House Ways & Means Committee Issues Report on Protecting Family, Small Business Tax Cuts Act (Part 2 of 2)

WASHINGTON, Sept. 27 -- The House Ways and Means Committee issued a report (H.Rpt. 115-958) on legislation (H.R. 6760) to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to make permanent certain provisions of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act affecting individuals, families, and small businesses. The report was advanced by Rep. Kevin Brady, R-Texas, on Sept. 24.

Continues from Part 1 of 2

E. Tax Complexity Analysis

Section 4022(b) of the Internal Revenue Service Restructuring and Reform Act of 1998 ("IRS Reform Act") requires the staff of the Joint Committee on Taxation (in consultation with the Internal Revenue Service and the Treasury Department) to provide a tax complexity analysis. The complexity analysis is required for all legislation reported by the Senate Committee on Finance, the House Committee on Ways and Means, or any committee of conference if the legislation includes a provision that directly or indirectly amends the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 and has widespread applicability to individuals or small businesses.

Pursuant to clause 3(h)(1) of rule XIII of the Rules of the House of Representatives, for each such provision identified by the staff of the Joint Committee on Taxation, a summary description of the provision is provided below along with an estimate of the number and type of affected taxpayers, and a discussion regarding the relevant complexity and administrative issues.

Following the analysis of the staff of the Joint Committee on Taxation are the comments of the IRS and Treasury regarding each provision included in the complexity analysis.

Make permanent modification of tax rates, tax brackets, standard deduction and repeal of personal exemptions (secs. 101, 121, and 141 of the bill)

Summary description of the provisions

The bill makes permanent the structure of the individual income tax as modified in Pub. L. No. 97-115. Under the permanent rate structure, the tax brackets are 10-percent, 12- percent, 22-percent, 24-percent, 32-percent, 35-percent and 37- percent. The bill makes permanent the increase in the size the standard deduction amount (for 2018 the standard deduction is $24,000 for joint filers, $18,000 for heads of household and $12,000 for other filers), and makes permanent the elimination of personal exemptions.

Number of affected taxpayers

It is estimated that the provision will affect approximately 129 million tax returns in 2026.

Discussion

It is not anticipated that individuals will need to keep additional records due to these provisions. It should not result in an increase in disputes with the IRS, nor will regulatory guidance be necessary to implement this provision.

The provision will save the IRS from needing to re-adjust its wage withholding tables to reflect the expiration of these provisions for the taxable year 2026. Further, the IRS will no longer need to modify its forms and publications to reflect the expiration of these provisions for taxable year 2026.

Taxpayers who, under the provisions of Pub. L. No. 115-97, were able to claim the standard deduction rather than itemizing, will now continue to be able to do so after taxable year 2025. According to estimates by the staff of the Joint Committee on Taxation, approximately 89 percent of taxpayers will claim the standard deduction in 2026 under the bill, up from approximately 70 percent in 2017. For these taxpayers, it will not be necessary to file Schedule A to Form 1040, allowing a significant number to forgo record keeping inherent in itemizing below-the-line deductions. Moreover, by claiming the standard deduction, such taxpayers may qualify to use simpler versions of the Form 1040 (i.e., Form 1040EZ or Form 1040A) that are not available to individuals who itemize their deductions. These forms simplify the return preparation process by eliminating from the Form 1040 those items that do not apply to particular taxpayers.

This reduction in complexity and record keeping also may result in a decline in the number of individuals using a tax preparation service, or tax preparation software, or a decline in the cost of such service or software. The provision also should reduce the number of disputes between taxpayers and the IRS regarding the substantiation of itemized deductions.

Make permanent the deduction for qualified business income (sec. 111 of the bill)

Summary description of the provisions

The bill makes permanent the provision enacted in Pub. L. No. 115-97 (Code section 199A), as subsequently modified by Pub. L. No. 115-141. Under the provision, an individual taxpayer generally may deduct 20 percent of qualified business income from a partnership, S corporation, or sole proprietorship, as well as 20 percent of aggregate qualified REIT dividends and qualified publicly traded partnership income. Special rules apply to specified agricultural or horticultural cooperatives and their patrons.

