U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402–0001

33–806 PDF 2007

FULL COMMITTEE HEARING ON THE NEW HIDDEN

TAX ON SMALL BUSINESS

COMMITTEE ON SMALL BUSINESS 

UNITED STATES HOUSE OF 

REPRESENTATIVES

ONE HUNDRED TENTH CONGRESS

FIRST SESSION

MARCH 22, 2007

Serial Number 110-10

Printed for the use of the Committee on Small Business

(

Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.access.gpo.gov/congress/house 

HOUSE COMMITTEE ON SMALL BUSINESS 

NYDIA M. VELA ́ ZQUEZ, New York, Chairwoman 

JUANITA MILLENDER-McDONALD, 

California 

WILLIAM JEFFERSON, Louisiana 

HEATH SHULER, North Carolina 

CHARLIE GONZA ́ LEZ, Texas 

RICK LARSEN, Washington 

RAUL GRIJALVA, Arizona 

MICHAEL MICHAUD, Maine 

MELISSA BEAN, Illinois 

HENRY CUELLAR, Texas 

DAN LIPINSKI, Illinois 

GWEN MOORE, Wisconsin 

JASON ALTMIRE, Pennsylvania 

BRUCE BRALEY, Iowa 

YVETTE CLARKE, New York 

BRAD ELLSWORTH, Indiana 

HANK JOHNSON, Georgia 

JOE SESTAK, Pennsylvania 

STEVE CHABOT, Ohio, Ranking Member 

ROSCOE BARTLETT, Maryland 

SAM GRAVES, Missouri 

TODD AKIN, Missouri 

BILL SHUSTER, Pennsylvania 

MARILYN MUSGRAVE, Colorado 

STEVE KING, Iowa 

JEFF FORTENBERRY, Nebraska 

LYNN WESTMORELAND, Georgia 

LOUIE GOHMERT, Texas 

DEAN HELLER, Nevada 

DAVID DAVIS, Tennessee 

MARY FALLIN, Oklahoma 

VERN BUCHANAN, Florida 

JIM JORDAN, Ohio 

MICHAEL DAY, Majority Staff Director 

ADAM MINEHARDT, Deputy Staff Director 

TIM SLATTERY, Chief Counsel 

KEVIN FITZPATRICK, Minority Staff Director

STANDING SUBCOMMITTEES 

Subcommittee on Finance and Tax

MELISSA BEAN, Illinois, Chairwoman 

RAUL GRIJALVA, Arizona 

MICHAEL MICHAUD, Maine 

BRAD ELLSWORTH, Indiana 

HANK JOHNSON, Georgia 

JOE SESTAK, Pennsylvania 

DEAN HELLER, Nevada, Ranking 

BILL SHUSTER, Pennsylvania 

STEVE KING, Iowa 

VERN BUCHANAN, Florida 

JIM JORDAN, Ohio

Subcommittee on Contracting and Technology

BRUCE BRALEY, IOWA, Chairman 

WILLIAM JEFFERSON, Louisiana 

HENRY CUELLAR, Texas 

GWEN MOORE, Wisconsin 

YVETTE CLARKE, New York 

JOE SESTAK, Pennsylvania 

DAVID DAVIS, Tennessee, Ranking 

ROSCOE BARTLETT, Maryland 

SAM GRAVES, Missouri 

TODD AKIN, Missouri 

MARY FALLIN, Oklahoma

(II) 

Subcommittee on Regulations, Health Care and Trade

CHARLES GONZA ́ LEZ, Texas, Chairman 

WILLIAM JEFFERSON, Louisiana 

RICK LARSEN, Washington 

DAN LIPINSKI, Illinois 

MELISSA BEAN, Illinois 

GWEN MOORE, Wisconsin 

JASON ALTMIRE, Pennsylvania 

JOE SESTAK, Pennsylvania 

LYNN WESTMORELAND, Georgia, Ranking 

BILL SHUSTER, Pennsylvania 

STEVE KING, Iowa 

MARILYN MUSGRAVE, Colorado 

MARY FALLIN, Oklahoma 

VERN BUCHANAN, Florida 

JIM JORDAN, Ohio

Subcommittee on Urban and Rural Entrepreneurship

HEATH SHULER, North Carolina, Chairman 

RICK LARSEN, Washington 

MICHAEL MICHAUD, Maine 

GWEN MOORE, Wisconsin 

YVETTE CLARKE, New York 

BRAD ELLSWORTH, Indiana 

HANK JOHNSON, Georgia 

JEFF FORTENBERRY, Nebraska, Ranking 

ROSCOE BARTLETT, Maryland 

MARILYN MUSGRAVE, Colorado 

DEAN HELLER, Nevada 

DAVID DAVIS, Tennessee

Subcommittee on Investigations and Oversight

JASON ALTMIRE, PENNSYLVANIA, Chairman 

JUANITA MILLENDER-McDONALD, 

California 

CHARLIE GONZA ́ LEZ, Texas 

RAUL GRIJALVA, Arizona 

LOUIE GOHMERT, Texas, Ranking 

LYNN WESTMORELAND, Georgia

(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

OPENING STATEMENTS 

Page

Vela ́zquez, Hon. Nydia M. ....................................................................................... 1

Chabot, Hon. Steve .................................................................................................. 2

WITNESSES 

Iannelli, Vincent, Associated General Contractors ............................................... 4

Deel, Daryl, American Trucking Associations ....................................................... 5

Whitman, Lamar, Computing Technology Industry Association ......................... 7

Kahn, Chip, American Federation of Hospitals .................................................... 9

Coleman, Lonnie, Coleman Spohn Corporation .................................................... 11

APPENDIX 

Prepared Statements: 

Vela ́zquez, Hon. Nydia M. ....................................................................................... 30

Chabot, Hon. Steve .................................................................................................. 32

Altmire, Hon. Jason ................................................................................................. 34

Iannelli, Vincent, Associated General Contractors ............................................... 35

Deel, Daryl, American Trucking Associations ....................................................... 43

Whitman, Lamar, Computing Technology Industry Association ......................... 46

Kahn, Chip, American Federation of Hospitals .................................................... 55

Coleman, Lonnie, Coleman Spohn Corporation .................................................... 61

Statements for the Record: 

Associated Builders and Contractors ..................................................................... 67

American Congress on Surveying and Mapping ................................................... 75

Aerospace Industries Association ........................................................................... 76

American Farm Bureau Federation ....................................................................... 78

American Moving and Storage Association ........................................................... 80

American Road & Transportation Builders Association ....................................... 82

American Supply Association ................................................................................. 84

American Society of Civil Engineers ...................................................................... 86

Construction Financial Management Association ................................................. 88

Construction Management Association of America .............................................. 92

The Coalition for Government Procurement ......................................................... 94

Contract Services Association ................................................................................. 96

Donald Alexander, Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP ................................ 98

Electronic Industries Alliance ................................................................................. 100

Government Withholding Relief Coalition ............................................................. 105

Government Finance Officers Association, et al. .................................................. 109

National Electrical Contractors Association .......................................................... 111

Small Business & Entrepreneurship Council ........................................................ 114

(V) 

(1)

FULL COMITTEE HEARING ON THE NEW 

HIDDEN TAX ON SMALL BUSINESS 

THURSDAY, MARCH 22, 2007

U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 

COMMITTEE ON SMALL BUSINESS, 

Washington, DC. 

The Committee met, pursuant to call, at 10:00 a.m., in Room 

2360 Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Nydia Vela ́zquez 

[Chairwoman of the Committee] presiding. 

Present: Representatives Vela ́zquez, Shuler, Cuellar, Altmire, 

Braley, Ellsworth, Chabot, Musgrave, Westmoreland, Fallin, Buchanan and Jordan. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF CHAIRWOMAN VELA ́ ZQUEZ 

Chairwoman VELA ́ ZQUEZ. Good morning. I now call to order this 

hearing to examine the impact of a three percent withholding requirement on all government payments. 

Today’s hearing focuses on what might seem to be a minor 

change in tax law, but will have a huge effect on small businesses 

across this country. We will discuss the potential problems of a provision passed last year that will require the government to withhold three percent on many government payments. 

While the withholding requirement is not scheduled to become 

effective until 2011, it is important to understand the problems 

now. This change goes far beyond those who do business with the 

federal government. Farmers receiving payments from the USDA, 

health care providers who receive Medicare reimbursement, as well 

as the thousands of small businesses who perform contract work 

for the federal government will all be hit. This money will be withheld regardless of what you actually owe in taxes. 

This could be an enormous burden for small businesses. Taking 

away three percent of revenues can mean the difference between 

meeting payroll, expanding a company or buying needed equipment. It will reduce their ability to compete against their corporate 

counterparts. 

For small government contractors, the results could be severe. 

When you consider that small firms are continuing to be squeezed 

out of the federal marketplace, the last thing Congress should be 

doing is creating another obstacle to success. Small firms, which 

often have fewer resources, may be unable to afford to stay in the 

market. If businesses leave the federal marketplace, there will be 

less competition, which could lead to higher prices, costing valuable 

taxpayers’ dollars. 

2

The change will also have a negative impact on the health care 

industry. The sheer volume of transactions affected by this change 

creates a huge administrative burden. Hospitals and small business health care providers conduct millions of transactions that 

will be subject to withholding. 

I believe the intent of this provision was a good one. Right now there is a $350 billion tax debt. However, I question whether this 

change will really get at that problem. Most of the revenues generated by this provision do not come from collecting taxes, but from 

a budget gimmick. It simply moves up the collection of money that 

will have come in the next year. 

We must consider the hidden costs of this legislation. We should 

not increase the cost of running a business by requiring an interest 

free loan to the government. It seems to me that the most logical 

step is to repeal the provision. There are better ways to crack down 

on those who are not paying their taxes without creating a hardship on small businesses. 

I appreciate the witnesses coming here today to talk about their 

concerns, and I look forward to today’s discussion. 

