General Explanations 

of the 

Administration’s Fiscal Year 2011 

Revenue Proposals 

Department of the Treasury 

February 2010 

 
 

General Explanations 

of the 

Administration’s Fiscal Year 2011 

Revenue Proposals 

Department of the Treasury 

February 2010

This document is available in Adobe Acrobat format on the Internet at: 

http://www.treas.gov/offices/tax-policy/library/greenbk10.pdf

The free Adobe Acrobat Reader is available at: http://get.adobe.com/reader
TABLE OF CONTENTS1

TEMPORARY RECOVERY MEASURES .............................................................................................................. 1

Extend the Making Work Pay Credit ...................................................................................................................... 1

Provide $250 Economic Recovery Payments and Special Tax Credit .................................................................... 2

Extend COBRA Health Insurance Premium Assistance ......................................................................................... 4

Provide Additional Tax Credits for Investment in Qualified Property Used in a Qualifying Advanced Energy 

Manufacturing Project .................................................................................................................................... 6

Extend Temporary Increase in Expensing for Small Business ................................................................................ 8

Extend Temporary Bonus Depreciation for Certain Property ................................................................................ 9

Extend Option for Cash Assistance to States in Lieu of Low-Income Housing Tax Credits ................................. 11

TAX CUTS FOR FAMILIES AND INDIVIDUALS .............................................................................................. 13

Expand the Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC) .................................................................................................... 13

Expand the Child and Dependent Care Tax Credit .............................................................................................. 15

Provide for Automatic Enrollment in IRAs and Double the Tax Credit for Small Employer Plan Startup 

Costs .............................................................................................................................................................. 16

Expand Saver’s Credit .......................................................................................................................................... 19

Extend American Opportunity Tax Credit ............................................................................................................ 21

TAX CUTS FOR BUSINESS ................................................................................................................................... 23

Eliminate Capital Gains Taxation on Investments in Small Business Stock ......................................................... 23

Make Research & Experimentation Tax Credit Permanent.................................................................................. 25

Remove Cell Phones from Listed Property ........................................................................................................... 26

CONTINUE CERTAIN EXPIRING PROVISIONS THROUGH CALENDAR YEAR 2011 ........................... 27

OTHER REVENUE CHANGES AND LOOPHOLE CLOSERS ......................................................................... 29

Reform Treatment of Financial Institutions and Products ...................................................................................... 29

Impose a Financial Crisis Responsibility Fee .................................................................................................. 29

Require Accrual of Income on Forward Sale of Corporate Stock .................................................................... 31

Require Ordinary Treatment of Income from Day-to-Day Dealer Activities for Certain Dealers in 

Commodities, Derivatives and Other Securities ....................................................................................... 32

Modify Definition of “Control” for Purposes of Section 249 .......................................................................... 33

Reinstate Superfund Taxes ..................................................................................................................................... 34

Reinstate Superfund Excise Taxes .................................................................................................................... 34

Reinstate Superfund Environmental Income Tax ............................................................................................. 35

Make Unemployment Insurance Surtax Permanent .............................................................................................. 36

Repeal LIFO Method of Accounting for Inventories ............................................................................................. 37

Repeal Gain Limitation for Dividends Received in Reorganization Exchanges ................................................... 38

Reform the U.S. International Tax System ............................................................................................................. 39

Defer Deduction of Interest Expense Related to Deferred Income .................................................................. 39

Foreign Tax Credit Reform: Determine the Foreign Tax Credit on a Pooling Basis ...................................... 41

Foreign Tax Credit Reform: Prevent Splitting of Foreign Income and Foreign Taxes ................................... 42

Tax Currently Excess Returns Associated with Transfers of Intangibles Offshore .......................................... 43

Limit Shifting of Income Through Intangible Property Transfers .................................................................... 44

Disallow the Deduction for Excess Nontaxed Reinsurance Premiums Paid to Affiliates ................................ 45

Limit Earnings Stripping by Expatriated Entities ............................................................................................ 46

Repeal 80/20 Company Rules .......................................................................................................................... 47

Prevent the Avoidance of Dividend Withholding Taxes ................................................................................... 48

Modify the Tax Rules for Dual Capacity Taxpayers ........................................................................................ 49

1

 The Administration’s primary policy proposals reflect changes from a tax baseline that modifies current law by 

“patching” the alternative minimum tax, freezing the estate tax at 2009 levels, and making permanent a number of 

the tax cuts enacted in 2001 and 2003. The baseline changes to current law are described in the Appendix. In some 

cases, the policy descriptions in the body of this report make note of the baseline (e.g., descriptions of upper-income 

tax provisions), but elsewhere the baseline is implicit. 

i 
Combat Under-Reporting of Income on Accounts and Entities in Offshore Jurisdictions ..................................... 51

Require Increased Reporting on Certain Foreign Accounts ............................................................................ 51

Require Increased Reporting with Respect to Certain Recipients of FDAP Income or Gross Proceeds ......... 54

Repeal Certain Foreign Exceptions to Registered Bond Requirements ........................................................... 56

Require Disclosure of Foreign Financial Assets to Be Filed with Tax Return ................................................ 58

Impose Penalties for Underpayments Attributable to Undisclosed Foreign Financial Assets ......................... 60

Extend Statute of Limitations for Significant Omission of Income Attributable to Foreign Financial Assets . 61

Require Reporting of Certain Transfers of Assets to or from Foreign Financial Accounts ............................. 62

Require Third-Party Information Reporting Regarding the Transfer of Assets to or from Foreign 

Financial Accounts and the Establishment of Foreign Financial Accounts ............................................. 63

Permit the Secretary to Require Electronic Filing by Financial Institutions of Certain Withholding Tax 

Returns ...................................................................................................................................................... 65

Establish Presumption of U.S. Beneficiary in Case of Transfers to Foreign Trusts by a U.S. Person ............ 66

Treat Certain Uncompensated Uses of Foreign Trust Property as a Distribution to U.S. Grantor or 

Beneficiary ................................................................................................................................................ 67

Improve Foreign Trust Reporting Penalty ....................................................................................................... 68

Reform Treatment of Insurance Companies and Products...................................................................................... 69

Modify Rules that Apply to Sales of Life Insurance Contracts ......................................................................... 69

Modify Dividends-Received Deduction for Life Insurance Company Separate Accounts ................................ 70

Expand Pro Rata Interest Expense Disallowance for Corporate-Owned Life Insurance (COLI) ................... 72

Permit Partial Annuitization of a Nonqualified Annuity Contract ................................................................... 74

ELIMINATE FOSSIL FUEL TAX PREFERENCES ............................................................................................ 75

Eliminate Oil and Gas Company Preferences ......................................................................................................... 75

Repeal Enhanced Oil Recovery Credit ............................................................................................................. 75

Repeal Credit for Oil and Gas Produced from Marginal Wells ....................................................................... 76

Repeal Expensing of Intangible Drilling Costs ................................................................................................ 77

Repeal Deduction for Tertiary Injectants ......................................................................................................... 79

Repeal Exemption to Passive Loss Limitation for Working Interests in Oil and Gas Properties .................... 80

Repeal Percentage Depletion for Oil and Natural Gas Wells .......................................................................... 81

Repeal Domestic Manufacturing Deduction for Oil and Gas Production ....................................................... 83

Increase Geological and Geophysical Amortization Period for Independent Producers to Seven Years ........ 84

Eliminate Coal Preferences ..................................................................................................................................... 85

Repeal Expensing of Exploration and Development Costs .............................................................................. 85

Repeal Percentage Depletion for Hard Mineral Fossil Fuels.......................................................................... 87

Repeal Capital Gains Treatment of Certain Royalties ..................................................................................... 89

Repeal Domestic Manufacturing Deduction for Coal and Other Hard Mineral Fossil Fuels ......................... 90

ADDITIONAL REVENUE CHANGES .................................................................................................................. 91

Tax Carried (Profits) Interests as Ordinary Income ............................................................................................. 91

Modify the Cellulosic Biofuel Producer Credit .................................................................................................... 93

Eliminate the Advanced Earned Income Tax Credit ............................................................................................. 94

Deny Deduction for Punitive Damages ................................................................................................................ 95

Repeal Lower-of-Cost-or-Market Inventory Accounting Method ......................................................................... 96

REDUCE THE TAX GAP AND MAKE REFORMS ............................................................................................ 97

Expand Information Reporting ............................................................................................................................... 97

Require Information Reporting on Payments to Corporations ........................................................................ 97

Require Information Reporting for Rental Property Expense Payments ......................................................... 98

Require Information Reporting for Private Separate Accounts of Life Insurance Companies ........................ 99

Require a Certified Taxpayer Identification Number from Contractors and Allow Certain Withholding ..... 100

Require Increased Information Reporting for Certain Government Payments for Property and Services .... 101

Increase Information Return Penalties .......................................................................................................... 102

Improve Compliance by Business ........................................................................................................................ 103

Require Greater Electronic Filing of Returns ................................................................................................ 103

Implement Standards Clarifying when Employee Leasing Companies Can Be Held Liable for their 

Clients’ Federal Employment Taxes ....................................................................................................... 105

ii 
iii 

Increase Certainty with Respect to Worker Classification ............................................................................. 107

Strengthen Tax Administration ............................................................................................................................. 110

Codify “Economic Substance” Doctrine ....................................................................................................... 110

Allow Assessment of Criminal Restitution as Tax .......................................................................................... 112

Revise Offer-in-Compromise Application Rules ............................................................................................ 113

Expand IRS Access to Information in the National Directory of New Hires for Tax Administration 

Purposes .................................................................................................................................................. 114

Make Repeated Willful Failure to File a Tax Return a Felony ...................................................................... 115

Facilitate Tax Compliance with Local Jurisdictions ...................................................................................... 116

Extend Statute of Limitations where State Adjustment Affects Federal Tax Liability .................................... 117

Improve Investigative Disclosure Statute ....................................................................................................... 119

Expand Penalties ................................................................................................................................................... 120

Clarify that Bad Check Penalty Applies to Electronic Checks and Other Payment Forms ........................... 120

Impose a Penalty on Failure to Comply with Electronic Filing Requirements .............................................. 121

Modify Estate and Gift Tax Valuation Discounts and Other Reforms ................................................................. 122

Require Consistent Valuation for Transfer and Income Tax Purposes .......................................................... 122

Modify Rules on Valuation Discounts ............................................................................................................ 124

Require a Minimum Term for Grantor Retained Annuity Trusts (GRATS) .................................................... 126

UPPER-INCOME TAX PROVISIONS ................................................................................................................ 127

Reinstate the 39.6-Percent Rate .......................................................................................................................... 127

Reinstate the 36-Percent Rate for Taxpayers with Income Over $250,000 (Married) and $200,000 (Single) ... 128

Reinstate the Limitation on Itemized Deductions for Taxpayers with Income Over $250,000 (Married) and 

$200,000 (Single)......................................................................................................................................... 129

Reinstate the Personal Exemption Phaseout (PEP) for Taxpayers with Income Over $250,000 (Married) And 

$200,000 (Single)......................................................................................................................................... 130

Impose a 20-Percent Rate on Capital Gains and Dividends for Taxpayers with Income Over $250,000 

(Married) and $200,000 (Single) ................................................................................................................. 131

Limit the Tax Rate at Which Itemized Deductions Reduce Tax Liability to 28 Percent...................................... 132

USER FEES ............................................................................................................................................................. 135

Support Capital Investment in the Inland Waterways ......................................................................................... 135

OTHER INITIATIVES ........................................................................................................................................... 137

Extend and Modify the New Markets Tax Credit ................................................................................................ 137

Reform and Extend Build America Bonds........................................................................................................... 138

Restructure Assistance to New York City: Provide Tax Incentives for Transporation Infrastructure ................ 140

Implement Unemployment Insurance Integrity Legislation ................................................................................ 142

Levy Payments to Federal Contractors with Delinquent Tax Debt ...................................................................... 143

Authorize Post-Levy Due Process .................................................................................................................. 143

Increase Levy Authority to 100 Percent for Vendor Payments ...................................................................... 144

Allow Offset of Federal Income Tax Refunds to Collect Delinquent State Income Taxes for Out-of-State 

Residents ...................................................................................................................................................... 145

APPENDIX: EXTENDING CURRENT POLICIES ........................................................................................... 147

TABLES OF REVENUE ESTIMATE .................................................................................................................. 149
TEMPORARY RECOVERY MEASURES

EXTEND THE MAKING WORK PAY CREDIT 

Current Law

The Making Work Pay (MWP) credit is a temporary provision of the American Recovery and 

Reinvestment Act of 2009 (ARRA). In 2010 individual taxpayers are eligible for a refundable 

income tax credit equal to 6.2 percent of earned income up to a maximum credit of $400 ($800 

for married taxpayers filing a joint return). Thus, workers receive a credit on the first $6,452 of 

earned income ($12,903 for married taxpayers filing a joint return). The credit is phased out by 

2 percent of a taxpayer's modified adjusted gross income (AGI) in excess of $75,000 ($150,000 

for married taxpayers filing a joint return). Dependent filers are not eligible for the credit. 

In 2009, adults who received social security benefits, railroad retirement benefits, veterans 

benefits, pension benefits from a Federal, state or local government or Supplemental Security 

Income (SSI) benefits (excluding individuals who receive SSI while in a Medicaid institution) 

received either an Economic Recovery Payment of $250 or a special tax credit of $250 ($500 in 

case for a married couple filing jointly where both spouses are eligible). Individuals who were 

entitled to both the MWP credit and either the $250 Economic Recovery Payment or the special 

tax credit for 2009 were required to reduce the amount of their MWP credit, but not below zero, 

by the amount of their Economic Recovery Payment or special tax credit. 

The IRS withholding schedules have been modified to reflect the MWP credit. Overwithholding 

and underwithholding are reconciled on annual income tax returns. 

The MWP credit expires at the end of 2010. 

Reasons for Change

The MWP credit partially offsets the regressivity of the Social Security payroll tax. It effectively 

raises the after-tax income of workers eligible for the credit, which makes work more 

remunerative and so encourages individuals to enter the labor force. Furthermore, the ability of 

many taxpayers to receive the credit through reduced withholding, rather than after the end of the 

tax year, increases the incentive effects of the credit. Extending the credit would allow the 

positive benefits of the credit to continue during the period in which the economy is still 

recovering from the recession. 

Proposal

The proposal would extend the MWP credit for one year through December 31, 2011. 

1 
PROVIDE $250 ECONOMIC RECOVERY PAYMENTS AND SPECIAL TAX CREDIT 

Current Law

The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (ARRA) provides a refundable tax credit 

based on earned income. For 2009 and 2010, the Making Work Pay (MWP) credit is equal to 

6.2 percent of earned income, up to a maximum credit of $400 ($800 for married taxpayers filing 

a joint return). The credit is phased out at a rate of 2 percent of a taxpayer's modified adjusted 

gross income (AGI) in excess of $75,000 ($150,000 for married taxpayers filing a joint return). 

Dependent filers are not eligible for the credit. 

ARRA also provided a one-time $250 payment for certain retirees and a $250 refundable tax 

credit for recipients of government pensions who were not eligible for the $250 payments. 

Economic Recovery Payments: A $250 Economic Recovery Payment was made in 2009 to each 

adult who was eligible ($500 to a married couple filing jointly where both spouses were eligible) 

for Social Security benefits, Railroad Retirement benefits, veterans benefits, or Supplemental 

Security Income (SSI) benefits (excluding individuals who receive SSI while in a Medicaid 

institution). Only individuals eligible to receive at least one of these benefits in the three-month 

period prior to February 2009 were eligible for an Economic Recovery Payment. Individuals 

received only one Economic Recovery Payment even if they were eligible for more than one 

type of benefit. 

Special Tax Credit for Certain Government Retirees: Federal, State and local government 

retirees who received a pension or annuity from work not covered by Social Security and who 

were not eligible to receive an Economic Recovery Payment were entitled to claim a $250 

refundable income tax credit ($500 for a married couple filing jointly where both spouses are 

eligible) for 2009. 

Individuals who were entitled to both the MWP credit and either the $250 Economic Recovery 

Payment or the special tax credit for 2009 were required to reduce the amount of their MWP 

credit, but not below zero, by the amount of their Economic Recovery Payment or special tax 

credit. 

Reasons for Change

The Economic Recovery Payments and special tax credit are intended to provide economic 

assistance to retirees similar to the assistance provided to workers through the MWP credit. 

During the period in which the economy is still recovering, it is appropriate to continue to 

provide similar benefits for retirees. 

Proposal

The Administration proposes to provide a $250 Economic Recovery Payment in 2010 to each 

adult who is eligible ($500 to a married couple filing jointly where both spouses are eligible) for 

Social Security benefits, Railroad Retirement benefits, veterans benefits, or Supplemental 

Security Income (SSI) benefits (excluding individuals who receive SSI while in a Medicaid 

2 
institution). The Administration also proposes to provide a $250 refundable tax credit in 2010 to 

Federal, State, and local government retirees who are not eligible for Social Security benefits and 

who are not eligible to receive an Economic Recovery Payment ($500 for a married couple filing 

jointly where both spouses are eligible for the credit). Retirees who are employed and eligible 

for the MWP credit would have their MWP credit reduced (but not below zero) by the amount of 

the Economic Recovery Payment or refundable tax credit. 

3 
EXTEND COBRA HEALTH INSURANCE PREMIUM ASSISTANCE 

Current Law

COBRA1 requires certain employers (generally private-sector and State and local government 

employers with 20 or more employees) and certain other entities that maintain group health plans 

to offer certain individuals (“qualified beneficiaries”) the opportunity to elect to continue 

coverage under the group health plan for a specified period after the occurrence of certain events 

such as termination of employment, that otherwise would have caused a termination of coverage. 

To obtain COBRA continuation coverage, qualified beneficiaries generally must pay a premium, 

which generally cannot exceed 102 percent of the cost of similar coverage for active employees. 

A group health plan that fails to comply with the COBRA continuation coverage rules is subject 

to an excise tax. 

Under a separate provision of the law, Federal employees and their families are also entitled to 

temporary continuation coverage under the Federal Employee Health Benefit Program (FEHBP) 

if coverage ends as the result of termination of employment. In addition, many States have laws 

or regulations that provide continuation coverage in the case of a loss of group health plan 

coverage; these rules often apply in the case of a loss of coverage under a group health plan 

maintained by a small employer not subject to Federal COBRA continuation coverage 

requirements. 

The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (“ARRA”) in certain circumstances 

limits the employee’s cost of purchasing continuation coverage to 35 percent of the COBRA 

premium charged by the group health plan. The ARRA COBRA premium assistance may also 

apply to temporary continuation coverage elected under FEHBP and to State programs that 

provide coverage comparable to COBRA. Employers (or other entities providing the coverage) 

are allowed a credit against payroll taxes for the remaining 65 percent of the premium. Under 

ARRA, as amended,2

 the premium assistance is available for a maximum of 15 months (ending 

sooner if a qualified beneficiary becomes eligible for coverage under another group health plan 

or Medicare or if the period of COBRA continuation coverage otherwise ends). The premium 

assistance is limited to qualified individuals who qualify for COBRA coverage as a result of an 

involuntary termination of employment between September 1, 2008 and February 28, 2010. The 

premium assistance is recaptured for individuals with modified adjusted gross income above 

$145,000 ($290,000 for married taxpayers filing jointly), with the recapture phased in for 

individuals with modified gross income above $125,000 ($250,000 for married taxpayers filing 

jointly). 

ARRA included special transition and notice rules allowing certain individuals who lost 

coverage on account of an involuntary termination of employment prior to enactment of the 

 

1

 “COBRA” is the acronym for the law that added the continuation coverage rules to the Code, the Consolidated 

Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1985. 

4 

2

 The premium assistance provisions were amended on December 19, 2009, by the Department of Defense 

Appropriations Act, 2010 (DOD Act) to extend the duration of the premium assistance from 12 months to 15 months 

and to extend from December 31, 2009 through February 28, 2010, the period during which involuntary 

terminations of employment will qualify for assistance. 
premium assistance additional opportunities to elect premium assistance with respect to COBRA 

continuation coverage.3

Reasons for Change

As the economic recovery continues, it is appropriate to extend COBRA premium assistance to 

help individuals who lose their employer-provided health coverage when they lose their jobs. 

Proposal

The proposal would extend the COBRA premium assistance eligibility period by allowing 

qualified individuals who qualify for COBRA coverage as the result of an involuntary 

termination of employment prior to January 1, 2011 to qualify for the assistance. The duration of 

the COBRA premium assistance that results from an involuntary termination of employment 

after February 28, 2010 would be 12 months. 

Appropriate transition relief would be provided to ensure that COBRA premium assistance is 

available for individuals who become qualified as a result of an involuntary termination of 

employment after February 28, 2010, and before enactment of the extension (if not enacted 

before March 2010). 

 

 

5 

3

 Special transition relief was also provided as part of the extension enacted by the DOD Act. 
PROVIDE ADDITIONAL TAX CREDITS FOR INVESTMENT IN QUALIFIED 

PROPERTY USED IN A QUALIFYING ADVANCED ENERGY MANUFACTURING 

PROJECT 

Current Law

A 30-percent tax credit is provided for investments in eligible property used in a qualifying 

advanced energy project. A qualifying advanced energy project is a project that re-equips, 

expands, or establishes a manufacturing facility for the production of: (1) property designed to 

produce energy from renewable resources; (2) fuel cells, microturbines, or an energy storage 

system for use with electric or hybrid-electric vehicles; (3) electric grids to support the 

transmission, including storage, of intermittent sources of renewable energy; (4) property 

designed to capture and sequester carbon dioxide emissions; (5) property designed to refine or 

blend renewable fuels or to produce energy conservation technologies; (6) electric drive motor 

vehicles that qualify for tax credits or components designed for use with such vehicles; and (7) 

other advanced energy property designed to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. 

Eligible property is property: (1) that is necessary for the production of the property listed above; 

(2) that is tangible personal property or other tangible property (not including a building and its 

structural components) that is used as an integral part of a qualifying facility; and (3) with 

respect to which depreciation (or amortization in lieu of depreciation) is allowable. 

Total credits are limited to $2.3 billion, and the Treasury Department, in consultation with the 

Department of Energy, was required to establish a program to consider and award certifications 

for qualified investments eligible for credits within 180 days of the date of enactment of the 

American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009. Credits may be allocated only to projects 

where there is a reasonable expectation of commercial viability. In addition, consideration must 

be given to which projects: (1) will provide the greatest domestic job creation; (2) will have the 

greatest net impact in avoiding or reducing air pollutants or greenhouse gas emissions; (3) have 

the greatest potential for technological innovation and commercial deployment; (4) have the 

lowest levelized cost of generated or stored energy, or of measured reduction in energy 

consumption or greenhouse gas emission; and (5) have the shortest completion time. Guidance 

under current law requires taxpayers to apply for the credit with respect to their entire qualified 

investment in a project. 

Applications for certification under the program may be made only during the two-year period 

beginning on the date the program is established. An applicant that is allocated credits must 

provide evidence that the requirements of the certification have been met within one year of the 

date of acceptance of the application and must place the property in service within three years 

from the date of the issuance of the certification. 

 

Reasons for Change

The $2.3 billion cap on the credit has resulted in the funding of less than one-third of the 

technically acceptable applications that have been received. Instead of turning down worthy 

applicants who are willing to invest private resources to build and equip factories that 

manufacture clean energy products in America, the program should be expanded. An additional 

6 
$5 billion in credits would support at least $15 billion in total capital investment, creating tens of 

thousands of new construction and manufacturing jobs. Because there is already an existing 

pipeline of worthy projects and substantial interest in this area, the additional credit can be 

deployed quickly to create jobs and support economic activity. 

Proposal

The proposal would authorize an additional $5 billion of credits for investments in eligible 

property used in a qualifying advanced energy project. The guidance that requires taxpayers to 

apply for the credit with respect to their entire qualified investment will be modified so that 

taxpayers can apply for a credit with respect to only part of their qualified investment. If a 

taxpayer applies for a credit with respect to only part of the qualified investment in the project, 

the taxpayer’s increased cost sharing and the project’s reduced revenue cost to the government 

will be taken into account in determining whether to allocate credits to the project. 

Applications for the additional credits would be made during the two-year period beginning on 

the date on which the additional authorization is enacted. As under current law, applicants that 

are allocated the additional credits must provide evidence that the requirements of the 

certification have been met within one year of the date of acceptance of the application and must 

place the property in service within three years from the date of the issuance of the certification. 

The change would be effective on the date of enactment. 

 

7 
EXTEND TEMPORARY INCREASE IN EXPENSING FOR SMALL BUSINESS 

 

Current Law

Section 179 of the Internal Revenue Code provides that, in place of capitalization and subsequent 

depreciation, taxpayers may elect to deduct a limited amount of the cost of qualifying property 

placed in service each taxable year, subject to a phase-out that begins at a specified level of 

qualifying investment. For qualifying property placed in service in taxable years beginning in 

2007 and in 2010, the maximum deduction amount is $125,000. For these years, the maximum 

deduction is reduced (but not below zero) by the amount by which the cost of qualifying property 

exceeds $500,000. Both the limit and the phase-out level in 2010 are indexed for inflation after 

2006. For taxable years 2008 and 2009, the maximum deduction is $250,000 and the phase-out 

begins at $800,000. For qualifying property placed in service after 2010, the limits revert to pre2003 law, with $25,000 as the maximum deduction and $200,000 as the beginning of the phaseout, with no indexing for inflation. Higher expensing amounts are allowed for qualified disaster 

assistance property and investments in an empowerment zone or renewal community. 

 

In general, qualifying property is defined as depreciable tangible personal property and certain 

depreciable real property that is purchased for use in the active conduct of a trade or business. 

For taxable years beginning after 2002 and before 2011, off-the-shelf computer software is 

considered qualifying property even though it is intangible property. 

Reasons for Change

 

Section 179 benefits many small business taxpayers and the economy. Expensing encourages 

investment by reducing the after-tax cost of capital purchases, relative to claiming regular 

depreciation deductions. Expensing is also simpler than claiming regular depreciation 

deductions, which is particularly helpful for small businesses. Extending to 2010 the limits in 

effect for 2008 and 2009 would encourage investment and promote economic recovery. 

 

Proposal

The Administration’s tax receipts baseline assumes that the rules under section 179 that are in 

effect for 2010 will be extended permanently, so that there will be a maximum deduction of 

$125,000 and a phase-out threshold of $500,000, indexed for inflation after 2006. 

The proposal would extend to qualifying property placed in service in a taxable year beginning 

in 2010 the rules under section 179 that are in effect for taxable years beginning in 2008 and 

2009. The maximum amount of qualifying property that a taxpayer may deduct would be 

$250,000 and the phase-out would begin at $800,000 of qualifying investment. Qualifying 

property would include off-the-shelf computer software. 

8 
EXTEND TEMPORARY BONUS DEPRECIATION FOR CERTAIN PROPERTY 

Current Law

An additional first-year depreciation deduction is allowed for qualified property placed in service 

during 2008 and 2009. The deduction equals 50 percent of the cost of qualified property placed 

in service, and is allowed for both regular tax and alternative minimum tax purposes. The 

property’s depreciable basis is adjusted to reflect this additional deduction. However, the 

taxpayer may elect out of additional first-year depreciation for any class of property for any 

taxable year. 

Qualified property for this purpose includes tangible property with a recovery period of 20 years 

or less, water utility property, certain computer software, and qualified leasehold improvement 

property. Qualified property must be new property. Qualified property excludes property that is 

required to be depreciated under the alternative depreciation system (ADS), as well as qualified 

New York Liberty Zone leasehold improvement property. The taxpayer must purchase (or begin 

the manufacture or construction of) the property after December 31, 2007 and before January 1, 

2010 (but only if no written binding contract for the acquisition was in effect before January 1, 

2008). The property must be placed in service before January 1, 2010. An extension by one 

year of the placed in service date is allowed for certain property with a recovery period of ten 

years or longer and certain transportation property, if the property has an estimated production 

period exceeding one year and a cost exceeding $1 million. Only the portion of the basis that is 

properly attributable to costs incurred prior to January 1, 2010, may be taken into account. 

