to use public goods as an individual does, and is therefore obligated to help pay for the public goods through taxes.
Professor Confidence W. Amadi of West Georgia University has argued,
- "The greatest advantage of the corporate form of business organization is the limited liability protection accorded its owners. Taxation of corporate income is the price of that protection. This price must be worth the benefits since, according to the Internal Revenue Service (1996), corporations account for less than 20 percent of all U.S. business firms, but about 90 percent of U.S. business revenues and approximately 70 percent of U.S. business profits. The benefits of limited liability independent of those enjoyed by shareholders, the flexibility of change in ownership, and the immense ability to raise capital are all derived from the legal entity status accorded corporations by the law. This equal status requires that corporations pay income taxes."
Although the above is an argument for corporate taxation as opposed to the taxation of dividends, arguments for the taxation of income from capital would apply to both and on that count it can be argued that from a social policy standpoint it is unfair, and unproductive economically, to tax income generated through active work at a higher rate than income generated through less active means. Also, because earned income derived from a corporation is also reduced by corporate tax paid, the application of a "double taxation" argument only in the passive unearned income argument, is logically inconsistent.
One issue with the above arguments in favor is that income must account for liabilities. If the corporation is treated as an entity separate from its shareholders then any of its gains are offset by equal growth of its liability to the shareholders (whom it owes all its assets). Thus net income is always zero and any tax would not be an income tax. If not separated from the shareholders, then corporate income tax is a sort of early withholding against expected future shareholders liability. Then the shareholders should get a deduction (from dividends and capital gains) for income taxed at the corporate level.
Critics, such as the Cato Institute, argue that a dividend tax amounts to unfair "double taxation". Double taxation refers to cases where tax is levied twice on the same income or gain, for example when a company incorporated in Country A has a branch in Country B, and both countries levy tax on the profits of the branch. This is often mitigated by tax treaties. The same can apply if an individual resident in Country A works in Country B, and both countries tax the employee's wages. But even within the same jurisdiction, profits can be taxed twice as when dividends, which are distributed corporate profits, are taxed in the hands of the shareholder, and the company has already paid a corporate tax on these same profits. This means that the shareholders, as owners of the profits, have already been taxed.
Cato's position is,
- "First, high dividend taxes add to the income tax code's general bias against savings and investment. Second, high dividend taxes cause corporations to rely too much on debt rather than equity financing. Highly indebted firms are more vulnerable to bankruptcy in economic downturns. Third, high dividend taxes reduce the incentive to pay out dividends in favor of retained earnings. That may cause corporate executives to invest in wasteful or unprofitable projects."
Economists use the term "double taxation" in reference to the tax on dividends due to the fact that dividend income is paid out of corporate profits and represent a portion of the profit stream owned by shareholders. Since corporate profits are taxed first at the corporate tax rate, they are taxed again when paid out as dividends (or capital gains, which are a derivative of corporate profits). Therefore, to find the true tax on capital, the corporate tax rate is added to the dividend tax and capital gains tax. This calculation is complicated by the fact that some shareholders own shares in tax-deferred accounts, which are ultimately taxed at the personal income tax level (often but not always higher than the capital gains or dividend tax rate) upon withdrawal. Since debt financing is often tax-deductible, companies are incentivized to borrow, thus reducing taxable income but leveraging the growth rate of profits and capital gains. The result of this activity is to increase the volatility of corporate profits and thus stock price movements, which increases the probability of bankruptcy.
It (see "arguments in favor" above) is sometimes argued by proponents of dividend taxation that employee wages are subject to the same double taxation, on the theory that corporate tax reduces the company's income available to pay wages, just as much as it reduces the amount available to pay dividends. However, employee wages are determined by employee contracts and the employer would therefore have to wait for the expiration of these contracts before wages can be lowered in response to a corporate tax bill increase. Shareholders, on the other hand, are entitled only to the residue of profits after meeting all other expenses, including corporate taxes. So if corporate taxes rise, the shareholder is entitled to less. Moreover, wages, unlike dividends, are deductible in the computation of corporate taxable profits, and so pass to employees with no amount deducted for tax at the corporate level. These factors make it a priori more likely for corporations to pass on an increased corporate tax bill to the shareholders, still, in the long term market pressures could in theory lead to at least some of the additional cost being passed on to employees.