And now I will recognize the Ranking Member, Mr. Chabot. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF MR. CHABOT 

Mr. CHABOT. Thank you very much, Madam Chairwoman, and 

thank you for holding this important hearing to discuss, as you 

mentioned, Section 511 of the Tax Increase Prevention and Reconciliation Act of 2005, known as TIPRA. 

I find it truly ironic that legislation that was called the Tax Increase Prevention and Reconciliation Act, which provides for lower 

taxes on capital gains and dividends and that generally helps small 

business owners, also contains a provision added at the 11th hour 

during a House-Senate conference committee that will raise taxes 

on those same small businesses if Congress fails to take action. 

Of course, we hope that Congress will take action. 

Section 511 of the Act, scheduled to take effect in 2011, will require federal, state, and local governments with an annual procurement budget of at least $100 million to withhold three percent from 

all payments for goods and services as a guard against possible 

business tax evasion, justification that I find particularly offensive. 

Section 511 will affect goods and services under government contracts, as well as payments to any person for services or products 

provided to a government entity, such as Medicare payments or 

certain grants. This provision is based on revenue from government 

payments and is unrelated to a company’s taxable income or tax liability. 

As I mentioned earlier, it is particularly troubling to me that 

Section 511 was inserted in the Tax Increase Prevention and Reconciliation Act of 2005 during the House-Senate conference without 

open debate on the merits. A provision that will likely have this 

type of impact on small businesses, as well as state and local governments and the private sector, should have been fully considered 

in both Houses of Congress with inputs from all sides. 

At a time when we are trying to encourage the federal government to do more business with small businesses, Section 511 is exactly the wrong message to send. Small businesses typically work 

3

with very small margins, and three percent withheld from any payment affects its operating capital and could make the different between its ability to submit a bid or not. 

Furthermore, companies of all sizes that do business with government will likely have to increase prices to account for this additional burden. The impact of Section 511 will likely be enormous 

and far reaching. From the cost of construction projects to taxpayers, which would likely increase, to the already low Medicare 

reimbursement payments to physicians that will likely decrease, 

which could cause physicians to stop accepting new Medicare patients. 

Some companies may be forced to pass some of the withholding 

amount down to subcontractors. This can be especially harmful to 

small businesses down the supply chain. According to the Congressional Budget Office and the Joint Committee on Taxation, Section 

511 amounts to an intergovernmental unfunded mandate and 

would be extremely expensive to implement. 

In many cases, governments and the private sector would have 

to adopt new accounting and financial control measures and perhaps additional personnel to track these payments. In short, Section 511 hurts honest taxpaying small businesses without providing any additional enforcement provisions to improve tax compliance. 

Section 511 of TIPRA is bad law and bad tax policy. I want to 

again thank the Chairwoman for holding this hearing to expose the 

damaging effects this provision will have on small businesses 

should Congress fail to take action in the next several years to prevent it, or should there be an attempt to expedite Section 511’s implementation, as happened last year. We need to be looking at 

ways to foster growth and productivity in the small business sector, 

not penalize everybody for the actions of a few. 

Madam Chairwoman, thank you again for holding this hearing. 

I look forward to hearing from our distinguished panel and working 

with you to address this important issue, and I look forward to introduction, if possible, Mr. Coleman who is from the great State of 

Ohio. He does not have the good fortune to be from Cincinnati. He 

is from Cleveland, but close enough. [Laughter.] 

Mr. CHABOT. I yield back. 

Chairwoman VELA ́ ZQUEZ. Thank you. Thank you. 

Our first witness is a constituent from New York, the great State 

of New York, Vincent Iannelli. He is the President of Iannelli Construction Company, Inc., and a member of the General Building 

Contractors of New York State, Associated General Contractors 

Chapter. Associated General Contractors of America represents 

over 32,000 firms throughout the country. 

Mr. Iannelli, you will have five minutes to make your presentation, and I want to excuse myself. I have to go before Natural Resources Committee to testify on a bill that I am the lead sponsor. 

So I will ask for you to excuse me, but Mr. Shuler will be on the 

Chair, and I will be coming back as soon as I finish. 

Mr. SHULER. [presiding] Thank you, and you may start. 

4

STATEMENT OF VINCENT IANNELLI, PRESIDENT, IANNELLI 

CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, INC. ON BEHALF OF ASSOCIATED GENERAL CONTRACTORS OF AMERICA 

Mr. IANNELLI. Thank you, Chairwoman Vela ́zquez and Ranking 

Member Chabot, for this opportunity to testify on the new three 

percent withholding law. 

I am testifying on behalf of the Associated General Contractors 

of America, a national trade association representing more than 

32,000 companies. I am Vincent Iannelli, President of Iannelli construction and a member of the General Building Contractors of 

New York State, an AGC chapter. 

My father started our company in 1958, and now my brother 

Thomas and I are running it. My daughter Carla started working 

with us two years ago. 

Iannelli Construction is a family business. We are also 99 percent public works. 

Small business is big in construction. In 2005, 91 percent of construction establishments had fewer than 20 employees. Only one 

percent had 100 or more. According to the 2006 construction industry annual financial survey, earnings after taxes in the most recent 

fiscal year averaged 2.1 percent, up from 1.6 percent in 2005. 

Today, Iannelli Construction works 99 percent on school construction. We employ six full-time employees in the office and ten 

to 20 in the field, depending on how much work we have. We are 

100 percent union, working mostly with the locals from the Carpenters Union and the Mason Tenders Unions. 

All of my public projects have retainage. The public owners hold 

back from five to ten percent on each progress payment until the 

project has been substantially complete. 

In addition, some public owners hold out an additional five percent of the project for closeout and punch list. It has taken me 

years sometimes to receive final payment after the contract has 

been completed. 

Because these are public projects, all of our jobs are bonded. 

Having bonds on projects insures the taxpayers that the jobs will 

be completed at no additional cost to the public. The project must 

be completed for the price and in the time negotiated under the 

contract. 

The construction contractor is responsible for purchasing the 

bond, and if something happens to the company, the bonding company liquidates the contractor’s assets to complete the project. The 

taxpayer is protected. 

Contractors must purchase performance and payment bonds for 

government projects. The performance bond insures that payroll 

taxes will be paid on behalf of the employees working at the site. 

If the government determines that payroll taxes have not been 

properly withheld and remitted, then the government can ask the 

bond provider to fill in the gap. Under the bond everyone is protected. 

Now the federal government has added an additional layer by requiring three percent holding on payments for goods and services 

from every level of government, federal, state, and local. This new 

requirement plus the retainage and closeout costs could add up to 

15 percent of every progress payment. 

5

This kind of hit to my cash flow also makes it more costly for 

me to purchase the bonds necessary. Many companies who provide 

the bonds study my books in detail before offering coverage. Based 

on past performances, the ability to perform the work for which I 

bid and my cash flow assurity gives Iannelli Construction a bond 

rating which governs the price of the bonds and how much bonding 

coverage I can receive. 

This is just one of the reasons why cash flow is so important. Another is my ability to pay my suppliers, subcontractors and service 

providers. Some suppliers ask for payment up front, which means 

I am paying for things before being reimbursed by the government. 

What is frustrating is the government is penalizing good contractors for paying their taxes and paying their payroll taxes in a timely manner. There should be a better way to do this. 

Every couple of years we have to prequalify for certain government agencies that we do work for, and one of the questions during 

the process is if we pay our taxes. The agency looks into this and 

someone’s tax returns from the previous two or three years. If you 

cannot come up with that, you are not qualified to bid on these 

jobs. This shuts people down if after a while they aren’t paying 

their taxes. 

The majority of AGC contractors work on some kind of government contract every year, and this three percent withholding will 

have a large impact on the construction industry. 

Again, thank you for this opportunity to testify today on behalf 

of the AGC, and I look forward to your questions. 

Mr. SHULER. Mr. Iannelli, thank you so much for your testimony 

and comments. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Iannelli may be found in the Appendix on page 35.] 

At this time I’d like to introduce Mr. Daryl Deel, the president 

of three small business trucking companies and comes on behalf of 

the American Trucking Association, ATA. Mr. Dill is the Vice 

Chairman of the ATA Tax Policy Committee. 

ATA represents carriers of government agencies, and I thank you 

for your testimony. 

STATEMENT OF DARYL DEEL, VICE CHAIRMAN, TAX POLICY 

COMMITTEE, AMERICAN TRUCKING ASSOCIATION 

Mr. DEEL. Thank you. 

And good morning. Again, my name is Daryl Deel. I am a certified public accountant by training and now I am in the trucking 

industry, and I do own three small trucking companies. 

I am here today representing the American Trucking Association, 

or better known as ATA, and we certainly appreciate the opportunity to be here today. 

My trucking company specializes in transporting highly specialized security sensitive cargo for the Department of Defense and the 

Department of Energy. As a member of ATA, I am currently the 

Vice Chairman of the ATA Tax Policy Committee, and for three 

years prior to that I chaired the Government Traffic Policy Committee, which is comprised of motor carriers and brokers which 

provide contract services to haul government freight. 

6

ATA represents the motor carriers who serve government agencies with the best freight logistics support in the world, and it 

takes a lot of money and expertise to provide that level of service. 

We take immense pride in the fact that we support public missions. 

We are particularly proud to be an indispensable link in the defense supply chain that sustains America’s war fighters domestically and throughout the world. 

Like most businesses and Mr. Iannelli’s business, we expect customers to pay with 30 days or net 30. When a customer has a good 

track record of payment, we give them the best rates. When the 

government begins withholding the three percent, we are not going 

to see that money returned to us for much longer than 30 days. 

Depending on the state of the economy, the motor carrier industry’s net profit margins range from one half of one percent to five 

percent of revenues, for an average net profit of about three percent. Therefore, when the government customers start withholding 

the three percent of the freight bill that they owe the carriers, 

trucking companies may be compelled to raise rates just to stay 

whole. 

