Laserfiche WebLink
of additional revenue collected as a result of the tax increase from its calculation of actual <br />revenue.298 <br />As is the case with tax cuts, discussed above, tax increases that must be reflected in the <br />calculation of revenue include final legislative or regulatory action or a new or changed <br />administrative interpretation that increases any tax and that the recipient assesses has had the <br />effect of increasing tax revenue relative to current law. In assessing whether a tax change has had <br />the effect of increasing tax revenue, recipients may either calculate the actual effect on revenue <br />or rely on estimates prepared at the time the tax change was adopted. Recipients may rely on <br />information typically prepared in the course of developing the budget (e.g., expected revenues) <br />and/or considering tax changes (e.g., budget scores, revenue notes) to determine the amount of <br />revenue that was collected as a result of the tax increase as long as those estimates are based on <br />reasonable assumptions and do not use dynamic methodologies that incorporate the projected <br />effects of macroeconomic growth, given that macroeconomic growth is accounted for in the <br />counterfactual growth assumptions. Recipients that choose to calculate the actual effect of a tax <br />change on revenue must similarly base their calculations on reasonable estimates that do not use <br />dynamic methodologies. Recipients should apply this adjustment in determining their actual <br />revenue totals at Step 3 in the revenue loss calculation described above. <br />298 The final rule does not permit recipients to reflect the effects of other changes in policy, such as increases in fees <br />adopted after adoption of the final rule. Treasury understands that the main beneficiaries of such a change would be <br />those recipients that will benefit from the standard allowance provided for in the final rule and that for other <br />recipients the administrative burden on recipients needed to calculate these adjustments would outweigh the benefit <br />of having a somewhat larger amount of funds available for government services. <br />256 <br />