Dividend tax policy
In 2003, President George W. Bush proposed to eliminate the U.S. dividend tax saying that "double taxation is bad for our economy and falls especially hard on retired people". He also argued that while "it's fair to tax a company's profits, it's not fair to double-tax by taxing the shareholder on the same profits."
|2003 – 2007||2008 – 2012||2013 – forward|
|Ordinary Income Tax Rate||Ordinary Dividend
|Ordinary Income Tax Rate||Ordinary Dividend
|Ordinary Income Tax Rate||Ordinary Dividend
Soon after, Congress passed the Jobs and Growth Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2003 (JGTRRA), which included some of the cuts Bush requested and which he signed into law on May 28, 2003. Under the new law, qualified dividends are taxed at the same rate as long-term capital gains, which is 15 percent for most individual taxpayers. Qualified dividends received by individuals in the 10% and 15% income tax brackets were taxed at 5% from 2003 to 2007. The qualified dividend tax rate was set to expire December 31, 2008; however, the Tax Increase Prevention and Reconciliation Act of 2005 (TIPRA) extended the lower tax rate through 2010 and further cut the tax rate on qualified dividends to 0% for individuals in the 10% and 15% income tax brackets. On December 17, 2010, President Barack Obama signed into law the Tax Relief, Unemployment Insurance Reauthorization and Job Creation Act of 2010. The legislation extends for two additional years the changes enacted to the taxation of dividends in the JGTRRA and TIPRA.
In addition, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act created a new Net Investment Income Tax (NIIT) of 3.8% that applies to dividends, capital gains, and several other forms of passive investment income, effective January 1, 2013. The NIIT applies to married taxpayers with modified adjusted gross income over $250,000, and single taxpayers with modified adjusted gross income over $200,000. Unlike the thresholds for ordinary income tax rates and the qualified dividend rates, the NIIT threshold is not inflation-adjusted.
Had the Bush-era federal income tax rates of 10, 15, 25, 28, 33 and 35 percent brackets been allowed to expire for tax year 2012, the rates would have increased to the Clinton-era rate schedule of 15, 28, 31, 36, and 39.6 percent. In that scenario, qualified dividends would no longer be taxed at the long-term capital gains rate, but would revert to being taxed at the taxpayer's regular income tax rate. However, the American Taxpayer Relief Act of 2012 (H.R. 8) was passed by the United States Congress and signed into law by President Barack Obama in the first days of 2013. This legislation extended the 0 and 15 percent capital gains and dividends tax rates for taxpayers whose income does not exceed the thresholds set for the highest income tax rate (39.6 percent). Those who exceed those thresholds ($400,000 for single filers; $425,000 for heads of households; $450,000 for joint filers; $11,950 for estates and trusts) became subject to a top rate of 20 percent for capital gains and dividends.
In Canada, there is taxation of dividends, but tax policy attempts to compensate for this through the Dividend Tax Credit or DTC for personal income in dividends from Canadian corporations. An increase to the DTC was announced in the fall of 2005 by Liberal finance minister Ralph Goodale just prior to the fall of the Liberal minority government, in conjunction with the announcement that Canadian income trusts would not become subject to dividend taxation as had been feared. Effective tax rates on dividends will now range from negative to over 30% depending on income level and different provincial tax rates and credits.