Otherwise, all of that profit margin, that three percent profit 

margin becomes unavailable until we file our tax returns and then 

maybe get our refund a year later. 

And then when the economy is down and suppresses profit margins for our industry, the three percent withholding will more than 

devour all of the net profit for our industry. This is like a loan to 

the government. Most small business will not be able to withstand 

the negative cash flow impact and could eventually go bankrupt. 

A large company with mostly commercial customers and does 

business with governmental agencies, they are likely to be able to 

absorb that three percent by just reducing their quarterly estimated tax payments. So they are paying it one way or the other 

way. 

But a small company, on the other hand, that does a lot of business with government customers could suffer that 100 percent 

withholding of their profit margin and, again, would have to wait 

until they file their tax returns and get a refund the following year. 

Worse yet, that three percent withholding could bite into the 

cash needed to provide the direct services to the customer. They 

have to pay their contractors or their employees, and their fuel bill, 

and all of those operating expenses. So the negative cash flow impact might force a small company, small business, to either raise 

its rates, but it may be difficult to do that in a competitive environment where a larger company can withstand the cash flow impact 

of the three percent, and it may make small business not competitive in vying for government business. 

So it could force the small company to consider leaving government service and increasing their business with commercial shippers, those shippers that pay within 30 days, the full 100 percent 

of the freight bill. 

I do have a simple chart that demonstrates the tax and cash flow 

impact of a large business versus a small business for a motor carrier. With your pleasure, I will submit that for additional testimony. 

7

For these reasons, I am convinced that if the three percent withholding is actually implemented that my three small companies 

may be compelled to raise rates or to exit providing service to government agencies. And I believe this is the opposite to what Congress intended when this new withholding tax or the bill was enacted. 

For these reasons, the motor carriers of the American Trucking 

Association urge the members of this honored panel to support 

H.R. 1023. 

And thank you for the opportunity to be here today. I look forward to your questions. 

Mr. CHABOT. Mr. Chairman, I would just move that the chart 

that Mr. Deel referred to be admitted to the record, without objection. 

Mr. SHULER. Without objection. 

Mr. CHABOT. Thank you very much. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Deel and chart may be found in 

the Appendix on page 43.] 

Mr. CHABOT. Mr. Deel, thank you so much for your testimony. 

At this time I would like to introduce Lamar Whitman, who is 

a public policy manager for Computing Technology Industry Association, CompTIA. CompTIA has more than 2,000 members in the 

information technology industry. This organization is driven by 

helping individuals obtain skills necessary to succeed in the IT industry. 

Mr. Whitman, thank you so much for your testimony. 

STATEMENT OF LAMAR WHITMAN, PUBLIC POLICY MANAGER, 

COMPUTING TECHNOLOGY INDUSTRY ASSOCIATION 

Mr. WHITMAN. Thank you very much for the invitation. 

Good morning, Mr. Shuler and Ranking Member Chabot and also 

distinguished members of the Committee. My name is Lamar Whitman. I am appearing today on behalf of the Computing Technology 

Industry Association, CompTIA, representing 20,000 member companies. 

I want to thank Chairwoman Vela ́zquez and members of the 

Committee for holding this important meeting concerning the effects of this impending three percent withholding. While this requirement does not distinguish between government payments 

made to either large corporations or small businesses, our comments today will concentrate on the effects of this provision on our 

small business members. 

The typical small business does not have an IT department, but 

relies upon the services of an important segment of the computer 

industry referred to as value added resellers, or VARs. VARs are 

small system integrators that design, install, and maintain computer systems and networks for other small businesses. There are 

an estimated 32,000 VARs, most of which are small businesses 

themselves, sell approximately $43 billion worth of computer hardware, software, and services annually. This means that about one 

third of the computer hardware sold in the United States is sold 

by a VAR. 

A 2006 government VAR survey found that about half of the 

VAR’s gross revenue derived from the public sector, which would 

8

put this somewhere in the magnitude of $20 billion annually; of 

this, about 37 percent is from sales to federal government; 35 percent sales to state and local governments; and 28 percent goes to 

educational institutions. 

This three percent withholding requirement is unnecessary to 

promote tax compliance and will unfairly penalize compliant small 

businesses. First, we must note the unprecedented nature of this 

new withholding requirement. Historically, prepayments of tax had 

borne some direct relationship to a taxpayer’s estimated tax liability. However, this new three percent withholding departs from the 

traditional scheme of federal tax payments because it bears no relation to the tax liability. 

Indeed, a VAR working under a government contract with a slim 

profit margin could experience a net loss for the year, but it would 

still be subject to the three percent withholding. 

With keen competition, VARs operate on a very small profit margin, often three to six percent and sometimes much less. I provided 

two examples in the written testimony. In both situations, assume 

the business receives $5 million in government payments with 

$150,000 being withheld for this three percent payment. With a six 

percent net profit margin, as shown in the first example, the federal tax liability is about $100,000. However, $150,000 has been 

withheld from payments to that person. So, therefore, they have 

lost the benefit of $50,000 in operating capital. 

The three percent withholding becomes even more absurd when 

applied to a company with a four percent net profit margin, as 

shown in the second example. In that scenario, the business would 

be deprived of about $90,000 of working capital. 

This three percent withhold provision has a regressive effect, reserving its greatest penalty for those businesses with the lowest 

net income, typically small businesses. 

In addition to our cash flow concerns, we see a number of other 

adverse issues. In subcontracting situations, this three percent 

withholding will inevitably be passed down from the prime to the 

subcontractor. Without this operating income, subcontractors will 

be forced to use credit, incurring interest costs, and this will, in 

turn, increase the cost of goods and services to government purchasers. 

We also believe this new requirement will make it much more 

difficult for government agencies to meet their small business contracting goals, something that I know that this committee is very 

concerned with. 

Further, the three percent withholding on pass-through entities, 

such as Subchapter S corporations, partnerships, joint ventures, 

whatever, will need to be allocated out to the shareholders for an 

S corporation or to the partners in the case of a partnership. This 

will further increase the complexity of return preparation far beyond that of the contracting entities alone. 

The purported justification for instituting this three percent 

withholding was that some recipients of government payments 

were not reporting and paying their federal income tax. If, in fact, 

this is the problem, we believe the proper and least harmful course 

of action is to require government payers to report such payments. 

9

The goal here should be to promulgate effective tax compliance 

measures, not punish all government contractors indiscriminately. 

CompTIA and CompTIA’s members were fully supportive of efforts to promote tax compliance. However, we object to unnecessary 

and harmful tactics, such as this three percent withholding. This 

new requirement is unfair to small businesses, especially of ours, 

and will force more and more small businesses out of the competition for federal government procurement opportunities. 

Thank you very much, and I will be pleased to answer questions 

later on. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Whitman may be found in the 

Appendix on page 46.] 

Mr. SHULER. Mr. Whitman, thank you for your testimony. 

At this time I will introduce Charles Kahn, who is the President 

of the Federation of American Hospitals. FAH is the national representative of investor owned or managed community hospitals and 

health care systems throughout the United States. 

Mr. Kahn, thank you for being here today, and we are looking 

forward to hearing your testimony. 

STATEMENT OF CHARLES KAHN, PRESIDENT, FEDERATION OF 

AMERICAN HOSPITALS 

Mr. KAHN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

And I appreciate the committee holding this hearing today. It is 

a pleasure to appear before the committee on behalf of the Federation of American Hospitals. 

We represent approximately 20 percent of the hospitals across 

the country that serve our communities. Our members also pay 

their fair share of federal, state, and local taxes. 

I would like to make four points today. One, the three percent 

withhold is unfair because it penalizes all because of the misdeeds 

of a few. 

Two, the federal health care agency who will implement the 

three percent withhold for Medicare, as well as the Medicare 

claims payment system itself are ill-suited to adapt to this kind of 

requirement. 

Three, the health care providers will be harmed by the three percent withhold and are likely to suffer unanticipated problems that 

the framers of the law could not have anticipated. 

And finally, that the GAO report that defines the problems 

points to a solution other than the three percent withhold, the federal payment levy program. We need to give this program a chance 

to work before we penalize everyone doing business with the federal government. 

First, let me start off by talking about the providers themselves. 

Most health care providers are paid by Medicare program on a per 

claim basis, a per service basis. Under Part A and Part B, hundreds of millions of claims are processed each year, and a new process will need to be implemented to capture the three percent withhold for tax paying health care businesses. 

The tax revenue to be generated from three percent withhold is 

smaller than most people think after the first year. Yet the implementation costs to the entire federal government, particularly to 

10

the Medicare program will be enormous and continue into the future. 

The Medicare program currently uses some 40 private contractors to process Medicare claims. This means the federal government will provide significant oversight of its contractors which 

have different from processing systems to insure that the three percent withhold is correctly collected. 

Another problem involves Medicare claims themselves that are 

filed, but frequently need to be amended or refiled. This common 

practice usually results in a payment adjustment which will mean 

some type of reconciliation on the tax withholding side will be necessary. It is unclear how this will be accomplished. 

Third, the health care provider community will be unduly burdened by the three percent withholding and are likely to suffer unanticipated problems. Medicare providers already experience slim 

operating margins, in large part due to the insufficient levels of 

government insurance payments. In 2007, hospitals are expected to 

experience a negative operating margin of 5.4 percent on their 

Medicare business alone. Withholding three percent of Medicare 

payments off the top, regardless of the taxpayer’s situation, will exacerbate this problem and create additional cash flow concerns, especially for start-up or small businesses that need to maximize 

cash flow to survive. 

The administrative burden on the health care industry will be 

similar to burdens the federal government faces and will create an 

expense for businesses that will be unfunded, of course, by the government itself. 

The GAO reports focus on the federal payment levy program as 

a solution, which targets delinquent taxpayers by collecting what 

they owe from current government payments. The reports make 

clear that the implementation challenges remain for the levy program, and that increased participation by federal agencies is essential for the program to reach its full potential. 

