FOR MORE CLASSES VISIT tutorialoutletdotcom CRITICAL THINKING THROUGH WRITING (CTW) PROJECT Analysis of a Presidential Candidate’s Tax Reform Proposal DEADLINE. The open “window” for submitting the paper into the iCollege dropbox is provided in the syllabus. OBJECTIVE.

1. Analysis of a Presidential Candidate's Tax
FOR MORE CLASSES VISIT
tutorialoutletdotcom
CRITICAL THINKING THROUGH WRITING (CTW) PROJECT
Analysis of a Presidential Candidate’s Tax Reform Proposal
DEADLINE.
The open “window” for submitting the paper into the iCollege dropbox
is provided in the
syllabus.
OBJECTIVE.
To properly advise clients, tax professionals must understand not only
the current rules but also
where the law is going. Therefore, they must follow tax policy debates
and stay informed about
proposals to change our tax system. Each of the 20+ U.S. 2016
Presidential candidates has
proposed her/his own ideas for reforming the federal tax system. It is
likely that portions of one
or more of the candidates’ tax reform plans will see action under the new
Administration after
2016. Therefore, the objective of this paper is to provide compelling
arguments supporting the
tax reform plan of any one of the presidential candidates. You may
select any legitimate
candidate, including one who may have dropped out of the race.
GRADING RUBRIC.
The paper counts approximately 3.3% of the overall course grade (a
maximum of 10 points out
of 300 total possible course points). The quiz grade will be posted on a
100-point scale prior to

2. the last class session.
It is anticipated that this will be a "think" paper and not a
research paper. Therefore, any sources
used should be presented within the narrative rather then with footnotes.
The paper will be
evaluated according to the following grading rubric:
Maximum Points
Description
# Pts.
% Points
Presentation
of
policy 2
20%
obj
ecti
ves
to
be
achi
eve
d
Summary of the proposed 2
20%
cha
nge
s
Advocacy of the proposed 2
20%
cha
nge
s 1 Overall organization and 4
stru
ctur
e 40% Maximum number of points10 100% PRESENTATION OF

3. POLICY OBJECTIVE TO BE ACHIEVED (20%).
Persuasive Opening. The paper should open with a persuasive, “bleeding
heart” appeal to
correct an inequity in the tax system or to stimulate a certain segment of
society. Areas to
consider might include simplifying the tax code, stimulating capital
expenditures, encouraging
higher education, eliminating the marriage penalty, redistributing wealth
to help the needy,
strengthening the economy, etc.). The policy objective should be
thorough. For example, if the
selected presidential candidate's objective is to eliminate the marriage
penalty, it would not be
enough to state that society generally regards marriage as a valued
institution. A more persuasive
policy objective should provide several reasons why marriage is so
regarded by society (e.g.,
effect on children, crime, financial stability, etc.) and to point out how
tax law undermines
marriage.
Avoiding Frivolous Statements. An effective policy objective should
avoid frivolous assertions,
e.g., “Congress should mitigate the marriage penalty due to the high cost
of weddings.”
SUMMARY OF THE PROPOSED CHANGES (20%).
This section should offer specific changes to the tax system being
proposed by the selected
presidential candidate.
Linkage Between Proposed Changes and Policy Objectives. Proposed
changes to the tax
system should be thoughtfully developed and carefully linked to the
policy objectives provided
at the opening of the paper.
Depth of Proposed Changes. Each proposed change should clearly
explain (a) how the current

4. law creates an inequity in society, (b) the “nuts and bolts” of the
proposed change, and (c) how
the proposed change would eliminate the inequity.
Relevance of Information Presented. “Nuts and bolts” details supporting
a given proposal
should be relevant. Too much detail (e.g., a sea of numbers) or
misdirected information (e.g.,
saying the IRS is to blame for the marriage penalty) may weaken the
argument.
Effective Use of Tables for Comparative Data. Any comparative data
presented should be
presented in a table, not in a paragraph. The table should be preceded by
a sentence explaining
the purpose of the table. All data within the table should be clearly
labeled. The table should
convey a point rather than merely list the data.
Concise Arguments. Arguments should be concise, not verbose with
redundant wording that
merely takes up space but add little value to the argument. 2 Accurate
Explanation of Current Tax Law. Any reference to the current tax law
should be
accurate.
ADVOCACY OF THE PROPOSED CHANGES (20%).
This section should explain how the proposed changes will achieve the
policy objective.
Careful Consideration of Criticism. The paper should anticipate possible
criticisms and offer
resolutions. For example, on the subject of educational tax credits, one
common criticism might
be that tax credits would create a drain on Treasury revenues. A
response to this anticipated
criticism might follow along the line that a more educated work force
would enable the Treasury
to recoup its short-term loss over the long-term. When referring to the
consequence of a proposal