A limitation based on the greater of 50 percent of W-2 wages paid, or the sum of 25 percent of W-2 wages paid plus a capital allowance, is phased in above a threshold amount of taxable income. A disallowance of the deduction with respect to specified service trades or businesses is also phased in above the same threshold amount of taxable income. The threshold amount is $157,500 (twice that amount or $315,000 in the case of a joint return), indexed. These limitations are fully phased in for a taxpayer with taxable income in excess of the threshold amount plus $50,000 ($100,000 in the case of a joint return).

Qualified business income for a taxable year generally means the net amount of domestic qualified items of income, gain, deduction, and loss with respect to the taxpayer's qualified businesses. Qualified business income does not include any amount paid by an S corporation that is treated as reasonable compensation of the taxpayer. Similarly, qualified business income does not include any guaranteed payment for services rendered with respect to the trade or business, and to the extent provided in regulations, does not include any amount allocated or distributed by a partnership to a partner who is acting other than in his or her capacity as a partner for services. Qualified business income or loss does not include certain investment-related income, gain, deductions, or loss.

Number of affected taxpayers

It is estimated that the provision will affect over ten percent of small business tax returns.

Discussion

In the absence of making the provision permanent, the period of time with respect to which taxpayers could have to keep additional records, or might engage in disputes with the IRS regarding application of the provision, would end. On the other hand, in the absence of making the provision permanent, the IRS would have to revise forms and promulgate revised guidance relating to the end of the period in which the provision applies. Making the provision permanent provides more time for a body of law, including regulations or other guidance, to clarify the application of the provision generally as well as in particular fact situations, potentially facilitating taxpayer compliance with, and IRS administration of, the provision as it remains in effect. Over time, increasing familiarity of the provision may result in a decline in the annual number of questions that taxpayers ask the IRS, such as how to calculate qualified business income and how to apply the phaseins of the W-2 wage (or W-2 wage and capital) limit and of the exclusion of service business income in the case of taxpayers with taxable income exceeding the threshold amount of $157,500 (twice that amount or $315,000 in the case of a joint return), indexed. The possible decline in the volume of questions could improve efficiency of the IRS and permit the use of greater IRS resources for taxpayer service and administration of other aspects of the tax law. Making the provision permanent principally affects taxable years beginning after 2025, so the provision will have been in effect for several years by the end of 2025, potentially permitting tax advisors and tax software makers to improve aids for taxpayers' compliance. Consequently, making the provision permanent should not increase the tax preparation costs for most individuals.

Increase in child tax credit made permanent (sec. 122 of the bill)

Summary description of the provisions

The bill makes permanent the provision of Pub. L. No. 115- 97 that increases the value of the child tax credit to $2,000, and providing for a refundable child tax credit of up to $1,400 per child. This $1,400 limitation is indexed for inflation. In order to qualify for the child tax credit, a Social Security number must be provided for the qualifying child for whom such credit is claimed.

Number of affected taxpayers

It is estimated that the provision will affect approximately 53 million tax returns in 2026.

Discussion

It is not anticipated that individuals will need to keep additional records due to these provisions. It should not result in an increase in disputes with the IRS, nor will regulatory guidance be necessary to implement this provision.

The IRS will no longer need to modify its forms and publications for taxable year 2026 to reflect the expiration of this provision.

Make permanent the limitation on deduction for State and local income taxes (sec. 142 of the bill)

Summary description of the provisions

The bill makes permanent the provision contained in Pub. L. No. 115-97 which provides that, the case of an individual, as a general matter, State, local, and foreign property taxes and State and local sales taxes are allowed as a deduction only when paid or accrued in carrying on a trade or business, or an activity described in section 212 (relating to expenses for the production of income).

The bill makes permanent the exception provided by Pub. L. No. 115-97 to the above-stated rule. Under the provision a taxpayer may claim an itemized deduction of up to $10,000 ($5,000 for married taxpayer filing a separate return) for the aggregate of (i) State and local property taxes not paid or accrued in carrying on a trade or business, or an activity described in section 212, and (ii) State and local income, war profits, and excess profits taxes (or sales taxes in lieu of income, etc. taxes) paid or accrued in the taxable year. Foreign real property taxes may not be deducted under this exception.

Number of affected taxpayers

It is estimated that the provision will affect approximately 19 million tax returns in 2026.

Discussion

It is not anticipated that individuals will need to keep additional records due to this provision.