Certain aircraft not used in providing transportation services are also granted a one-year 

extension of the placed-in-service deadline. Special rules apply to syndications, sale-leasebacks, 

and transfers to related parties of qualified property. 

Corporations otherwise eligible for additional first-year depreciation may elect to claim 

additional research or minimum tax credits in lieu of claiming the additional depreciation for 

“eligible qualified property.” Such property only includes otherwise qualified property that was 

acquired after March 31, 2008, and only basis attributable to the property’s manufacture or 

construction after that date is taken into account. Depreciation for such property must be 

computed using the straight-line method. 

Reasons for Change

By accelerating in time the recovery of investment costs, the additional first-year deduction for 

new investment lowers the after-tax costs of capital purchases. This encourages new investment 

and promotes economic recovery. 

Proposal

The proposal would extend the additional first-year depreciation deduction for one year, 

generally for property acquired and placed in service during 2010 (or placed in service during 

2011 for property eligible for a one-year extension of the placed-in-service date). The election 

for claiming additional research or minimum tax credits in lieu of the additional depreciation 

deduction would also be extended by one year. Corporations would be allowed to choose 

whether or not to make an election with respect to qualified property placed in service in 2010, 

9 
regardless of prior-year elections of the provision. The proposal would be effective for qualified 

property placed in service after December 31, 2009. 

10 
EXTEND OPTION FOR CASH ASSISTANCE TO STATES IN LIEU OF LOWINCOME HOUSING TAX CREDITS 

Current Law

In general, section 42 of the Internal Revenue Code provides an income tax credit (the lowincome housing tax credit, or LIHTC) equal to the applicable percentage of qualified basis in a 

newly constructed or substantially rehabilitated qualified low-income residential rental property 

(determined based on residency by tenants with incomes below prescribed levels). The 

applicable percentage is adjusted monthly by the IRS, with reference to the Applicable Federal 

Rate, such that over ten annual installments the credit will have a present value of, in the case of 

Federally subsidized housing, 70, or otherwise 30, percent of qualified basis (with enhancement 

in qualified census tracts and difficult development areas). However, pursuant to the Housing 

Act of 2008, the applicable percentage for non-Federally subsidized new buildings placed in 

service before 2014 shall be not less than 9 percent. The aggregate credit amount that may be 

allocated within a State may not exceed a credit ceiling based on population, and State housing 

agencies allocate credit amounts, pursuant to a qualified allocation plan, among qualified lowincome buildings, which the State housing agencies physically inspect. Under the Housing Act 

of 2008, qualified basis shall not include any building costs financed with the proceeds of a 

Federally-funded grant. Qualified basis may be reduced with respect to certain financing not 

considered to be at-risk. Noncompliance with certain section 42 requirements may result in 

recapture of a portion of the credit, with interest. 

The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (ARRA) allows State housing agencies 

to elect to receive a cash amount (as determined under the ARRA) in lieu of a portion of the 

State’s 2009 LIHTC credit ceiling. State housing agencies must use the cash to make subawards 

to finance the acquisition or construction of qualified low-income buildings, generally subject to 

the same requirements (including rent, income, and use restrictions on such buildings) as the 

LIHTC allocations. The State housing agency is required to perform asset management 

functions to ensure compliance with the LIHTC rules and the long-term viability of buildings 

financed with subawards. In case of noncompliance, the State housing agency is to determine 

whether recapture of the subaward is warranted and, if so, to collect the recapture amount and 

effectuate repayment to the Treasury. Although taxpayer privacy law generally would apply to 

return information collected by the Treasury in connection with tax liability, cash assistance 

information is not confidential return information as so defined. 

Reasons for Change

The ARRA makes cash assistance available for low-income housing even in situations in which 

tax credits may be of limited utility to investors. Extending the provision would allow cash 

assistance to continue to be available for low-income housing. Under the ARRA, the State 

housing agency supervises compliance of a cash subawardee; meanwhile, the IRS is responsible 

for monitoring compliance with the parallel section 42 provisions. Because cash subawards and 

credits may be claimed with respects to the same qualified low-income buildings, it may be more 

efficient for the IRS to have jurisdiction over cash subawardee compliance as well. 

11 
Proposal

The proposal would allow States to elect cash assistance in lieu of low-income housing tax 

credits for 2010. The cash assistance for each State could not exceed an amount equal to 85 

percent of the product of ten and the sum of the State’s: (1) unused housing credit ceiling for 

2009; (2) returns to the State during 2010 of credit allocations (other than credit allocations 

derived, directly or indirectly, under section 1400N(c) of the Code) made by the State in a prior 

year; (3) 40 percent of the State’s 2010 per capita authority: and (4) 40 percent of the State’s 

share of the 2010 national pool allocation, if any. States would be required to use the cash 

assistance by December 31, 2012, to finance the construction or rehabilitation (including 

acquisition) of qualified low-income housing projects generally subject to the same rental 

requirements and recapture rules as properties financed with LIHTC. 

A Federal agency other than the IRS would continue to administer elections by State housing 

agencies to receive cash in lieu of a portion of the State’s LIHTC allocation. State housing 

agencies would continue to inspect qualified low-income buildings that received a cash 

subaward, but would report noncompliance to the IRS. The IRS would be authorized to 

determine whether recapture of the subaward is warranted and, if so, to collect the recapture 

amount. If a State housing agency has a lien or regulatory agreement secured by a qualified lowincome building, the agency would assign the lien or agreement to the IRS for collection by 

Federal authorities. Although taxpayer privacy law generally would apply to information 

gathered by the IRS for collection purposes, the amount of a subaward for a qualified lowincome building would not constitute confidential return information, as under current law. The 

IRS would be authorized to audit a subawardee under administrative provisions parallel to those 

applicable to taxpayers claiming the LIHTC, including recourse to the IRS Office of Appeals. 

Judicial review of a compliance action would be authorized to parallel that for a corresponding 

LIHTC action (e.g., a subawardee may seek to avoid recapture in Tax Court, after exhausting 

administrative remedies, or may seek to recover a recapture amount in District Court). 

 

12 
TAX CUTS FOR FAMILIES AND INDIVIDUALS 

EXPAND THE EARNED INCOME TAX CREDIT (EITC) 

Current Law

Low and moderate-income workers may be eligible for a refundable earned income tax credit 

(EITC). Eligibility for the EITC is based on the presence and number of qualifying children in 

the worker’s household, adjusted gross income (AGI), earned income, investment income, filing 

status, age, and immigration and work status in the United States. The amount of the EITC is 

based on the presence and number of qualifying children in the worker’s household, AGI, earned 

income, and filing status. 

The EITC has a phase-in range (where each additional dollar of earned income results in a larger 

credit), a maximum range (where additional dollars of earned income or AGI have no effect on 

the size of the credit), and a phase-out range (where each additional dollar of the larger of earned 

income or AGI results in a smaller total credit). The EITC for childless workers is much smaller 

and phases out at a lower income level than does the EITC for workers with qualifying children. 

The EITC generally phases in at a faster rate for workers with more qualifying children, resulting 

in a larger maximum credit and a longer phase-out range. In 2010, the credit reaches its 

maximum at three qualifying children. This provision expires after 2010, at which point workers 

with three or more qualifying children will receive the same EITC as similarly situated workers 

with two qualifying children. 

The phase-out range for joint filers begins at a higher income level than for an individual with 

the same number of qualifying children who files as a single filer or as a head of household. The 

width of the phase-in range and the beginning of the phase-out range are indexed for inflation. 

Hence, the maximum amount of the credit and the end of the phase-out range are effectively 

indexed. 

The following chart summarizes the EITC parameters for 2010. 

Childless 

Taxpayers 

Taxpayers with Qualifying Children 

One Child Two Children Three or More 

Phase-in rate 7.65% 34.00% 40.00% 45.00% 

Minimum earnings 

for maximum credit $5,980 $8,970 $12,590 $12,590 

Maximum credit $457 $3,050 $5,036 $5,666 

Phase-out rate 7.65% 15.98% 21.06% 21.06% 

Phase-out begins $7,480 

($12,490 joint) 

$16,450 

($21,460 joint) 

$16,450 

($21,460 joint) 

$16,450 

($21,460 joint) 

Phase-out ends $13,460 

($18,470 joint) 

$35,535 

($40,545 joint) 

$40,363 

($45,373 joint) 

$43,352 

($48,362 joint) 

13 
To be eligible for the EITC, workers must have no more than $3,100 of investment income. 

(This amount is indexed for inflation.) 

 

Reasons for Change

Families with more children face larger expenses related to raising their children than families 

with few children and as a result tend to have higher poverty rates. The steeper phase-in rate and 

larger maximum credit for workers with three or more qualifying children helps workers with 

larger families meet their expenses while maintaining work incentives. 

Proposal

The proposal would make permanent the expansion of the EITC for workers with three or more 

qualifying children. Specifically, the phase-in rate of the EITC for workers with three or more 

qualifying children under the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (ARRA) would 

be maintained at 45 percent, resulting in a higher maximum credit amount and longer phase-out 

range. 

The proposal would be effective for taxable years beginning after December 31, 2010. 

14 
EXPAND THE CHILD AND DEPENDENT CARE TAX CREDIT 

Current Law

In 2010, taxpayers with child or dependent care expenses who are working or looking for work 

are eligible for a nonrefundable tax credit that partially offsets these expenses. Married couples 

are eligible only if they file a joint return and either both spouses are working or looking for 

work, or if one spouse is working or looking for work and the other is attending school full-time. 

To qualify for this benefit, the child and dependent care expenses must be for either (1) a child 

under age thirteen when the care was provided or (2) a disabled dependent of any age with the 

same place of abode as the taxpayer. Any allowable credit is reduced by the aggregate amount 

excluded from income under a dependent care assistance program. 

Eligible taxpayers may claim the credit for up to 35 percent of up to $3,000 in eligible expenses 

for one child or dependent and up to $6,000 in eligible expenses for more than one child or 

dependent. The percentage of expenses for which a credit may be taken decreases by 1 

percentage point for every $2,000 (or part thereof) of AGI over $15,000 until the percentage of 

expenses reaches 20 percent (at incomes above $43,000). There are no further income limits. 

The phase-out point and the amount of expenses eligible for the credit are not indexed for 

inflation. 

Reasons for Change

Access to affordable child care is a barrier to employment or further schooling for some 

individuals. Assistance to individuals with child and dependent care expenses increases the 

ability of individuals to participate in the labor force or in education programs. 

Proposal

Under the proposal, the AGI level at which the credit begins to phase out would be permanently 

increased from $15,000 to $85,000. The percentage of expenses for which a credit may be taken 

would decrease at a rate of 1 percentage point for every $2,000 (or part thereof) of AGI over 

$85,000 until the percentage reached 20 percent (at incomes above $113,000). As under current 

law, there would be no further income limits and the phase-out point and the amount of expenses 

eligible for the credit would not be indexed for inflation. 

The proposal would be effective for taxable years beginning after December 31, 2010. 

15 
PROVIDE FOR AUTOMATIC ENROLLMENT IN IRAS AND DOUBLE THE TAX 

CREDIT FOR SMALL EMPLOYER PLAN STARTUP COSTS 

Current Law 

A number of tax-preferred, employer-sponsored retirement savings programs exist under current 

law. These include section 401(k) cash or deferred arrangements, section 403(b) programs for 

public schools and charitable organizations, section 457 plans for governments and nonprofit 

organizations, and simplified employee pensions (SEPs) and SIMPLE plans for small employers. 

Small employers (those with no more than one hundred employees) that adopt a new qualified 

retirement, SEP or SIMPLE plan are entitled to a temporary business tax credit equal to 50 

percent of the employer’s plan “startup costs,” which are the expenses of establishing or 

administering the plan, including expenses of retirement-related employee education with respect 

to the plan. The credit is limited to a maximum of $500 per year for three years. 

Individuals who do not have access to an employer-sponsored retirement savings arrangement 

may be eligible to make smaller tax-favored contributions to individual retirement accounts or 

individual retirement annuities (IRAs). 

IRA contributions are limited to $5,000 a year (plus $1,000 for those age fifty or older). Section 

401(k) plans permit contributions (employee plus employer contributions) of up to $49,000 a 

year (of which $16,500 can be pre-tax employee contributions) plus $5,500 of additional pre-tax 

employee contributions for those age fifty or older. 

Reasons for Change

For many years, until the recent economic downturn, the personal saving rate in the United 

States has been exceedingly low, and tens of millions of U.S. households have not placed 

themselves on a path to become financially prepared for retirement. In addition, the proportion 

of U.S. workers participating in employer-sponsored plans has remained stagnant for decades at 

no more than about half the total work force, notwithstanding repeated private- and public-sector 

efforts to expand coverage. Among employees eligible to participate in an employer-sponsored 

retirement savings plan such as a 401(k) plan, participation rates typically have ranged from twothirds to three-quarters of eligible employees, but making saving easier by making it automatic 

has been shown to be remarkably effective at boosting participation. 

Beginning in 1998, Treasury and the IRS issued a series of rulings and other guidance (most 

recently in September 2009) defining, permitting, and encouraging automatic enrollment in 

401(k) and other plans (enrolling employees by default unless they opt out). Automatic 

enrollment was further facilitated by the Pension Protection Act of 2006. In 401(k) plans, 

automatic enrollment has tended to increase participation rates to more than nine out of ten 

eligible employees. In contrast, for workers who lack access to a retirement plan at their 

workplace and are eligible to engage in tax-favored retirement saving by taking the initiative and 

making the decisions required to establish and contribute to an IRA, the IRA participation rate 

tends to be less than one out of ten. 

 

16 
Numerous employers, especially those with smaller or lower-wage work forces, have been 

reluctant to adopt a retirement plan for their employees, in part out of concern about their ability 

to afford the cost of making employer contributions or the per-capita cost of complying with taxqualification and ERISA (Employee Retirement Income Security Act) requirements. These 

employers could help their employees save -- without employer contributions or plan 

qualification or ERISA compliance -- simply by making their payroll systems available as a 

conduit for regularly transmitting employee contributions to an employee’s IRA. Such “payroll 

deduction IRAs” could build on the success of workplace-based payroll-deduction saving by 

using the excess capacity to promote saving that is inherent in employer payroll systems, and the 

effort to help employees save would be especially effective if automatic enrollment were used. 

However, despite efforts more than a decade ago by the Department of the Treasury, the IRS, 

and the Department of Labor to approve and promote the option of payroll deduction IRAs, few 

employers have adopted them or even are aware that this option exists. 

Accordingly, requiring employers that do not sponsor any retirement plan (and that are above a 

certain size) to make their payroll systems available to employees and automatically enroll them 

in IRAs could achieve a major breakthrough in retirement savings coverage. In addition, such a 

requirement may lead many employers to take the next step and adopt an employer plan 

(permitting much greater tax-favored employee contributions than an IRA, plus the option of 

employer contributions). The potential for the use of automatic IRAs to lead to the adoption of 

401(k)s, SIMPLEs, and other employer plans would be enhanced by raising the existing small 

employer tax credit for the startup costs of adopting a new retirement plan to an amount 

significantly higher than both its current level and the level of the proposed new automatic IRA 

tax credit for employers. 

In addition, the process of saving and choosing investments in automatic IRAs could be 

simplified for employees, and costs minimized, through a standard default investment as well as 

electronic information and fund transfers. Workplace retirement savings arrangements made 

accessible to most workers also could be used as a platform to provide and promote retirement 

distributions over the worker’s lifetime. 

Proposal

Employers in business for at least two years that have more than ten employees would be 

required to offer an automatic IRA option to employees, under which regular contributions 

would be made to an IRA on a payroll-deduction basis. If the employer sponsored a qualified 

retirement plan, SEP, or SIMPLE for its employees, it would not be required to provide an 

automatic IRA option for its employees. Thus, for example, a qualified plan sponsor would not 

have to offer automatic IRAs to employees it excludes from qualified plan eligibility because 

they are covered by a collective bargaining agreement, under age eighteen, nonresident aliens, or 

have not completed the plan’s eligibility waiting period. However, if the qualified plan excluded 

from eligibility a portion of the employer’s work force or a class of employees such as all 

employees of a subsidiary or division, the employer would be required to offer the automatic 

IRA option to those excluded employees. 

The employer offering automatic IRAs would give employees a standard notice and election 

form informing them of the automatic IRA option and allowing them to elect to participate or opt 

17 
out. Any employee who did not provide a written participation election would be enrolled at a 

default rate of three percent of the employee’s compensation in an IRA. Employees could opt 

out or opt for a lower or higher contribution rate up to the IRA dollar limits. Employees could 

choose either a traditional IRA or a Roth IRA (with Roth being the default). For most 

employees, the payroll deductions would be made by direct deposit similar to the direct deposit 

of employees’ paychecks to their accounts at financial institutions. 

Payroll-deduction contributions from all participating employees could be transferred, at the 

employer’s option, to a single private-sector IRA trustee or custodian designated by the 

employer. Alternatively, the employer, if it preferred, could allow each participating employee 

to designate the IRA provider for that employee’s contributions or could designate that all 

contributions would be forwarded to a savings vehicle specified by statute or regulation. 

 

Employers making payroll deduction IRAs available would not have to choose or arrange default 

investments. Instead, a low-cost, standard type of default investment and a handful of standard, 

low-cost investment alternatives would be prescribed by statute or regulation. In addition, this 

approach would involve no employer contributions, no employer compliance with qualified plan 

requirements, and no employer liability or responsibility for determining employee eligibility to 

make tax-favored IRA contributions or for opening IRAs for employees. A national web site 

would provide information and basic educational material regarding saving and investing for 

retirement, including IRA eligibility, but, as under current law, individuals (not employers) 

would bear ultimate responsibility for determining their IRA eligibility. 

Contributions by employees to automatic IRAs would qualify for the saver’s credit (to the extent 

the contributor and the contributions otherwise qualified), and the proposed expanded saver's 

credit could be deposited to the IRA to which the eligible individual contributed. 

Employers could claim a temporary tax credit for making automatic payroll-deposit IRAs 

available to employees. The amount of the credit for a year would be $25 per enrolled employee 

up to $250, and the credit would be available for two years. The credit would be available both 

to employers required to offer automatic IRAs and employers not required to do so (for example, 

because they have not more than ten employees). 

In conjunction with the automatic IRA proposal, to encourage employers not currently 

sponsoring a qualified retirement plan, SEP, or SIMPLE to do so, the “startup costs” tax credit 

for a small employer that adopts a new qualified retirement, SEP, or SIMPLE plan would be 

doubled from the current maximum of $500 per year for three years to a maximum of $1,000 per 

year for three years. This expanded “startup costs” credit for small employers, like the current 

“startup costs” credit, would not apply to automatic or other payroll deduction IRAs. The 

expanded credit would be designed to encourage small employers that would otherwise adopt an 

automatic IRA to adopt instead a new 401(k), SIMPLE, or other employer plan instead, while 

also encouraging other small employers to adopt a new employer plan. 

The proposal would become effective January 1, 2012. 

18 
EXPAND SAVER’S CREDIT 

Current Law

A nonrefundable tax credit is available for eligible individuals who make voluntary contributions 

to 401(k) plans and other retirement plans, including IRAs. The maximum annual contribution 

eligible for the credit is $2,000 for single taxpayers or married individuals filing separately. In 

the case of a married couple filing jointly, the maximum annual contribution eligible for the 

credit is $2,000 for each spouse (for a total of up to $4,000). The resulting maximum credits are 

$1,000 and $2,000, respectively. The credit rate is 10 percent, 20 percent or 50 percent, 

depending on the taxpayer’s adjusted gross income (AGI). The AGI thresholds for the credit are 

subject to adjustment each calendar year based on increases in the cost-of-living. In 2010, 

“eligible individuals” who may claim the credit are 

Married couples filing jointly with incomes up to $55,500, 

Heads of households with incomes up to $41,625, and 

Married individuals filing separately and single taxpayers with incomes up to $27,750, who are 

eighteen or older, other than individuals who are full-time students or claimed as a dependent on 

another taxpayer’s return. 

The credit is available with respect to an eligible individual's “qualified retirement savings 

contributions.” These include: (i) elective deferrals to a section 401(k) plan, section 403(b) 

plan, section 457 plan, SIMPLE, or simplified employee pension (SEP); (ii) contributions to a 

traditional or Roth IRA; and (iii) other voluntary employee contributions to a qualified 

retirement plan, including voluntary after-tax contributions and voluntary contributions to a 

defined benefit pension plan. The eligible individual may direct that the amount of any refund 

attributable to the credit be directly deposited by the IRS into an IRA or certain other accounts. 

The credit is nonrefundable and, therefore, only offsets regular tax liability or alternative 

minimum tax liability. The credit is in addition to any deduction or exclusion that would 

otherwise apply with respect to the contribution. 

Reasons for Change

The saver’s credit should be amended to more effectively encourage moderate- and lowerincome individuals to save for retirement. Because it is currently nonrefundable, the saver's 

credit only offsets a taxpayer’s income tax liability and therefore offers no saving incentive to 

tens of millions of households without income tax liability. In addition, to provide a stronger 

incentive, the credit rate should be increased for most eligible households, the current three-tier 

credit rate structure should be simplified, and the number of eligible households should be 

increased by raising the income thresholds. Finally, making the saver’s credit more like a 

matching contribution would enhance the likelihood that the credit would be saved and would 

increase the salience of the incentive by framing it as a match similar to the familiar employer 

matching contributions to 401(k) plans. 

19 
Proposal

The proposal would offer a more meaningful saving incentive to tens of millions of additional 

households by making the saver’s credit fully refundable and raising the eligibility income 

threshold to cover millions of additional moderate-income taxpayers. The proposal also would 

raise the credit rate and simplify the current three-tier credit structure by prescribing a uniform 

50 percent credit rate, and would allow the credit to be deposited automatically in the qualified 

retirement plan account or IRA to which the eligible individual contributed. 

In place of the current 10-percent/20-percent/50-percent credit for up to $2,000 of qualified 

retirement savings contributions per individual, the proposal would provide a 50-percent 

refundable credit that effectively matches 50 percent of the first $500 of such contributions per 

individual (allowing a married couple filing a joint return to make up to $1,000 of such 

contributions) per year, indexed annually for inflation beginning in taxable year 2012). 

Accordingly, the maximum credit would be $250 for a single filer and $500 for a married couple 

filing a joint return. 

The eligibility income threshold would be increased to $65,000 for married couples filing jointly, 

$48,750 for heads of households, and $32,500 for single taxpayers and married individuals filing 

separately, with the amount of contributions eligible for the credit phased out at a 5-percent rate 

for AGI exceeding those levels (so that some amount of credit would be available to joint filers 

with AGI between $65,000 and $85,000). 

The proposal would be effective for taxable years beginning after December 31, 2010. 

 

20 
EXTEND AMERICAN OPPORTUNITY TAX CREDIT 

Current Law

Prior to enactment of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (ARRA) an 

individual taxpayer could claim a nonrefundable Hope Scholarship credit for 100 percent of the 

first $1,200 and 50 percent of the next $1,200 in qualified tuition and related expenses (for a 

maximum credit of $1,800) per student. The Hope Scholarship credit was available only for the 

first two years of postsecondary education. 

Alternatively, a taxpayer could claim a nonrefundable Lifetime Learning Credit (LLC) for 20 

percent of up to $10,000 in qualified tuition and related expenses (for a maximum credit of 

$2,000) per taxpayer. Both the Hope Scholarship credit and LLC were phased out in 2009 

between $50,000 and $60,000 of adjusted gross income ($100,000 and $120,000 if married filing 

jointly). In addition, through 2009, a taxpayer could claim an above-the-line deduction for 

qualified tuition and related expenses. The maximum amount of the deduction was $4,000. 

ARRA created the American Opportunity Tax Credit (AOTC) to replace the Hope Scholarship 

credit for taxable years 2009 and 2010. The AOTC is partially refundable, has a higher 

maximum credit amount, is available for the first four years of postsecondary education, and has 

higher income phase-out limits. 

The AOTC equals 100 percent of the first $2,000, plus 25 percent of the next $2,000, of qualified 

tuition and related expenses (for a maximum credit of $2,500). Under ARRA, the definition of 

related expenses for both the LLC and the AOTC was expanded to include course materials. 

Forty percent of the otherwise allowable AOTC is refundable (for a maximum refundable credit 

of $1,000). The credit is available for the first four years of postsecondary education. The credit 

phases out for taxpayers with adjusted gross income between $80,000 and $90,000 ($160,000 

and $180,000 if married filing jointly). 

All other aspects of the Hope Scholarship credit are retained under the AOTC. These include the 

requirement that AOTC recipients be enrolled at least half-time. 

Reasons for Change 

The AOTC makes college more affordable for millions of middle-income families and for the 

first time makes college tax incentives partially refundable. If college is not made more 

affordable, our nation runs the risk of losing a whole generation of potential and productivity. 

Making the AOTC partially refundable increases the likelihood that low-income families will 

send their children to college. Under prior law, low-income families (those without sufficient 

income tax liability) could not benefit from the Hope Scholarship credit or the Lifetime Learning 

Credit because they were not refundable. Under the proposal, low-income families could benefit 

from the refundable portion of the AOTC. In combination with Federal Pell grants, these grants 

and refundable credits would cover all tuition and fees at an average two-year public college and 

about half of tuition and fees at an average four-year public college. 

21 
Moreover, the AOTC is available for the first four years of college, instead of only the first two 

years of college, increasing the likelihood that students will stay in school and attain their 

degrees. More years of schooling translates into higher future incomes (on average) for students 

and a more educated workforce for the country. 

Finally, the higher phase-out thresholds under the AOTC give targeted tax relief to an even 

greater number of middle-income families facing the high costs of college. 

Proposal 

The proposal would make the AOTC a permanent replacement for the Hope Scholarship credit. 

To preserve the value of the AOTC, the proposal would index the $2,000 tuition and expense 

amounts, as well as the phase-out thresholds, for inflation. 

This proposal would be effective for taxable years beginning after December 31, 2010. 

22 
TAX CUTS FOR BUSINESS 

ELIMINATE CAPITAL GAINS TAXATION ON INVESTMENTS IN SMALL 

BUSINESS STOCK 

Current Law

Taxpayers other than corporations may exclude 50 percent (60 percent for certain empowerment 

zone businesses) of the gain from the sale of certain small business stock acquired at original 

issue and held for at least five years. Under the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act 

(ARRA), the exclusion is increased to 75 percent for stock acquired after February 17, 2009, and 

before January 1, 2011. The taxable portion of the gain is taxed at a maximum rate of 28 

percent. Under current law, 7 percent of the excluded gain is a tax preference subject to the 

alternative minimum tax (AMT). For sales or exchanges in taxable years beginning after 

December 31, 2010, the AMT preference is scheduled to increase to 28 percent of the excluded 

gain on eligible stock acquired after December 31, 2000, and to 42 percent of the excluded gain 

on stock acquired on or before December 31, 2000. 

The maximum amount of gain eligible for the exclusion by a taxpayer with respect to any 

corporation during any year is the greater of (1) ten times the taxpayer’s basis in stock issued by 

the corporation and disposed of during the year, or (2) $10 million reduced by gain excluded in 

prior years on dispositions of the corporation’s stock. To qualify as a small business, the 

corporation, when the stock is issued, may not have gross assets exceeding $50 million 

(including the proceeds of the newly issued stock) and may not be an S corporation. 

The corporation also must meet certain active trade or business requirements. For example, the 

corporation must be engaged in a trade or business other than: one involving the performance of 

services in the fields of health, law, engineering, architecture, accounting, actuarial science, 

performing arts, consulting, athletics, financial services, brokerage services or any other trade or 

business where the principal asset of the trade or business is the reputation or skill of one or more 

employees; a banking, insurance, financing, leasing, investing or similar business; a farming 

business; a business involving production or extraction of items subject to depletion; or a hotel, 

motel, restaurant or similar business. There are limits on the amount of real property that may be 

held by a qualified small business, and ownership of, dealing in, or renting real property is not 

treated as an active trade or business. 

Reasons for Change

Because the taxable portion of gain from the sale of qualified small business stock is subject to 

tax at a maximum of 28 percent and a percentage of the excluded gain is a preference under the 

AMT, the 50-percent exclusion provision provides little benefit. Increasing the exclusion would 

encourage and reward new investment in qualified small business stock. 

