Tennessee’s tax paying citizens could recover between $110 million and $250 million per year by requiring ‘combined reporting’ for corporations who currently use Delaware holding companies to avoid paying state taxes.

from Tennesseans for fair taxation: “Based on revenue estimates from 11 other states, we know that combined reporting could potentially recover between $110 million and $250 million currently being lost through tax loopholes.”

(Delaware is well known as a corporate haven, and thus, over 50% of US publicly-traded corporations and 60% of the Fortune 500 companies are incorporated in the state.[1])

Brian , from Tennesseans for fair taxation, online at http://www.fairtaxation.org created the video below to help Tennesseans understand why they should write to their Congressmen and help to close the Corporate tax loophole that is robbing local taxpayers of money that should be helping to improve local schools and infrastructure:

Visit warongreed.org to read numerous recent articles about the current climate for fair taxation in America.

from Tenneseans for fair taxation: …”Combined reporting is an accounting method already used by 21 states representing over half the US economy. It requires businesses with multiple subsidiaries to file a single, unified tax return for the parent company and all its affiliates. In the process, it shuts the door to a wide array of corporate tax avoidance strategies with one simple, common sense change in reporting. Corporations can still shift profits back and forth between their various subsidiaries, but there is no long a tax advantage in doing so under combined reporting. Based on revenue estimates from 11 other states, we know that combined reporting could potentially recover between $110 million and $250 million currently being lost through tax loopholes.”


A brief lesson on the “regressive” effects of a sales tax (and other ‘regressive’ taxation techniques which lead to poorer people paying higher percentage of incomes in taxes than those more fortunate in America:

A lesson on Regressive taxation brought to you by several anonymous contributors at Wikipedia (see whole article here), the world’s leading collaborative encyclopedia:

“A regressive tax is a tax imposed in such a manner that the effective tax rate decreases as the amount subject to taxation increases.[1][2][3][4] In simple terms, it imposes a greater burden (relative to resources) on the poor than on the rich. “Regressive” describes a distribution effect on income or expenditure, refering to the way the rate progresses from high to low. It can be applied to individual taxes or to a tax system as a whole; a year, multi-year, or lifetime. Regressive taxes attempt to reduce the tax incidence of people with higher ability-to-pay, as they shift the incidence disproportionately to those with lower ability-to-pay.

A simplified illustration of a regressive tax on income (proportional on consumption) is as follows: If Jane has $10 and John has $5, a tax of $1 on a purchase would result in a different percentage of total income applied to taxation, 20% for John and 10% for Jane. Thus, a tax that is fixed to the value of the good/service (as with sales tax)(without exemptions or rebates) would likely, in effect, result in a higher burden of taxation to people with less money (depending on consumption level and timeline examined – year or lifetime).

The opposite of a regressive tax is a progressive tax, where the tax rate increases as the amount subject to taxation increases.[5][6][7][8] In between is a proportional tax, where the tax rate is fixed as the amount subject to taxation increases.

The term is frequently applied in reference to fixed taxes, where every person has to pay the same amount of money. The regressivity of a particular tax often depends on the propensity of the tax payers to engage in the taxed activity relative to their income. In other words, if the activity being taxed is more likely to be carried out by the poor and less likely to be carried out by the rich, then the tax may be considered regressive. To determine whether a tax is regressive, the income-elasticity of the good being taxed as well as the income-substitution effect must be considered.


A regressive tax system does not mean and likely would not result in low income earners paying more taxes than the wealthy, only that the effective tax rate relative to income or consumption would be a larger tax burden to low income earners.”

Larry the Loophole! Educating us all on equitable taxation in America

see more educational taxation videos here.


Recommended Articles
Larry the Loophole will help you learn!hit play!
by Nomi Prins, Mother Jones
The KKR Way (pdf)by Richard Teitelbaum, Bloomberg
A Backlash Against Billionaires by David Ignatius, Washington Post
Corporations Increasingly Run This Countryby Rick Coddington, Mountian Mail
Pirates of Private Equityby Adam Doster, In These Times
Penny Foolishby Eric Schlosser, New York Times
Greed by Cliff Schecter
Featured Experts
Jeff Faux
Recommended Reports
Prepared by the Service Employees International Union
by United for A Fair Economy
Prepared by the Service Employees International Union
Prepared by the International Trade Union Confederation
Recommended Books
by Bryan Burrough and John Helyar, Collin Business Essentials, 1990

by Thom Hartmann, Berrett-Koehler Publishers, 2006

by David Cay Johnston, Portfolio Hardcover, 2003
by Robert Kuttner, Random House, 2007
by Sarah Bartlett, Replica Books, 1991
by George Anders, Beard Books, 2002
by William Greider, Simon & Schuster, 2003