To the extent the IRS would have needed to modify its forms and publications to reflect the expiration of this provision for taxable years beginning after 2025, it will no longer need to do so.

F. Congressional Earmarks, Limited Tax Benefits, and Limited Tariff Benefits

With respect to clause 9 of rule XXI of the Rules of the House of Representatives, the Committee has carefully reviewed the provisions of the bill and states that the provisions of the bill do not contain any congressional earmarks, limited tax benefits, or limited tariff benefits within the meaning of the rule.

G. Duplication of Federal Programs

In compliance with Sec. 3(c)(5) of rule XIII of the Rules of the House of Representatives, the Committee states that no provision of the bill establishes or reauthorizes: (1) a program of the Federal Government known to be duplicative of another Federal program, (2) a program included in any report from the Government Accountability Office to Congress pursuant to section 21 of Public Law 111-139, or (3) a program related to a program identified in the most recent Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance, published pursuant to section 6104 of title 31, United States Code.

H. Disclosure of Directed Rule Makings

In compliance with Sec. 3(i) of H. Res. 5 (115th Congress), the following statement is made concerning directed rule makings: The Committee advises that the bill requires no directed rule makings within the meaning of such section.

VI. CHANGES IN EXISTING LAW MADE BY THE BILL, AS REPORTED

A. Changes in Existing Law Proposed by the Bill, as Reported

In compliance with clause 3(e)(1)(B) of rule XIII of the Rules of the House of Representatives, changes in existing law proposed by the bill, as reported, are shown as follows (existing law proposed to be omitted is enclosed in black brackets, new matter is printed in italic, existing law in which no change is proposed is shown in roman):

Changes in Existing Law Made by the Bill, as Reported

In compliance with clause 3(e) of rule XIII of the Rules of the House of Representatives, changes in existing law made by the bill, as reported, are shown as follows (existing law proposed to be omitted is enclosed in black brackets, new matter is printed in italic, and existing law in which no change is proposed is shown in roman):

INTERNAL REVENUE CODE OF 1986

VII. DISSENTING VIEWS

It has been eight months since the Republicans enacted their massive, unpaid-for tax cut law (Public Law 115-97) without a single Democratic vote or a single hearing. At the time, Democrats and independent experts warned that a so-called tax reform plan that was not paid for and that was so heavily skewed to the wealthy and big corporations would harm our economy and damage important programs like Medicare and Social Security. Eight months later, we are beginning to see what many of us feared is coming true. Health insurance companies in state after state are announcing higher premiums for next year, while health coverage for those living with pre-existing conditions is on the chopping block. To make matters worse, the Medicare Trustees cut three years off the life of the Medicare Trust Fund because of the Republican tax bill.

Despite all of this, Republicans are doubling down and moving forward with another round of tax cuts for the well-off and well-connected with this Tax Scam 2.0, the "Protecting Family and Small Business Tax Cuts Act of 2018" (H.R. 6760).

After Republicans showered corporations with trillions of dollars in tax cuts and promised that it would lead to more jobs and higher wages, we are seeing that corporations across the country are instead pocketing their money, laying off workers, and shipping operations to other countries. In one particularly egregious case, an executive at a well-known company stated that the savings the company received from the Republican tax law allowed them to restructure and lay off hundreds of workers.

H.R. 6760 extended the section 199A pass-through deduction, which Republicans claimed would benefit small business and spur economic growth. Instead, section 199A is a massive giveaway to millionaires. In fact, 58 percent of the benefit of the Republicans' so-called small business tax benefit goes to millionaires.

At the same time, the Republicans have doubled down on their attack on the middle class by attempting to make permanent the limits to the State and Local Tax deduction, the mortgage interest deduction, and casualty loss deductions. And by eliminating personal exemptions alone, 290 million individuals will no longer be able to claim $1.14 trillion in tax savings. Tax Scam 2.0 targets these and many other tax incentives that help middle class families get ahead, while lavishing benefits on the wealthy and well-connected corporations.

The Republicans call themselves fiscal conservatives but nothing could be further from the truth. History doesn't lie and now we're seeing it again with the addition of more than $3 trillion to the nation's debt.