HHS does not participate in the levy program, but clearly should 

be able to capture much of the money that is not being paid in 

taxes by this program. Congress should consider the GAO recommendations on this program and how to improve it and take 

steps to insure greater participation by the federal agencies as a 

solution to this problem. 

So let me reiterate. The Medicare program has millions of claims 

that are processed for those who are serving Medicare beneficiaries 

every day. To take three percent from those claims obviously will 

be extremely complicated and difficult to implement, and will have 

effects on those who are providing those services. 

There has got to be a better way, and we believe in the GAO report their recommendations for a better way to solve this real problem that our taxing system faces. 

Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Kahn may be found in the Appendix on page 55.] 

Mr. SHULER. Mr. Kahn, thank you. 

I will yield to Ranking Member Chabot for the introduction of 

Mr. Coleman. 

Mr. CHABOT. I thank the gentleman very much for yielding. 

11

It is my pleasure to introduce, as I mentioned before, a fellow 

Ohioan, Lonnie Coleman who is President and CEO of ColemanSpohn in Cleveland, Ohio. 

Founded in 1994, Coleman-Spohn Corporation formed as a result 

of a merger between a residential heating firm and a state-of-theart mechanical engineering company. Today Coleman-Spohn is a 

full service mechanical contractor whose clients are some of Cleveland’s most noted public and private institutions. 

Lonnie Coleman has received the Small Business Administration’s Award of Excellence and was recognized as its prime contractor of the year. Coleman- Spohn has been honored as the Ohio 

Governor’s Minority Business of the Year, the Environmental Protection Agency’s National Minority Contractor of the Year, and the 

City of Cleveland’s Construction Firm of the Year. 

I am pleased to welcome to the hearing, as I said, Mr. Lonnie 

Coleman, and we thank you very much for your testimony here this 

morning, Mr. Coleman. 

STATEMENT OF LONNIE COLEMAN, PRESIDENT AND CEO, 

COLEMAN-SPOHN, ON BEHALF OF THE MECHANICAL CONTRACTORS ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA 

Mr. COLEMAN. Thank you, Representative Shuler. 

You have taken the first part of my speech away. 

[Laughter.] 

Mr. COLEMAN. Thank you very much. 

Good morning to Ms. Vela ́zquez, who has left, and Mr. Shuler 

and the Ranking Member Chabot and the members of the Committee. Thank you for inviting me here today. 

My company performs general mechanical and facilities management contracts as both a prime contractor and a specialty contractor on federal, state, and local projects throughout Ohio and in 

several markets nationwide. And as you have heard in my introduction from Representative Shuler, we have had some success on 

the small business level thanks to many of the things that the 

Small Business Committee and Congress have done in aiding and 

assisting small and minority businesses throughout our country. 

I am here today representing the Mechanical Contractors Association of America, a nationwide specialty construction employer 

trade association. I am also an officer of the MTA, serving this year 

as the Senior Vice President and Treasurer. 

A little bit about MCAA. MCAA’s 2,300 member companies install, maintain and service all types of mechanical systems. The 

systems range from residential plumbing and heating and air conditioning systems to more sophisticated piping systems found in 

the commercial industrial markets, such as nuclear power facilities, 

clean rooms, data centers, and refineries of all types. 

Today I am also privileged to represent five other of our sister 

associations, allied in an ongoing legislative campaign for quality 

construction. These groups are the Sheet Metal and Air Conditioning Contractors National Association, the National Electrical 

Contractors Association, the International Council of Employers of 

Bricklayers and Allied Crafts, the Finishing Contractors Association, the Association of Union Constructors. 

12

Of these groups, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics figures, our group of specialty construction employers represents the 

vast majority of industry employment in our industry and well over 

64 percent. In addition, many of our groups participate in two 

wider coalitions: the Construction Organizations for a Sensible 

Taxation, the Government Withholding Relief Coalition, both of 

which are adamantly opposed to the three percent withholding provisions of the Tax Reconciliation Act. 

Now, what distinguishes our campaign for quality construction 

specialty groups is that we employ highly skilled technicians for 

field construction under local, multi-employer collective bargaining 

agreements with local building trades unions. Our bargaining 

agreements come with high value wages, health and welfare, and 

pension trust fund obligations for our employees that require ready 

cash flow and prompt and reliable payments. 

Moreover, the discipline of operating under collective bargaining 

agreements prevents misclassification of the workers as independent contractors rather than employees. As we all know, in the 

construction industry, misclassification is an area of high abuse 

and tax avoidance. 

Now, we realize that there is a problem here that needs fixing, 

but at the same time, we feel the three percent withholding slated 

for public contract payments is a bad idea and is entirely contrary 

to the small and minority business development goals of your Committee. This Committee is about helping, not hindering. 

So we ask that you support the repeal bill H.R. 1023 co-sponsored by Ways and Means Committee members, Representatives 

Herger and me. 

We also ask that the repeal is done quickly to avoid any further 

efforts taken to accelerate the effective date of the measure for misjudged budget gains and offsets. 

Put plainly, fiscal enforcement policy and sound procurement 

policies do not and should not be mixed. To be sure, small and minority owned business enterprises, as well as all other responsible 

firms should not have to compete against firms that have the unfair competitive advantage of undetected tax avoidance. Burdening 

tax compliant firms with added withholding to encourage tax payments by those otherwise inclined to cheat we feel is just not fair. 

And I will tell you our campaign for quality construction is 

squarely in favor of closing the tax gap. The taxpayers, public 

agencies, and our industry benefit by fair and robust competition 

among quality firms that are responsible in all aspects of their 

businesses. So if stopping tax avoidance by public agencies, goods 

and services providers is the target, then there are more specific 

tools to achieve that goal, such as the contract eligibility process 

can be tightened up so that successful bidders or offerors are not 

awarded contracts unless they demonstrate, prove and certify tax 

compliance. In this way any competitive advantage of tax cheaters 

id eliminated. The agency gets quality work by qualified firms, and 

the added financing and administrative costs of the three percent 

withholding is avoided. 

The U.S. Congress has passed two prompt payment laws recognizing that prompt and fair payment terms are the best way to administer public contracts and to avoid all the extra costs and delays 

13

that result from less sufficient contract administrated practices. It 

really does matter how well firms are paid and how fairly contracts 

are administered. Time and again, it proves out that the best 

projects are the ones that are the most competently administered. 

And all of that matters even more for small and minority business 

enterprises whose margins are thinner and cannot carry the cost 

of public contract misadministration the way larger firms can. 

And I should point out what makes this issue even more problematic is the outdated and unfair practice of withholding five to 

ten percent retainage from the monthly invoice of public and private construction contracts without any regard to performance, as 

my colleagues have stated. 

As a second tier or lower contractor, which many of my group 

are, the wait for delays of invoice processing and payment for only 

90 percent of what you put out the previous month can be very difficult for small, small disadvantaged, and small minority businesses. 

Now, on top of that, the Tax Reconciliation Act would add an additional three percent deduction even though we have always paid 

our taxes on time and our performances have been entirely up to 

par. 

Members of the Committee, it is a fact that construction projects 

are very complex and risky business propositions. Profit margins 

are thin. Risks are high, and the competition is very competitive, 

and the industry, even with this complexity, is relatively easy to 

enter, which makes it an ideal market for small business. 

So the question becomes: who pays for the cost of this added 

three percent? Is it the taxpayer? Is it the small or minority owned 

business that has to close up shop because it can’t afford the three 

percent delay in payment? 

Ultimately, as taxpayers, we all pay. We will pay with higher 

bids to cover increased financing costs, and we will pay with diminished competition within our industry, and the worst part is that 

all of this is completely unnecessary. 

Let me be perfectly clear. I am opposed to companies receiving 

contracts when they don’t pay their taxes. However, the government already has the information it needs to address this problem 

without putting the burden on small businesses and driving some 

small businesses out of business. 

When I registered in CCR like every other federal contractor, the 

government validated my taxpayer identification number with the 

IRS. This means that the government had all of the information it 

needed for debt collection and could check at that time to see if I 

had any outstanding tax liabilities. 

When I renew my CCR registry each year, which I’m inclined to 

do, the government could again determine whether or not I had 

outstanding tax liabilities. I also must supply representations and 

certifications whenever I submit a proposal that includes a statement that I haven’t been convicted of tax evasion. At that time I 

would be happy to certify that I am current with my taxes. If done, 

it would insure that tax evaders were caught or risk suspension 

and debarment of false claims at penalties. 

Finally, CCR already shares information with agency payment 

systems. If someone does get a contract—excuse me. I am trying 

14

to roll it—and owes tax liability, the government should be able to 

withdraw the funds at that time. It is my understanding that some 

agencies already do so. The important thing to remember here is 

that the government can do all of these things without it costing 

law abiding small businesses a single penny. 

Member of the Committee, I ask that you help small businesses. 

I ask that you help minority businesses by supporting the repeal 

bill H.R. 1023. 

Thank you, and I am sorry it took a little longer. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Coleman may be found in the 

Appendix on page 61.] 

Mr. SHULER. Mr. Coleman recognized when there was a rookie 

in the chair. 

Mr. COLEMAN. Absolutely, a rookie at the table. [Laughter.] 

Mr. SHULER. Well, I want to thank the entire panel for their testimony today. I, too, can relate to so many of you having a small 

business myself, being in the construction industry, being the 

health care industry. I, too, can relate to the added burden that so 

often is place upon our small businesses. 

And at this time we will move to questions from the Committee, 

and I would like to start off by asking Mr. Kahn a question concerning the health care industry. Can you talk more about the impact that this rule will have on small health care providers, especially in the rural areas which I come from? 

We have one major hospital and 15 small hospitals, and most of 

which are community managed hospitals. Through the paper work 

and administrative resources to handle the extensive paper work, 

can you tell me, you know, more of the problem and truly expand 

on what your testimony has already given us today? 