5. on a quantitative concept such as the Treasury or a segment of the
population, try to quantify
your terms, even if it means taking an educated guess.
Substantiated Support for Arguments. When presenting factual support
for arguments, try to
avoid choosing words that tend to add subjectivity to your position. For
example: Subjective wording: Twenty million married couples are hurt
by the marriage penalty.
(How are they “hurt?”) Objective wording: Twenty million married
couples paid an average $1,400 of additional
taxes solely because they chose to be married rather than single.
Subjective wording: The majority of taxpayers take the standard
deduction. (Too
ambiguous—“majority” can mean any percentage between 51 and 100
percent.) Objective wording: Historically, about 70 percent of taxpayers
claim the standard
deduction.
Careful Choice of Wording. Arguments with carefully chosen words
tend to be more
persuasive. Poor choice of wording. The Code should be reversed.
Proper choice of wording: The Code should be revised.
Try to avoid using slang. It tends to undermine the appearance of
objectivity. Poor choice of wording. In 1969, Congress tweaked the
Code. Proper choice of wording: In 1969, Congress widened the income
tax brackets for single
filers from 50 percent to 60 percent of the brackets for joint filers.
Careful Choice of Facts. A forceful argument of the proposals should be
consistent with the
policy objective. Avoid stating a fact that might weaken your position.
For example, the
statement, “No study has been made to establish that tax incentives
actually affect marriage
decisions,” may or may not be true, but why would an advocate for the
repeal of the marriage
penalty make such a statement? It suggests that couples contemplating

6. marriage would be
indifferent to the repeal of the marriage penalty.
Forceful Conclusion. A forceful conclusion should clearly describe the
economic and social
impact of the proposal. It should not be redundant (e.g., repeating
previous arguments in detail)
nor too brief (e.g., repeating the appeal for marriage reform too broadly,
such as in one or two
sentences without summarizing the economic or social justification. 3
OVERALL ORGANIZATION AND STRUCTURE (40%).
The following writing parameters must be followed: Length. Not more
than one page—but more than a few sentences; Spacing. Single-spaced;
Font type: Times New Roman; Font size: #12 font size; Margins:
1" margins; block the right-hand margins. Right-hand blocking is
simple but
effective for a polished business communication. It merely requires
scanning the contents
and pressing the block-formatting command. Using grammar-check
& spell-check. Obvious grammatical errors and spelling errors
(“From my understanding the transactions we [sic] that have occurred,”
“… received a
load [sic] from First National Bank,” “Per you [sic] question,” “Here is a
few
information … ,” “This difference will be show [sic] as either …,”
“singed” for
“signed,” et. al.) should be avoided with Microsoft Word’s check-
controls. Using headers effectively. Long, multiple paragraphs should be
preceded by short,
concise headers that let the reader know what you’re about to say. (Hint:
Consider
making headers from the first three parts of the grading rubric above.)
Writing in third person. Write all solutions in third person; avoid writing
in first (“I, me”)
or second person (“you”). Third person conveys an air of objectivity, an
essential

7. professional standard of CPAs. Avoiding casual or subjective language.
Try to avoid using language that may be viewed
by the reader as casual or subjective (e.g., “First off … ,” or “… there
are a few things
that will worry the IRS,” “… so you do not need to fret right now …,”
et. al.) Avoiding run-on sentences. Try to avoid run-on sentences such as
this 61-word sentence:
“However, because $3 million goes toward retiring the outstanding
balance of the
short term note, the remaining $7 million goes toward the contraction
costs for
year 2, and $0 is used to replenish the cash used by ABC company is
able to
exclude the full amount of the short-term note payable from the current
liability
section of its year 1 balance sheet.” Citing sources or supporting
authority. An analysis is not complete without reference to
sources or supporting authority. Writing with emphasis on the “journey,”
not the “destination.” Short, choppy
conclusions score poorly in both academic and professional
environments. Better to
support conclusions with a thorough analysis.
GETTING STARTED. To help get you started, consider these two
sources:
1. The Tax Foundation provides a comparison of presidential candidates'
tax proposals at:
http://taxfoundation.org/blog/comparison-presidential-tax-plans-and-
their-economiceffects
2. A comprehensive listing of 2016 Presidential candidates with links to
their websites,
Facebook pages, and Twitter feeds is available at:
http://www.politics1.com/p2016.htm
HOW TO SUBMIT THE CTW PAPER. After completing the CTW
paper in a word
document, upload it into the dropbox by following these steps:

8. 1. Click on “Assessment” in iCollege.
4 2. Click on “Dropbox.”
3. Click on “Crititcal Thinking Through Writing (Extra Credit Paper).”
4. Review the grading rubric at “CTW Paper-Grading Rubric (Revised
2017)” and make any
necessary adjustments to your CTW paper.
5. If satisfied with your CTW paper, click “Add a File.”
6. Then click on “Upload.”
7. Select the file in your computer containing your CTW paper.
8. Click “Add.”
9. Make sure this is the file you wish to add. Course policy permits only
one submittal.
10. Click “Submit.”
11. Click “Done.”
***************************************************