23 
Proposal

Under the proposal the percentage exclusion for qualified small business stock sold by an 

individual or other non-corporate taxpayer would be increased permanently to 100 percent and 

the AMT preference item for gain excluded under this provision would be eliminated. As under 

current law, the stock would have to be held for at least five years and other limitations on the 

section 1202 exclusion would continue to apply. The proposal would include additional 

documentation requirements to assure compliance with those limitations. 

The proposal would be effective for qualified small business stock acquired after February 17, 

2009. 

24 
MAKE RESEARCH & EXPERIMENTATION TAX CREDIT PERMANENT 

Current Law

The research and experimentation (R&E) tax credit is 20 percent of qualified research expenses 

above a base amount. The base amount is the product of the taxpayer’s “fixed base percentage” 

and the average of the taxpayer’s gross receipts for the four preceding years. The taxpayer’s 

fixed base percentage generally is the ratio of its research expenses to gross receipts for the 

1984-88 period. The base amount cannot be less than 50 percent of the taxpayer’s qualified 

research expenses for the taxable year. Taxpayers can elect the alternative simplified research 

credit (ASC), which is equal to 14 percent of qualified research expenses that exceed 50 percent 

of the average qualified research expenses for the three preceding taxable years. Under the ASC, 

the rate is reduced to 6 percent if a taxpayer has no qualified research expenses in any one of the 

three preceding taxable years. An election to use the ASC applies to all succeeding taxable years 

unless revoked with the consent of the Secretary. 

The R&E tax credit also provides a credit for 20 percent of: (1) basic research payments above a 

base amount; and (2) all eligible payments to an energy research consortium for energy research. 

The R&E tax credit expired on December 31, 2009. 

Reasons for Change

The R&E tax credit encourages technological developments that are an important component of 

economic growth. However, uncertainty about the future availability of the R&E tax credit 

diminishes the incentive effect of the credit because it is difficult for taxpayers to factor the 

credit into decisions to invest in research projects that will not be initiated and completed prior to 

the credit’s expiration. To improve the credit’s effectiveness, the R&E tax credit should be made 

permanent. 

Proposal

The proposal would make the R&E credit permanent, effective as of January 1, 2010. 

25 
REMOVE CELL PHONES FROM LISTED PROPERTY 

Current Law

Generally, a taxpayer may claim a deduction for ordinary and necessary expenses paid or 

incurred in carrying on any trade or business. However, with respect to “listed property,” the 

deduction is limited, as described below. Listed property includes any cellular telephone (or 

other similar telecommunications equipment), certain automobiles and computers specified by 

statute, and any equipment of a type generally used for purposes of entertainment, recreation, or 

amusement. 

A deduction with respect to expenses for listed property is disallowed unless the taxpayer 

substantiates by adequate records or by sufficient evidence corroborating the taxpayer’s own 

statement (A) the amount of such expense or other item, (B) the use of the listed property, (C) 

the business purpose of the expense or other item, and (D) the business relationship to the 

taxpayer of persons using the listed property. In addition, annual depreciation deductions (and 

any small business expensing deduction) are limited with respect to listed property not used 

predominantly for business purposes. 

Generally, gross income includes compensation for services, including fringe benefits. An 

employee generally must include in gross income the fair market value of a fringe benefit 

(reduced by any amount paid by the employee or specifically excluded from income). The fair 

market value of a fringe benefit is the amount that an individual would have to pay for the 

particular fringe benefit in an arm’s length transaction (regardless of the cost actually incurred by 

the employer). To the extent that an employee uses a business cell phone for personal purposes, 

the fair market value of such usage is includable in the employee’s gross income. 

Reasons for Change

The substantiation requirements with respect to listed property are burdensome for employers, 

employees, and the IRS. In the case of cell phones, a myriad of billing arrangements multiply 

the difficulty of documenting the cost of calls. Moreover, there has been a significant reduction 

in the cost of service since cell phones were first classified as listed property, such that the cost 

of accounting for personal use often exceeds the amount of any resulting income. Small 

businesses, which lack economies of scale in implementing systems to track costs, may be 

particularly burdened by the substantiation requirements. In the current economy, cell phones 

have become a ubiquitous device for doing business. 

Proposal

Cell phones (and other similar telecommunications equipment) would no longer be classified as 

listed property, effectively removing the requirement of strict substantiation of use and the 

limitation on depreciation deductions. The fair market value of personal use of a cell phone (or 

other similar telecommunications equipment) provided primarily for business purposes would be 

excluded from gross income. 

The proposal would be effective for taxable years ending after the date of enactment. 

26 
CONTINUE CERTAIN EXPIRING PROVISIONS THROUGH CALENDAR 

YEAR 2011

A number of temporary tax provisions are scheduled to expire before December 31, 2011. The 

Administration proposes to extend a number of these provisions through December 31, 2011. 

These provisions include the optional deduction for State and local general sales taxes, the 

Subpart F “active financing” and “look-through” exceptions, the exclusion from unrelated 

business income of certain payments to controlling exempt organizations, the modified recovery 

period for qualified leasehold improvements and qualified restaurant property, incentives for 

empowerment and community renewal zones, and several trade agreements, including the 

Generalized System of Preferences and the Caribbean Basin Initiative. In accordance with the 

President’s agreement at the G-20 Summit in Pittsburgh to phase out subsidies for fossil fuels, 

temporary incentives provided for the production of fossil fuels would be allowed to expire as 

scheduled under current law. 

 

27 
OTHER REVENUE CHANGES AND LOOPHOLE CLOSERS

Reform Treatment of Financial Institutions and Products

IMPOSE A FINANCIAL CRISIS RESPONSIBILITY FEE 

Current Law 

There is no sector-specific Federal tax applied to financial firms (although these firms are subject 

to the general corporate income tax and potentially a wide range of excise taxes). Financial 

sector firms are subject to a range of fees, depending on the lines of business in which they 

participate. For example, banks are assessed fees by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation 

to cover the costs of insuring deposits made at these institutions. 

Reasons for Change 

Excessive risk undertaken by major financial firms was a significant cause of the recent financial 

crisis. Extraordinary steps were taken by the Federal government to inject funds into the 

financial system, guarantee certain types of securities, and purchase securities from weakened 

firms. The law which enabled some of these actions and which created the Troubled Asset 

Relief Program (TARP) required that the President propose an assessment on the financial sector 

to pay back the costs of these extraordinary actions. This fee is intended to meet that statutory 

requirement. The fee would also provide a deterrent against excessive leverage for the largest 

financial firms. 

Proposal

The Financial Crisis Responsibility Fee is to be assessed on certain liabilities of the largest firms 

in the financial sector. Specific components of the proposal are described here. 

Firms Subject to the Fee: The fee would be applied to banks, thrifts, bank and thrift holding 

companies, brokers, and securities dealers. U.S. companies owning or controlling these types of 

entities as of January 14, 2010 also would be subject to the fee. Firms with consolidated assets 

of less than $50 billion would not be subject to the fee for the period when their assets are below 

this threshold. 

Base of fee: In general, the assessable base of the fee would include the worldwide consolidated 

liabilities of U.S. financial firms. Financial firms not based in the United States would be subject 

to the fee based on the liabilities of their U.S. subsidiaries. The fee base would include a broad 

set of liabilities with a few designated exceptions. For example, for firms that own depository 

institutions, FDIC-assessed deposits would not be subject to the fee. Similarly, for insurance 

companies, certain policy-related liabilities would not be subject to the fee. In addition, 

adjustments would be provided to prevent avoidance and to appropriately treat less risky 

activities, such as lending against certain high quality collateral. 

29 
Computing Covered Liability Amounts: For financial firms, generally covered liabilities 

would be determined using balance sheet information filed with the appropriate Federal or State 

regulators. 

Fee Rates: The rate of the fee applied to covered liabilities would be approximately 15 basis 

points. 

Filing and Payment Requirements: Entities subject to the fee would report it on their annual 

Federal income tax return. Estimated payments of the fee would be made on the same schedule 

as estimated income tax payments. 

Effective Date: The fee would be effective as of July 1, 2010. Thus, calendar year taxpayers 

would pay the fee with respect to two quarters of the year when filing their returns for 2010. 

30 
REQUIRE ACCRUAL OF INCOME ON FORWARD SALE OF CORPORATE STOCK 

Current Law

A corporation generally does not recognize gain or loss on the issuance or repurchase of its own 

stock. Thus, a corporation does not recognize gain or loss on the forward sale of its own stock. 

A corporation sells its stock forward by agreeing to issue its stock in the future in exchange for 

consideration to be paid in the future. 

Although a corporation does not recognize gain or loss on the issuance of its own stock, a 

corporation does recognize interest income upon the current sale of any stock (including its own) 

for deferred payment. 

Reasons for Change

There is little substantive difference between a corporate issuer’s current sale of its stock for 

deferred payment and an issuer’s forward sale of the same stock. The only difference between 

the two transactions is the timing of the stock issuance. In a current sale, the stock is issued at 

the inception of the transaction, but in a forward sale, the stock is issued at the time the deferred 

payment is received. In both cases, a portion of the deferred payment economically compensates 

the corporation for the time value of deferring receipt of the payment. It is inappropriate to treat 

these two transactions differently. 

Proposal

The proposal would require a corporation that enters into a forward contract to issue its stock to 

treat a portion of the payment on the forward issuance as a payment of interest. 

The proposal would be effective for forward contracts entered into after December 31, 2011. 

31 
REQUIRE ORDINARY TREATMENT OF INCOME FROM DAY-TO-DAY DEALER 

ACTIVITIES FOR CERTAIN DEALERS IN COMMODITIES, DERIVATIVES AND 

OTHER SECURITIES 

Current Law

Under current law, certain dealers treat the income from some of their day-to-day dealer 

activities as capital gain. This special rule applies to certain transactions in section 1256 

contracts by commodities dealers (within the meaning of section 1402(i) (2) (B)), commodities 

derivatives dealers (within the meaning of section 1221(b) (1) (A)), dealers in securities (within 

the meaning of section 475(c) (1)), and options dealers (within the meaning of section 1256(g) 

(8)). Under section 1256, these dealers treat 60 percent of their income (or loss) from their 

dealer activities in section 1256 contracts as long-term capital gain (or loss) and 40 percent of 

their income (or loss) from these dealer activities as short-term capital gain (or loss). Dealers in 

other types of property generally treat the income from their day-to-day dealer activities as 

ordinary income. 

Reasons for Change

There is no reason to treat dealers in commodities, commodities derivatives dealers, dealers in 

securities, and dealers in options differently from dealers in other types of property. Dealers earn 

their income from their day-to-day dealer activities, and this income should be taxed at ordinary 

rates. 

Proposal

The proposal would require dealers in commodities, commodities derivatives dealers, dealers in 

securities, and dealers in options to treat the income from their day-to-day dealer activities in 

section 1256 contracts as ordinary in character, not capital. 

The proposal would be effective for taxable years beginning after the date of enactment. 

32 
MODIFY DEFINITION OF “CONTROL” FOR PURPOSES OF SECTION 249 

Current Law

In general, if a corporation repurchases a debt instrument that is convertible into its stock, or into 

stock of a corporation in control of, or controlled by, the corporation, section 249 may disallow 

or limit the issuer's deduction for a premium paid to repurchase the debt instrument. For this 

purpose, “control” is determined by reference to section 368(c), which encompasses only direct 

relationships (e.g., a parent corporation and its wholly-owned, first-tier subsidiary). 

Reasons for Change

The definition of “control” in section 249 is unnecessarily restrictive and has allowed the 

limitation in section 249 to be too easily avoided. Indirect control relationships (e.g., a parent 

corporation and a second-tier subsidiary) present the same economic identity of interests as 

direct control relationships and should be treated in a similar manner. 

Proposal

Under the proposal, the definition of “control” in section 249(b) (2) would be amended to 

incorporate indirect control relationships of the nature described in section 1563(a) (1). 

The proposal would be effective on the date of enactment. 

33 
Reinstate Superfund Taxes

REINSTATE SUPERFUND EXCISE TAXES 

Current Law

The following Superfund excise taxes were imposed before January 1, 1996: 

(1) An excise tax on domestic crude oil and on imported petroleum products at a rate of $0.097 

per barrel; 

(2) An excise tax on listed hazardous chemicals at a rate that varied from $0.22 to $4.87 per ton; 

and 

(3) An excise tax on imported substances that use as materials in their manufacture or production 

one or more of the hazardous chemicals subject to the excise tax described in (2) above. 

Amounts equivalent to the revenues from these taxes were dedicated to the Hazardous Substance 

Superfund Trust Fund (the Superfund Trust Fund). Amounts in the Superfund Trust Fund are 

available for expenditures incurred in connection with releases or threats of releases of hazardous 

substances into the environment under specified provisions of the Comprehensive Environmental 

Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980 (as amended). 

Reasons for Change

The Superfund excise taxes should be reinstated because of the continuing need for funds to 

remedy damages caused by releases of hazardous substances. 

Proposal

The three Superfund excise taxes would be reinstated for periods after December 31, 2010. The 

taxes would sunset after December 31, 2020. 

34 
REINSTATE SUPERFUND ENVIRONMENTAL INCOME TAX 

Current Law

For taxable years beginning before January 1, 1996, a corporate environmental income tax was 

imposed at a rate of 0.12 percent on the amount by which the modified alternative minimum 

taxable income of a corporation exceeded $2 million. Modified alternative minimum taxable 

income was defined as a corporation's alternative minimum taxable income, determined without 

regard to the alternative minimum tax net operating loss deduction and the deduction for the 

corporate environmental income tax. 

The tax was dedicated to the Hazardous Substance Superfund Trust Fund (the Superfund Trust 

Fund). Amounts in the Superfund Trust Fund are available for expenditures incurred in 

connection with releases or threats of releases of hazardous substances into the environment 

under specified provisions of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and 

Liability Act of 1980 (as amended). 

Reasons for Change

The corporate environmental income tax should be reinstated because of the continuing need for 

funds to remedy damages caused by releases of hazardous substances. 

Proposal

The corporate environmental income tax would be reinstated for taxable years beginning after 

December 31, 2010. The tax would sunset for taxable years beginning after December 31, 2020. 

35 
MAKE UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE SURTAX PERMANENT 

Current Law

The Federal Unemployment Tax Act (FUTA) currently imposes a Federal payroll tax on 

employers of 6.2 percent of the first $7,000 paid annually to each employee. The tax funds a 

portion of the Federal/State unemployment benefits system. This 6.2 percent rate includes a 

temporary surtax of 0.2 percent (discussed below). States also impose an unemployment tax on 

employers. Employers in States that meet certain Federal requirements are allowed a credit for 

State unemployment taxes of up to 5.4 percent, making the minimum net Federal tax rate 0.8 

percent. Generally, Federal and State unemployment taxes are collected quarterly and deposited 

in Federal trust fund accounts. 

In 1976, Congress passed a temporary surtax of 0.2 percent of taxable wages to be added to the 

permanent FUTA tax rate. Thus, the current 0.8 percent net FUTA tax rate has two components: 

a permanent tax rate of 0.6 percent and a temporary surtax rate of 0.2 percent. The surtax has 

been extended several times, most recently through June 30, 2011. 

Reasons for Change

Extending the surtax will support the continued solvency of the Federal unemployment trust 

funds. 

Proposal

The proposal would make the 0.2 percent surtax permanent. 

36 
REPEAL LIFO METHOD OF ACCOUNTING FOR INVENTORIES 

Current Law 

A taxpayer with inventory may determine the value of its inventory and its cost of goods sold 

using a number of different methods. The most prevalent method is the first-in, first-out (FIFO) 

method, which matches current sales with the costs of the earliest acquired (or manufactured) 

inventory items. As an alternative, a taxpayer may elect to use the last-in, first-out (LIFO) 

method, which treats the most recently acquired (or manufactured) goods as having been sold 

during the year. The LIFO method can provide a tax benefit for a taxpayer facing rising 

inventory costs, since the cost of goods sold under this method is based on more recent, higher 

inventory values, resulting in lower taxable income. If inventory levels fall during the year, 

however, a LIFO taxpayer must include lower-cost LIFO inventory values (reflecting one or 

more prior-year inventory accumulations) in the cost of goods sold, and its taxable income will 

be correspondingly higher. To be eligible to elect LIFO for tax purposes, a taxpayer must use 

LIFO for financial accounting purposes. 

Reasons for Change 

The repeal of the LIFO method would eliminate a tax deferral opportunity available to taxpayers 

that hold inventories, the costs of which increase over time. In addition, LIFO repeal would 

simplify the Code by removing a complex and burdensome accounting method that has been the 

source of controversy between taxpayers and the IRS. 

International Financial Reporting Standards do not permit the use of the LIFO method, and their 

adoption by the Securities and Exchange Commission would cause violations of the current 

LIFO book/tax conformity requirement. Repealing LIFO would remove this possible 

impediment to the implementation of these standards in the United States. 

Proposal

The proposal would not allow the use of the LIFO inventory accounting method for Federal 

income tax purposes. Taxpayers that currently use the LIFO method would be required to write 

up their beginning LIFO inventory to its FIFO value in the first taxable year beginning after 

December 31, 2011. However, this one-time increase in gross income would be taken into 

account ratably over ten years, beginning with the first taxable year beginning after December 

31, 2011. 

37 
REPEAL GAIN LIMITATION FOR DIVIDENDS RECEIVED IN REORGANIZATION 

EXCHANGES 

Current Law 

Under section 356(a)(1), if as part of a reorganization transaction an exchanging shareholder 

receives in exchange for its stock of the target corporation both stock and property that cannot be 

received without the recognition of gain (often referred to as “boot”), the exchanging shareholder 

is required to recognize gain equal to the lesser of the gain realized in the exchange or the 

amount of boot received (commonly referred to as the “boot within gain” limitation). Further, 

under section 356(a)(2), if the exchange has the effect of the distribution of a dividend, then all 

or part of the gain recognized by the exchanging shareholder is treated as a dividend to the extent 

of the shareholder’s ratable share of the corporation’s earnings and profits. The remainder of the 

gain (if any) is treated as gain from the exchange of property. 

 

Reasons for Change 

There is not a significant policy reason to vary the treatment of a distribution that otherwise 

qualifies as a dividend by reference to whether it is received in the normal course of a 

corporation’s operations or is instead received as part of a reorganization exchange. Thus, 

repealing the boot-within-gain limitation for an exchange that has the effect of the distribution of 

a dividend will provide more uniform treatment for dividends that is less dependent on context. 

Moreover, in cross-border reorganizations, the boot-within-gain limitation can permit U.S. 

shareholders to repatriate previously-untaxed earnings and profits of foreign subsidiaries with 

minimal U.S. tax consequences. For example, if the exchanging shareholder’s stock in the target 

corporation has little or no built-in gain at the time of the exchange, the shareholder will 

recognize minimal gain even if the exchange has the effect of the distribution of a dividend 

and/or a significant amount (or all) of the consideration received in the exchange is boot. This 

result applies even if the corporation has previously untaxed earnings and profits equal to or 

greater than the boot. This result is inconsistent with the principle that previously untaxed 

earnings and profits of a foreign subsidiary should be subject to U.S. tax upon repatriation. 

Proposal 

The proposal would repeal the boot-within-gain limitation of current law in the case of any 

reorganization transaction if the exchange has the effect of the distribution of a dividend, as 

determined under section 356(a)(2). 

The proposal would be effective for taxable years beginning after December 31, 2010. 

 

38 
Reform the U.S. International Tax System

DEFER DEDUCTION OF INTEREST EXPENSE RELATED TO DEFERRED INCOME 

Current Law 

Taxpayers generally may deduct ordinary and necessary expenses paid or incurred in carrying on 

any trade or business. The Internal Revenue Code and the regulations thereunder contain detailed 

rules regarding allocation and apportionment of expenses for computing taxable income from 

sources within and without the United States. Under current rules, a U.S. person that incurs 

interest expense properly allocable and apportioned to foreign-source income may deduct those 

expenses even if the expenses exceed the taxpayer’s gross foreign-source income or if the 

taxpayer earns no foreign-source income. For example, a U.S. person that incurs debt to acquire 

stock of a foreign corporation is generally permitted to deduct currently the interest expense from 

the acquisition indebtedness even if no income is derived currently from such stock. Current law 

includes provisions that may require a U.S. person to recapture as U.S.-source income the 

amount by which foreign-source expenses exceed foreign-source income for a taxable year. 

However, if in a taxable year the U.S. person earns sufficient foreign-source income of the same 

statutory grouping in which the stock of the foreign corporation is classified, expenses, such as 

interest expense, properly allocated and apportioned to the stock of the foreign corporation may 

not be subject to recapture in a subsequent taxable year. 

Reasons for Change 

The ability to deduct expenses from overseas investments while deferring U.S. tax on the income 

from the investment may cause U.S. businesses to shift their investments and jobs overseas, 

harming our domestic economy. 

Proposal 

The proposal would defer the deduction of interest expense that is properly allocated and 

apportioned to a taxpayer’s foreign-source income that is not currently subject to U.S. tax. For 

purposes of the proposal, foreign-source income earned by a taxpayer through a branch would be 

considered currently subject to U.S. tax, thus the proposal would not apply to interest expense 

properly allocated and apportioned to such income. Other directly earned foreign source income 

(for example, royalty income) would be similarly treated. 

For purposes of the proposal, the amount of a taxpayer’s interest expense that is properly 

allocated and apportioned to foreign-source income would generally be determined under current 

Treasury regulations. The Treasury Department, however, will revise existing Treasury 

regulations and propose such other statutory changes as necessary to prevent inappropriate 

decreases in the amount of interest expense that is allocated and apportioned to foreign-source 

income. 

Deferred interest expense would be deductible in a subsequent tax year in proportion to the 

amount of the previously deferred foreign-source income that is subject to U.S. tax during that 

39 
subsequent tax year. Treasury regulations may modify the manner in which a taxpayer can 

deduct previously deferred interest expenses in certain cases. 

The proposal would be effective for taxable years beginning after December 31, 2010. 

40 
FOREIGN TAX CREDIT REFORM: DETERMINE THE FOREIGN TAX CREDIT ON 

A POOLING BASIS 

Current Law

Section 901 provides that, subject to certain limitations, a taxpayer may choose to claim a credit 

against its U.S. income tax liability for income, war profits, and excess profits taxes paid or 

accrued during the taxable year to any foreign country or any possession of the United States. 

Under section 902, a domestic corporation is deemed to have paid the foreign taxes paid by 

certain foreign subsidiaries from which it receives a dividend (the deemed paid foreign tax 

credit). The foreign tax credit is limited to an amount equal to the pre-credit U.S. tax on the 

taxpayer’s foreign-source income. This foreign tax credit limitation is applied separately to 

foreign-source income in each of the separate categories described in section 904(d), i.e., the 

passive category and general category. 

Reasons for Change 

The purpose of the foreign tax credit is to mitigate the potential for double taxation when U.S. 

taxpayers are subject to foreign taxes on their foreign-source income. The reduction to two 

foreign tax credit limitation categories, for passive category income and general category income 

under the American Jobs Creation Act of 2004, enhanced U.S. taxpayers’ ability to reduce the 

residual U.S. tax on foreign-source income through “cross-crediting.” 

Proposal 

Under the proposal, a U.S. taxpayer would determine its deemed paid foreign tax credit on a 

consolidated basis based on the aggregate foreign taxes and earnings and profits of all of the 

foreign subsidiaries with respect to which the U.S. taxpayer can claim a deemed paid foreign tax 

credit (including lower tier subsidiaries described in section 902(b)). The deemed paid foreign 

tax credit for a taxable year would be determined based on the amount of the consolidated 

earnings and profits of the foreign subsidiaries repatriated to the U.S. taxpayer in that taxable 

year. The Secretary would be granted authority to issue any Treasury regulations necessary to 

carry out the purposes of the proposal. 

The proposal would be effective for taxable years beginning after December 31, 2010. 

41 
FOREIGN TAX CREDIT REFORM: PREVENT SPLITTING OF FOREIGN INCOME 

AND FOREIGN TAXES 

Current Law

Section 901 provides that, subject to certain limitations, a taxpayer may choose to claim a credit 

against its U.S. income tax liability for income, war profits, and excess profits taxes paid or 

accrued during the taxable year to any foreign country or any possession of the United States. 

Under current law, the person considered to have paid the foreign tax is the person on whom 

foreign law imposes legal liability for such tax. 

Reasons for Change

Current law permits inappropriate separation of creditable foreign taxes from the associated 

foreign income in certain cases such as those involving hybrid arrangements.

Proposal

In the case of foreign taxes with respect to which a taxpayer claims credit under section 901, the 

proposal would adopt a matching rule to prevent the separation of creditable foreign taxes from 

the associated foreign income. In general, the proposal would allow a credit for such foreign 

taxes when and to the extent the associated foreign income is subject to U.S. tax in the hands of 

the taxpayer claiming the credit. This proposal would apply in addition to the section 902 

“pooling” proposal described in this document. The Secretary would be granted authority to 

issue any regulations necessary to carry out the purposes of the proposal. 

The proposal would be effective for taxable years beginning after December 31, 2010. 

42 
TAX CURRENTLY EXCESS RETURNS ASSOCIATED WITH TRANSFERS OF 

INTANGIBLES OFFSHORE 

Current Law 

Section 482 authorizes the Secretary to distribute, apportion, or allocate gross income, 

deductions, credits, and other allowances between or among two or more organizations, trades, 

or businesses under common ownership or control whenever "necessary in order to prevent 

evasion of taxes or clearly to reflect the income of any of such organizations, trades, or 

businesses." The regulations under Section 482 provide that the standard to be applied is that of 

unrelated persons dealing at arm’s length. In the case of transfers of intangible assets, section 

482 further provides that the income with respect to the transaction must be commensurate with 

the income attributable to the intangible assets transferred. 

Reasons for Change 

The potential tax savings from transactions between related parties, especially with regard to 

transfers of intangible assets to low-taxed affiliates, puts significant pressure on the enforcement 

and effective application of transfer pricing rules. There is evidence indicating that income 

shifting through transfers of intangibles to low-taxed affiliates has resulted in a significant 

erosion of the U.S. tax base. 

 

Proposal 

Under the proposal, if a U.S. person transfers an intangible from the United States to a related 

controlled foreign corporation that is subject to a low foreign effective tax rate in circumstances 

that evidence excessive income shifting, then an amount equal to the excessive return would be 

treated as subpart F income in a separate foreign tax credit limitation basket. 

The proposal would be effective for taxable years beginning after December 31, 2010. 

43 
LIMIT SHIFTING OF INCOME THROUGH INTANGIBLE PROPERTY TRANSFERS 

Current Law 

Section 482 permits the Secretary to distribute, apportion, or allocate gross income, deductions, 

credits, and other allowances between or among two or more organizations, trades, or businesses 

under common ownership or control whenever "necessary in order to prevent evasion of taxes or 

clearly to reflect the income of any of such organizations, trades, or businesses." Section 482 

also provides that in the case of any transfer of intangible assets, the income with respect to the 

transaction must be commensurate with the income attributable to the intangible assets 

transferred. Further, under section 367(d), if a U.S. person transfers intangible property (as 

defined in section 936(h)(3)(B)) to a foreign corporation in certain nonrecognition transactions, 

the U.S. person is treated as selling the intangible property for a series of payments contingent on 

the productivity, use, or disposition of the property that are commensurate with the transferee's 

income from the property. The payments generally continue annually over the useful life of the 

property. 

Reasons for Change 

Controversy often arises concerning the value of intangible property transferred between related 

persons and the scope of the intangible property subject to sections 482 and 367(d). This lack of 

clarity may result in the inappropriate avoidance of U.S. tax and misuse of the rules applicable to 

transfers of intangible property to foreign persons. 

Proposal 

To prevent inappropriate shifting of income outside the United States, the proposal would clarify 

the definition of intangible property for purposes of sections 367(d) and 482 to include 

workforce in place, goodwill and going concern value. The proposal also would clarify that 

where multiple intangible properties are transferred, the Commissioner may value the intangible 

properties on an aggregate basis where that achieves a more reliable result. In addition, the 

proposal would clarify that the Commissioner may value intangible property taking into 

consideration the prices or profits that the controlled taxpayer could have realized by choosing a 

realistic alternative to the controlled transaction undertaken. 