Mr. KAHN. I think if we look at all of the array of providers, particularly in the rural areas, whether it’s the physicians that generally have small group practices, whether it’s the suppliers, the 

durable medical equipment, whether it’s the small hospitals in the 

rural areas, many of whom are for profit, half of my members have 

rural hospitals across the country. We know that the Medicare payments are already sort of very close to the margin so that these 

payments, if you deduct three percent is really like a three percent 

cut on a payment that already hardly meets your cost. That’s the 

first issue. 

The second issue is just the complexity. The number of claims 

particularly for smaller providers who may be seeing a lot of patients and have a lot of small claims means that there’s a lot of 

paper work that could be added because of this, and the question 

of whether or not the agency can even handle the administration 

of this three percent in a fair way, considering the way that claims 

are frequently refiled and re-adjudicated and payments are made 

and then payments sort of go back and forth between the providers 

and the CMS, the agency that administers this program, is mind 

boggling. 

So I guess the first question here is did those who wrote this particular law even understand the implications for Medicare and for 

the Medicare beneficiaries, as well as those providing services, and 

did they—and I do not think they did—even talk to the agency that 

would have had to administer this program? 

15

So one of the reasons that we are so fervent in our support for 

repeal is that we’re not sure this is the kind of law that can even 

be administered fairly. In the contracting area, my fellow witnesses 

brought up all kinds of issues that arise, but here there’s a basic 

contract, but this is a fee for service environment. It’s an environment in which a provider is providing a service and then expects 

to be paid, and it’s even different than the contracting environment 

where you can anticipate some of the effects, albeit the problems 

it raises. 

Mr. SHULER. Thank you. 

Mr. Whitman, I was wondering if you know of anything preventing the IRS from determining what amount has been paid to 

the government contractors or which businesses are receiving these 

Medicare or AG and contracting payments. 

Mr. WHITMAN. Is anything preventing the IRS? 

Mr. SHULER. Yes. 

Mr. WHITMAN. Well, currently there is no reporting is my understanding. There is no reporting that these payments made by the 

federal government or by the state governments. Some of my members have told me that when they’re dealing with counties that 

some counties do provide a 1099; some don’t. Some just decide to 

err on the side of safety and provide this, but there is no reason 

that governments couldn’t simply report these payments that are 

being made. Therefore, the IRS could determine whether the income is reported, and that’s the complaint. Is the income reported? 

Mr. SHULER. If you could give just one outside of just repealing 

the rule altogether, you know, that I can go back to my district and 

when I talk to my hospitals or my contractors or the people, this 

could be open for any of the members on the panel. If there was 

one thing that I could say because most of it is not being able to 

understand the rules, first of all, from so many of our people that 

say this is an added tax on and continuation of taxes and taxes and 

taxes pushed down; is there one thing that could help me when I 

am talking to my small businesses and groups, whether it be a 

trucking industry or whether it be a construction industry, that can 

also help us be more clear about how this tax is implemented and 

the reason and the major impacts that it causes in your small businesses? 

Mr. WHITMAN. I am sorry. To explain it more thoroughly? 

Mr. SHULER. Yes, yes, absolutely. 

Mr. WHITMAN. Well, I do not really look upon it as a tax. I look 

upon it as a penalty for doing business with the government, so to 

speak, that you lose your cash flow. It is considered to be a prepayment of tax because it is being withheld for federal tax payment. 

But we already have systems for doing it now. We have the estimated tax system where corporations estimate their tax liability 

possibly on a quarterly basis, go back and revisit, and make quarterly tax payments. This is just something on top of that that’s unnecessary. 

Mr. SHULER. Right. Thank you. 

I yield back. 

Chairwoman VELA ́ ZQUEZ. [presiding] I now recognize the Ranking Member, Mr. Chabot. 

Mr. CHABOT. Thank you very much, Madam Chair. 

16

I’ll begin asking Mr. Coleman, if I can. 

You had requested the consideration of co-sponsoring H.R. 1023, 

which would do away with this completely and as a result of your 

request and having studied this pretty closely, it is our intention 

to do that. So thank you for bringing that up. 

Secondly, you referred in your testimony to the fact that the construction industry is really keenly competitive and that construction projects are extremely complex. Again, how would the three 

percent withholding affect your ability to, for example, submit competitive bids? 

Mr. COLEMAN. What happens in our industry, Congressman, as 

Mr. Iannelli probably on the panel has stated earlier, we are already dealing with a ten percent retention, which is deducted from 

our monthly invoices on an ongoing basis, and we find that in the 

construction industry retentions are just commonplace, and to put 

on top of the ten percent a three percent retention, what it does 

is it creates a situation that we are taking three percent out of our 

pocket to fund this, and so that puts an added burden on construction companies. 

Now, we are already in a fight over this ten percent retention. 

We would like to see that eliminated because it was originally intended to make sure that the workers in the work place were being 

paid. Now there is all other types of protection against that. You 

have performance bonds. You have labor material and payment 

bonds that cover that cost. 

So you are taking ten percent, which our margins are tight already. So if a contractor is bidding a project and he has ten percent 

in there for fees, so what you are doing is you are trading dollars 

until you get to the very end of a project where you can realize the 

ten percent. 

But on top of that you take three percent. So I as a contractor 

have to go in my pocket and say, ‘‘Okay, Mr. Federal Government. 

I will let you hold my three percent until some time in the future 

when you are assured that the taxes have been paid and everything is in compliance. Then you will release my money.’’ 

That puts an added burden on the contractor, large and small. 

It is a burden that we have to deal with, and generally we are financing retentions anyway. So we have to go out and find additional financing. If we cannot find the additional financing to be 

able to cover the cost of the additional three percent, you will see 

many businesses go by the wayside, and I do not think that is what 

the Small Business Committee is about. 

I think you guys are here to help, not hinder. 

Mr. CHABOT. Thank you very much. 

Mr. Kahn, let me go to you next. One of the chief complaints that 

we hear from physicians and hospitals is the red tape and the reporting requirements and record keeping, and you have already 

touched on this to some extent already. This three percent withholding provision would be yet another layer of complexity, and I 

think perhaps a threat to physicians participating in Medicare, 

which is already a problem because of the reimbursements, 

etcetera. 

Could you comment on that very briefly? 

17

Mr. KAHN. Yes. Well, if we look at the physicians, and basically 

all physicians are for profit except a few that may work in universities, and so they would have three percent more withdrawn from 

their fees, and unless Congress acts, and I assume Congress will, 

but if it does not, there is a ten percent real reduction in fees coming January 1 of next year for physicians. 

So this causes a real problem for physician fees that were already low. It is a bookkeeping issue because Medicare claims are 

not simply a claim and then a payment is made. There are frequently, as I said, all kinds of contentions about the claims. So getting back your three percent when you file your taxes and the 

bookkeeping on that is going to be extremely complicated. 

Finally, Medicare knows physicians, the suppliers, the hospitals 

that they do business with. I mean, there are Medicare numbers 

each of these people have to have. There are papers constantly 

being filed with Medicare. So if IRS can narrow down these individuals, which they ultimately have to do, the bad actors, the GAO 

report shows they can be found. All you have got to do is have communication between IRS and Medicare, and Medicare can locate 

the bad actors and action can be taken on the bills that they have 

filed, and those claims can be held by Medicare, you know, until 

adjudication. 

So this issue of affecting everybody will have administrative effects. It will have cash flow effects, and it is a big problem. And, 

frankly, on the hospital side, 35 to 40 percent of your business is 

Medicare. You can’t walk away from Medicare. 

On the physician side, many communities, depending on the 

practice, many physicians today look at Medicare and say, ‘‘Can I 

really afford to provide services to Medicare beneficiaries?’’ And 

this adds sort of another piece to that. 

And when it goes into effect in a few years, if the program continues on the path that it is, it could cause real access problems 

for Medicare beneficiaries because more physicians could say, ‘‘Gee, 

I am just not going to put up with the hassle. I cannot afford the 

cash flow issues or the paper work issues.’’ 

Mr. CHABOT. Thank you very much. 

Madam Chair, if I have time for one more question, I’ll just put 

it to the other three witnesses, if you could all comment on this 

briefly. 

Part of the SBA mission, as we all know, is to help small businesses to receive a fair share of government contracts, and it is not 

easy oftentimes for small businesses, given the challenges in contracting with the federal government. Do you think that small business is likely to increase or even retain its percentage of government contracts given this new, complex constraint, and is it possible that small businesses could even lose some of its current 

share if this is enacted? 

I will start with you, Mr. Whitman and Mr. Deel and Mr. 

Iannelli. 

Mr. WHITMAN. Yes, my members tell me this. The situation is 

that by taking out the three percent, especially for the smaller 

businesses that you mention poses a huge problem with the cash 

flow situation for these companies, and so they’re going to have to 

18

take a hard look at whether they can do business with the government with all of the other hoops that they have to jump through. 

So a few people have told me, and we have discussed this in our 

small business committee, that they definitely would shy away 

from doing business with this provision. 

Mr. CHABOT. Thank you very much. 

Mr. Deel. 

Mr. DEEL. My companies compete in the motor carrier industry, 

and one of my largest competitors in the segment that we serve, 

which is the Department of Defense is a large, publicly traded company, very well capitalized with a lot of capacity, thousands of 

trucks compared to my company of a few hundred trucks. 

They can withstand this three percent more easily than my company can, and so I would have a difficult time raising rates if they 

do not raise rates as well because of this, and so I would lose competition because we compete. Price is very important. The lowest 

price carrier get the bid from the government, and so I would either have to operate at a lower margin or lower cash flow or exit 

the market. It would probably be difficult to raise rates if our larger competitors do not because they can withstand the cash flow impact of this. 

And I have a lot of competitors that are small like me as well, 

who will have the same problem. So, yes, I think the answer is 

probably fewer motor carriers vying for the government business. 