In India, earlier dividends were taxed in the hands of the recipient as any other income. However, since 1 June 1997, all domestic companies were liable to pay a dividend distribution tax on the profits distributed as dividends resulting in a smaller net dividend to the recipients. The rate of taxation alternated between 10% and 20% until the tax was abolished with effect from 31 March 2002. The dividend distribution tax was also extended to dividends distributed since 1 June 1999 by domestic mutual funds, with the rate alternating between 10% and 20% in line with the rate for companies, up to 31 March 2002. However, dividends from open-ended equity oriented funds distributed between 1 April 1999 to 31 March 2002 were not taxed. Hence the dividends received from domestic companies since 1 June 1997, and domestic mutual funds since 1 June 1999, were made non-taxable in the hands of the recipients to avoid double-taxation, until 31 March 2002.
The budget for the financial year 2002–2003 proposed the removal of dividend distribution tax bringing back the regime of dividends being taxed in the hands of the recipients and the Finance Act 2002 implemented the proposal for dividends distributed since 1 April 2002. This fueled negative sentiments in the Indian stock markets causing stock prices to go down. However the next year there were wide expectations for the budget to be friendlier to the markets and the dividend distribution tax was reintroduced.
Hence the dividends received from domestic companies and mutual funds since 1 April 2003 were again made non-taxable at the hands of the recipients. However the new dividend distribution tax rate for companies was higher at 12.5%, and was increased with effect from 1 April 2007 to 15%. Also, the funds of the Unit Trust of India and open-ended equity oriented funds were kept out of the tax net[verification needed]. The taxation rate for mutual funds was originally 12.5% but was increased to 20% for dividends distributed to entities other than individuals with effect from 9 July 2004. With effect from 1 June 2006 all equity oriented funds were kept out of the tax net but the tax rate was increased to 25% for money market and liquid funds with effect from 1 April 2007.
Dividend income received by domestic companies until 31 March 1997 carried a deduction in computing the taxable income but the provision was removed with the advent of the dividend distribution tax. A deduction to the extent of received dividends redistributed in turn to their shareholders resurfaced briefly from 1 April 2002 to 31 March 2003 during the time the dividend distribution tax was removed to avoid double taxation of the dividends both in the hands of the company and its shareholders but there has been no similar provision for dividend distribution tax. However the budget for 2008–2009 proposes to remove the double taxation for the specific case of dividends received by a domestic holding company (with no parent company) from a subsidiary that is in turn distributed to its shareholders.
In Australia dividends are taxed at the recipient's marginal tax rate (up to 45% from 1 July 2006). Australia (like New Zealand) has a dividend imputation system which allows franking credits to be attached to dividends. This allows recipients of franked dividends to impute (or credit) the corporate tax paid by the paying company. A recipient of a fully franked dividend on the top marginal tax rate will effectively pay only about 15% tax on the cash amount of the dividend.
In Austria the KeSt (Kapitalertragssteuer) is used as dividend tax rate, which is 25% on dividends.
In Belgium there is a tax of 25% (or 15% for saving accounts or 21% under certain conditions) on dividends, known as "roerende voorheffing" (in Dutch) or "précompte mobilier" (in French).
In Bulgaria there is a tax of 5% on dividends.
In the Czech Republic there is a tax of 15% on dividends. Government in 2012 wanted to reduce double taxation on corporates income, but this did not pass in the end.
In Finland, there is a tax of 25,5% or 27,2% on dividends (85% of dividend is taxable capital income and capital gain tax rate is 30% for capital gains lower than 40 000 and 32% for the part that exceeds 40 000). However, effective tax rates are 45.5% or 47.2% for private person. That's because corporate earnings have already been taxed, which means that dividends are taxed twice. Corporate income tax is 20%.
In France there is a tax of 30% on dividends. 60% on the business owners.
In Germany there is a tax of 25% on dividends, known as "Abgeltungssteuer", plus a solidarity tax of 5.5% on the dividend tax. Effectually there is a tax of 26.375%.
In Iran there are no taxes on dividends, according to article (105).
In Ireland, companies paying dividends must generally withhold tax at the standard rate (as of 2007[update], 20%) from the dividend and issue a tax voucher to include details of the tax paid. A person not liable to tax can reclaim it at the end of year, while a person liable to a higher rate of tax must declare it and pay the difference.