The proposal would be effective for taxable years beginning after December 31, 2010. 

44 
DISALLOW THE DEDUCTION FOR EXCESS NONTAXED REINSURANCE 

PREMIUMS PAID TO AFFILIATES 

Current Law

Insurance companies are generally allowed a deduction for premiums paid for reinsurance. If the 

reinsurance transaction results in a transfer of reserves and reserve assets to the reinsurer, 

potential tax liability for earnings on those assets is generally shifted to the reinsurer as well. 

While insurance income of a controlled foreign corporation is generally subject to current U.S. 

taxation, insurance income of a foreign-owned foreign company that is not engaged in a trade or 

business in the United States is not subject to U.S. income tax. Reinsurance policies issued by 

foreign reinsurers with respect to U.S. risks are generally subject to an excise tax equal to one 

percent of the premiums paid, unless waived by treaty. 

Reasons for Change

Reinsurance transactions with affiliates that are not subject to U.S. Federal income tax on 

insurance income can result in substantial U.S. tax advantages over similar transactions with 

entities that are subject to tax in the United States. The excise tax on reinsurance policies issued 

by foreign reinsurers is not always sufficient to offset this tax advantage. These tax advantages 

create incentives for foreign-owned domestic insurance companies to reinsure direct insurance of 

U.S. risks with foreign affiliates to an extent that would not occur between unrelated parties 

acting at arm’s length. It is inappropriate to allow a deduction for reinsurance premiums paid 

under such circumstances. 

Proposal

Under the proposal, a U.S. insurance company would be denied a deduction for certain 

reinsurance premiums paid to affiliated foreign reinsurance companies with respect to U.S. risks 

insured by the insurance company or its U.S. affiliates. The U.S. insurance company would not 

be allowed a deduction to the extent that (1) the foreign reinsurers (or their parent companies) are 

not subject to U.S. income tax with respect to premiums received and (2) the amount of 

reinsurance premiums (net of ceding commissions) paid to foreign reinsurers exceeds 50 percent 

of the total direct insurance premiums received by the U.S. insurance company and its U.S. 

affiliates for a line of business. 

The proposal provides that a foreign corporation that is paid a premium from an affiliate that 

would otherwise be denied a deduction under this provision may elect to treat those premiums 

and the associated investment income as income effectively connected with the conduct of a 

trade or business in the United States. 

The provision is effective for taxable years beginning after December 31, 2010.

45 
LIMIT EARNINGS STRIPPING BY EXPATRIATED ENTITIES 

Section 163(j) limits the deductibility of certain interest paid by a corporation to related persons. 

The limitation applies to a corporation that fails a debt-to-equity safe harbor (greater than 1.5 to 

1) and that has net interest expense in excess of 50 percent of adjusted taxable income (computed 

by adding back net interest expense, depreciation, amortization and depletion, and any net 

operating loss deduction). Disallowed interest expense may be carried forward indefinitely for 

deduction in a subsequent year. In addition, the corporation’s excess limitation for a tax year 

(i.e., the amount by which 50 percent of adjusted taxable income exceeds net interest expense) 

may be carried forward to the three subsequent tax years. 

Section 7874 provides special rules for expatriated entities and the acquiring foreign 

corporations. The rules apply to certain defined transactions in which a U.S. parent company 

(the expatriated entity) is essentially replaced with a foreign parent (the surrogate foreign 

corporation). The tax treatment of an expatriated entity and a surrogate foreign corporation 

varies depending on the extent of continuity of shareholder ownership following the transaction. 

The surrogate foreign corporation is treated as a domestic corporation for all purposes of the 

Code if shareholder ownership continuity is at least 80 percent (by vote or value). If shareholder 

ownership continuity is at least 60 percent, but less than 80 percent, the surrogate foreign 

corporation is treated as a foreign corporation but any applicable corporate-level income or gain 

required to be recognized by the expatriated entity generally cannot be offset by tax attributes. 

Section 7874 generally applies to transactions occurring on or after March 4, 2003. 

Reasons for Change 

Under current law, opportunities are available to reduce inappropriately the U.S. tax on income 

earned from U.S. operations through the use of foreign related-party debt. In its 2007 study of 

earnings stripping, the Treasury Department found strong evidence of the use of such techniques 

by expatriated entities. Consequently, amending the rules of section 163(j) for expatriated 

entities is necessary to prevent these inappropriate income-reduction opportunities. 

Proposal 

The proposal would revise section 163(j) to tighten the limitation on the deductibility of interest 

paid by an expatriated entity to related persons. The current law debt-to-equity safe harbor 

would be eliminated. The 50 percent adjusted taxable income threshold for the limitation would 

be reduced to 25 percent. The carryforward for disallowed interest would be limited to ten years 

and the carryforward of excess limitation would be eliminated. 

An expatriated entity would be defined by applying the rules of section 7874 and the regulations 

thereunder as if section 7874 were applicable for taxable years beginning after July 10, 1989. 

This special rule would not apply, however, if the surrogate foreign corporation is treated as a 

domestic corporation under section 7874. 

The proposal would be effective for taxable years beginning after December 31, 2010. 

46 
REPEAL 80/20 COMPANY RULES 

Current Law

Dividends and interest paid by a domestic corporation are generally U.S.-source income to the 

recipient and are generally subject to gross basis withholding tax if paid to a foreign person. A 

limited exception to these general rules applies with respect to a domestic corporation (a socalled “80/20” company) if at least 80 percent of the corporation’s gross income during a threeyear testing period is foreign-source and attributable to the active conduct of a foreign trade or 

business. Look-through rules apply to determine the character of certain income of the 80/20 

company for this purpose. 

Reasons for Change

The 80/20 company provisions can be manipulated and should be repealed. 

Proposal

The proposal would repeal the 80/20 company provisions under current law. 

The proposal would be effective for taxable years beginning after December 31, 2010. 

47 
PREVENT THE AVOIDANCE OF DIVIDEND WITHHOLDING TAXES 

Current Law

A withholding agent generally must withhold a tax of 30 percent from the gross amount of all 

U.S.-source fixed or determinable annual or periodical (FDAP) income, profits, or gains of a 

nonresident alien individual, foreign corporation, or foreign partnership. In general, dividends 

paid with respect to the stock of a domestic corporation are U.S.-source dividends. Thus, foreign 

investors holding stock in domestic corporations are generally subject to 30-percent tax on 

dividends paid with respect to that stock. This rate may be reduced where the dividends are paid 

to a resident of a jurisdiction with which the United States has entered into a tax treaty. 

The source of income from a notional principal contract is generally determined based on the 

residence of the investor. As a result, substitute dividend payments made to a foreign investor 

with respect to an equity swap referencing U.S. equities are treated as foreign-source and are 

therefore not subject to U.S. withholding tax. 

Reasons for Change

Foreign portfolio investors seeking to benefit from the appreciation in value and dividends paid 

with respect to the stock of a domestic corporation are not limited to holding stock in the 

corporation. Instead, such an investor can enter into an equity swap. The U.S. tax consequences 

of these two alternative investments differ significantly. By entering into equity swaps, foreign 

portfolio investors receive the economic benefit of dividends paid and appreciation in value with 

respect to U.S. stock without being subject to gross-basis withholding tax. 

Proposal

Income earned by foreign persons with respect to equity swaps that reference U.S. equities 

would be treated as U.S.-source to the extent that the income is attributable to (or calculated by 

reference to) dividends paid by a domestic corporation. An exception to this source rule would 

apply to swaps which are unlikely to reflect avoidance of U.S. gross-basis taxation. The 

proposal would (1) ensure that economically equivalent transactions are subject to similar tax 

treatment, and (2) prevent avoidance of dividend withholding taxes by reforming the existing 

rules applicable to substitute dividends in a securities loan or a sale-repurchase transaction, while 

minimizing instances of over-withholding. The Treasury Department would be given regulatory 

authority to provide additional exceptions to implement the purpose of these rules. 

The proposal would be effective for payments made after December 31, 2010. 

48 
MODIFY THE TAX RULES FOR DUAL CAPACITY TAXPAYERS 

Current Law

Section 901 provides that, subject to certain limitations, a taxpayer may choose to claim a credit 

against its U.S. income tax liability for income, war profits, and excess profits taxes paid or 

accrued during the taxable year to any foreign country or any possession of the United States. 

To be a creditable tax, a foreign levy must be substantially equivalent to an income tax under 

United States tax principles, regardless of the label attached to the levy under law. Under current 

Treasury regulations, a foreign levy is a tax if it is a compulsory payment under the authority of a 

foreign government to levy taxes and is not compensation for a specific economic benefit 

provided by the foreign country. Taxpayers that are subject to a foreign levy and that also 

receive a specific economic benefit from the levying country (dual capacity taxpayers) may not 

credit the portion of the foreign levy paid for the specific economic benefit. The current 

Treasury regulations provide that, if a foreign country has a generally-imposed income tax, the 

dual capacity taxpayer may treat as a creditable tax the portion of the levy that application of the 

generally imposed income tax would yield (provided that the levy otherwise constitutes an 

income tax or an in lieu of tax). The balance of the levy is treated as compensation for the 

specific economic benefit. If the foreign country does not generally impose an income tax, the 

portion of the payment that does not exceed the applicable federal tax rate applied to net income 

is treated as a creditable tax. A foreign tax is treated as generally imposed even if it applies only 

to persons who are not residents or nationals of that country. 

There is no separate section 904 foreign tax credit basket for oil and gas income. However, under 

section 907, the amount of creditable foreign taxes imposed on foreign oil and gas income is 

limited in any year to the applicable U.S. tax on that income. 

Reasons for Change

The purpose of the foreign tax credit is to mitigate double taxation of income by the United 

States and a foreign country. When a payment is made to a foreign country in exchange for a 

specific economic benefit, there is no double taxation. Current law recognizes the distinction 

between a payment of creditable taxes and a payment in exchange for a specific economic 

benefit but fails to achieve the appropriate split between the two when a single payment is made 

in a case where, for example, a foreign country imposes a levy only on oil and gas income, or 

imposes a higher levy on oil and gas income as compared to other income. 

Proposal

In the case of a dual capacity taxpayer, the proposal would allow the taxpayer to treat as a 

creditable tax the portion of a foreign levy that does not exceed the foreign levy that the taxpayer 

would pay if it were not a dual-capacity taxpayer. The proposal would replace the current 

regulatory provisions, including the safe harbor, that apply to determine the amount of a foreign 

levy paid by a dual-capacity taxpayer that qualifies as a creditable tax. The proposal also would 

convert the special foreign tax credit limitation rules of section 907 into a separate category 

within section 904 for foreign oil and gas income. The proposal would yield to United States 

49 
treaty obligations to the extent that they allow a credit for taxes paid or accrued on certain oil or 

gas income. 

The proposal would be effective for taxable years beginning after December 31, 2010. 

50 
Combat Under-Reporting of Income on Accounts and Entities in Offshore 

Jurisdictions

For too long, some Americans have evaded their taxpaying responsibilities by hiding unreported 

income in a foreign bank account, trust, or corporation. To reduce such evasion, the 

Administration is proposing a series of measures to strengthen the information reporting and 

withholding systems that support U.S. taxation of income earned or held through offshore 

accounts or entities. 

REQUIRE INCREASED REPORTING ON CERTAIN FOREIGN ACCOUNTS 

Current Law

A withholding agent generally must withhold tax at a rate of 30 percent from the gross amount of 

all U.S.-source fixed or determinable annual or periodical gains, profits, or income (FDAP 

income) of a nonresident alien individual or foreign entity. This 30-percent withholding tax may 

be reduced or eliminated pursuant to certain statutory provisions or pursuant to the terms of a tax 

treaty. A payor is generally required to withhold tax at a rate of 28 percent on a reportable 

payment made to a U.S. non-exempt recipient if the payee fails to provide a taxpayer 

identification number or fails to certify, when required, that the payee is not subject to backup 

withholding, or the payor is notified by the IRS or a broker that the payee is subject to backup 

withholding. 

To determine whether the recipient of a payment is exempt from withholding tax or eligible for a 

reduced rate, withholding agents generally must rely on beneficial ownership documentation 

provided by the payee certifying that the payee is entitled to an exemption from withholding tax 

or a reduced rate of withholding tax under a Code provision or relevant tax treaty. In general, 

withholding agents are entitled to rely on the self-certification they receive absent actual 

knowledge or reason to know that the information provided is incorrect or unreliable. In the case 

of payments made through an intermediary, the intermediary generally provides to the 

withholding agent the appropriate documentation on behalf of the payment’s beneficial owners. 

Treasury regulations specifically address certification, documentation, withholding, and 

reporting of payments to U.S. and foreign persons through foreign financial institutions (FFIs). 

FFIs may contract with the IRS to operate according to a set of withholding and reporting rules 

under the so-called “qualified intermediary” (QI) program. QIs agree to collect identifying 

documentation from their customers, file withholding tax returns and information returns, and 

submit to periodic audits performed by external auditors supervised by IRS examiners. QIs may 

furnish a withholding certificate to a withholding agent in lieu of transmitting to the withholding 

agent documentation for persons for whom the QI receives the payment and, in the case of U.S. 

non-exempt recipients, may assume primary Form 1099 reporting and backup withholding 

responsibility. 

If a QI assumes primary Form 1099 reporting and backup withholding responsibility with respect 

to accounts held by U.S. persons, such reporting may be limited to certain income earned 

51 
through those accounts. Further, a QI that assumes primary Form 1099 reporting and backup 

withholding responsibility with respect to U.S. persons is not required to assume that 

responsibility for all accounts. Moreover, in the case of financial institutions that are part of a 

controlled group, one member of the controlled group may contract to be a QI while other 

members of the controlled group do not, and thus accounts and clients may be divided between 

commonly controlled QI and non-QI institutions. 

Brokers are generally required to withhold tax at a rate of 28 percent on certain reportable 

payments made to a U.S. non-exempt recipient if the payee fails to provide a taxpayer 

identification number or fails to certify that the payee is not subject to backup withholding, or the 

payor is notified by the IRS or a broker that the payee is subject to backup withholding. 

Reportable payments include the gross proceeds from certain transactions effected by brokers for 

their customers. A broker is exempt from reporting a payment (and thus backup withholding) 

where the broker can, prior to payment, associate the payment with documentation upon which it 

can rely to either treat the customer as a foreign beneficial owner, or treat the payment as made 

or presumed to be made to a foreign payee. With respect to payments through foreign 

intermediaries that are not qualified intermediaries (nonqualified intermediaries), brokers may 

rely on the beneficial owner’s self-certification of non-U.S. status passed on by the nonqualified 

intermediary to determine whether certain third-party information reporting, and therefore 

backup withholding, may be required. 

Reasons for Change

Strengthening the withholding and reporting rules under which FFIs operate with respect to U.S. 

persons will help to ensure that U.S. persons are properly paying tax on income earned through 

foreign accounts and that proper withholding tax applies with respect to foreign persons. In 

order to facilitate operation of this strengthened reporting and withholding program, a list of 

compliant FFIs must be made publicly available. 

Proposal

Under the proposal, a withholding agent would withhold tax at a rate of 30 percent on payments 

to a FFI (including certain entities engaged primarily in the business of investing, reinvesting, or 

trading in securities, partnership interests, commodities, or any interests in the foregoing) of 

U.S.-source FDAP income and gross proceeds from the sale of any property of a type which can 

produce U.S.-source interest or dividends, unless the FFI has entered into an agreement with the 

IRS. The agreement would require the FFI to identify accounts (including debt and equity 

securities issued by the FFI that are not regularly traded on an established securities market) held 

at such FFI or at an FFI in the same expanded affiliated group by specified U.S. persons or by 

foreign entities in which a specified United States person owns, directly or indirectly, an interest 

of more than 10 percent (a United States owned foreign entity). The FFI would be required to 

report the name, address, and taxpayer identification number (TIN) of the U.S. account holder 

(or each substantial U.S. owner of the United States owned foreign entity account holder), the 

account balance or value, and the gross receipts and gross withdrawals or payments from the 

account. Instead of reporting the account balance and the gross receipts and gross withdrawals 

or payments from the account, a FFI may elect to report such information as such FFI would be 

required to report under sections 6041, 6042, 6045, and 6049 if such FFI were a United States 

52 
person and each holder of such accounts that is a specified United States person or a United 

States owned foreign entity were a natural person and citizen of the United States. 

This proposal would not apply to a payment if the beneficial owner is a foreign government, an 

international organization, a foreign central bank, or any other class of persons that the Treasury 

Department concludes presents a low risk of tax evasion. The Treasury Department would be 

authorized to issue regulations to implement the purposes of this proposal. The rules would be 

designed so as not to disrupt ordinary and customary market transactions. Foreign beneficial 

owners of payments (other than FFIs that do not qualify for the benefits of an income tax treaty 

with the United States) that are subject to withholding tax in excess of their income tax liability 

as a result of this proposal would be permitted to apply for a refund of any excess tax withheld. 

The proposal would be effective beginning after December 31, 2012. 

53 
REQUIRE INCREASED REPORTING WITH RESPECT TO CERTAIN RECIPIENTS 

OF FDAP INCOME OR GROSS PROCEEDS 

Current Law

In general, payments of U.S.-source fixed or determinable annual or periodical gains, profits, or 

income (FDAP income) to nonresident alien individuals and foreign entities are subject to 

withholding tax at a rate of 30 percent. This 30 percent withholding tax may be reduced or 

eliminated pursuant to certain statutory provisions or pursuant to the terms of a tax treaty. 

 

To determine whether the recipient of a payment is exempt from withholding tax or eligible for a 

reduced rate, withholding agents generally must rely on beneficial ownership documentation 

provided by the payee certifying that the payee is entitled to an exemption from withholding tax 

or a reduced rate of withholding tax under a Code provision or relevant tax treaty. In general, 

withholding agents are entitled to rely on the self-certification they receive absent actual 

knowledge or reason to know that the information provided is incorrect or unreliable. In the case 

of payments made through an intermediary, the intermediary generally provides to the 

withholding agent the appropriate documentation on behalf of the payment’s beneficial owners. 

Brokers are generally required to withhold tax at a rate of 28 percent on certain reportable 

payments made to a U.S. non-exempt recipient if the payee fails to provide a taxpayer 

identification number (TIN) or fails to certify that the payee is not subject to backup withholding, 

or the payor is notified by the IRS or a broker that the payee is subject to backup withholding. 

Reportable payments include the gross proceeds from certain transactions effected by brokers for 

their customers. A broker is exempt from reporting a payment (and thus backup withholding) 

where the broker can, prior to payment, associate the payment with documentation upon which it 

can rely to either treat the customer as a foreign beneficial owner, or treat the payment as made 

or presumed to be made to a foreign payee. With respect to payments through foreign 

intermediaries that are not qualified intermediaries (nonqualified intermediaries), brokers may 

rely on the beneficial owner’s self-certification of non-U.S. status passed on by the nonqualified 

intermediary to determine whether certain third-party information reporting, and therefore 

backup withholding, may be required. 

Reasons for Change

Persons that are not entitled to an exemption from withholding tax or a reduced rate of 

withholding tax may arrange to receive payments through entities (other than foreign financial 

institutions) that appear to qualify for an exemption or a reduced rate. A withholding agent 

making a payment to such an entity is unlikely to be in a position to determine whether the 

entity’s self-certification regarding its qualification is accurate. 

Proposal

Any withholding agent making a payment of U.S.-source FDAP income and gross proceeds from 

the sale of any property of a type which can produce U.S.-source interest or dividends to a 

foreign entity (other than a foreign financial institution) would be required to withhold a tax of 

30 percent, unless the foreign entity certifies that no U.S. person owns, directly or indirectly, an 

54 
interest of more than 10 percent or the foreign entity provides the name, address, and TIN of 

each such substantial U.S. owner, and the withholding agent does not know or have reason to 

know that any information provided is incorrect. Exceptions would be provided for payments to 

publicly traded companies and their subsidiaries, foreign governments, international 

organizations, foreign central banks, any entity that is organized under the laws of a possession 

of the United States and that is wholly owned by one or more bona fide residents of such 

possession, and other classes of person identified by the Secretary, or any class of payment 

identified by the Secretary, as posing a low risk of tax evasion. 

The proposal would be effective for payments made after December 31, 2012. 

55 
REPEAL CERTAIN FOREIGN EXCEPTIONS TO REGISTERED BOND 

REQUIREMENTS 

Current Law

In general, a taxpayer may deduct all interest paid or accrued within the taxable year on 

indebtedness. For registration-required obligations, a deduction for interest is allowed only if the 

obligation is in registered form. Generally, an obligation is treated as issued in registered form if 

the issuer or its agent maintains a registration of the identity of the owner of the obligation and 

the obligation can be transferred only through this registration system. 

In addition to the denial of an interest deduction, an excise tax is imposed on the issuer of any 

registration-required obligation that is not in registered form. The excise tax is equal to one 

percent of the principal amount of the obligation multiplied by the number of calendar years (or 

portions thereof) during the period beginning on the date of issuance of the obligation and ending 

on the date of maturity. 

Moreover, any gain realized by the beneficial owner of a registration-required obligation that is 

not in registered form on the sale or other disposition of the obligation is treated as ordinary 

income (rather than capital gain), unless the issuer of the obligation was subject to the excise tax 

described above. Finally, deductions for losses realized by beneficial owners of registrationrequired obligations that are not in registered form are disallowed. 

A foreign targeted obligation is excluded from the definition of a registration-required 

obligation. 

Payments of "portfolio interest" are generally exempt from U.S. withholding tax to a nonresident 

alien or foreign corporation from sources within the United States. Interest on an obligation that 

is not in registered form may qualify as portfolio interest if the obligation meets the foreign 

targeting requirements of section 163(f) (2) (B). 

Under title 31 of the United States Code, every "registration-required obligation" of the U.S. 

government must be in registered form, unless it is foreign targeted. 

Reasons for Change

Bonds that are not in registered form may allow persons seeking to evade U.S. taxes the ability 

to invest in such obligations anonymously. Eliminating the foreign-targeted exceptions to the 

registration requirements will help to ensure that the owners of such obligations are properly 

identified and that income from such obligations is properly reported. 

Proposal

The proposal would repeal the foreign targeted obligation exception to the denial of a deduction 

for interest on bonds not in registered form. Thus, under the proposal, a deduction for interest 

would be disallowed with respect to any registration-required obligation not issued in registered 

form. Under the proposal, a dematerialized book entry system or other book entry system 

56 
specified by the Secretary would be treated as a book entry system for purposes of determining 

whether an obligation is in registered form. 

Further, under the proposal, the foreign targeted obligation exception would not be available 

with respect to the ordinary income treatment of any gain realized by the beneficial owner of a 

registration-required obligation that is not in registered form on the sale or other disposition of 

the obligation. Similarly, the foreign targeted obligation exception would not be available with 

respect to the present law rule disallowing deductions for losses realized by a beneficial owner of 

a registration-required obligation that is not in registered form. The proposal would include a 

conforming change to title 31 of the United States Code that repeals the foreign targeted 

exception to the definition of a registration-required obligation. 

Finally, under the proposal interest paid on bonds that are not issued in registered form would 

not be treated as portfolio interest. Under the proposal, interest would qualify as portfolio 

interest only if it is paid on an obligation that is issued in registered form and for which the 

beneficial owner has provided the withholding agent with a statement certifying that the 

beneficial owner is not a United States person, unless the Secretary determines that such a 

statement is not necessary. 

The provision would be effective for obligations issued after the date which is two years after the 

date of enactment. 

57 
REQUIRE DISCLOSURE OF FOREIGN FINANCIAL ASSETS TO BE FILED WITH 

TAX RETURN 

Current Law

United States persons must file certain information reports with respect to certain interests in 

foreign entities. Upon the formation, acquisition or ongoing ownership of certain foreign 

corporations, certain U.S. persons must file an information return providing information about 

foreign corporations in which they hold an interest. Similarly, certain U.S. persons must file 

information returns with respect to certain interests in a controlled foreign partnership, with 

respect to certain foreign trusts, and with respect to foreign disregarded entities. In addition, a 

U.S. person that capitalizes a foreign entity generally must file an information return regarding 

the transaction. 

Under current law, taxpayers generally must indicate on their income tax returns whether they 

had an interest in or signature or other authority over a financial account in a foreign country 

during the year to which the tax return relates. If a taxpayer has a foreign account, the tax return 

refers the taxpayer to the Report of Foreign Bank and Financial Accounts, Form TD F 90-22.1 

(FBAR). The FBAR requires the taxpayer to disclose whether, at any time during the preceding 

year, that person had an interest in, or signature authority over, financial accounts, if the 

aggregate value of these accounts exceeds $10,000. The FBAR further requires the person to 

disclose certain information regarding the foreign account, including the account number, 

financial institution, and maximum value during the year. The FBAR is not required to be filed 

until June 30 of the year following the calendar year to which it relates. The FBAR is filed with 

the Treasury Department generally and not directly with the IRS. 

Reasons for Change

Disclosure of more detailed information regarding foreign financial assets on the income tax 

return would assist the IRS in identifying and investigating instances where taxpayers have used 

foreign financial assets to evade U.S. taxes. 

Proposal

Any U.S. individual who holds an interest in a foreign financial account, an interest in a foreign 

entity or any financial instrument or contract held for investment and issued by a foreign person 

would be required to file an information return if the aggregate value of all such assets exceeds 

$50,000. The information return would set forth the name and address of the financial institution 

that maintains such account or the issuer of the instrument, and the maximum value of the asset 

during the year. The disclosure would be included as part of the tax return for the taxpayer. 

Penalties for failing to report the foreign financial asset would be consistent with current 

penalties under current law for failing to disclose an interest in a foreign entity, such that a 

failure to report the required information would result in a penalty of $10,000, unless the failure 

is shown to be due to reasonable cause and not willful neglect. The Secretary would be given 

regulatory authority to apply the proposal to certain domestic entities formed or availed of for 

purposes of holding foreign financial assets, and to coordinate the proposal with other 

information returns required under the Code. 

58 
A rebuttable evidentiary presumption would be applicable in a civil administrative or judicial 

proceeding providing that, if it is established that the individual had an interest in an undisclosed 

foreign financial asset, then the aggregate value of all foreign financial assets in which a U.S. 

individual has an interest will be presumed to exceed $50,000. The rebuttable evidentiary 

presumption would not apply in criminal proceedings. 

The tax return disclosure would not replace or mitigate the individual’s obligation to separately 

file an FBAR with the Treasury Department as required under Title 31. The penalties imposed 

under Title 31 for failing to file an FBAR would continue to apply to a failure to file an FBAR as 

required under Title 31. Failure to disclose the foreign accounts with the income tax return 

would not be subject to the Title 31 penalties, although it could give rise to penalties and other 

consequences imposed under the Code, including extension of the statute of limitations. 

The proposal would be effective for taxable years beginning after the date of enactment.

59 
IMPOSE PENALTIES FOR UNDERPAYMENTS ATTRIBUTABLE TO 

UNDISCLOSED FOREIGN FINANCIAL ASSETS 

Current Law

Current law imposes a 20-percent accuracy-related penalty on (i) a substantial understatement of 

income tax, (ii) an understatement resulting from negligence or disregard of rules or regulations, 

and (iii) an understatement related to a reportable transaction. The 20-percent accuracy-related 

penalty increases to 30 percent in the case of an understatement from a reportable transaction 

that was not properly disclosed. The accuracy-related penalty is not imposed when the taxpayer 

demonstrates “reasonable cause” for the position and acted in good faith. In the case of a 

reportable transaction, the reasonable cause exception to the imposition of penalties only applies 

if the taxpayer disclosed the reportable transaction as required by law and certain other 

requirements are met. 

Individual taxpayers must indicate on their income tax returns whether they had an interest in or 

signature or other authority over a financial account in a foreign country during the year to which 

the tax return relates. If the taxpayer had a foreign financial account, the income tax return 

instructs the taxpayer to refer to the Report of Foreign Bank and Financial Accounts (FBAR), 

which requires the taxpayer to disclose information regarding certain foreign accounts. 