Mr. CHABOT. Thank you. 

Mr. Iannelli. 

Chairwoman VELA ́ ZQUEZ. Would the gentleman yield for a moment? 

Mr. CHABOT. Yes. 

Chairwoman VELA ́ ZQUEZ. Mr. Deel, you know, this three percent 

withholding applies to prime contractors. So do you think that a 

prime contractor will withhold if they are doing business with a 

subcontractor? It will push down to the subcontractor? 

Mr. DEEL. I think that is certainly possible, and even in my company I use subcontractors, independent owner-operators that work 

for my company, and I would be faced with the decision: do I carry 

that three percent burden or do I pass it on down to that real small 

business person? 

That would be the decision that would have to be made, but likely I think it is going to go downhill to the lowest common denominator. 

Mr. CHABOT. Thank you. I will reclaim my time. 

Mr. Iannelli. 

Mr. IANNELLI. I would love to pass along a three percent on my 

future bids, but I know that is never going to happen because the 

contracting climate in New York City, there is always somebody 

out there who is going to come along and basically work for less 

than that. 

I think I might move to Ohio though. 

[Laughter.] 

Mr. IANNELLI. Working on ten percent, and I think I would love 

to do it. So give me your address and I will be there tomorrow. 

[Laughter.] 

Mr. IANNELLI. Here I come. 

19

As far as passing the costs down to the subcontractor, and you 

also know, too, it could never happen because there’s no legitimate 

reason for me to tell my subcontractors I am withholding three percent of your money because they are worried I am not paying my 

taxes. It is not going to work. 

So it is just a bad situation that I think should not be in place. 

Mr. CHABOT. Thank you very much. 

Madam Chair, this has really been an excellent panel. So thank 

you. 

Chairwoman VELA ́ ZQUEZ. Thank you. 

Mr. Ellsworth. 

Mr. ELLSWORTH. Madam Chairwoman, thank you for calling this 

hearing. I cannot think of anything that we do in the federal government, anything that needed a light shown on it, it is this subject, and I appreciate that. 

Mr. Deel, do you pay your taxes on time, your federal taxes on 

time? 

Mr. DEEL. Yes, I do. 

Mr. ELLSWORTH. Mr. Coleman, do you pay your federal taxes on 

time? 

Mr. COLEMAN. Yes. 

Mr. ELLSWORTH. Have either of you—sorry. 

[Cell phone interruption.] 

Mr. ELLSWORTH. I pay mine on time, too. 

[Laughter.] 

Mr. ELLSWORTH. Totally forgot my line of questioning. 

Have either of you ever changed the name of your company, 

opened a new company and applied for a new TIN in order to secure a new federal contract or avoid because you had not paid one, 

know you cannot get a contract under your old TIN and so you 

open a new company or change it in order to get a federal contract? 

Mr. DEEL. No, sir. 

Mr. COLEMAN. No, sir. 

Mr. ELLSWORTH. Have you ever heard of that or know of that to 

occur, that somebody opens a new company, changes the name, applies for a new TIN? I think Mr. Coleman alluded to this, that it 

occurs. 

Does that occur? 

Mr. COLEMAN. Yes, it does. 

Mr. DEEL. Yes, sir. 

Mr. ELLSWORTH. Would one or both of you touch on what that 

is like, how that puts you at a disadvantage? Law abiding, tax paying companies to compete against a person or a company that does 

that and how that puts you at a disadvantage on a federal contract. 

Mr. COLEMAN. Well, one of the things that it does when it happens, it basically takes work away from you. You will find instances where a contractor will do something like that, and I know 

an example where it has happened, where you feel that, you know, 

you have put together a very responsible organization. You are 

paying your taxes. You are employing people. You are paying good 

wages, and to have a contractor come by to try and beat the system 

like that, all of the good things that you have done, you know, trying to build and participate and be a part of the American dream, 

to just go fall off the table, so to speak. 

20

And one of the things that in our organization and our campaign 

for quality construction that we are trying to do is lobby Congress 

to tighten up the contractor responsibility laws, and if we could get 

something like that, we could eliminate this problem. Then you can 

have capable, qualified, good contractors performing the services to 

our government, and that is what it should be about. 

We do not need the competition. We do not mind competition, but 

let the competition play on the same field. Let the playing field be 

level, so to speak, and that we are all competing under the same 

guidelines, the same rules, and we are okay with that. 

I do not mind losing the contract to Mr. Iannelli when he is out 

doing the same thing, paying his taxes, you know, doing the same 

things that I am doing as an organization. What we do mind is 

when you allow someone to not play by the rules, beat the system 

and drive legitimate taxpaying contractors out of business. 

Mr. DEEL. I agree with all of those comments. It is certainly 

troubling to know that businesses or individuals avoiding the tax 

that they would otherwise owe by changing their corporate name 

or their federal ID number. Those same kind of individuals are not 

just avoiding federal taxes. They are also maybe not paying their 

contractors or suppliers, and the list goes on. 

Those kinds of people that are unscrupulous are just disheartening for us that are quality business people. We pay our taxes and 

we vie for the business and would like to see it on a fair, competitive playing field. 

Mr. ELLSWORTH. Certainly they know that if they are not going 

to pay their taxes, they can bid that at a lower rate. 

Mr. DEEL. Absolutely. 

Mr. ELLSWORTH. Well, again, Chairwoman, I appreciate this. 

This goes right to the heart, and, Mr. Coleman, you could add me 

to co-sponsors on the bill you have mentioned. This goes right to 

the heart of what the people in Indiana and, I am sure, across the 

country drives them crazy. They do not mind paying taxes. They 

mind getting ripped off. You are being ripped off, and I will do my 

part. 

Thank you very much. 

Chairwoman VELA ́ ZQUEZ. Thank you. 

And now I will recognize Ms. Musgrave from Colorado. 

Ms. MUSGRAVE. Thank you, Madam Chairman. 

And I would like to compliment you on the fact that you are 

holding hearings that really get to the heart of what is affecting 

small businesses, and I really applaud you for your efforts. 

You know, when we are talking about this mandatory three percent withholding, it just really illustrates what happens when you 

have something done in a conference where there has not been 

open debate and then later everybody raises their hand and says, 

‘‘Wait a minute. You know, this is really going to hit small businesses hard.’’ 

And we are seeing that today, and I certainly will be a co-sponsor 

of the repeal. You know, Mr. Chabot spoke with you, Mr. Kahn, 

about Medicare providers, the impact on physicians with paper 

work, and you know, I am very concerned as the elderly population 

increases that we need docs who are going to accept Medicare paVerDate 0ct 09 2002 17:54 Dec 19, 2007 Jkt 033615 PO 00000 Frm 00026 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 G:\CLERK SB\HEARINGS\TRANSCRIPTS\33806.TXT LEANN
21

tients, and here is one more thing now to put on top of it that is 

going to be a disincentive for them, and that concerns me greatly. 

Could someone elaborate for me on the federal payment levy program and see how this differs from this mandatory three percent 

withholding? 

Mr. KAHN. Well, in the levy program, they identify the bad players and in a sense go after them and their payments. It is a very 

direct one-two, and at least in terms of our experience in sort of 

observing that, we deal with the Department of Health and Human 

Services, and they have been very reticent to get into it, and we 

think that either the Congress needs to tell or the administration 

needs to decide that the HHS is going to play because clearly in 

terms of provider numbers and other information, Medicare has the 

information to locate providers and physicians who are not paying 

their taxes if the IRS has the information. 

So you cannot change a provider number very simply. It is even 

more difficult than in the other areas that have been discussed. So 

we think it is a question of the government getting its act together 

and CMS, the agency that oversees Medicare being told to do it. 

Ms. MUSGRAVE. Thank you for that response. 

You know, as I looked at the big picture on this, can any of you 

address how this will affect your ability to reinvest in your business, grow your business and create jobs if this is not repealed? 

Mr. DEEL. Well, I will start with my particular companies. We 

do a lot for the U.S. government, and that three percent would 

amount to for us about a million dollars a year, and that is one 

million dollars less that I would have available to buy tractors or 

trailers or grow my business, and that’s a million dollars of working capital that I wouldn’t otherwise have available to me. 

So, yes, that is a huge amount of money for my particular group 

of companies. 

Ms. MUSGRAVE. Very dramatic. 

Mr. DEEL. Yes. 

Ms. MUSGRAVE. Does anyone else want to respond to that? 

Mr. COLEMAN. I would. In my company, in the construction industry three percent could be ten jobs, and we should be at the 

point of developing jobs and work for our society. 

It also takes away cash flow, and in our business we need cash 

flow. We are already dealing, as I said before, with a ten percent 

retention which takes away cash flow. So we struggle with cash 

flow, and for those businesses that cannot go to a bank or cannot 

go to some type of financial organization to get that finance, they 

are going to struggle. 

They will not be able to grow their businesses. Three percent to 

some major corporations may not sound like a lot of money, but to 

a small, emerging business, it is a lot of money, and in my organization ten jobs is a lot of jobs. So it is going to have a dire effect 

on cash flow in our organization. 

Mr. KAHN. You know, I would like to add that if I understand 

the GAO reports, a good bit of the problem is with payroll taxes. 

So, one, this does not go to the heart of payroll taxes, and frankly, 

in the hospital business, as I said, we are around 20 percent of hospitals. We are competing with tax exempt hospitals that do not pay 

22

income taxes. So they will get their full Medicare payment and we 

will not when the issue is an issue primarily of payroll taxes. 

And anybody who is not paying their payroll taxes is not just 

cheating the government. They are cheating their employees and 

probably should be hung, particularly if they go out and spend the 

money on luxury items and things, which is what the GAO report 

concluded. 

So I think we need to find solutions to this problem, and I understand in the GAO report that they just came out with the other day 

that five percent of physicians and suppliers being paid by Part B 

of Medicare have some kind of problem here, and that is a big 

number. It is shocking. 