Tax Scam 2.0, like Tax Scam 1.0 before it, was jammed through the Committee with no hearings and no input from stakeholders. The rushed and lopsided process late last year resulted in the disastrous tax law. Unsurprisingly, the Democratic staff has identified over 100 mistakes and other problems with the Republicans' tax law. Instead of seeking expert opinions, high-quality data, and a reasoned review of the performance to date of last year's law, Republicans repeated the careless, partisan process of last year and again aimed at partisan priorities instead of evidence-based reforms. Furthermore, there was no reason for them to abandon regular order, given that these bills are guaranteed to be dead-on- arrival in the Senate.

Democrats on the Committee gave Republicans the opportunity to demonstrate their priorities, offering seven fiscally- responsible amendments that truly help middle-class families and protect seniors from tax hikes and cuts to Social Security and Medicare without adding to the deficit. In a manner consistent with their habit of putting the wealthy and corporations ahead of working Americans, Republicans rejected every amendment.

Republicans rejected an amendment I offered to curb one of the worst excesses of last year's tax scam, which is made permanent in H.R. 6760. My amendment would have restored the top marginal income tax rate to pre-Public Law 115-97 levels and used the proceeds to support three key priorities that actually help hardworking Americans: expanding the Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC) to offer support to low-income workers without children, making the Adoption Tax Credit refundable, and enhancing the child and dependent care credit. Instead of offering support to ordinary families, H.R. 6760 makes permanent a reduction to the pre-Public Law 115-97 top marginal income tax rate, which was already cut in half compared to the Reagan era. A top marginal rate of 39.6 has previously won the support not only of Presidents Obama and Clinton, but also John Boehner and Mitch McConnell. That top rate is not too high--a broad bipartisan group of lawmakers and presidents were all willing to support it. There is no compelling reason why it should be lowered. My amendment offered Republicans an opportunity to change H.R. 6760 to provide meaningful support to low-wage workers, adoptive parents, and those with dependents in need of care, just by asking some of the most affluent people in our society to give up a small part of their tax cut--an opportunity Republicans resoundingly rejected.

Republicans also rejected an amendment offered by Rep. Pascrell that would have removed the cap on the deduction for state and local taxes ("SALT"), a provision that prevents individual taxpayers from owing federal taxes on the income they pay in taxes to state and local governments. Ironically, Tax Scam 1.0 allowed corporations to continue deducting state and local taxes, while eliminating much of the benefit for individuals and families. State and local tax payments are not disposable income, and it is unfair to treat them as such. Currently, more than 100 million Americans in 45 million households claim the SALT deduction. Almost 40 percent of taxpayers earning between $50,000 and $75,000 claim SALT, and over 70 percent of taxpayers making $100,000 to $200,000 use it. Over one-half the value of the deduction went to households with incomes below $200,000. In 2016, the most recent year for which data are available, the average SALT deduction nationwide was already above $12,500, and inflation will cause a growing number of households to experience double taxation. In fact, in 2016, the average SALT deduction was over $10,000 in 23 states and the District of Columbia: Michigan, Missouri, Kentucky, Hawaii, Iowa, New Hampshire, Ohio, Nebraska, Pennsylvania, Maine, Virginia, Wisconsin, Illinois, Rhode Island, Vermont, Oregon, Maryland, Minnesota, Massachusetts, DC, New Jersey, California, Connecticut, and New York. With average SALT deductions exceeding $9,000, ten more states won't be far behind: South Carolina, Arkansas, Georgia, Idaho, West Virginia, Colorado, Montana, Delaware, Kansas, and North Carolina.

People living in every congressional district in every state in the country use the SALT deduction, and it benefits taxpayers of all income levels, directly or indirectly. State and local government tax revenues support essential public services and investments, like schools, local law enforcement, fire fighters, road construction and maintenance, and health care. Nearly everyone who itemizes claims the SALT deduction; therefore, repealing SALT would raise the cost of state and local services on a wide swath of taxpayers. Because this provision effectively raises the cost of state and local taxes, state and local governments would be pressured to reduce revenues and cut crucial public investments. Republicans rejected the opportunity to restore fairness in our tax system for more taxpayers that are now facing double taxation as a result of Republican tax policy choices.