Under present law, failure to comply with the various information reporting requirements 

generally does not, in itself, determine the amount of the penalty imposed on an underpayment of 

tax. 

Reasons for Change

United States persons may seek to evade U.S. tax liability by holding foreign financial assets. 

Increasing the penalties on understatements from transactions that involve undisclosed foreign 

financial assets would encourage proper disclosure of such accounts and deter the use of foreign 

financial assets to evade U.S. tax liability. 

Proposal

In addition to the circumstances identified under current law, the 20-percent accuracy-related 

penalty would apply to any understatement attributable to undisclosed foreign financial assets. 

In addition, the proposal would double the 20-percent accuracy-related penalty to 40 percent in 

the case of such foreign financial asset understatements. Undisclosed foreign financial assets 

would be foreign financial assets that the taxpayer failed to disclose properly under section 6038, 

6038B, 6046A, 6048, or the proposed requirement that taxpayers disclose foreign financial 

assets. As under current law, the penalty would not be imposed when the understatement is due 

to reasonable cause. 

The proposal would be effective for taxable years beginning after the date of enactment. 

60 
EXTEND STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS FOR SIGNIFICANT OMISSION OF INCOME 

ATTRIBUTABLE TO FOREIGN FINANCIAL ASSETS 

Current Law

In general, additional Federal tax liabilities in the form of tax, interest, penalties, and additions to 

tax must be assessed by the IRS within three years after the date a return is filed. If an 

assessment is not made within the required time period, the additional liabilities generally cannot 

be assessed or collected at any future time. Section 6501(c)(8) of the Code provides an 

exception to this general statute of limitations with respect to any tax relating to any event or 

period for which certain information returns are required with respect to certain foreign transfers, 

foreign entities, and foreign-owned entities. In these cases, the statute of limitations does not 

expire until three years after the taxpayer furnishes the information required to be reported. 

Section 6038A of the Code requires certain foreign-owned domestic corporations to file 

information returns containing specified information with respect to related-party transactions, 

and to maintain such records as may be appropriate to determine the correct treatment of such 

transactions. Failure to file the required information returns triggers the section 6501(c) (8) 

extension of the statute of limitations. 

A special rule is provided where there is a substantial omission of income. If a taxpayer omits 

substantial gross income on a return, any tax with respect to that return may be assessed and 

collected within six years of the date on which the return was filed. In the case of income taxes, 

a substantial omission means at least 25 percent of the amount that was properly includible in 

gross income; for estate and gift taxes, a substantial omission means 25 percent of a gross estate 

or total gifts. 

Reasons for Change

Compliance with reporting and recordkeeping obligations is essential in order to enable the IRS 

to enforce the tax laws. The three-year period provided by section 6501(c) (8) does not always 

allow sufficient time for the IRS to determine a taxpayer’s tax liability where the taxpayer has 

omitted income and failed to disclose foreign assets. 

Proposal

Under the proposal, if the taxpayer omits from gross income more than $5,000 that is attributable 

to one or more foreign financial assets required to be disclosed under the proposal to require 

disclosure of foreign financial assets (without regard to the $50,000 threshold), the statute of 

limitation would be extended to six years after the required return was filed. In addition, the 

tolling of the statute of limitations under section 6501(c) (8) would apply to failures to file the 

reports that would be required under the proposal to require reporting of foreign financial assets. 

The proposal would be effective for income tax returns due to be filed after the date of 

enactment, and returns filed on or before such date if the statute of limitations with respect to 

such return has not expired as of the date of enactment. 

61 
REQUIRE REPORTING OF CERTAIN TRANSFERS OF ASSETS TO OR FROM 

FOREIGN FINANCIAL ACCOUNTS 

Current Law

United States persons must disclose whether, at any time during the preceding year, they had an 

interest in, or signature or other authority over, financial accounts in a foreign country, if the 

aggregate value of these accounts exceeds $10,000. United States persons must also report 

certain information with respect to certain foreign business entities that they control. Under 

Treasury regulations, a U.S. person controls a foreign corporation for this purpose if the person 

owns, actually or constructively, more than 50 percent of the corporation’s stock, by vote or by 

value. Current law does not contain a provision that generally requires reporting of transfers of 

money or property to, or receipt of money or property from, a foreign bank, brokerage, or other 

financial account by U.S. individuals. 

Reasons for Change

The Administration is concerned about the use of foreign accounts by U.S. citizens and residents 

to evade U.S. tax. To reduce such evasion, the Administration proposes to increase information 

reporting requirements with respect to transfers to and from certain foreign accounts. 

Proposal

A U.S. individual would be required to report, on the individual’s income tax return, any transfer 

of money or property made to, or receipt of money or property from, any foreign bank, 

brokerage, or other financial account by the individual. Additionally, any entity of which a U.S. 

individual owns, directly or indirectly, more than 25 percent of the ownership interest would be 

required to report any transfer of money or property made to, or receipt of money or property 

from, any foreign bank, brokerage, or other financial account by the entity. Such an entity would 

also be required to report the name, address, and taxpayer identification number of any U.S. 

individual who owns more than 25 percent of the ownership interest in the entity. This reporting 

requirement would not apply if the cumulative amount or value of transfers, and the cumulative 

amount or value of receipts that would otherwise be reportable for a given year were each less 

than $50,000. The Treasury Department would receive regulatory authority to require the 

reporting of additional information, including classifying transfers and receipts as for investment 

or for arm’s-length payments in the ordinary course of business for services or tangible property, 

or such other categories as the Secretary may prescribe. Failure to report a covered transfer 

would result in the imposition of a penalty equal to the lesser of $10,000 per reportable transfer 

or 10 percent of the cumulative amount or value of the unreported covered transfers. No penalty 

would be imposed for a failure to report due to reasonable cause. The Treasury Department 

would receive regulatory authority to issue rules to prevent abuse of the reporting exemptions 

and to provide exceptions to the reporting requirement. 

The proposal would be effective for transfers made after December 31, 2012. 

 

62 
REQUIRE THIRD-PARTY INFORMATION REPORTING REGARDING THE 

TRANSFER OF ASSETS TO OR FROM FOREIGN FINANCIAL ACCOUNTS AND 

THE ESTABLISHMENT OF FOREIGN FINANCIAL ACCOUNTS 

Current Law

United States persons must disclose whether, at any time during the preceding year, they had an 

interest in, or signature or other authority over, financial accounts in a foreign country, if the 

aggregate value of these accounts exceeds $10,000. Current law does not generally require thirdparty information reporting to the IRS with regard to the transfer of money or property to, or 

receipt of money or property from, a foreign bank, brokerage, or other financial account on 

behalf of a U.S. person, or with regard to the establishment of a foreign bank, brokerage, or other 

financial account on behalf of a U.S. person. 

Reasons for Change

The Administration is concerned that U.S. persons are failing to comply with the requirement to 

report certain foreign financial accounts. Establishing a third-party reporting requirement with 

respect to transfers to foreign financial accounts, receipts from such accounts, and the 

establishment of such accounts would lead to greater disclosure of foreign financial accounts, 

and consequently would discourage the evasion of U.S. taxation. These third-party reporting 

requirements complement taxpayer reporting requirements. 

Proposal

Any U.S. financial institution that during the year transfers to, or receives from, a foreign bank, 

brokerage, or other financial account money or property with an aggregate value of more than 

$50,000 on behalf of a U.S. individual, or on behalf of any entity of which a U.S. individual 

owns, directly or indirectly, more than 25 percent of the ownership interest, would be required to 

file an information return regarding such transfer or receipt (including, in the case of a transfer 

by an entity, the name, address, and taxpayer identification number (TIN) of any U.S. individual 

who owns more than 25 percent of the ownership interest in such entity). Any U.S. financial 

institution that opens a foreign bank, brokerage, or other financial account on behalf of a U.S. 

individual, or on behalf of any entity of which a U.S. individual owns, directly or indirectly, 

more than 25 percent of the ownership interest, would be required to file an information return 

with the IRS regarding such account, including reporting any amounts of money or property 

transferred by the financial institution to, or received by it from, such account. 

In addition to filing an information return with the Internal Revenue Service, the U.S. financial 

institution would be required to send a copy of such return to the U.S. individual, or entity, as to 

which the return is made. 

Reporting would not be required where the U.S. financial institution determined the entity 

making or receiving the transfer was: a publicly traded corporation, or a subsidiary thereof; an 

organization exempt from tax under section 501; an individual retirement plan; the United States 

or any wholly owned agency or instrumentality thereof; any State, the District of Columbia, any 

possession of the United States, any political subdivision of any of the foregoing, or any wholly 

63 
owned agency or instrumentality of any one or more of the foregoing; any bank (as defined in 

section 581); any real estate investment trust (as defined in section 856); any regulated 

investment company (as defined in section 851); any common trust fund (as defined in section 

584(a)); any trust which is exempt from tax under section 664(c) or is described in section 

4947(a)(1); or an entity engaged in an active trade or business (other than the business of 

investing or similar activities). 

Failure to file a required information return or to provide a copy of such return to the U.S. 

individual would result in the imposition of a penalty of $50 with respect to each such failure. In 

the case of a failure to file due to intentional disregard, the penalty would be the greater of $100 

or 5 percent of the amount of the items required to be reported. No penalty would be imposed 

for a failure to report due to reasonable cause. 

The Treasury Department would receive regulatory authority to provide additional exceptions 

(including where the Secretary determines that the reporting would be duplicative of other 

reporting requirements), to limit the types of transfers subject to the reporting requirement, to 

require that certain additional information be reported, and to permit U.S. financial institutions to 

report additional transfers of money or property to, or from, a foreign bank, brokerage, or other 

financial account on behalf of a U.S. individual (or on behalf of an entity of which the U.S. 

individual owns, actually or constructively, more than 25 percent of the ownership interest). 

The proposal would be effective for amounts transferred and accounts opened beginning after 

December 31, 2012. 

 

64 
PERMIT THE SECRETARY TO REQUIRE ELECTRONIC FILING BY FINANCIAL 

INSTITUTIONS OF CERTAIN WITHHOLDING TAX RETURNS 

Current Law

Every withholding agent must file an annual return with the IRS on Form 1042, reporting all 

taxes withheld during the preceding year and remitting taxes still owing for such preceding year. 

A withholding agent also must file an information return on Form 1042-S, providing all items of 

income specified in section 1441(b) paid during the previous year to foreign persons. 

Reasons for Change

The Secretary's authority to require returns electronically is limited to persons required to file at 

least 250 returns during the year. Electronic filing reduces errors on the required returns and 

facilitates compliance and enforcement measures by the IRS. 

Proposal 

The proposal would permit the Treasury Department to issue regulations requiring electronic 

filing for any return filed by a financial institution with respect to any taxes withheld by the 

financial institution, regardless of the general 250 return threshold. 

The proposal would apply to returns the due date for which (determined without regard to 

extensions) is after the date of enactment. 

65 
ESTABLISH PRESUMPTION OF U.S. BENEFICIARY IN CASE OF TRANSFERS TO 

FOREIGN TRUSTS BY A U.S. PERSON 

Current Law

A U.S. person that directly or indirectly transfers property to a foreign trust is generally treated 

as the owner of the portion of the trust attributable to that property for any year in which there is 

a U.S. beneficiary of any portion of the trust. A trust is treated as having a U.S. beneficiary for a 

taxable year unless under the terms of the trust, no part of the income or corpus of the trust may 

be paid or accumulated during the taxable year to or for the benefit of any U.S. person, and if the 

trust were terminated at any time during the taxable year, no part of the income or corpus of the 

trust could be paid to or for the benefit of a U.S. person. 

Reasons for Change

In the absence of adequate information reporting, it is difficult for the IRS to determine whether 

a trust has a U.S. beneficiary. A presumption that a foreign trust receiving a transfer of property 

from a U.S. person has a U.S. beneficiary unless the transferor provides sufficient information 

with respect to the existence of U.S. beneficiaries will improve the ability of the IRS to enforce 

U.S. tax rules applicable to foreign trusts. 

Proposal

Under the proposal, if a U.S. person directly or indirectly transfers property to a foreign trust 

(other than certain deferred compensation and charitable trusts), the trust would be presumed to 

have a U.S. beneficiary for purposes of the grantor trust rules unless the U.S. transferor files an 

information return with the IRS and demonstrates that (1) under the terms of the trust, no part of 

the income or corpus of the trust may be paid or accumulated during the taxable year to or for the 

benefit of any U.S. person, and (2) if the trust were terminated at any time during the taxable 

year, no part of the income or corpus of the trust could be paid to or for the benefit of any U.S. 

person. The proposal would also make certain clarifications of existing rules applicable to 

foreign trusts with U.S. grantors and beneficiaries. 

This proposal would be effective for transfers of property made after the date of enactment. 

66 
TREAT CERTAIN UNCOMPENSATED USES OF FOREIGN TRUST PROPERTY AS A 

DISTRIBUTION TO U.S. GRANTOR OR BENEFICIARY 

Current Law

In general, if a foreign trust makes a loan of cash or marketable securities directly or indirectly to 

any grantor or beneficiary of the trust who is a U.S. person, or to any U.S. person related to such 

grantor or beneficiary, the amount of the loan is treated as a distribution by the foreign trust to 

the grantor or beneficiary. In addition, the trust is not treated as a simple trust for the year of the 

distribution. The grantor trust rules do not currently treat a U.S. person receiving an 

uncompensated loan of cash or marketable securities, or the uncompensated use of trust property, 

as a U.S. beneficiary. 

Reasons for Change

The administration is concerned that foreign trusts may permit the uncompensated use of trust 

property by U.S. persons without treating the value of the use as a trust distribution, and without 

treating the recipient as a U.S. beneficiary for purposes of the grantor trust rules. 

Proposal

Under the proposal, if a foreign trust permits the use of trust property other than cash or 

marketable securities by a U.S. grantor or beneficiary (or a related U.S. person), the fair market 

value of the use of such property would be treated as a distribution to the U.S. grantor or 

beneficiary, except to the extent that the trust is paid the fair market value of such use within a 

reasonable period of time. In addition, for purposes of the grantor trust rules, a loan of cash or 

marketable securities or the use of other property of a foreign trust would be treated as paid or 

accumulated for the benefit of a U.S. person, except to the extent that the U.S. person repays the 

loan at market rates (or pays the fair market value of the use) within a reasonable period of time. 

This proposal would be effective for loans made, and uses of property, after the date of 

enactment. 

67 
IMPROVE FOREIGN TRUST REPORTING PENALTY 

Current Law 

Certain information must be reported to the IRS with respect to certain foreign trusts. A civil 

penalty applies to persons who fail to file a timely return as required or who file an incomplete or 

incorrect return. Generally, the penalty is equal to 35 percent of the “gross reportable amount,” 

which is defined as the gross value of property involved in a reportable event such as a gratuitous 

transfer to the trust, the gross value of the portion of the trust’s assets at the close of the year that 

is treated as owned by a United States person, or the gross amount of distributions received from 

the trust. In the case of a failure to report that continues for more than 90 days after the IRS mails 

notice of such failure, the penalty (in addition to the 35 percent penalty) is $10,000 for each 30-

day period (or fraction thereof) during which the failure continues. The total penalty with respect 

to any failure may not exceed the gross reportable amount. 

Reasons for Change 

In many instances, the IRS obtains information relating to the creation of a foreign trust from 

third parties, or the IRS discovers funding of a foreign trust from public records. Without the 

cooperation of persons actually involved with the trust, however, it is often difficult for the IRS 

to determine the gross reportable amount. If the IRS cannot determine the gross reportable 

amount, the IRS may not be able to assess the penalties, including the $10,000 penalty for 

continued failure to report. The current penalty regime therefore may create an incentive for 

persons subject to the reporting requirement not to report or cooperate with the IRS in the hope 

that the IRS will not be able to determine the gross reportable amount, which is essential to 

presenting a prima facie case sufficient to meet the Code section 7491(c) burden of production to 

support the penalty. 

Proposal 

The penalty provision would be amended to impose an initial penalty of the greater of $10,000 or 

35 percent of the gross reportable amount (if the gross reportable amount is known). The 

additional $10,000 penalty for continued failure to report would remain unchanged. Thus, even if 

the gross reportable amount is not known, the IRS may impose a $10,000 penalty on a person 

who fails to report timely or correctly as required, and may impose a $10,000 penalty for each 

30-day period (or fraction thereof) that the failure to report continues. If the person subsequently 

provides enough information for the IRS to determine the gross reportable amount, the total 

penalties would be capped at that amount and any excess penalty already paid would be 

refunded. Accordingly, a person can stop the compounding of penalties by cooperating with the 

IRS so that it can determine the gross reportable amount. 

The proposal would be effective for information reports required to be filed after December 31 

of the year of enactment. 

68 
Reform Treatment of Insurance Companies and Products

MODIFY RULES THAT APPLY TO SALES OF LIFE INSURANCE CONTRACTS 

Current Law

The seller of a life insurance contract generally must report as taxable income the difference 

between the amount received from the buyer and the adjusted basis in the contract, unless the 

buyer is a viatical settlement provider and the insured person is terminally or chronically ill. 

Under a transfer-for-value rule, the buyer of a previously-issued life insurance contract who 

subsequently receives a death benefit generally is subject to tax on the difference between the 

death benefit received and the sum of the amount paid for the contract and premiums 

subsequently paid by the buyer. This rule does not apply if the buyer's basis is determined in 

whole or in part by reference to the seller's basis, nor does the rule apply if the buyer is the 

insured, a partner of the insured, a partnership in which the insured is a partner, or a corporation 

in which the insured is a shareholder or officer. 

Persons engaged in a trade or business that make payments of premiums, compensations, 

remunerations, other fixed or determinable gains, profits and income, or certain other types of 

payments in the course of that trade or business to another person generally are required to report 

such payments of $600 or more to the IRS. However, reporting may not be required in some 

circumstances involving the purchase of a life insurance contract. 

Reasons for Change

Recent years have seen a significant increase in the number and size of life settlement 

transactions, wherein individuals sell previously-issued life insurance contracts to investors. 

Compliance is sometimes hampered by a lack of information reporting. In addition, the current 

law exceptions to the transfer-for-value rule may give investors the ability to structure a 

transaction to avoid paying tax on the profit when the insured person dies. 

Proposal

The proposal would require a person or entity who purchases an interest in an existing life 

insurance contract with a death benefit equal to or exceeding $500,000 to report the purchase 

price, the buyer's and seller's taxpayer identification numbers (TINs), and the issuer and policy 

number to the IRS, to the insurance company that issued the policy, and to the seller. 

The proposal also would modify the transfer-for-value rule to ensure that exceptions to that rule 

would not apply to buyers of policies. Upon the payment of any policy benefits to the buyer, the 

insurance company would be required to report the gross benefit payment, the buyer's TIN, and 

the insurance company's estimate of the buyer's basis to the IRS and to the payee. 

The proposal would apply to sales or assignment of interests in life insurance policies and 

payments of death benefits for taxable years beginning after December 31, 2010. 

69 
MODIFY DIVIDENDS-RECEIVED DEDUCTION FOR LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY 

SEPARATE ACCOUNTS 

Current Law

Corporate taxpayers may generally qualify for a dividends-received deduction (DRD) with 

regard to dividends received from other domestic corporations, in order to prevent or limit 

taxable inclusion of the same income by more than one corporation. No DRD is allowed, 

however, in respect of any dividend on any share of stock (1) to the extent the taxpayer is under 

an obligation to make related payments with respect to positions in substantially similar or 

related property, or (2) that is held by the taxpayer for 45 days or less during the 91-day period 

beginning on the date that is 45 days before the share becomes ex-dividend with respect to the 

dividend. For this purpose, the taxpayer’s holding period is reduced for any period in which the 

taxpayer has diminished its risk of loss by holding one or more positions with respect to 

substantially similar or related property. 

In the case of a life insurance company, the DRD is permitted only with regard to the "company's 

share" of dividends received, reflecting the fact that some portion of the company's dividend 

income is used to fund tax-deductible reserves for its obligations to policyholders. Likewise, the 

net increase or net decrease in reserves is computed by reducing the ending balance of the 

reserve items by the policyholders’ share of tax-exempt interest. The regime for computing the 

company's share and policyholders’ share of net investment income is sometimes referred to as 

proration. 

A life insurance company's separate account assets, liabilities, and income are segregated from 

those of the company’s general account in order to support variable life insurance and variable 

annuity contracts. A company’s share and policyholders’ share are computed for the company’s 

general account and separately for each separate account. 

The policyholders’ share equals 100 percent less the company’s share, whereas the latter is equal 

to the company’s share of net investment income divided by net investment income. The 

company's share of net investment income is the excess, if any, of net investment income over 

certain amounts, including “required interest,” that are set aside to satisfy obligations to 

policyholders. Required interest with regard to an account is calculated by multiplying a 

specified account earnings rate by the mean of the reserves with regard to the account for the 

taxable year. 

Reasons for Change

The proration methodology currently used by some taxpayers may produce a company’s share 

that greatly exceeds the company's economic interest in the net investment income earned by its 

separate account assets, generating controversy between life insurance companies and the IRS. 

The purposes of the proration regime would be better served, and life insurance companies 

would be treated more like other taxpayers with a diminished risk of loss in stock or an 

obligation to make related payments with respect to dividends, if the company's share bore a 

more direct relationship to the company's actual economic interest in the account. 

70 
Proposal

As under current law, required interest under the proposal would equal an earnings rate times the 

mean of reserves. For a separate account, the earnings rate would equal a gross earnings rate 

(net investment income of the account, divided by the mean of the account's assets), minus a 

company-retained percentage (amounts retained by the company from the account’s net 

investment income, if any, divided by the mean of reserves). For this purpose, amounts retained 

by the company would be treated as funded proportionately by items included in net investment 

income and items not so included. Under the proposal, the company’s share with regard to a 

separate account would approximate the ratio of the mean of the surplus attributable to the 

account to the mean of the account’s assets. The company’s share with regard to a company’s 

general account would be computed as under current law. 

The proposal would be effective for taxable years beginning after December 31, 2010. 

71 
EXPAND PRO RATA INTEREST EXPENSE DISALLOWANCE FOR CORPORATEOWNED LIFE INSURANCE (COLI) 

Current Law

In general, no Federal income tax is imposed on a policyholder with respect to the earnings 

credited under a life insurance or endowment contract, and Federal income tax generally is 

deferred with respect to earnings under an annuity contract (unless the annuity contract is owned 

by a person other than a natural person). In addition, amounts received under a life insurance 

contract by reason of the death of the insured generally are excluded from gross income of the 

recipient. 

Interest on policy loans or other indebtedness with respect to life insurance, endowment or 

annuity contracts generally is not deductible, unless the insurance contract insures the life of a 

key person of the business. A key person includes a 20-percent owner of the business, as well as 

a limited number of the business' officers or employees. However, this interest disallowance rule 

applies to businesses only to the extent that the indebtedness can be traced to a life insurance, 

endowment or annuity contract. 

In addition, the interest deductions of a business other than an insurance company are reduced to 

the extent the interest is allocable to unborrowed policy cash values based on a statutory formula. 

An exception to the pro rata interest disallowance applies with respect to contracts that cover 

individuals who are officers, directors, employees, or 20-percent owners of the taxpayer. In the 

case of both life and non-life insurance companies, special proration rules similarly require 

adjustments to prevent or limit the funding of tax-deductible reserve increases with tax preferred 

income, including earnings credited under life insurance, endowment and annuity contracts that 

would be subject to the pro rata interest disallowance rule if owned by a non-insurance company. 

Reasons for Change

Leveraged businesses can fund deductible interest expenses with tax-exempt or tax-deferred 

income credited under life insurance, endowment or annuity contracts insuring certain types of 

individuals. For example, these businesses frequently invest in investment-oriented insurance 

policies covering the lives of their employees, officers, directors or owners. These entities 

generally do not take out policy loans or other indebtedness that is secured or otherwise traceable 

to the insurance contracts. Instead, they borrow from depositors or other lenders, or issue bonds. 

Similar tax arbitrage benefits result when insurance companies invest in certain insurance 

contracts that cover the lives of their employees, officers, directors or 20-percent shareholders 

and fund deductible reserves with tax-exempt or tax-deferred income.

Proposal

The proposal would repeal the exception from the pro rata interest expense disallowance rule for 

contracts covering employees, officers or directors, other than 20-percent owners of a business 

that is the owner or beneficiary of the contracts. 

72 
The proposal would apply to contracts issued after December 31, 2010, in taxable years ending 

after that date. For this purpose, any material increase in the death benefit or other material 

change in the contract would be treated as a new contract except that in the case of a master 

contract, the addition of covered lives would be treated as a new contract only with respect to the 

additional covered lives. 

73 
PERMIT PARTIAL ANNUITIZATION OF A NONQUALIFIED ANNUITY CONTRACT 

Current Law

If a taxpayer receives an amount as an annuity under a nonqualified, deferred annuity contract, a 

proportionate part of the amount received is excluded from gross income because it is considered 

to represent a return of premiums or other consideration paid for the annuity. The proportionate 

part that is excluded from gross income is determined by an exclusion ratio, which equals the 

investment in the contract as of the annuity starting date divided by the expected return under the 

contract as of that date. 

If, on the other hand, an amount is received under an annuity contract but not as an annuity, the 

amount either is included in gross income (if received on or after the annuity starting date) or is 

included in gross income to the extent allocable to income on the contract (if received before the 

annuity starting date). 

The annuity starting date is the first day of the first period for which an amount is received as an 

annuity. This date is generally the later of the date on which the obligations under the contract 

became fixed, or the first day of the period that ends on the date of the first annuity payment. 

Reasons for Change

Under current law, a taxpayer may exchange a portion of an existing annuity contract for a 

second annuity contract and, under certain circumstances, annuitize one of the contracts involved 

in the exchange. An exclusion ratio then applies to determine the extent to which amounts 

received as an annuity under the annuitized contracts are included in gross income. Current law 

does not, however, address the treatment of a transaction (sometimes known as a partial 

annuitization) in which the holder of an annuity contract irrevocably elects to apply only a 

portion of the contract to purchase a stream of annuity payments under the contract, leaving the 

remainder of the contract to accumulate income on a tax-deferred basis. It is appropriate that 

these transactions be treated consistently. 

Moreover, the possibility that a partial annuitization could be taxed on an income-first basis 

rather than on a proportionate basis discourages some taxpayers from annuitizing existing 

deferred annuity contracts at a time when annuity payments are needed to fund their retirement. 

Proposal

An exclusion ratio would apply to each amount received as an annuity with regard to a portion of 

a nonqualified deferred annuity contract that is partially annuitized. This treatment would be 

available only if: (1) the taxpayer irrevocably elects to apply a portion of the contract to 

purchase a stream of annuity payments; (2) the stream of annuity payments is either for at least 

ten years or for the life of one or more individuals; and (3) the exclusion ratio is computed based 

on the expected return and investment in the contract with regard to the portion of the contract 

that is annuitized. 

The proposal would be effective for partial annuitizations that are effected after December 31, 

2010. 

74 
ELIMINATE FOSSIL FUEL TAX PREFERENCES

Eliminate Oil and Gas Company Preferences 

REPEAL ENHANCED OIL RECOVERY CREDIT 

Current Law

The general business credit includes a 15-percent credit for eligible costs attributable to 

enhanced oil recovery (EOR) projects. If the credit is claimed with respect to eligible costs, the 

taxpayer’s deduction (or basis increase) with respect to those costs is reduced by the amount of 

the credit. Eligible costs include the cost of constructing a gas treatment plant to prepare Alaska 

natural gas for pipeline transportation and any of the following costs with respect to a qualified 

EOR project: (1) the cost of depreciable or amortizable tangible property that is an integral part 

of the project; (2) intangible drilling and development costs (IDCs) that the taxpayer can elect to 

deduct; and (3) deductible tertiary injectant costs. A qualified EOR project must be located in 

the United States and must involve the application of one or more of nine listed tertiary recovery 

methods that can reasonably be expected to result in more than an insignificant increase in the 

amount of crude oil which ultimately will be recovered. The allowable credit is phased out over 

a $6 range for a taxable year if the annual average unregulated wellhead price per barrel of 

domestic crude oil during the calendar year preceding the calendar year in which the taxable year 

begins (the reference price) exceeds an inflation adjusted threshold. The credit was completely 

phased out for taxable years beginning in 2009, because the reference price ($94.03) exceeded 

the inflation adjusted threshold ($42.01) by more than $6. 