But they should be dealt with. They can be identified, and taking 

money away from everyone will put everyone at a disadvantage. 

Ms. MUSGRAVE. Thank you, and I yield back, Madam Chairman. 

Chairwoman VELA ́ ZQUEZ. Thank you. 

And now I recognize the gentleman from Pennsylvania, Mr. 

Altmire. 

Mr. ALTMIRE. Thank you, Madam Chair. 

And I want to thank the panel for being here today and for full 

disclosure, say that I used to work at the Federation of American 

Hospitals before Mr. Kahn was there, but I am glad to see you here 

today as well. 

My first question is for Mr. Deel, and I just wanted to ask for 

my own benefit if you could give me an example of how withholding three percent of payment is different from withholding 

three percent of taxable income from your business perspective. 

Mr. DEEL. Well, three percent of the top line, my revenues, three 

percent of the gross revenue is entirely different than three percent 

of the net. In our industry, take just five percent is the pre-tax 

number of the top line. So if the company has a million dollars a 

year of gross revenues that the three percent would come out of, 

that would be $30,000. If that company only makes five percent of 

that million, that is $50,000 of taxable income and times the tax 

rate, you can see there that taking a three percent of the gross top 

line has no correlation to what your bottom line may be. It is just 

a wrong way of trying to get at the taxes that are not being paid 

by companies. 

Mr. ALTMIRE. And if we repeal the requirement to withhold the 

three percent, how will we be able to offset the cost to the tax 

breaks from the original legislation? What would you suggest? 

Mr. DEEL. My recommendation would be do what Mr. Kahn has 

been talking about and additionally implement a 1099 reporting 

kind of mechanism for any government payments to any company, 

whether they’re large business, small business, sole proprietary; 

that there is a mechanism to report to the Internal Revenue Service. This is a tried and true method of 1099 reporting. 

They would know what your federal ID number is. A company 

would have to sign a W-9 form certifying what your tax withholding number is your federal ID number, and at least the IRS 

would have the ability to follow and see is this company either filing a tax return, and if they are, are they reporting their revenues 

correctly? 

23

I think the combination of following up and withholding money 

from companies that do not pay their taxes that the IRS knows 

about is great, and I think additionally there needs to be reporting 

similar to when you receive an interest statement from your bank, 

a 1099. The IRS checks to make sure you put that on your tax return. 

That would be one relatively simple way of doing it, and it would 

only be a burden to the government agency once a year. They have 

to keep track of it during the year, but it is just one piece of paper 

that has to get sent out, one to the business owner and one to the 

Treasury department. 

Mr. ALTMIRE. Okay, and for Mr. Iannelli and Mr. Coleman, you 

both talked about some of the bonds that are required in your industry to perform certain types of work, and it seems that surety 

bonding would require that they look at your books to make sure 

that you are financially solvent. 

Can you each discuss with the committee the type of records that 

you think they will look at in determining your eligibility for those 

bonds? 

Mr. COLEMAN. Well, number one is the financial statement. 

They’re going to look at the financial statement. They’re going to 

require audited financial statements. When you reach a certain 

level of bonds, they’re going to require an audited statement and 

you’re going to go through a full blown audit to make sure that you 

are capable of being able to perform at whatever level that you’re 

performing at. That’s number one, first and foremost, with those 

organizations. 

And if you don’t meet their requirements, chances are you are 

not going to get a performance bond, and without performance 

bonds, you don’t compete in the public environment, and not only 

public environment from a federal standpoint, but you’re not going 

to compete with the local and state municipalities as well. 

Mr. IANNELLI. The bonding community in New York City has 

dried up considerably. So there are not a lot of places where your 

contractor can go for bonds, and they have regulations and requirements that are about, you know, they basically want to come over 

to your house and see how you live. 

And my bonding company every year, the financial statement, 

wants to check my tax returns and make sure the bottom line or 

whatever I said that I grossed on my tax returns is what I’m saying is the bottom line on my financial statement. So they check. 

There are checks and double checks and triple checks. So there is 

no way out of it, no way I could not pay my taxes. 

Mr. ALTMIRE. Great. Thank you. 

I yield back my time. 

Chairwoman VELA ́ ZQUEZ. Mr. Jordan from Ohio, you are recognized. 

Mr. JORDAN. Thank you very much. 

That is a rookie for you right there. 

[Laughter.] 

Mr. JORDAN. But I do appreciate the panel, and Mr. Deel’s testimony as well. You know, there is nothing like mathematics to show 

what is going on. Sometimes politicians are not too good in that 

24

subject, but it is good to have that in front of us. So I appreciate 

what you are doing. 

This is just, in my judgment, one more example of government 

saying we are smarter than the business owner. We are smarter 

than the family out there. We want to use your money for the year 

instead of letting you use it and invest it in jobs and business and 

in our community. 

So I think it is a good piece of legislation that we should pass, 

and I appreciate the panel’s testimony today, and I yield back. 

Chairwoman VELA ́ ZQUEZ. Thank you. 

Mr. Whitman, it seems that the three percent withholding could 

have a particularly harsh impact on the tech industry where startup costs are high and financing is critical. Do you believe that this 

change could have a negative effect on innovation in technologies 

because of the unique financing challenges facing your industry? 

Mr. WHITMAN. Well, when we were talking about research and 

development, typically research and development is done by larger 

organizations. Our members are typically smaller tech companies 

that are the providers of services. So I would not really speak to 

whether or not this three percent would affect innovation. 

Chairwoman VELA ́ ZQUEZ. Mr. Deel and Mr. Coleman and Mr. 

Iannelli, maybe the three of you can address my question. 

As the tax code has become more complex, so have the organizational set- ups of small businesses. The structure of a company can 

be based on a number of factors, including estate planning, liability 

concerns, and partnership sharing. Do you think this three percent 

withholding could be particularly burdensome for certain types of 

organizations, whether that be an S corporation, a partnership or 

some other structures? 

Mr. DEEL. I had not thought earlier until one of the other testimonies about the complexities of an S corporation or a partnership. 

This money is going to be withheld and sent over to the Treasury 

Department, and they are going to have to match that against the 

federal ID number, but if the real taxpayer is a member of an S 

corporation or a partnership, be the one paying the tax on the income, how will that match up that they will be able to get credit 

on their 1040 tax return when they file it or the money that was 

paid in under the corporation’s tax ID number or the partnership’s 

ID number? 

That is going to be a nightmare I would just imagine. 

Chairwoman VELA ́ ZQUEZ. Yes. Any other witness who would like 

to answer? 

Mr. KAHN. Well, I think in the health care situation, particularly 

in group practices for physicians or in the hospital situation there 

may be subsidiaries that actually could create a similar kind of situation where some kind of holding entity is actually paying the 

taxes and you have got other entities that now are going to lose 

money on their Medicare payment, and the bookkeeping issues, assuming that you can even locate all of the dollars are going to be 

a big problem. 

Chairwoman VELA ́ ZQUEZ. Thank you. 

The federal government and I have been particularly on this 

issue for the many years that I have been serving in this committee making sure that small businesses have an opportunity to 

25

do business in the federal marketplace, and in fact, the contracting 

goal of the federal government has not been reached for several 

years now of 23 percent. 

I would like to hear from the witnesses on how they think this 

change will affect small business’ abilities to get contracts over 

large competitors, and do you believe that the cash flow issue will 

limit the ability of small contractors to perform these contracts? 

Mr. Coleman. 

Mr. COLEMAN. I think it will limit the ability. We’re talking cash 

flow in many cases, and any amount of cash flow is important to 

a small business. My biggest fear is this three percent will drive 

some of your small emerging businesses out of the marketplace, 

and I do not think that we really want to do that. 

In our group we feel that this three percent is just a bad idea, 

and there has got to be other ways to be able to reach the goal that 

you want to see accomplished and closing that tax gap and not penalize small emerging businesses in the process. I just think it is 

a bad idea. 

Chairwoman VELA ́ ZQUEZ. Could the government end up paying 

more for contracts because of this change? 

Mr. COLEMAN. They will pay more. They will pay more in increased costs because those that can finance it are going to try and 

pass that cost on to the federal government. You will pay more 

with reduced competition because if you drive businesses out of 

business, that means you’re going to have less competition in the 

marketplace for the work that you’re putting out there for bid or 

for offerors. 

Chairwoman VELA ́ ZQUEZ. Okay. Any other witness? Yes, Mr. 

Whitman. 

Mr. WHITMAN. Yes. And for those businesses that are in the 

smaller end of the spectrum, as they lose this operating capital because of the withholdings, they will have to go into the market to 

borrow, if in fact they can borrow, and this is another cost that 

they will have to pass on to the government. So, I mean, no matter 

how you cut it, it’s going to be more expensive for the government, 

and it’s going to be bad for small business. 

Mr. DEEL. I can give a recent example how the motor carrier industry that serves the Department of Defense transportation 

needs. Several years ago they made the decision that the way they 

would pay the carriers is through a system called Powertrack. It’s 

through U.S. Bank, and they withhold approximately two percent 

from your payment to receive the funds by electronic wire. 

Well, that two percent charge is a very expensive charge for the 

cash for that faster payment, and what the industry did was raise 

rates by approximately the two percent. That was the general reaction. 

So to answer your question about will the costs go up, it is likely 

that they will through reduced competition if some of the small 

business goes out and the bigger guys that are left say, ‘‘Well, we 

can raise rates now.’’ 

And one further thing I’d like to say is that when I started my 

company ten years ago, had this been in place, it would have been 

very, very difficult for me to be where I am today. In those early 

years cash was very, very tight. Cash flow was I refer to ‘‘cash is 

26

king.’’ I could not have grown my company with this three percent 

and served the government market. 

Chairwoman VELA ́ ZQUEZ. Thank you. 

I will recognize the gentleman from Georgia, Mr. Westmoreland. 

Mr. WESTMORELAND. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman. 