Republicans rejected an amendment offered by Rep. Thompson that would have provided fairness and certainty to taxpayers that are victims of natural disasters. The amendment would have repealed the limitations in Public Law 115-97 that restricted eligibility for itemized deductions related to casualty losses to taxpayers in certain disaster areas, and extended a suite of provisions to help victims of natural disasters nationwide, including: penalty-free access to retirement funds, an employer wage tax credit in core disaster areas, a suspension of the limitations on deduction for charitable contributions associated with disasters, a relaxation of rules associated with the deduction for personal casualty losses, a special rule for income calculations with respect to the EITC and Child Tax Credit, and special rules for application of disaster tax relief for possessions of the United States. This is nothing more than the same relief the Chairman provided to his constituents that were victims of Hurricane Harvey last year. It is unconscionable for Republicans to support the notion that only those taxpayers that are fortunate enough to reside in the district of the Chairman are entitled to tax relief following such a tragedy. Republicans rejected the opportunity to provide fairness and certainty to all taxpayers facing tragedy.

Republicans rejected an amendment offered by Rep. Sanchez that would have made permanent the reduction of the adjusted gross income threshold for deductibility of certain medical expenses. The deduction for medical expenses is an important backstop for individuals with expensive health care needs. H.R. 6760 only extended this important tax relief for two years, while making permanent all of the other individual provisions, including billions in tax relief for millionaires. Republicans have done nothing to lower prescription drug costs for seniors, address long-term care needs, or stabilize the individual market to stem the skyrocketing premiums caused by Republican sabotage. Republicans rejected the opportunity to make permanent tax relief for millions of Americans facing significant health costs, choosing to shower the wealthy in tax benefits over middle-class Americans struggling with high out- of-pocket health care costs.

Republicans rejected an amendment offered by Rep. Doggett that would have compelled the Chairman of the Ways and Means Committee to submit a written request to the Secretary of the Treasury for federal tax returns filed by or on behalf of the President for the last ten years. There are few matters the Ways and Means Committee could consider more important than the integrity of our tax code, and the faith that the American people have in our democracy. The amendment would have contained a list of Congressional findings that raised questions about the Trump Administration and would have demanded Congressional oversight by the Committee on Ways and Means.

Republicans rejected an amendment offered by Rep. Larson that would have suspended the Republicans' misguided tax policy until it was certified that their billions of dollars in tax cuts for the wealthy would not do harm to the Social Security and Medicare trust funds. When looking at the ballooning deficit, Republicans shift blame away from the $3 trillion their policies have added and, instead, blame programs that people have worked their entire lives for and have planned for in retirement--Medicare and Social Security. These programs are the cornerstone of the American middle class, and yet the Republicans continue to attack them. Republican actions threaten health care for 58 million seniors and individuals with disabilities. Since the Republican Tax Scam 1.0 was signed into law, the Medicare Trust Fund's solvency has been slashed by three years. The Republican's health care repeal bill would have cut three years from Medicare's Trust Fund. In contrast, the Affordable Care Act added 12 years to the Medicare Trust Fund. It is clear that enactment of these tax cut giveaways are part of the two-step Republican strategy to cut Social Security and Medicare: First, the Republicans explode the deficit by cutting taxes for the rich. Second, the Republicans use the deficits created by their tax cuts as an excuse to cut Social Security and Medicare benefits. Republicans rejected the opportunity to demonstrate to their constituents a real commitment to ensuring that benefits earned by hardworking Americans would not be cut at the expense of tax cuts for the wealthy.

Republicans rejected an amendment offered by Rep. Doggett that would have put the American worker first--ahead of billions in tax relief for multinational corporations. The amendment would have suspended the preferential tax rates on money that multinational corporations stashed offshore until the Joint Committee on Taxation certified that Americans' average household income had increased by $4,000, a promise made by President Trump and Congressional Republicans. It is clear that, consistent with their record of offering lip service to the middle class while lavishing corporations and wealthy individuals with tax relief, Republicans were never going to keep that promise to American workers. Republicans rejected this opportunity to put the American worker first.

I said it when Republicans rammed through their first deficit-busting tax cuts, and I'll say it again: American families should not be forced to watch as the rich get richer, and they fall further and further behind. H.R. 6760 would do just that.

Richard E. Neal,

Ranking Member.

TARGETED NEWS SERVICE: Myron Struck, editor; 703/304-1897; [email protected]; https://targetednews.com