 

Reasons for Change

The President agreed at the G-20 Summit in Pittsburgh to phase out subsidies for fossil fuels so 

that the United States can transition to a 21st century energy economy. The credit, like other oil 

and gas preferences the Administration proposes to repeal, distorts markets by encouraging more 

investment in the oil and gas industry than would occur under a neutral system. To the extent 

the credit encourages overproduction of oil, it is detrimental to long-term energy security and is 

also inconsistent with the Administration’s policy of reducing carbon emissions and encouraging 

the use of renewable energy sources. Moreover, the credit must ultimately be financed with 

taxes that result in underinvestment in other, potentially more productive, areas of the economy. 

Proposal

The investment tax credit for enhanced oil recovery projects would be repealed for taxable years 

beginning after December 31, 2010. 

75 
REPEAL CREDIT FOR OIL AND GAS PRODUCED FROM MARGINAL WELLS 

Current Law

The general business credit includes a credit for crude oil and natural gas produced from 

marginal wells. The credit rate is $3.00 per barrel of oil and $0.50 per 1,000 cubic feet of natural 

gas for taxable years beginning in 2005 and is adjusted for inflation in taxable years beginning 

after 2005. The credit is available for production from wells that produce oil and gas qualifying 

as marginal production for purposes of the percentage depletion rules or that have average daily 

production of not more than 25 barrel-of-oil equivalents and produce at least 95 percent water. 

The credit per well is limited to 1,095 barrels of oil or barrel-of-oil equivalents per year. The 

credit rate for crude oil is phased out for a taxable year if the annual average unregulated 

wellhead price per barrel of domestic crude oil during the calendar year preceding the calendar 

year in which the taxable year begins (the reference price) exceeds the applicable threshold. The 

phase-out range and the applicable threshold at which phase-out begins are $3.00 and $15.00 for 

taxable years beginning in 2005 and are adjusted for inflation in taxable years beginning after 

2005. The credit rate for natural gas is similarly phased out for a taxable year if the annual 

average wellhead price for domestic natural gas exceeds the applicable threshold. The phase-out 

range and the applicable threshold at which phase-out begins are $0.33 and $1.67 for taxable 

years beginning in 2005 and are adjusted for inflation in taxable years beginning after 2005. The 

credit has been completely phased out for all taxable years since its enactment. The marginal 

well credit can be carried back up to five years unlike other components of the general business 

credit, which can be carried back only one year. 

 

Reasons for Change

The President agreed at the G-20 Summit in Pittsburgh to phase out subsidies for fossil fuels so 

that the United States can transition to a 21st century energy economy. The credit, like other oil 

and gas preferences the Administration proposes to repeal, distorts markets by encouraging more 

investment in the oil and gas industry than would occur under a neutral system. To the extent the 

credit encourages overproduction of oil, it is detrimental to long-term energy security and is also 

inconsistent with the Administration’s policy of reducing carbon emissions and encouraging the 

use of renewable energy sources. Moreover, the credit must ultimately be financed with taxes 

that result in underinvestment in other, potentially more productive, areas of the economy. 

Proposal

The production tax credit for oil and gas from marginal wells would be repealed for production 

in taxable years beginning after December 31, 2010. 

76 
REPEAL EXPENSING OF INTANGIBLE DRILLING COSTS 

Current Law

In general, costs that benefit future periods must be capitalized and recovered over such periods 

for income tax purposes, rather than being expensed in the period the costs are incurred. In 

addition, the uniform capitalization rules require certain direct and indirect costs allocable to 

property to be included in inventory or capitalized as part of the basis of such property. In 

general, the uniform capitalization rules apply to real and tangible personal property produced by 

the taxpayer or acquired for resale. 

Special rules apply to intangible drilling and development costs (IDCs). IDCs include all 

expenditures made by an operator for wages, fuel, repairs, hauling, supplies, and other expenses 

incident to and necessary for the drilling of wells and the preparation of wells for the production 

of oil and gas. In addition, IDCs include the cost to operators of any drilling or development 

work (excluding amounts payable only out of production or gross or net proceeds from 

production, if the amounts are depletable income to the recipient, and amounts properly allocable 

to the cost of depreciable property) done by contractors under any form of contract (including a 

turnkey contract). IDCs include amounts paid for labor, fuel, repairs, hauling, and supplies 

which are used in the drilling, shooting, and cleaning of wells; in such clearing of ground, 

draining, road making, surveying, and geological works as are necessary in preparation for the 

drilling of wells; and in the construction of such derricks, tanks, pipelines, and other physical 

structures as are necessary for the drilling of wells and the preparation of wells for the production 

of oil and gas. Generally, IDCs do not include expenses for items which have a salvage value 

(such as pipes and casings) or items which are part of the acquisition price of an interest in the 

property. 

Under the special rules applicable to IDCs, an operator (i.e., a person who holds a working or 

operating interest in any tract or parcel of land either as a fee owner or under a lease or any other 

form of contract granting working or operating rights) who pays or incurs IDCs in the 

development of an oil or gas property located in the United States may elect either to expense or 

capitalize those costs. The uniform capitalization rules do not apply to otherwise deductible 

IDCs. 

If a taxpayer elects to expense IDCs, the amount of the IDCs is deductible as an expense in the 

taxable year the cost is paid or incurred. Generally, IDCs that a taxpayer elects to capitalize may 

be recovered through depletion or depreciation, as appropriate; or in the case of a nonproductive 

well (“dry hole”), the operator may elect to deduct the costs. In the case of an integrated oil 

company (i.e., a company that engages, either directly or through a related enterprise, in 

substantial retailing or refining activities) that has elected to expense IDCs, 30 percent of the 

IDCs on productive wells must be capitalized and amortized over a 60-month period. 

A taxpayer that has elected to deduct IDCs may, nevertheless, elect to capitalize and amortize 

certain IDCs over a 60-month period beginning with the month the expenditure was paid or 

incurred. This rule applies on an expenditure-by-expenditure basis; that is, for any particular 

taxable year, a taxpayer may deduct some portion of its IDCs and capitalize the rest under this 

77 
provision. This allows the taxpayer to reduce or eliminate IDC adjustments or preferences under 

the alternative minimum tax. 

The election to deduct IDCs applies only to those IDCs associated with domestic properties. For 

this purpose, the United States includes certain wells drilled offshore. 

Reasons for Change

The President agreed at the G-20 Summit in Pittsburgh to phase out subsidies for fossil fuels so 

that the United States can transition to a 21st century energy economy. The expensing of IDCs, 

like other oil and gas preferences the Administration proposes to repeal, distorts markets by 

encouraging more investment in the oil and gas industry than would occur under a neutral 

system. To the extent expensing encourages overproduction of oil and gas, it is detrimental to 

long-term energy security and is also inconsistent with the Administration’s policy of reducing 

carbon emissions and encouraging the use of renewable energy sources. Moreover, the tax 

subsidy for oil and gas must ultimately be financed with taxes that result in underinvestment in 

other, potentially more productive, areas of the economy. Capitalization of IDCs would place 

the oil and gas industry on a cost recovery system similar to that employed by other industries 

and reduce economic distortions. 

Proposal

Expensing of intangible drilling costs and 60-month amortization of capitalized intangible 

drilling costs would not be allowed. Intangible drilling costs would be capitalized as depreciable 

or depletable property, depending on the nature of the cost incurred, in accordance with the 

generally applicable rules. 

The proposal would be effective for costs paid or incurred after December 31, 2010. 

 

78 
REPEAL DEDUCTION FOR TERTIARY INJECTANTS 

Current Law

Taxpayers are allowed to deduct the cost of qualified tertiary injectant expenses for the taxable 

year. Qualified tertiary injectant expenses are amounts paid or incurred for any tertiary 

injectants (other than recoverable hydrocarbon injectants) that are used as a part of a tertiary 

recovery method. The deduction is treated as an amortization deduction in determining the 

amount subject to recapture upon disposition of the property. 

Reasons for Change

The President agreed at the G-20 Summit in Pittsburgh to phase out subsidies for fossil fuels so 

that the United States can transition to a 21st century energy economy. The deduction for 

tertiary injectants, like other oil and gas preferences the Administration proposes to repeal, 

distorts markets by encouraging more investment in the oil and gas industry than would occur 

under a neutral system. To the extent expensing encourages overproduction of oil and gas, it is 

detrimental to long-term energy security and is also inconsistent with the Administration’s policy 

of reducing carbon emissions and encouraging the use of renewable energy sources. Moreover, 

the tax subsidy for oil and gas must ultimately be financed with taxes that result in 

underinvestment in other, potentially more productive, areas of the economy. Capitalization of 

tertiary injectants would place the oil and gas industry on a cost recovery system similar to that 

employed by other industries and reduce economic distortions. 

Proposal

The deduction for qualified tertiary injectant expenses would not be allowed for amounts paid or 

incurred after December 31, 2010. 

79 
REPEAL EXEMPTION TO PASSIVE LOSS LIMITATION FOR WORKING 

INTERESTS IN OIL AND GAS PROPERTIES 

Current Law

The passive loss rules limit deductions and credits from passive trade or business activities. 

Deductions attributable to passive activities, to the extent they exceed income from passive 

activities, generally may not be deducted against other income, such as wages, portfolio income, 

or business income that is not derived from a passive activity. A similar rule applies to credits. 

Suspended deductions and credits are carried forward and treated as deductions and credits from 

passive activities in the next year. The suspended losses and credits from a passive activity are 

allowed in full when the taxpayer completely disposes of the activity. 

Passive activities are defined to include trade or business activities in which the taxpayer does 

not materially participate. An exception is provided, however, for any working interest in an oil 

or gas property that the taxpayer holds directly or through an entity that does not limit the 

liability of the taxpayer with respect to the interest. 

Reasons for Change

The President agreed at the G-20 Summit in Pittsburgh to phase out subsidies for fossil fuels so 

that the United States can transition to a 21st century energy economy. The special tax treatment 

of working interests in oil and gas properties, like other oil and gas preferences the 

Administration proposes to repeal, distorts markets by encouraging more investment in the oil 

and gas industry than would occur under a neutral system. To the extent this special treatment 

encourages overproduction of oil and gas, it is detrimental to long-term energy security and is 

also inconsistent with the Administration’s policy of reducing carbon emissions and encouraging 

the use of renewable energy sources. Moreover, the working interest exception for oil and gas 

must ultimately be financed with taxes that result in underinvestment in other, potentially more 

productive, areas of the economy. Eliminating the working interest exception would subject oil 

and gas properties to the same limitations as other activities and reduce economic distortions. 

Proposal

The exception from the passive loss rules for working interests in oil and gas properties would be 

repealed for taxable years beginning after December 31, 2010. 

80 
REPEAL PERCENTAGE DEPLETION FOR OIL AND NATURAL GAS WELLS 

Current Law

The capital costs of oil and gas wells are recovered through the depletion deduction. Under the 

cost depletion method, the basis recovery for a taxable year is proportional to the exhaustion of 

the property during the year. This method does not permit cost recovery deductions that exceed 

basis or that are allowable on an accelerated basis. 

A taxpayer may also qualify for percentage depletion with respect to oil and gas properties. The 

amount of the deduction is a statutory percentage of the gross income from the property. For oil 

and gas properties, the percentage ranges from 15 to 25 percent and the deduction may not 

exceed 100 percent of the taxable income from the property. In addition, the percentage 

depletion deduction for oil and gas properties may not exceed 65 percent of the taxpayer’s 

overall taxable income (determined before the deduction and with certain other adjustments). 

Other limitations and special rules apply to the percentage depletion deduction for oil and gas 

properties. In general, only independent producers and royalty owners (in contrast to integrated 

oil companies) qualify for the percentage depletion deduction. In addition, oil and gas producers 

may claim percentage depletion only with respect to up to 1,000 barrels of average daily 

production of domestic crude oil or an equivalent amount of domestic natural gas (applied on a 

combined basis in the case of taxpayers that produce both). This quantity limitation is allocated, 

at the taxpayer’s election, between oil production and gas production and then further allocated 

within each class among the taxpayer’s properties. Special rules apply to oil and gas production 

from marginal wells (generally, wells for which the average daily production is less than 15 

barrels of oil or barrel-of-oil equivalents or that produce only heavy oil). Only marginal well 

production can qualify for percentage depletion at a rate of more than 15 percent. The rate is 

increased in a taxable year that begins in a calendar year following a calendar year during which 

the annual average unregulated wellhead price per barrel of domestic crude oil is less than $20. 

The increase is one percentage point for each whole dollar of difference between the two 

amounts. In addition, marginal wells are exempt from the 100-percent-of-net-income limitation 

described above in taxable years beginning during the period 1998-2007 and in taxable years 

beginning in 2009. Unless the taxpayer elects otherwise, marginal well production is given 

priority over other production in applying the 1,000-barrel limitation on percentage depletion. 

A qualifying taxpayer determines the depletion deduction for each oil and gas property under 

both the percentage depletion method and the cost depletion method and deducts the larger of the 

two amounts. Because percentage depletion is computed without regard to the taxpayer’s basis 

in the depletable property, a taxpayer may continue to claim percentage depletion after all the 

expenditures incurred to acquire and develop the property have been recovered. 

Reasons for Change

The President agreed at the G-20 Summit in Pittsburgh to phase out subsidies for fossil fuels so 

that the United States can transition to a 21st century energy economy. Percentage depletion 

effectively provides a lower rate of tax with respect to a favored source of income. The lower 

rate of tax, like other oil and gas preferences the Administration proposes to repeal, distorts 

81 
markets by encouraging more investment in the oil and gas industry than would occur under a 

neutral system. To the extent the lower tax rate encourages overproduction of oil and gas, it is 

detrimental to long-term energy security and is also inconsistent with the Administration’s policy 

of reducing carbon emissions and encouraging the use of renewable energy sources. Moreover, 

the tax subsidy for oil and gas must ultimately be financed with taxes that result in 

underinvestment in other, potentially more productive, areas of the economy. 

Cost depletion computed by reference to the taxpayer’s basis in the property is the equivalent of 

economic depreciation. Limiting oil and gas producers to cost depletion would place them on a 

cost recovery system similar to that employed by other industries and reduce economic 

distortions. 

Proposal

Percentage depletion would not be allowed with respect to oil and gas wells. Taxpayers would be 

permitted to claim cost depletion on their adjusted basis, if any, in oil and gas wells. 

The proposal would be effective for taxable years beginning after December 31, 2010. 

82 
REPEAL DOMESTIC MANUFACTURING DEDUCTION FOR OIL AND GAS 

PRODUCTION 

Current Law

A deduction is allowed with respect to income attributable to domestic production activities (the 

manufacturing deduction). For taxable years beginning after 2009, the manufacturing deduction 

is generally equal to 9 percent of the lesser of qualified production activities income for the 

taxable year or taxable income for the taxable year, limited to 50 percent of the W-2 wages of the 

taxpayer for the taxable year. The deduction for income from oil and gas production activities is 

computed at a 6 percent rate. 

Qualified production activities income is generally calculated as a taxpayer’s domestic 

production gross receipts (i.e., the gross receipts derived from any lease, rental, license, sale, 

exchange, or other disposition of qualifying production property manufactured, produced, grown, 

or extracted by the taxpayer in whole or significant part within the United States; any qualified 

film produced by the taxpayer; or electricity, natural gas, or potable water produced by the 

taxpayer in the United States) minus the cost of goods sold and other expenses, losses, or 

deductions attributable to such receipts. 

The manufacturing deduction generally is available to all taxpayers that generate qualified 

production activities income, which under current law includes income from the sale, exchange 

or disposition of oil, natural gas or primary products thereof produced in the United States. 

Reasons for Change

The President agreed at the G-20 Summit in Pittsburgh to phase out subsidies for fossil fuels so 

that the United States can transition to a 21st century energy economy. The manufacturing 

deduction effectively provides a lower rate of tax with respect to a favored source of income. 

The lower rate of tax, like other oil and gas preferences the Administration proposes to repeal, 

distorts markets by encouraging more investment in the oil and gas industry than would occur 

under a neutral system. To the extent the lower tax rate encourages overproduction of oil and 

gas, it is detrimental to long-term energy security and is also inconsistent with the 

Administration’s policy of reducing carbon emissions and encouraging the use of renewable 

energy sources. Moreover, the tax subsidy for oil and gas must ultimately be financed with taxes 

that result in underinvestment in other, potentially more productive, areas of the economy.

Proposal

The proposal would exclude from the definition of domestic production gross receipts all gross 

receipts derived from the sale, exchange or other disposition of oil, natural gas or a primary 

product thereof for taxable years beginning after December 31, 2010. 

83 
INCREASE GEOLOGICAL AND GEOPHYSICAL AMORTIZATION PERIOD FOR 

INDEPENDENT PRODUCERS TO SEVEN YEARS 

Current Law

Geological and geophysical expenditures are costs incurred for the purpose of obtaining and 

accumulating data that will serve as the basis for the acquisition and retention of mineral 

properties. The amortization period for geological and geophysical expenditures incurred in 

connection with oil and gas exploration in the United States is two years for independent 

producers and seven years for integrated oil and gas producers. 

Reasons for Change

The President agreed at the G-20 Summit in Pittsburgh to phase out subsidies for fossil fuels so 

that the United States can transition to a 21st century energy economy. The accelerated 

amortization of geological and geophysical expenditures incurred by independent producers, like 

other oil and gas preferences the Administration proposes to repeal, distorts markets by 

encouraging more investment in the oil and gas industry than would occur under a neutral 

system. To the extent accelerated amortization encourages overproduction of oil and gas, it is 

detrimental to long-term energy security and is also inconsistent with the Administration’s policy 

of reducing carbon emissions and encouraging the use of renewable energy sources. Moreover, 

the tax subsidy for oil and gas must ultimately be financed with taxes that result in 

underinvestment in other, potentially more productive, areas of the economy. 

Increasing the amortization period for geological and geophysical expenditures incurred by 

independent oil and gas producers from two years to seven years would provide a more accurate 

reflection of their income and more consistent tax treatment for all oil and gas producers. 

Proposal

The proposal would increase the amortization period from two years to seven years for 

geological and geophysical expenditures incurred by independent producers in connection with 

all oil and gas exploration in the United States. Seven-year amortization would apply even if the 

property is abandoned and any remaining basis of the abandoned property would be recovered 

over the remainder of the seven-year period. The proposal would be effective for amounts paid 

or incurred after December 31, 2010. 

84 
Eliminate Coal Preferences

REPEAL EXPENSING OF EXPLORATION AND DEVELOPMENT COSTS 

Current Law

In general, costs that benefit future periods must be capitalized and recovered over such periods 

for income tax purposes, rather than being expensed in the period the costs are incurred. In 

addition, the uniform capitalization rules require certain direct and indirect costs allocable to 

property to be included in inventory or capitalized as part of the basis of such property. In 

general, the uniform capitalization rules apply to real and tangible personal property produced by 

the taxpayer or acquired for resale. 

Special rules apply in the case of mining exploration and development expenditures. A taxpayer 

may elect to expense the exploration costs incurred for the purpose of ascertaining the existence, 

location, extent, or quality of an ore or mineral deposit, including a deposit of coal or other hard 

mineral fossil fuel. Exploration costs that are expensed are recaptured when the mine reaches the 

producing stage either by a reduction in depletion deductions or, at the election of the taxpayer, 

by an inclusion in income in the year in which the mine reaches the producing stage. 

After the existence of a commercially marketable deposit has been disclosed, costs incurred for 

the development of a mine to exploit the deposit are deductible in the year paid or incurred 

unless the taxpayer elects to deduct the costs on a ratable basis as the minerals or ores produced 

from the deposit are sold. 

In the case of a corporation that elects to deduct exploration costs in the year paid or incurred, 30 

percent of the otherwise deductible costs must be capitalized and amortized over a 60-month 

period. In addition, a taxpayer that has elected to deduct exploration costs may, nevertheless, 

elect to capitalize and amortize certain intangible drilling costs over a 60-month period 

beginning with the month the expenditure was paid or incurred. This rule applies on an 

expenditure-by-expenditure basis; that is, for any particular taxable year, a taxpayer may deduct 

some portion of its exploration costs and capitalize the rest under this provision. This allows the 

taxpayer to reduce or eliminate adjustments or preferences for exploration costs under the 

alternative minimum tax. Similar rules limiting corporate deductions and providing for 60-

month amortization apply with respect to mine development costs. 

The election to deduct exploration costs and the rule making development costs deductible in the 

year paid or incurred apply only with respect to domestic ore and mineral deposits. 

 

Reasons for Change

The President agreed at the G-20 Summit in Pittsburgh to phase out subsidies for fossil fuels so 

that the United States can transition to a 21st century energy economy. The expensing of 

exploration and development costs relating to coal and other hard mineral fossil fuels, like other 

fossil fuel preferences the Administration proposes to repeal, distorts markets by encouraging 

more investment in fossil fuel production than would occur under a neutral system. To the 

85 
extent expensing encourages overproduction of coal and other hard mineral fossil fuels, it is 

inconsistent with the Administration’s policy of reducing carbon emissions and encouraging the 

use of renewable energy sources. Moreover, the tax subsidy for coal and other hard mineral 

fossil fuels must ultimately be financed with taxes that result in underinvestment in other, 

potentially more productive, areas of the economy. Capitalization of exploration and 

development costs relating to coal and other hard mineral fossil fuels would place taxpayers in 

that industry on a cost recovery system similar to that employed by other industries and reduce 

economic distortions. 

Proposal

Expensing and 60-month amortization of exploration and development costs relating to coal and 

other hard mineral fossil fuels would not be allowed. The costs would be capitalized as 

depreciable or depletable property, depending on the nature of the cost incurred, in accordance 

with the generally applicable rules. The other hard mineral fossil fuels for which expensing and 

60-month amortization would not be allowed include lignite and oil shale to which a 15-percent 

depletion rate applies. 

The proposal would be effective for costs paid or incurred after December 31, 2010. 

86 
REPEAL PERCENTAGE DEPLETION FOR HARD MINERAL FOSSIL FUELS 

Current Law

The capital costs of coal mines and other hard mineral fossil fuel properties are recovered 

through the depletion deduction. Under the cost depletion method, the basis recovery for a 

taxable year is proportional to the exhaustion of the property during the year. This method does 

not permit cost recovery deductions that exceed basis or that are allowable on an accelerated 

basis. 

A taxpayer may also qualify for percentage depletion with respect to coal and other hard mineral 

fossil fuel properties. The amount of the deduction is a statutory percentage of the gross income 

from the property. The percentage is 10 percent for coal and lignite and 15 percent for oil shale 

(other than oil shale to which a 7 1⁄2 percent depletion rate applies because it is used for certain 

nonfuel purposes). The deduction may not exceed 50 percent of the taxable income from the 

property (determined before the deductions for depletion and domestic manufacturing). 

A qualifying taxpayer determines the depletion deduction for each oil and gas property under 

both the percentage depletion method and the cost depletion method and deducts the larger of the 

two amounts. Because percentage depletion is computed without regard to the taxpayer’s basis 

in the depletable property, a taxpayer may continue to claim percentage depletion after all the 

expenditures incurred to acquire and develop the property have been recovered. 

Reasons for Change

The President agreed at the G-20 Summit in Pittsburgh to phase out subsidies for fossil fuels so 

that the United States can transition to a 21st century energy economy. Percentage depletion 

effectively provides a lower rate of tax with respect to a favored source of income. The lower 

rate of tax, like other fossil fuel preferences the Administration proposes to repeal, distorts 

markets by encouraging more investment in fossil fuel production than would occur under a 

neutral system. To the extent the lower tax rate encourages overproduction of coal and other 

hard mineral fossil fuels, it is inconsistent with the Administration’s policy of reducing carbon 

emissions and encouraging the use of renewable energy sources. Moreover, the tax subsidy for 

coal and other hard mineral fossil fuels must ultimately be financed with taxes that result in 

underinvestment in other, potentially more productive, areas of the economy. 

Cost depletion computed by reference to the taxpayer’s basis in the property is the equivalent of 

economic depreciation. Limiting fossil fuel producers to cost depletion would place them on a 

cost recovery system similar to that employed by other industries and reduce economic 

distortions. 

Proposal

Percentage depletion would not be allowed with respect to coal and other hard mineral fossil 

fuels. The other hard mineral fossil fuels for which no percentage depletion would be allowed 

include lignite and oil shale to which a 15-percent depletion rate applies. Taxpayers would be 

87 
permitted to claim cost depletion on their adjusted basis, if any, in coal and other hard mineral 

fossil fuel properties. 

The proposal would be effective for taxable years beginning after December 31, 2010. 

88 
REPEAL CAPITAL GAINS TREATMENT OF CERTAIN ROYALTIES 

Current Law

Royalties received on the disposition of coal or lignite generally qualify for treatment as longterm capital gain, and the royalty owner does not qualify for percentage depletion with respect to 

the coal or lignite. This treatment does not apply unless the taxpayer has been the owner of the 

mineral in place for at least one year before it is mined. The treatment also does not apply to 

income realized as a co-adventurer, partner, or principal in the mining of the mineral or to certain 

related party transactions. 

 

Reasons for Change

The President agreed at the G-20 Summit in Pittsburgh to phase out subsidies for fossil fuels so 

that the United States can transition to a 21st century energy economy. The capital gain 

treatment of coal and lignite royalties, like other fossil fuel preferences the Administration 

proposes to repeal, distorts markets by encouraging more investment in fossil fuel production 

than would occur under a neutral system. To the extent capital gains treatment encourages 

overproduction of coal and lignite, it is inconsistent with the Administration’s policy of reducing 

carbon emissions and encouraging the use of renewable energy sources. Moreover, the tax 

subsidy for coal and lignite must ultimately be financed with taxes that result in underinvestment 

in other, potentially more productive, areas of the economy. 

Proposal

The capital gain treatment of coal and lignite royalties would be repealed and the royalties would 

be taxed as ordinary income. 

The proposal would be effective for amounts realized in taxable years beginning after December 

31, 2010. 

 

89 
REPEAL DOMESTIC MANUFACTURING DEDUCTION FOR COAL AND OTHER 

HARD MINERAL FOSSIL FUELS 

Current Law

A deduction is allowed with respect to income attributable to domestic production activities (the 

manufacturing deduction). For taxable years beginning after 2009, the manufacturing deduction 

is generally equal to 9 percent of the lesser of qualified production activities income for the 

taxable year or taxable income for the taxable year, limited to 50 percent of the W-2 wages of the 

taxpayer for the taxable year. 

Qualified production activities income is generally calculated as a taxpayer’s domestic 

production gross receipts (i.e., the gross receipts derived from any lease, rental, license, sale, 

exchange, or other disposition of qualifying production property manufactured, produced, grown, 

or extracted by the taxpayer in whole or significant part within the United States; any qualified 

film produced by the taxpayer; or electricity, natural gas, or potable water produced by the 

taxpayer in the United States) minus the cost of goods sold and other expenses, losses, or 

deductions attributable to such receipts. 

The manufacturing deduction generally is available to all taxpayers that generate qualified 

production activities income, which under current law includes income from the sale, exchange 

or disposition of coal, other hard mineral fossil fuels, or primary products thereof produced in the 

United States. 

Reasons for Change

The President agreed at the G-20 Summit in Pittsburgh to phase out subsidies for fossil fuels so 

that the United States can transition to a 21st century energy economy. The manufacturing 

deduction effectively provides a lower rate of tax with respect to a favored source of income. 

The lower rate of tax, like other fossil fuel preferences the Administration proposes to repeal, 

distorts markets by encouraging more investment in fossil fuel production than would occur 

under a neutral system. To the extent the lower tax rate encourages overproduction of coal and 

other hard mineral fossil fuels, it is inconsistent with the Administration’s policy of reducing 

carbon emissions and encouraging the use of renewable energy sources. Moreover, the tax 

subsidy for coal and other hard mineral fossil fuels must ultimately be financed with taxes that 

result in underinvestment in other, potentially more productive, areas of the economy.