In Israel there is a tax of 25% on dividends for individuals and 30% for major shareholders (=above 10%). if a company receives a dividend, the tax it 0%.
In Italy there is a tax of 26% on dividends, known as "capital gain tax".
In Japan, there is a tax of 10% on dividends from listed stocks (7% for Nation, 3% for Region) while Jan 1st 2009 - Dec 31 2012, by tax reduction rule. After Jan 1st 2013, the tax of 20% on dividends from listed stocks (15% for Nation, 5% for Region). In case of an individual person who has over 5% of total issued stocks (value or number), he/she can not apply the tax reduction rule, so after Jan 1st 2009, should pay 20%(15%+5%). There is a tax of 20% on dividends from Non-listed stocks (20% for Nation, 0% for Region).
In Luxembourg, only 50% of dividends paid out by corporations is subject to tax in the hands of an individual tax payer at the applicable marginal tax rate. Therefore, dividends are taxed at up to 20% if received from a corporation that is subject to tax and up to 40% if received from a corporation that does not satisfy the "subject to tax" test.
In the Netherlands there is a tax of 25% on dividends. There's also a tax of 1.2% per year on the value of the share, regardless of the dividend, as part of the flat tax on savings and investments.
In Norway dividends are taxed as capital gains, at a flat 27% tax rate. However a "shelter deduction" is applied to the dividend income to compensate for the lost interest income. The size of the shelter deduction is based on the interest rate on short term government bonds and was 1.1% in 2013. For example, if NOK 100,000 has been invested in a company stock that gave a dividend of NOK 4,000, the shelter deduction is NOK 1,100 (1.1% of NOK 100,000) and the remaining NOK 2,900 is taxed at 27%.
In Pakistan income tax of 10% as required by the Income Tax Ordinace, 2001 on the amount of dividend is deducted at source. A surcharge of 15% on income tax is withheld and will be duly paid by the company to Government of Pakistan as per Income Tax (Amendment) Ordinance, 2011.
In Poland there is a tax of 19% on dividends. This rate is equal to the rates of capital gains and other taxes.
In Romania there is a tax of 16% on dividends.
In Slovakia, tax residents' income from dividends is not subject to income taxation in the Slovak Republic pursuant to Article 12 Section 7 Letter c) for legal entities and to Article 3 Section 2 Letter c) for individual entities of Income Tax Act No. 595/2003 Coll. as amended. This applies to dividends from profits relating to the calendar year 2004 onwards (regardless of when the dividends were actually paid out). Before that, dividends were taxed as normal income. The stated justification is that tax at 19 percent has already been paid by the company as part of its corporation tax (in Slovak "Income Tax for a Legal Entity"). However, there is no provision for residents to reclaim tax on dividends withheld in other jurisdictions with which Slovakia has a double-taxation treaty. Foreign resident owners of shares in Slovak companies may have to declare and pay tax in their local jurisdiction. Shares of profits made by investment funds are taxable as income at 19 percent. Resident natural persons have to pay 14% of received dividends as health insurance with maximum payment of €14.000, non-resident natural persons and companies are not subject of this "capital gain health tax".
In South Africa there is a tax of 15% on dividends.
In Taiwan, the dividends are taken into account in the taxation of one's gross income, though varying from one stock to another, there is a specific deduction rate to the gross income tax if one holds this corresponding stock on the in-dividend date (once per year). Beginning from January 2013, there will be an additional 2% "tax" on all dividends, serving as the supplemental premium for the second-generation National Health Insurance (NHI) of Taiwan.
In the United Kingdom, companies pay UK corporation tax on their profits and the remainder can be paid to shareholders as dividends. Basic rate tax payers have no further tax to pay as the dividend is deemed to have been received net of 10% tax. Higher-rate taxpayers must pay tax of 25% of the net dividend received (32.5% less the 10% deemed tax deduction, calculated on the deemed gross payment of the dividend). Additional-rate taxpayers (total income above £150,000 per year) must pay a 36.1% tax on the net dividend received.