And I want to say that I look forward to working with you and 

the rest of the Committee on repealing this crazy thing, and I also 

want to apologize to the people. I am embarrassed that this was 

passed during a Republican control of Congress, and I think this 

is an example of what happens when we hurriedly pass some of 

these big pieces of legislation, two and three and 400 pages of very 

technical stuff, and we have a very short time in which to look at 

it. Madam Chair, I think this is one of those things that got past 

all of us, and especially the people that are familiar with small 

business. 

So forgive us, and hopefully this year if we can right this wrong, 

I think it will be the highlight of my congressional career in a short 

three years just to right any wrong, but especially this one. 

[Laughter.] 

Mr. WESTMORELAND. Mr. Coleman, I am a small business guy, 

too, and I was in the construction business all my life, a Mom and 

Pop guy, and when I was in the state legislature I fought very hard 

to make sure that procurement of government contracts was available to all business, small, large, minority, whatever the case is. 

Everybody had an opportunity to do this, and you know, we 

passed—I say ‘‘we,’’ but I did not have any responsibility for this—

but back in the late 1980s, we passed a tax called the AMT tax, 

the alternative minimum tax, and it was designed to get 150 millionaires who did not pay any taxes. 

This year I think it is going to affect 20 million people. So something that they did to catch 150 has developed into a bunch of us. 

In contract, I think it is the same thing. While their goal was 

good and what they wanted to do—well, I do not know that it was 

good in what they wanted to do, but it is not small business’ job 

to enforce the tax codes. Now they are wanting us to enforce immigration laws, tax code. I mean, I do not know what else we are 

going to be responsible for. 

But in your testimony, and I read your testimony. I am sorry I 

was not here for you to give it, but in reading your testimony, you 

said it is anywhere from five to ten percent of your payment. In 

a small business cash flow kind of crunch, that is a lot, isn’t it? 

Mr. COLEMAN. Exactly. 

Mr. WESTMORELAND. And I know from my experience in small 

business a lot of these large government contracts, I never got any 

of them, but— 

[Laughter.] 

Mr. DEEL. You were lucky. 

Mr. WESTMORELAND. Yes, I know I was lucky, yes. I did not have 

an opportunity to lose money. 

[Laughter.] 

Mr. WESTMORELAND. But three percent was in some cases all of 

the profit you were going to make, and I think going back to what 

Mr. Deel said, it is going to drive the small guys out of business, 

and the guys that had some fat in it that can afford the three perVerDate 0ct 09 2002 17:54 Dec 19, 2007 Jkt 033615 PO 00000 Frm 00032 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 G:\CLERK SB\HEARINGS\TRANSCRIPTS\33806.TXT LEANN
27

cent will be the only ones left, and then once small business is driven out of it, then the prices are just going to escalate at a rapid 

rate, and I think we are going to see an outcome that is not going 

to be good for us all. 

But can you speak to what you were talking about as far as your 

association of contractors and how you kind of police yourself, I 

guess, on this? 

Mr. COLEMAN. Yes, yes. Our association of contractors have campaigned for quality construction. We like to think of ourselves as 

a group that want fair legislation, legislation that all can abide by, 

have that level playing field, so to speak. We want to do the right 

things. 

We pay very good wages. Just about all of our members are associated with collective bargaining agreements where we negotiate 

with the local building trades unions to put forth some very good 

packages with health and welfare benefits, multi-employer pension 

plans that are portable. The gentlemen or women in our association are in building trades unions. They can move from state to 

state, city to city and work and have everything travel and go 

along with them. 

And we think that it is a very good situation for all parties concerned, and we all want to do the right thing. We all want to pay 

our taxes. We all want to be good citizens. It is that when situations are created where that playing field gets tilted, we’re running 

up here on the Hill trying to meet with you and your constituents 

to help get this thing back to level so that we can all go down the 

road and do the right thing for our businesses and for our country 

by paying our taxes so that you guys can have the funds to do what 

you need to do on the other side back in our district. 

Mr. WESTMORELAND. If you find that level playing field, take a 

picture of it because I’ve been looking for it for years, and it is always tilted one way or the other. 

[Laughter.] 

Mr. WESTMORELAND. I do not know what it is, and I am sure all 

of your associations are the same, that you try to police yourselves. 

You want to be the blue chip association of organization where 

when your members come in they feel like they have been accredited in some way to be part of it and you are responsible for people. 

Government does not need to be policing it for you. I think you 

will do a great job of it yourselves. 

Madam Chairman, with that I will yield back and just tell you 

that I am looking forward to working with you and see if we cannot 

right this wrong. 

Thank you. 

Chairwoman VELA ́ ZQUEZ. Thank you. 

Mr. Coleman. 

Mr. COLEMAN. Yes, I wanted to make one more point that the 

Congressman raised about the five to ten percent retention. I think 

to get a clear understanding of what the retention is about, if we 

had a million dollar contract, and I billed a million dollars a 

month, they are going to take $100,000 of that million dollars a 

month away from me, and they are going to hold that until the 

completion of the project. 

28

Now, when I buy equipment, materials, and provide labor on my 

project, I am not going to pay the labor that I have working 90 percent of what he is due in the week. He will be up here and you 

will come and shut me down. 

When I buy equipment, if I have to buy a piece of air condi- tioning equipment and it costs me $100,000, I have got to pay that 

$100,000 right then and there. I cannot pay the guy $90,000 and 

expect him not to put a hold or come after me for the balance of 

his money. 

So that money that we are being withheld, that money is the 

type of dollars that we have to go and finance or take out of our 

business to be able to make sure that everyone is whole while we 

wait in the public environment to the end of the project to be able 

to get those dollars back. 

And then when you put three percent on top of that, now we are 

talking 13 percent. We are not talking ten percent, and that is 

what I mean by the effect of cash flow in our businesses. It is devastating. And if you want to put some small businesses out of business, then pass this legislation. That is how devastating it will be 

to our constituents across the country., 

Mr. WESTMORELAND. Can I make one comment to that? 

That is a great point about the ten percent retainage because 

what we probably need to do is pass some type of legislation that 

says the government has to give you back that ten percent 

retainage in a timely fashion. Because I know that sometimes that 

retainage is tough to get in a timely way, and you may have to 

wait 90, 120, six months. 

Mr. DEEL. Year. 

Mr. COLEMAN. In some cases. 

Mr. WESTMORELAND. Years, and a lot of time that ten percent is 

more than your profit; is that not true? 

Mr. COLEMAN. That is true. 

Mr. WESTMORELAND. Thank you, sir. 

Chairwoman VELA ́ ZQUEZ. The time has expired. 

I have another question, my last questions, and I want to address it to Mr. Kahn or Mr. Whitman. 

In your testimony you talk about how the budget score of the 

three percent withholding requirement was not an accurate reflection of the effect on the federal budget. So I was hoping that you 

could shed some light on why the $7 billion is not an accurate figure. How much of this is attributable to taxes that will have not 

been paid otherwise? 

In other words, how much it will actually close the tax gap? 

Mr. KAHN. I think what we were referring to, and this is something, joint tax, whatever, would reveal. I am not sure they looked 

at the Medicare program as one of the sources of revenue here that 

would be affected by the three percent, and there is some evidence 

to that. 

So, one, we think that the estimate understates what would be 

collected because you’re talking about, you know, three percent on 

the Medicare program, which is hundreds of billions of dollars, and 

of course, there are tax exempt organizations that would get the 

three percent, but they only make up probably about 35, 40 percent 

of Medicare spending. 

29

So we think the effect is going to be much greater on revenues 

than was anticipated. 

Mr. WHITMAN. Yes. Are you speaking to the fact as to whether 

or not this three percent will close the tax gap? Oh, okay. Fine. 

The three percent withholding does not do anything. It is the reporting of the income that does something. So the IRS can determine if a contractor, if a person has reported that income on the 

return. So if we have that, we do not need the withholding. Withholding does not close this tax gap in any fashion. It simply is 

money that would have been paid at the end of the year had it 

been owed. 

Chairwoman VELA ́ ZQUEZ. Thank you. 

Well, I want to thank you all for taking time to come here and 

talk to us about this important issue, and you know, this Committee, I want to use it as a vehicle to be able to raise the profile 

of the impact of this issue on small businesses. So I want to thank 

all of you for your participation, and without objection members 

will have five days to submit a statement for the record. 

With that, this hearing is adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 11:36 a.m., the Committee meeting was adjourned.]

30


33806.001
31


33806.002
32


33806.003
33


33806.004
34


33806.005
35


33806.006
36


33806.007
37


33806.008
38


33806.009
39


33806.010
40


33806.011
41


33806.012
42


33806.013
43


33806.014
44


33806.015
45


33806.016
46


33806.017
47


33806.018
48


33806.019
49


33806.020
50


33806.021
51


33806.022
52


33806.023
53


33806.024
54


33806.025
55


33806.026
56


33806.027
57


33806.028
58


33806.029
59


33806.030
60


33806.031
61


33806.032
62


33806.033
63


33806.034
64


33806.035
65


33806.036
66


33806.037
67


33806.038
68


33806.039
69


33806.040
70


33806.041
71


33806.042
72


33806.043
73


33806.044
74


33806.045
75


33806.046
76


33806.047
77


33806.048
78


33806.049
79


33806.050
80


33806.086
81


33806.087
82


33806.051
83


33806.052
84


33806.053
85


33806.054
86


33806.055
87


33806.056
88


33806.057
89


33806.058
90


33806.059
91


33806.060
92


33806.061
93


33806.062
94


33806.063
95


33806.064
96


33806.065
97


33806.066
98


33806.067
99


33806.068
100


33806.069
101


33806.070
102


33806.071
103


33806.072
104


33806.073
105


33806.074
106


33806.075
107


33806.076
108


33806.077
109


33806.078
110


33806.079
111


33806.080
112


33806.081
113


33806.082
114


33806.083
115


33806.084
116

Æ


33806.085