Proposal

The proposal would exclude from the definition of domestic production gross receipts all gross 

receipts derived from the sale, exchange or other disposition of coal, other hard mineral fossil 

fuels, or a primary product thereof. The hard mineral fossil fuels to which the exclusion would 

apply include lignite and oil shale to which a 15-percent depletion rate applies. 

The proposal would be effective for taxable years beginning after December 31, 2010. 

90 
ADDITIONAL REVENUE CHANGES

TAX CARRIED (PROFITS) INTERESTS AS ORDINARY INCOME 

Current Law

A partnership is not subject to Federal income tax. Instead, an item of income or loss of the 

partnership retains its character and flows through to the partners, who must include such item on 

their tax returns. Generally, certain partners receive partnership interests in exchange for 

contributions of cash and/or property, while certain partners (not necessarily other partners) 

receive partnership interests, typically interests in future profits (“profits interests” or “carried 

interests”), in exchange for services. Accordingly, if and to the extent a partnership recognizes 

long-term capital gain, the partners, including partners who provide services, will reflect their 

shares of such gain on their tax returns as long-term capital gain. If the partner is an individual, 

such gain would be taxed at the reduced rates for long-term capital gains. Gain recognized on 

the sale of a partnership interest, whether it was received in exchange for property, cash or 

services, is generally treated as capital gain. 

Under current law, income attributable to a profits interest of a general partner is generally 

subject to self-employment tax, except to the extent the partnership generates types of income 

that are excluded from self-employment taxes, e.g., capital gains, certain interest, and dividends. 

Reason for Change

Although profits interests are structured as partnership interests, the income allocable to such 

interests is received in connection with the performance of services. A service provider’s share 

of the income of a partnership attributable to a carried interest should be taxed as ordinary 

income and subject to self-employment tax because such income is derived from the 

performance of services. By allowing service partners to receive capital gains treatment on labor 

income without limit, the current system creates an unfair and inefficient tax preference. The 

recent explosion of activity among large private equity firms and hedge funds has increased the 

breadth and cost of this tax preference, with some of the highest-income Americans benefiting 

from the preferential treatment. 

Proposal

A partner’s share of income on a “services partnership interest” (SPI) would be subject to tax as 

ordinary income, regardless of the character of the income at the partnership level. Accordingly, 

such income would not be eligible for the reduced rates that apply to long-term capital gains. In 

addition, the proposal would require the partner to pay self-employment taxes on such income. 

Gain recognized on the sale of an SPI would generally be taxed as ordinary income, not as 

capital gain. 

An SPI is a carried interest held by a person who provides services to the partnership. To the 

extent that the partner who holds an SPI contributes “invested capital” and the partnership 

reasonably allocates its income and loss between such invested capital and the remaining 

91 
interest, income attributable to the invested capital would not be recharacterized. Similarly, the 

portion of any gain recognized on the sale of an SPI that is attributable to the invested capital 

would be treated as capital gain. “Invested capital” is defined as money or other property 

contributed to the partnership. However, contributed capital that is attributable to the proceeds 

of any loan or other advance made or guaranteed by any partner or the partnership is not treated 

as “invested capital.” 

Also, any person who performs services for an entity and holds a “disqualified interest” in the 

entity is subject to tax at rates applicable to ordinary income on any income or gain received with 

respect to the interest. A “disqualified interest” is defined as convertible or contingent debt, an 

option, or any derivative instrument with respect to the entity (but does not include a partnership 

interest or stock in certain taxable corporations). This is an anti-abuse rule designed to prevent 

the avoidance of the proposal through the use of compensatory arrangements other than 

partnership interests. Other anti-abuse rules may be necessary. 

The proposal is not intended to adversely affect qualification of a real estate investment trust 

owning a carried interest in a real estate partnership. 

The proposal would be effective for taxable years beginning after December 31, 2010. 

92 
MODIFY THE CELLULOSIC BIOFUEL PRODUCER CREDIT 

An income tax credit is allowed for cellulosic biofuel that is produced by the taxpayer. The 

cellulosic biofuel producer credit is $1.01 per gallon reduced, in the case of an alcohol cellulosic 

biofuel, by the alcohol credit allowable with respect to the fuel. 

Cellulosic biofuel is defined as any liquid fuel that (i) is produced from any lignocellulosic or 

hemicellulosic matter that is available on a renewable or recurring basis and (ii) meets the 

registration requirements for fuels and fuel additives established by the Environmental Protection 

Agency under section 211 of the Clean Air Act (EPA registration requirements). 

The cellulosic biofuel either (i) must be sold by its producer for use by the purchaser in the 

production of a qualified cellulosic biofuel mixture in the purchaser's trade or business, for use 

by the purchaser in the purchaser’s trade or business, or for retail sale (and delivery into the retail 

purchaser’s fuel tank) by the purchaser or (ii) must be used or sold by the producer for any such 

purpose. A qualified cellulosic biofuel mixture is a mixture of cellulosic biofuel with either 

gasoline or any other fuel suitable for use in an internal combustion engine, but only if the 

mixture is sold by the person producing the mixture for use as a fuel or is used as a fuel by the 

person producing the mixture. 

The credit is allowed only against the producer’s income tax liability. The credit expires on 

December 31, 2012. 

Reasons for Change 

Liquid byproducts derived from the processing of paper or pulp (known as black liquor when 

derived from the kraft process) are produced from lignocellulosic or hemicellulosic matter 

available on a renewable or recurring basis. Thus, any such liquid byproducts that meet the EPA 

registration requirements would qualify as cellulosic biofuel and, to the extent so qualifying, 

would result in substantial revenue losses and a windfall to the paper industry. 

Proposal 

The Administration proposes to exclude from the definition of cellulosic biofuel any fuels that (i) 

are more than four percent (by weight) water or sediment in any combination, or (ii) have an ash 

content of more than one percent (by weight). This change would exclude black liquor from 

eligibility for the credit. 

The proposal would be effective on the date of enactment. 

93 
ELIMINATE THE ADVANCED EARNED INCOME TAX CREDIT 

Current Law

Under current law, low- and moderate-income individuals may be eligible for the refundable 

earned income tax credit (EITC). The amount of EITC an eligible individual may claim is a 

function of income and earnings, the number of children in the household, and filing status. In 

2010, families with one child are eligible for a maximum EITC of $3,050. Eligible individuals 

with more children receive a larger credit. 

Since 1978, most eligible individuals have had the option of requesting advance payments of the 

EITC from their employers throughout the year. Self-employed and childless individuals are not 

eligible. Under current law, the advance payment is limited to 60 percent of the maximum credit 

to which a worker with one child would be entitled. In 2010, the maximum advance payment is 

$1,830. 

Employers offset the costs of the advance payments by reducing their payments of withheld 

income and employment taxes. During the year, employers periodically notify the IRS of the 

aggregate amount of advance payments withheld from tax payments. After the year is over, the 

employer notifies the Internal Revenue Service of employees’ receipts of advance payments. 

The information is also provided to the employees. Upon filing their tax returns, individuals 

must reconcile any advance payments received during the year with the amount of EITC for 

which they actually were eligible. If they received too little, they can obtain the remaining 

amount; conversely, if they received too much, they must repay the overpayment with their tax 

return. Individuals who have received an advance payment are required to file a tax return, even 

if their income is below the filing threshold. In view of the risk of overpayments, the advance 

payment is limited to 60 percent of the one-child maximum credit. 

Reason for Change

The advance payment option provides a mechanism for individuals to receive payments on a 

timely basis, instead of as a single payment during the filing season. Advance payments could 

help cash-constrained households meet their daily needs. However, advance payments have 

been extremely unpopular among eligible taxpayers – at most, 3 percent of eligible individuals 

participate, and IRS’ efforts to increase participation have not had a meaningful impact. 

Furthermore, recent research shows evidence of significant non-compliance by employers and 

workers. As a consequence, repealing the advance payment option would adversely affect few 

individuals who are eligible for this benefit. 

Proposal

The proposal would repeal the advance payment option of the EITC. Workers would no longer 

be able to receive an advance payment of their expected EITC through their employer. 

(Individuals with positive tax liability would still be able to receive any non-refundable portion 

of the EITC during the year through adjustments in their withholding.) 

The proposal would be effective for taxable years beginning after December 31, 2010. 

94 
DENY DEDUCTION FOR PUNITIVE DAMAGES 

Current Law 

No deduction is allowed for a fine or similar penalty paid to a government for the violation of 

any law. If a taxpayer is convicted of a violation of the antitrust laws, or the taxpayer’s plea of 

guilty or nolo contendere to such a violation is entered or accepted in a criminal proceeding, no 

deduction is allowed for two-thirds of any amount paid or incurred on a judgment or in 

settlement of a civil suit brought under section 4 of the Clayton Antitrust Act on account of such 

or any related antitrust violation. Where neither of these two provisions is applicable, a deduction 

is allowed for damages paid or incurred as ordinary and necessary expenses in carrying on any 

trade or business, regardless of whether such damages are compensatory or punitive. 

Reasons for Change 

The deductibility of punitive damage payments undermines the role of such damages in 

discouraging and penalizing certain undesirable actions or activities. 

Proposal 

No deduction would be allowed for punitive damages paid or incurred by the taxpayer, whether 

upon a judgment or in settlement of a claim. Where the liability for punitive damages is covered 

by insurance, such damages paid or incurred by the insurer would be included in the gross 

income of the insured person. The insurer would be required to report such payments to the 

insured person and to the Internal Revenue Service. 

The proposal would apply to damages paid or incurred after December 31, 2011. 

95 
REPEAL LOWER-OF-COST-OR-MARKET INVENTORY ACCOUNTING METHOD 

Current Law

Taxpayers required to maintain inventories are permitted to use a variety of methods to 

determine the cost of their ending inventories, including methods such as the last-in, first-out 

(“LIFO”) method, the first-in, first-out (“FIFO”) method, and the retail method. Taxpayers not 

using a LIFO method may write down the carrying values of their inventories by applying the 

lower-of-cost-or-market (“LCM”) method and may write down the cost of “subnormal” goods 

(i.e., those that are unsalable at normal prices or unusable in the normal way because of damage, 

imperfection or other similar causes). 

Reasons for Change

The allowance of inventory write-downs under the LCM and subnormal goods provisions is an 

exception from the realization principle, and is essentially a one-way mark-to-market regime that 

understates taxable income. Thus, a taxpayer is able to obtain a larger cost-of-goods-sold 

deduction by writing down an item of inventory if its replacement cost falls, but need not 

increase an item’s inventory value if its replacement cost increases. This asymmetric treatment 

is unwarranted. Also, the market value used under LCM for tax purposes generally is the 

replacement or reproduction cost of an item of inventory, not the item’s net realizable value, as is 

required under generally accepted financial accounting rules. While the operation of the retail 

method is technically symmetric, it also allows retailers to obtain deductions for write-downs 

below inventory cost because of normal and anticipated declines in retail prices. 

Proposal

The proposal would statutorily prohibit the use of the LCM and subnormal goods methods. 

Appropriate wash-sale rules also would be included to prevent taxpayers from circumventing the 

prohibition. The proposal would result in a change in the method of accounting for inventories 

for taxpayers currently using the LCM and subnormal goods methods, and any resulting section 

481(a) adjustment generally would be included in income ratably over a four-year period 

beginning with the year of change.

 

The proposal would be effective for taxable years beginning after twelve months from the date of 

enactment.

96 
REDUCE THE TAX GAP AND MAKE REFORMS

Expand Information Reporting

REQUIRE INFORMATION REPORTING ON PAYMENTS TO CORPORATIONS 

Current Law 

Generally, a taxpayer making payments to a recipient aggregating to $600 or more for services or 

determinable gains in the course of a trade or business in a calendar year is required to send an 

information return to the IRS setting forth the amount, as well as name and address of the 

recipient of the payment (generally on Form 1099). Under a longstanding regulatory regime, 

there are certain exceptions for payments to corporations, as well as tax-exempt and government 

entities. 

Reasons for Change 

Generally, compliance increases significantly for payments that a third party reports to the IRS. 

In the case of tax-exempt or government entities that are generally not subject to income tax, 

information returns may not be necessary. On the other hand, during the decades in which the 

regulatory exception for payments to corporations has become established, the number and 

complexity of corporate taxpayers have increased. Moreover, the longstanding regulatory 

exception from information reporting for payments to corporations has created compliance 

issues. Although the exception for information reporting to corporations is set forth in existing 

regulations, because it has been in place for many years and because Congress, during that time 

period, has made numerous changes to the information reporting rules, elimination of the 

exception should be made by legislative change. 

Proposal 

A business would generally be required to file an information return for payments for services or 

for determinable gains aggregating to $600 or more in a calendar year to a corporation (except a 

tax-exempt corporation). Regulatory authority would be provided to make appropriate 

exceptions where reporting would be especially burdensome. 

The proposal would be effective for payments made to corporations after December 31, 2010. 

97 
REQUIRE INFORMATION REPORTING FOR RENTAL PROPERTY EXPENSE 

PAYMENTS 

Current Law

Generally, a taxpayer making payments in the course of a trade or business to a noncorporate 

recipient aggregating to $600 or more for services or determinable gains in a calendar year is 

required to send an information return to the IRS setting forth the amount, as well as name and 

address of the recipient of the payment (generally on Form 1099). If the taxpayer making 

payments is not engaged in a trade or business, such information reporting is not required. 

At present, there is limited third-party information reporting related to rental real estate expenses 

because only taxpayers whose rental real estate activity is considered a trade or business are 

required to report payments. Additionally, whether a taxpayer’s rental real estate activity should 

be considered a trade or business requires a case-by-case analysis that depends on the facts and 

circumstances of each taxpayer. 

Reasons for Change

Information reporting requirements generally improve taxpayer compliance. Requiring 

information reporting by taxpayers receiving rental income and deducting expenses on rental 

activities would improve the reporting compliance by taxpayers providing services to those 

rental activities. In addition, increased third-party reporting of major rental expenses is likely to 

improve reporting compliance on rental real estate income. 

Proposal

The proposal would, in general, subject recipients of rental income from real estate to the same 

information reporting requirements as those applicable to taxpayers engaging in a trade or 

business. In particular, rental income recipients making payments of $600 or more to a service 

provider (such as a plumber, painter, or accountant) in the course of earning rental income would 

be required to send an information return, generally a Form 1099-MISC, to the IRS and to the 

service provider. Exceptions to the reporting requirement would be made for particularly 

burdensome situations, such as for taxpayers (including members of the military) who rent their 

principal residence on a temporary basis, or for those who receive only small amounts of rental 

income. 

The proposal would be effective for taxable years beginning after December 31, 2010. 

98 
REQUIRE INFORMATION REPORTING FOR PRIVATE SEPARATE ACCOUNTS OF 

LIFE INSURANCE COMPANIES 

Current Law

Earnings from direct investment in securities generally result in taxable income to the holder. In 

contrast, investments in comparable assets through a separate account of a life insurance 

company generally give rise to tax-free or tax-deferred income. This favorable tax treatment for 

investing through a life insurance company is not available if the policyholder has so much 

control over the investments in the separate account that the policyholder, rather than the 

insurance company, is treated as the owner of those investments. 

Reasons for Change

In some cases, private separate accounts are being used to avoid tax that would be due if the 

assets were held directly. Better reporting of investments in private separate accounts will help 

the IRS to ensure that income is properly reported. Moreover, such reporting will enable the IRS 

to identify more easily which variable insurance contracts qualify as insurance contracts under 

current law and which contracts should be disregarded under the investor control doctrine. 

Proposal

The proposal would require life insurance companies to report to the IRS, for each contract 

whose cash value is partially or wholly invested in a private separate account for any portion of 

the taxable year and represents at least 10 percent of the value of the account, the policyholder’s 

taxpayer identification number, the policy number, the amount of accumulated untaxed income, 

the total contract account value, and the portion of that value that was invested in one or more 

private separate accounts. For this purpose, a private separate account would be defined as any 

account with respect to which a related group of persons owns policies whose cash values, in the 

aggregate, represent at least 10 percent of the value of the separate account. Whether a related 

group of persons owns policies whose cash values represent at least 10 percent of the value of 

the account would be determined quarterly, based on information reasonably within the issuer's 

possession. 

The proposal would be effective for taxable years beginning after December 31, 2010. 

99 
REQUIRE A CERTIFIED TAXPAYER IDENTIFICATION NUMBER FROM 

CONTRACTORS AND ALLOW CERTAIN WITHHOLDING 

Current Law 

In the course of a trade or business, service recipients (“businesses”) making payments 

aggregating to $600 or more in a calendar year to any non-employee service provider 

(“contractor”) that is not a corporation are required to send an information return to the IRS 

setting forth the amount, as well as name, address, and taxpayer identification number (TIN) of 

the contractor. The information returns, required annually after the end of the year, are made on 

Form 1099-MISC based on identifying information furnished by the contractor but not verified 

by the IRS. Copies are provided both to the contractor and to the IRS. Withholding is not 

required or permitted for payments to contractors. Since contractors are not subject to 

withholding, they may be required to make quarterly payments of estimated income taxes and 

self-employment (SECA) taxes near the end of each calendar quarter. The contractor is required 

to pay any balance due when the annual income tax return is subsequently filed. 

Reasons for Change 

Without accurate taxpayer identifying information, information reporting requirements impose 

avoidable burdens on businesses and the IRS, and cannot reach their potential to improve 

compliance. 

Estimated tax filing is relatively burdensome, especially for less sophisticated and lower-income 

taxpayers. Moreover, by the time estimated tax payments (or final tax payments) are due, some 

contractors will not have put aside the necessary funds. Given that the SECA tax rate is 15.3 

percent (up to certain income limits), the required estimated tax payments can be more than 25 

percent of a contractor’s gross receipts, even for a contractor with modest income. 

An optional withholding method for contractors would reduce the burdens of having to make 

quarterly payments, would help contractors automatically set aside funds for tax payments, and 

would help increase compliance. 

Proposal 

A contractor receiving payments of $600 or more in a calendar year from a particular business 

would be required to furnish to the business (on Form W-9) the contractor’s certified TIN. A 

business would be required to verify the contractor’s TIN with the IRS, which would be 

authorized to disclose, solely for this purpose, whether the certified TIN-name combination 

matches IRS records. If a contractor failed to furnish an accurate certified TIN, the business 

would be required to withhold a flat-rate percentage of gross payments. Contractors receiving 

payments of $600 or more in a calendar year from a particular business could require the 

business to withhold a flat-rate percentage of their gross payments, with the flat-rate percentage 

of 15, 25, 30, or 35 percent being selected by the contractor. 

The proposal would be effective for payments made to contractors after December 31, 2010. 

100 
REQUIRE INCREASED INFORMATION REPORTING FOR CERTAIN 

GOVERNMENT PAYMENTS FOR PROPERTY AND SERVICES 

Current Law 

Businesses, governments, and other taxpayers are subject to a number of information reporting 

and withholding requirements. Generally, a taxpayer making payments aggregating to $600 or 

more for services or determinable gains in the course of a trade or business in a calendar year is 

required to send an information return to the IRS (except if the recipient is a corporation) setting 

forth the amount, as well as the name and address of the recipient of the payment (generally on 

Form 1099). In addition, any service recipient engaged in a trade or business is required to file an 

information return if the aggregate of payments for services is $600 or more in a calendar year. 

This requirement specifically applies to government agencies, even if the service provider is a 

corporation. Moreover, Federal agencies must file information returns with respect to 

contractors, generally on Form 8596 (Information Return for Federal Contracts) and Form 

8596A (Quarterly Transmittal of Information Returns for Federal Contracts). Under recently 

enacted legislation that will take effect in 2012, Federal, State and local government agencies 

generally must withhold 3 percent of payments for goods or services. Exceptions apply to certain 

payments such as those actually subjected to backup withholding, wages and public assistance. 

Reasons for Change 

Generally, compliance increases significantly for payments that a third party reports to the IRS. 

Some government vendors fail to meet their tax filing and payment obligations. 

Proposal 

The IRS and Treasury Department would be authorized to promulgate regulations requiring 

information reporting on all non-wage payments by Federal, State and local governments to 

procure property or services. It is expected that certain categories of payments would be 

excluded from the new information reporting requirements, including payments of interest, 

payments for real property, payments to tax-exempt entities or foreign governments, 

intergovernmental payments, and payments made pursuant to a classified or confidential 

contract. 

The proposal would be effective for payments made after December 31, 2010. 

101 
INCREASE INFORMATION RETURN PENALTIES 

Current Law 

There are a number of information reporting requirements under the Code. When these 

requirements are not followed, penalties may apply based on whether and when a correct 

information return is filed. If a person subject to the information reporting requirements files a 

correct information return after the prescribed filing date, but on or before the date that is thirty 

days after the prescribed filing date, the amount of the penalty is $15 per return (the “first-tier 

penalty”), not to exceed $75,000 per calendar year. If such a person files a correct information 

return more than thirty days after the prescribed filing date but on or before August 1, the amount 

of the penalty is $30 per return (the “second-tier penalty”), not to exceed $150,000 per calendar 

year. If such a person does not file a correct information return on or before August 1, the 

amount of the penalty is $50 per return (the “third-tier penalty”), not to exceed $250,000 in a 

calendar year. For certain small filers whose average annual gross receipts do not exceed 

$5,000,000, the maximum calendar year limit is $25,000 (instead of $75,000) for the first-tier 

penalty, $50,000 (instead of $150,000) for the second-tier penalty, and $100,000 (instead of 

$250,000) for the third-tier penalty. If a failure is due to intentional disregard of a filing 

requirement, the minimum penalty for each failure is $100, with no calendar year limit. 

Reasons for Change 

Generally, compliance increases significantly with respect to amounts reported on information 

returns. In some cases, filers may have failed to comply with existing information reporting 

requirements because the amount of the potentially applicable penalties is too small to 

discourage non-compliance. Increasing the penalty amounts, which were established in 1989 and 

have not been increased, will help to ensure the timely filing of accurate information returns. 

Proposal 

The first-tier penalty would be increased from $15 to $30, and the calendar year maximum 

would be increased from $75,000 to $250,000. The second-tier penalty would be increased from 

$30 to $60, and the calendar year maximum would be increased from $150,000 to $500,000. The 

third-tier penalty would be increased from $50 to $100, and the calendar year maximum would 

be increased from $250,000 to $1,500,000. For small filers, the calendar year maximum would 

be increased from $25,000 to $75,000 for the first-tier penalty, from $50,000 to $200,000 for the 

second-tier penalty, and from $100,000 to $500,000 for the third-tier penalty. The minimum 

penalty for each failure due to intentional disregard would be increased from $100 to $250. The 

proposal would also provide that every five years the penalty amounts would be adjusted to 

account for inflation. 

The proposal would be effective for information returns required to be filed after December 31, 

2011. 

102 
Improve Compliance by Business

REQUIRE GREATER ELECTRONIC FILING OF RETURNS 

Current Law 

Corporations with assets of $10 million or more filing Form 1120 are required to file Schedule 

M-3 (Net Income (Loss) Reconciliation for Corporations with Total Assets of $10 Million or 

More). This Schedule M-3 filing requirement also applies to S corporations, life insurance 

corporations, property and casualty insurance corporations, and cooperative associations filing 

various versions of Form 1120 and having $10 million or more in assets. Schedule M-3 is also 

required for partnerships with assets of $10 million or more and certain other partnerships. 

Corporations and tax-exempt organizations that have assets of $10 million or more and file at 

least 250 returns during a calendar year, including income tax, information, excise tax, and 

employment tax returns, are required to file electronically their Form 1120/1120S income tax 

returns and Form 990 information returns. In addition, private foundations and charitable trusts 

that file at least 250 returns during a calendar year are required to file electronically their Form 

990-PF information returns, regardless of their asset size. Taxpayers can request waivers of the 

electronic filing requirement if they cannot meet that requirement due to technological 

constraints, or if compliance with the requirement would result in undue financial burden on the 

taxpayer. Although electronic filing is required of certain corporations and other taxpayers, 

others may convert voluntarily to electronic filing. 

Generally, regulations may require electronic filing by taxpayers (other than individuals, estates 

and trusts) that file at least 250 returns annually. Before requiring electronic filing, the IRS and 

Treasury Department must take into account the ability of taxpayers to comply at a reasonable 

cost. 

Reasons for Change 

Generally, compliance increases when taxpayers are required to provide better information to the 

IRS in usable form. Large organizations with assets of $10 million or more generally maintain 

financial records in electronic form, and generally either hire tax professionals who use tax 

preparation software or use tax preparation software themselves although they may not currently 

file electronically. 

Electronic filing supports the broader goals of improving IRS service to taxpayers, enhancing 

compliance, and modernizing tax administration. Overall, increased electronic filing of returns 

may improve customer satisfaction and confidence in the filing process, and it may be more cost 

effective for affected entities. Expanding electronic filing to certain additional large entities will 

help provide tax return information in a more uniform electronic form. This will enhance the 

ability of the IRS to more productively focus its audit activities. This can reduce burdens on 

businesses where the need for an audit can be avoided. 

103 
In the case of a large business, adopting the same standard for electronic filing as for filing 

Schedule M-3 provides simplification benefits. 

Proposal 

All corporations and partnerships required to file Schedule M-3 would be required to file their 

tax returns electronically. In the case of certain other large taxpayers not required to file 

Schedule M-3 (such as exempt organizations), the regulatory authority to require electronic filing 

would be expanded to allow reduction of the current threshold of filing 250 or more returns 

during a calendar year. Additionally, the regulatory authority would be expanded to allow 

reduction of the 250-return threshold in the case of information returns such as those required by 

Subpart B, Part III, Subchapter A, Chapter 61, Subtitle F, of the Internal Revenue Code 

(generally Forms 1099, 1098, 1096, and 5498). Nevertheless, any new regulations would 

balance the benefits of electronic filing against any burden that might be imposed on taxpayers, 

and implementation would take place incrementally to afford adequate time for transition to 

electronic filing. Taxpayers would be able to request waivers of this requirement if they cannot 

meet the requirement due to technological constraints, if compliance with the requirement would 

result in undue financial burden, or if other criteria specified in regulations are met. 

The proposal would be effective for taxable years ending after December 31, 2010. 

104 
IMPLEMENT STANDARDS CLARIFYING WHEN EMPLOYEE LEASING 

COMPANIES CAN BE HELD LIABLE FOR THEIR CLIENTS’ FEDERAL 

EMPLOYMENT TAXES 

Current Law 

Employers are required to withhold and pay Federal Insurance Contribution Act (FICA) taxes 

and to withhold and remit income taxes, and are required to pay Federal Unemployment Tax Act 

(FUTA) taxes (collectively “Federal employment taxes”) with respect to wages paid to their 

employees. Liability for Federal employment taxes generally lies with the taxpayer that is 

determined to be the employer under a multi-factor common law test or under specific statutory 

provisions. For example, a third party that is not the common law employer can be a statutory 

employer if the third party has control over the payment of wages. In addition, certain designated 

agents are jointly and severally liable with their principals for employment taxes with respect to 

wages paid to the principals’ employees. These designated agents prepare and file employment 

tax returns using their own name and employer identification number. In contrast, reporting 

agents (often referred to as payroll service providers) are generally not liable for the employment 

taxes reported on their clients’ returns. Reporting agents prepare and file employment tax returns 

for their clients using the client’s name and employer identification number. 

Employee leasing is the practice of contracting with an outside business to handle certain 

administrative, personnel, and payroll matters for a taxpayer’s employees. Employee leasing 

companies (often referred to as professional employer organizations) typically prepare and file 

employment tax returns for their clients using the leasing company’s name and employer 

identification number, often taking the position that the leasing company is the statutory or 

common law employer of their clients’ workers. 

Reasons for Change 

Under present law, there is often uncertainty as to whether the employee leasing company or its 

client is liable for unpaid Federal employment taxes arising with respect to wages paid to the 

client’s workers. Thus, when an employee leasing company files employment tax returns using 

its own name and employer identification number, but fails to pay some or all of the taxes due, or 

when no returns are filed with respect to wages paid by a taxpayer that uses an employee leasing 

company, there can be uncertainty as to how the Federal employment taxes are assessed and 

collected. 