- Corporate tax: company shareholder taxation
- Passive income
- Estate tax (United States)
- State income tax
- Double taxation
- Taxation in the United States
- Withholding tax
- Double Taxation of Dividends: Is the Question Resolved? By Novella Clevenger and Ken Pfannenstiel published in New Accountant magazine.
- http://www.westga.edu/~bquest/2002/double.htm Double Taxation of Dividends: A Clarification by Confidence W. Amadi
- http://www.cato.org/research/articles/edwards-030108.html The Cato Institute
- "Tax Law Changes for 2008 - 2017." Kiplinger's. <www.kiplinger.com> Published March 2009. Accessed 28 August 2009.
- "Two Year Extension of Bush-era Tax Cut Becomes Law Published December 21, 2010. Accessed December 31, 2010.
- "Questions and Answers on the Net Investment Income Tax" Internal Revenue Service
- Indian dividend distribution taxes are subject to a surcharge since 2000 and an education cess since 2004 — as of 2007[update] the effect is to increase the tax to 1.133 times the rate, as per the sub-sections (4), (11) and (12) of the section 2 of the PDF (245 KiB)
- Section 115-O of the Income Tax Act in India as of 2002, added by the Finance Act 1997, modified by the Finance Acts 2000, 2001 and 2002
- Section 115R of the Income Tax Act in India as of 2002, added by the Finance Act 1999, modified by the Finance Acts 2000, 2001 and 2002 
- Sub-section (34) of the section 10 of the Income Tax Act in India as of 2002, added by the Finance Act 1997, modified by the Finance Act 1999 and removed by the Finance Act 2002 — The tax on dividends from companies was excluded since the tax assessment year 1 Apr 1998–31 Mar 1999, i.e. for income received since the financial year 1 Apr 1997–31 Mar 1998, however the section 115-O was introduced only with effect from 1 June 1997. Similarly for dividends from mutual funds the tax was excluded since the assessment year 2000-2001, i.e. for income received since 1 June 1999. The tax was brought back for the assessment year 2003-2004, i.e. for income received since 1 April 2002.
- "rediff.com: How the Budget affects the Sensex". Retrieved 14 May 2015.
- "rediff.com: How the Budget affects the Sensex". Retrieved 14 May 2015.
- Sub-sections (34), (35) of the section 10 of the Income Tax Act in India as of 2007[update], added by the Finance Act 2003 — The tax was excluded since the tax assessment year 2004–2005, i.e. for income received since 1 Apr 2003.
- "Taxmann.com::..Direct Tax Laws". Retrieved 14 May 2015.
- Section 115R of the Income Tax Act in India as of 2004, modified after 2002 by the Finance Act 2003 and Finance (No. 2) Act 2004
- "Taxmann.com::..Direct Tax Laws". Retrieved 14 May 2015.
- Section 80M of the Income Tax Act in India as of 1997, added by the Finance (No. 2) Act 1967, modified by various Finance Acts and removed by the Finance Act 1997 — The deduction was removed since the tax assessment year 1998–1999, i.e. for income received since 1 Apr 1997.
- Section 80M of the Income Tax Act in India as of 2003, added by the Finance Act 2002 and removed by the Finance Act 2003
- "Government of India : Union Budget and Economic Survey (http://indiabudget.nic.in)". Retrieved 14 May 2015.
- "No.1330 配当金を受け取ったとき(配当所得)". Retrieved 14 May 2015.
- art. 115 Sect. 15a of the Loi modifiée du 4 décembre 1967 concernant l'impôt sur le revenu
- "The Dutch income tax system explained". Retrieved 14 May 2015.
- United States
- Double Taxation Double Speak: Why Repealing Dividend Taxes Is Unfair from Dollars & Sense magazine
- The new U.S. dividend tax cut traps from Tennessee CPA Journal
- IRS Publication 17 on taxation of dividends