Providing standards for when an employee leasing company and its clients will be held liable for 

Federal employment taxes will facilitate the assessment, payment and collection of those taxes 

and will preclude taxpayers who have control over withholding and payment of those taxes from 

denying liability when the taxes are not paid. 

Proposal 

The proposal would set forth standards for holding employee leasing companies jointly and 

severally liable with their clients for Federal employment taxes. The proposal would also provide 

105 
standards for holding employee leasing companies solely liable for such taxes if they meet 

specified requirements. 

The provision would be effective for employment tax returns required to be filed with respect to 

wages paid after December 31, 2010. 

106 
INCREASE CERTAINTY WITH RESPECT TO WORKER CLASSIFICATION 

Current Law

For both tax and nontax purposes, workers must be classified into one of two mutually exclusive 

categories: employees or self-employed (sometimes referred to as independent contractors). 

Worker classification generally is based on a common-law test for determining whether an 

employment relationship exists. The main determinant is whether the service recipient 

(employer) has the right to control not only the result of the worker’s services but also the means 

by which the worker accomplishes that result. For classification purposes, it does not matter 

whether the service recipient exercises that control, only that he or she has the right to exercise it. 

Even though it is generally recognized that more highly skilled workers may not require much 

guidance or direction from the service recipient, the underlying concept of the right to control is 

the same for them. In addition, only individuals can be employees. In determining worker 

status, the IRS looks to three categories of evidence that may be relevant in determining whether 

the requisite control exists under the common-law test: behavioral control, financial control, and 

the relationship of the parties. 

For employees, employers are required to withhold income and Federal Insurance Contribution 

Act (FICA) taxes and to pay the employer’s share of FICA taxes. Employers are also required to 

pay Federal Unemployment Tax Act (FUTA) taxes and generally state unemployment 

compensation taxes. Liability for Federal employment taxes and the obligation to report the 

wages generally lie with the employer. 

For workers who are classified as independent contractors, service recipients engaged in a trade 

or business and that make payments totaling $600 or more in a calendar year to an independent 

contractor that is not a corporation are required to send an information return to the IRS and to 

the independent contractor stating the total payments made during the year. The service 

recipient generally does not need to withhold taxes from the payments reported unless the 

independent contractor has not provided its taxpayer identification number to the service 

recipient. Independent contractors pay self-employment (SECA) tax on their net earnings from 

self-employment (which generally is equivalent to both the employer and employee shares of 

FICA tax). Independent contractors generally are required to pay their income tax, including 

SECA liabilities, by making quarterly estimated tax payments. 

For workers, whether employee or independent contractor status is more beneficial depends on 

many factors including the extent to which an independent contractor is able to negotiate for 

gross payments that include the value of nonwage costs that the service provider would have to 

incur in the case of an employee. In some circumstances, independent contractor status is more 

beneficial; in other circumstances, employee status is more advantageous. 

Under a special provision (section 530 of the Revenue Act of 1978 which was not made part of 

the Internal Revenue Code), a service recipient may treat a worker as an independent contractor 

for Federal employment tax purposes even though the worker actually may be an employee 

under the common law rules if the service recipient has a reasonable basis for treating the worker 

as an independent contractor and certain other requirements are met. The special provision 

107 
applies only if (1) the service recipient has not treated the worker (or any worker in a 

substantially similar position) as an employee for any period beginning after 1977 and (2) the 

service recipient has filed all Federal tax returns, including all required information returns, on a 

basis consistent with treating the worker as an independent contractor. 

If an employer meets the requirements for the special provision with respect to a class of 

workers, the IRS is prohibited from reclassifying the workers as employees, even prospectively 

and even as to newly hired workers in the same class. Since 1996, the IRS has considered the 

availability of the special provision as the first part of any examination concerning worker 

classification. If the IRS determines that the special provision applies to a class of workers, it 

does not determine whether the workers are in fact employees or independent contractors. Thus, 

the worker classification continues indefinitely even if it incorrect. 

The special provision also prohibits the IRS from issuing generally applicable guidance 

addressing the proper classification of workers. Current law and procedures also provide for 

reduced penalties for misclassification where the special provision is not available but where, 

among other things, the employer agrees to prospective reclassification of the workers as 

employees. 

Reasons for Change

Since 1978, the IRS has not been permitted to issue general guidance addressing worker 

classification, and in many instances has been precluded from reclassifying workers – even 

prospectively – who may have been misclassified. Since 1978 there have been many changes in 

working relationships between service providers and service recipients. As a result, there has 

been continued and growing uncertainty about the correct classification of some workers. 

Many benefits and worker protections are available only for workers who are classified as 

employees. Incorrect classification as an independent contractor for tax purposes may spill over 

to other areas and, for example, lead to a worker not receiving benefits for unemployment 

(unemployment insurance) or on-the-job injuries (workers’ compensation), or not being 

protected by various on-the-job health and safety requirements. 

The incorrect classification of workers also creates opportunities for competitive advantages over 

service recipients who properly classify their workers. Such misclassification may lower the 

service recipient’s total cost of labor by avoiding workers’ compensation and unemployment 

compensation premiums, and could also provide increased opportunities for noncompliance by 

service providers. 

Workers, service recipients, and tax administrators would benefit from reducing uncertainty 

about worker classification, eliminating potential competitive advantages and incentives to 

misclassify workers associated with worker misclassification by competitors, and reducing 

opportunities for noncompliance by workers classified as self-employed, while maintaining the 

benefits and worker protections associated with an administrative and social policy system that is 

based on employee status. 

108 
Proposal

Under the proposal, the IRS would be permitted to require prospective reclassification of 

workers who are currently misclassified and whose reclassification has been prohibited under 

current law. The reduced penalties for misclassification provided under current law would be 

retained, except that lower penalties would apply only if the service recipient voluntarily 

reclassifies its workers before being contacted by the IRS or another enforcement agency and if 

the service recipient had filed all required information returns (Forms 1099) reporting the 

payments to the independent contractors. For service recipients with only a small number of 

employees and a small number of misclassified workers, even reduced penalties would be 

waived if the service recipient (1) had consistently filed Forms 1099 reporting all payments to all 

misclassified workers and (2) agreed to prospective reclassification of misclassified workers. It 

is anticipated that, after enactment, new enforcement activity would focus mainly on obtaining 

the proper worker classification prospectively, since in many cases the proper classification of 

workers may not have been clear. (Statutory employee or nonemployee treatment as specified 

under current law would be retained.) 

The Department of the Treasury and the IRS also would be permitted to issue generally 

applicable guidance on the proper classification of workers under common law standards. This 

would enable service recipients to properly classify workers with much less concern about future 

IRS examinations. Treasury and the IRS would be directed to issue guidance interpreting 

common law in a neutral manner recognizing that many workers are, in fact, not employees. 

Further, Treasury and the IRS would develop guidance that would provide safe harbors and/or 

rebuttable presumptions, both narrowly defined. To make that guidance clearer and more useful 

for service recipients, it would generally be industry- or job-specific. Priority for the 

development of guidance would be given to industries and jobs in which application of the 

common law test has been particularly problematic, where there has been a history of worker 

misclassification, or where there have been failures to report compensation paid. 

Service recipients would be required to give notice to independent contractors, when they first 

begin performing services for the service recipient, that explains how they will be classified and 

the consequences thereof, e.g., tax implications, workers’ compensation implications, wage and 

hour implications. 

The IRS would be permitted to disclose to the Department of Labor information about service 

recipients whose workers are reclassified. 

To ease compliance burdens for independent contractors, independent contractors receiving 

payments totaling $600 or more in a calendar year from a service recipient would be permitted to 

require the service recipient to withhold for Federal tax purposes a flat rate percentage of their 

gross payments, with the flat rate percentage being selected by the contractor. 

The proposal would be effective upon enactment, but prospective reclassification of those 

covered by the current special provision would not be effective until the first calendar year 

beginning at least one year after date of enactment. The transition period could be up to two 

years for independent contractors with existing written contracts establishing their status.

109 
Strengthen Tax Administration

CODIFY “ECONOMIC SUBSTANCE” DOCTRINE 

Current Law

Economic Substance Doctrine. The common-law “economic substance” doctrine generally 

denies tax benefits from a transaction that does not meaningfully change a taxpayer’s economic 

position, other than tax consequences, even if the transaction literally satisfies the requirements 

of the Internal Revenue Code. Although courts have applied the economic substance doctrine 

with increasing frequency, they have not applied it uniformly. Some courts require both (i) a 

meaningful change to the taxpayer’s economic position (referred to as “objective” economic 

substance), and (ii) a substantial non-tax business purpose, while other courts require only one of 

the two factors to satisfy the economic substance doctrine. Still other courts consider objective 

economic substance and business purpose to be only two factors in a general investigation into 

whether a transaction has economic effects other than tax benefits. 

Accuracy-Related Penalties. Current law contains an accuracy-related penalty that applies to an 

underpayment of tax attributable to a substantial understatement of income tax. The penalty 

equals 20 percent of the tax underpayment. Except in the case of tax shelters, the penalty may be 

reduced if (i) the taxpayer’s treatment is supported by substantial authority or (ii) the relevant 

facts were adequately disclosed, and there is a reasonable basis for the item’s tax treatment. A 

separate 20-percent penalty applies to an understatement of income tax attributable to a “listed 

transaction” or a “reportable transaction” with a significant purpose of tax avoidance or evasion. 

The penalty rate is increased to 30 percent if the taxpayer has not disclosed the transaction as 

required by law. Either penalty may be set aside or reduced if the taxpayer can demonstrate that 

there was “reasonable cause” for the taxpayer’s position and that the taxpayer acted in good 

faith. 

Denial of Interest Deduction. Current law denies any deduction for interest paid with respect to 

a reportable transaction understatement where the relevant facts were not adequately disclosed. 

Reason for Change

Clarifying the economic substance doctrine and increasing the penalty for transactions that lack 

economic substance will further deter transactions designed solely to obtain tax benefits. 

Proposal

Clarification of Economic Substance Doctrine. The proposal would clarify that a transaction 

satisfies the economic substance doctrine only if (i) it changes in a meaningful way (apart from 

federal tax effects) the taxpayer’s economic position, and (ii) the taxpayer has a substantial 

purpose (other than a federal tax purpose) for entering into the transaction. The proposal would 

also clarify that a transaction will not be treated as having economic substance solely by reason 

of a profit potential unless the present value of the reasonably expected pre-tax profit is 

substantial in relation to the present value of the net federal tax benefits arising from the 

110 
transaction. The proposal would allow the Treasury Department to publish regulations to carry 

out the purposes of the proposal.

New Understatement Penalty. The proposal would impose a 30-percent penalty on an 

understatement of tax attributable to a transaction that lacks economic substance, reduced to 20 

percent if there were adequate disclosure of the relevant facts in the taxpayer’s return. The 

proposed penalty would be imposed with regard to an understatement due to a transaction’s lack 

of economic substance in lieu of other accuracy-related penalties that might be levied with 

respect to the tax understatement, although any understatement arising from a lack of economic 

substance would be taken into account in determining whether there is a substantial 

understatement of income tax under current law. 

The IRS could assert and abate the new economic substance penalty. The IRS could assert the 

penalty even if there has not been a court determination that the economic substance doctrine 

was relevant. Any abatement of the economic substance penalty would have to be proportionate 

to the abatement of the underlying tax liability. 

Denial of Interest Deduction. The proposal would deny any deduction for interest attributable to 

an understatement of tax arising from the application of the economic substance doctrine. 

The proposal would apply to transactions entered into after the date of enactment. The denial of 

interest deduction component would be effective for taxable years ending after the date of 

enactment with respect to transactions entered into after such date. 

111 
ALLOW ASSESSMENT OF CRIMINAL RESTITUTION AS TAX 

Current Law

In criminal tax cases, a District Court may issue an order requiring the defendant to pay 

restitution of existing tax liabilities. The District Court has authority to order restitution under 

the criminal provisions of Title 18, not the Internal Revenue Code (Code). Because the 

assessment procedures under the Code apply only to taxes imposed by the Code, those 

procedures do not apply to restitution orders issued under Title 18, even if the restitution order 

relates to an existing tax liability. 

Reasons for Change

Because court-ordered restitution in criminal tax cases cannot be assessed as a tax, the IRS 

cannot use its existing assessment systems to collect and enforce the restitution obligation. This 

leads to unnecessary duplication of efforts, delays, and confusion in the administration of courtordered restitution. 

Proposal

The proposal would allow the IRS and the Treasury Department to immediately assess, without 

issuing a statutory notice of deficiency, and collect as a tax debt court-ordered restitution. The 

taxpayer would not be able to collaterally attack the amount of restitution ordered by the court, 

but would retain the ability to challenge the method of collection. 

The proposal would be effective after December 31, 2011. 

112 
REVISE OFFER-IN-COMPROMISE APPLICATION RULES 

Current Law

Current law provides that the IRS may compromise any civil or criminal case arising under the 

internal revenue laws prior to a reference to the Department of Justice for prosecution or defense. 

In 2006, a new provision was enacted to require taxpayers to make certain nonrefundable 

payments with any initial offer-in-compromise of a tax case. The new provision requires 

taxpayers making a lump-sum offer-in-compromise to include a nonrefundable payment of 20 

percent of the lump-sum with the initial offer. In the case of an offer-in-compromise involving 

periodic payments, the initial offer must be accompanied by a nonrefundable payment of the first 

installment that would be due if the offer were accepted. 

Reasons for Change

Requiring nonrefundable payments with an offer-in-compromise may substantially reduce access 

to the offer-in-compromise program. The offer-in-compromise program is designed to settle 

cases in which taxpayers have demonstrated an inability to pay the full amount of a tax liability. 

The program allows the IRS to collect the portion of a tax liability that the taxpayer has the 

ability to pay. Reducing access to the offer-in-compromise program makes it more difficult and 

costly to obtain the collectable portion of existing tax liabilities. 

Proposal

The proposal would eliminate the requirements that an initial offer-in-compromise include a 

nonrefundable payment of any portion of the taxpayer’s offer. 

The proposal would be effective for offers-in-compromise submitted after the date of enactment.

113 
EXPAND IRS ACCESS TO INFORMATION IN THE NATIONAL DIRECTORY OF 

NEW HIRES FOR TAX ADMINISTRATION PURPOSES 

Current Law 

The Office of Child Support Enforcement of the Department of Health and Human Services 

(HHS) maintains the National Directory of New Hires (NDNH), which is a database that 

contains newly-hired employee data from Form W-4, quarterly wage data from State and Federal 

employment security agencies, and unemployment benefit data from State unemployment 

insurance agencies. The NDNH was created to help State child support enforcement agencies 

enforce obligations of parents across State lines. 

Under current provisions of the Social Security Act, the IRS may obtain data from the NDNH, 

but only for the purpose of administering the Earned Income Tax Credit and verifying 

employment reported on a tax return. 

Generally, the IRS obtains employment and unemployment data less frequently than quarterly, 

and there are significant internal costs of preparing these data for use. Under various State laws, 

the IRS may negotiate for access to employment and unemployment data directly from State 

agencies that maintain these data. 

Reasons for Change 

Employment data are useful to the IRS in administering a wide range of tax provisions beyond 

the EITC, including verifying taxpayer claims and identifying levy sources. Currently, the IRS 

may obtain employment and unemployment data on a State-by-State basis, which is a costly and 

time-consuming process. NDNH data are timely, uniformly compiled, and electronically 

accessible. Access to the NDNH would increase the productivity of the IRS by reducing the 

amount of IRS resources dedicated to obtaining and processing data without reducing the current 

levels of taxpayer privacy. 

Proposal 

The Social Security Act would be amended to expand IRS access to NDNH data for general tax 

administration purposes, including data matching, verification of taxpayer claims during return 

processing, preparation of substitute returns for non-compliant taxpayers, and identification of 

levy sources. Data obtained by the IRS from the NDNH would be protected by existing taxpayer 

privacy law, including civil and criminal sanctions. 

The proposal would be effective upon enactment. 

114 
MAKE REPEATED WILLFUL FAILURE TO FILE A TAX RETURN A FELONY 

Current Law 

Current law provides that willful failure to file a tax return is a misdemeanor punishable by a 

term of imprisonment for not more than one year, a fine of not more than $25,000 ($100,000 in 

the case of a corporation), or both. A taxpayer who fails to file returns for multiple years 

commits a separate misdemeanor offense for each year. 

Reasons for Change 

Increased criminal penalties would help to deter multiple willful failures to file tax returns. 

Proposal 

Any person who willfully fails to file tax returns in any three years within any five consecutive 

year period, if the aggregated tax liability for such period is at least $50,000, would be subject to 

a new aggravated failure to file criminal penalty. The proposal would classify such failure as a 

felony and, upon conviction, impose a fine of not more than $250,000 ($500,000 in the case of a 

corporation) or imprisonment for not more than five years, or both. 

The proposal would be effective for returns required to be filed after December 31, 2010. 

115 
FACILITATE TAX COMPLIANCE WITH LOCAL JURISDICTIONS 

Current Law 

Although Federal tax returns and return information (FTI) generally are confidential, the IRS and 

Treasury Department may share FTI with States as well as certain local government entities that 

are treated as States for this purpose. Generally, the purpose of information sharing is to facilitate 

tax administration. Where sharing of FTI is authorized, reciprocal provisions generally authorize 

disclosure of information to the IRS by State and local governments. State and local 

governments that receive FTI must safeguard it according to prescribed protocols that require 

secure storage, restricted access, reports to IRS, and shredding or other proper disposal. See, e.g., 

IRS Publication 1075. Criminal and civil sanctions apply to unauthorized disclosure or 

inspection of FTI. Indian Tribal Governments (ITGs) are treated as States by the tax law for 

several purposes, such as certain charitable contributions, excise tax credits, and local tax 

deductions, but not for purposes of information sharing. 

Reasons for Change 

IRS and Treasury compliance activity, especially with respect to alcohol, tobacco and fuel excise 

taxes, may necessitate information sharing with ITGs. For example, the IRS may wish to confirm 

if a fuel supplier’s claim to have delivered particular amounts to adjacent jurisdictions is 

consistent with that reported to the IRS. If not, the IRS in conjunction with the ITG, which would 

have responsibility for administering taxes imposed by the ITG, can take steps to ensure 

compliance with both Federal and ITG tax laws. Where the local government is treated as a State 

for information sharing purposes, IRS, Treasury, and local officials can support each other’s 

efforts. Where the local government is not so treated, there is an impediment to compliance 

activity. 

Proposal 

ITGs that impose alcohol, tobacco, or fuel excise or income or wage taxes would be treated as 

States for purposes of information sharing to the extent necessary for ITG tax administration. An 

ITG that receives FTI would be required to safeguard it according to prescribed protocols. The 

criminal and civil sanctions would apply. 

The proposal would be effective for disclosures made after enactment. 

116 
EXTEND STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS WHERE STATE ADJUSTMENT AFFECTS 

FEDERAL TAX LIABILITY 

Current Law 

In general, additional Federal tax liabilities in the form of tax, interest, penalties and additions to 

tax must be assessed by the IRS within three years after the date a return is filed. If an 

assessment is not made within the required time period, the additional liabilities generally cannot 

be assessed or collected at any future time. The Code contains exceptions to the general statute 

of limitations. In general, the statute of limitations with respect to claims for refund expires three 

years from the time the return was filed or two years from the time the tax was paid, whichever is 

later. 

State and local authorities employ a variety of statutes of limitations for State and local tax 

assessments. Pursuant to agreement, the IRS and State and local revenue agencies exchange 

reports of adjustments made through examination so that corresponding adjustments can be made 

by each taxing authority. In addition, States provide the IRS with reports of potential 

discrepancies between State returns and Federal returns. 

Reasons for Change 

The general statute of limitations serves as a barrier to the effective use by the IRS of State and 

local tax adjustment reports when the reports are provided by the State or local revenue agency 

to the IRS with little time remaining for assessments to be made at the Federal level. Under the 

current statute of limitations framework, taxpayers may seek to extend the State statute of 

limitations or postpone agreement to State proposed adjustments until such time as the Federal 

statute of limitations expires in order to preclude assessment at the Federal level. In addition, it is 

not always the case that a taxpayer that files an amended State or local return reporting additional 

liabilities at the State or local level that also affect Federal tax liability will file an amended 

return at the Federal level. 

Proposal 

The proposal would create an additional exception to the general three-year statute of limitations 

for assessment of Federal tax liability resulting from adjustments to State or local tax liability. 

The statute of limitations would be extended to the greater of: (1) one year from the date the 

taxpayer first files an amended tax return with the IRS reflecting adjustments to the State or local 

tax return; or (2) two years from the date the IRS first receives information from the State or 

local revenue agency under an information sharing agreement in place between the IRS and a 

State or local revenue agency. The statute of limitations would be extended only with respect to 

the increase in Federal tax attributable to the State or local tax adjustment. The statute of 

limitations would not be further extended if the taxpayer files additional amended returns for the 

same tax periods as the initial amended return or if the IRS receives additional information from 

the State or local revenue agency under an information sharing agreement. The statute of 

limitations on claims for refund would be extended correspondingly so that any overall increase 

in tax assessed by the IRS as a result of the State or local examination report would take into 

account agreed-upon tax decreases or reductions attributable to a refund or credit. 

117 
The proposal would be effective for returns required to be filed after December 31, 2010. 

118 
IMPROVE INVESTIGATIVE DISCLOSURE STATUTE 

Current Law 

Generally, tax return information is confidential, unless a specific exception in the Code applies. 

In the case of tax administration, the Code permits Treasury and IRS officers and employees to 

disclose return information to the extent necessary to obtain information not otherwise 

reasonably available, in the course of an audit or investigation, as prescribed by regulation. Thus, 

for example, a revenue agent may identify himself or herself as affiliated with the IRS, and may 

disclose the nature and subject of an investigation, as necessary to elicit information from a 

witness in connection with that investigation. Criminal and civil sanctions apply to unauthorized 

disclosures of return information. 

Reasons for Change 

Treasury Regulations effective since 2003 state that the term “necessary” in this context does not 

mean essential or indispensable, but rather appropriate and helpful in obtaining the information 

sought. In other contexts, a “necessary” disclosure is one without which performance cannot be 

accomplished reasonably without the disclosure. Determining if an investigative disclosure is 

“necessary” is inherently factual, leading to inconsistent opinions by the courts. Eliminating this 

uncertainty from the statute would facilitate investigations by IRS officers and employees, while 

setting forth clear guidance for taxpayers, thus enhancing compliance with the tax Code. 

Proposal 

The taxpayer privacy law would be clarified by stating that it does not prohibit Treasury and IRS 

officers and employees from identifying themselves, their organizational affiliation, and the 

nature and subject of an investigation, when contacting third parties in connection with a civil or 

criminal tax investigation. 

The proposal would be effective for disclosures made after enactment. 

119 
Expand Penalties

CLARIFY THAT BAD CHECK PENALTY APPLIES TO ELECTRONIC CHECKS AND 

OTHER PAYMENT FORMS 

Current Law

The Code imposes a penalty on any taxpayer who attempts to satisfy a tax liability with a check 

or money that is not duly paid. The penalty is 2 percent of the amount of the bad check or 

money order. If the bad check or money order is for less than $1,250, the penalty is the lesser of 

$25 or the amount of the check or money order. 

Reasons for Change

Taxpayers use a variety of commercially acceptable instruments to pay tax liabilities, but only 

two types of instruments are covered by the Code’s bad check penalty: checks and money 

orders. 

Proposal

The proposal would expand the bad check penalty to cover all commercially acceptable 

instruments of payment that are not duly paid. 

The proposal would be effective for returns required to be filed after December 31, 2010. 

120 
IMPOSE A PENALTY ON FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH ELECTRONIC FILING 

REQUIREMENTS 

Current Law 

Certain corporations and tax-exempt organizations (including certain charitable trusts and private 

foundations) are required to file their returns electronically. Generally, filing on paper instead of 

electronically is treated as a failure to file if electronic filing is required. Additions to tax are 

imposed for the failure to file tax returns reporting a liability. For failure to file a corporate 

return, the addition to tax is 5 percent of the amount required to be shown as tax due on the 

return, for the first month of failure, and an additional 5 percent for each month or part of a 

month thereafter, up to a maximum of 25 percent. 

For failure to file a tax-exempt organization return, the addition to tax is $20 a day for each day 

the failure continues. The maximum amount per return is $10,000 or 5 percent of the 

organization’s gross receipts for the year, whichever is less. Organizations with annual gross 

receipts exceeding $1 million, however, are subject to an addition to tax of $100 per day, with a 

maximum of $50,000. 

Reasons for Change 

Although there are additions to tax for the failure to file returns, there is no specific penalty for a 

failure to comply with a requirement to file electronically. Because the addition to tax for failure 

to file a corporate return is based on an underpayment of tax, no addition is imposed if the 

corporation is in a refund, credit, or loss status. Thus, the existing addition to tax may not 

provide an adequate incentive for certain corporations to file electronically. Generally, electronic 

filing increases efficiency of tax administration because the provision of tax return information 

in an electronic form enables the IRS to focus audit activities where they can have the greatest 

impact. This also assists taxpayers where the need for audit is reduced. 

Proposal 

The proposal would establish an assessable penalty for a failure to comply with a requirement of 

electronic (or other machine-readable) format for a return that is filed. The amount of the penalty 

would be $25,000 for a corporation or $5,000 for a tax-exempt organization. For failure to file in 

any format, the existing penalty would remain, and the proposed penalty would not apply. 

The proposal would be effective for returns required to be electronically filed after December 31, 

2011. 

 

121 
Modify Estate and Gift Tax Valuation Discounts and Other Reforms

REQUIRE CONSISTENT VALUATION FOR TRANSFER AND INCOME TAX 

PURPOSES 

Current Law4

Section 1014 provides that the basis of property acquired from a decedent generally is the fair 

market value of the property on the decedent’s date of death. Similarly, property included in the 

decedent’s gross estate for estate tax purposes generally must be valued at its fair market value 

on the date of death. Although the same valuation standard applies to both provisions, current 

law does not explicitly require that the recipient’s basis in that property be the same as the value 

at which that property was reported for estate tax purposes. 

Section 1015 provides that the donee’s basis in property received by gift during the life of the 

donor generally is the donor’s adjusted basis in the property, increased by gift tax paid on the 

transfer. If, however, the donor’s basis exceeds the fair market value of the property on the date 

of the gift, the donee’s basis is limited to that fair market value for purposes of determining any 

subsequent loss. 

Section 6034A imposes a consistency requirement – specifically, that the recipient of a 

distribution of income from a trust or estate must report on the recipient’s own income tax return 

the exact information included on the Schedule K-1 of the trust’s or estate’s income tax return – 

but this provision applies only for income tax purposes, and the Schedule K-1 does not include 

basis information. 

 

Reasons for Change

Taxpayers should be required to take consistent positions in dealing with the Internal Revenue 

Service, whether or not principles of privity apply. If the logic underlying the determination of 

the new basis in property acquired on the death of the owner is that the new basis is the amount 

used to determine the decedent’s estate tax liability, then the law should require that the same 

value be used by the recipient, unless that value is in excess of the accurate value. In the case of 

property transferred on death or by gift during life, often the executor of the estate or the donor, 

respectively, will be in the best position to ensure that the recipient receives the information that 

will be necessary to determine the recipient’s basis in the transferred property. 

Proposal

This proposal would impose both a consistency and a reporting requirement. The basis of 

property received by reason of death under section 1014 must equal the value of that property for 

estate tax purposes. The basis of property received by gift during the life of the donor must 

equal the donor’s basis determined under section 1015. This proposal would require that the 

 

122 

4

 The Administration’s baseline assumes that the laws governing the estate, gift and generation-skipping taxes as in 

effect during 2009 are extended permanently. Consequently, the discussion of Current Law set forth above reflects 

the applicable law as in effect during 2009. 
basis of the property in the hands of the recipient be no greater than the value of that property as 

determined for estate or gift tax purposes (subject to subsequent adjustments). A reporting 

requirement would be imposed on the executor of the decedent’s estate and on the donor of a 

lifetime gift to provide the necessary information to both the recipient and the IRS. A grant of 

regulatory authority would be included to provide details about the implementation and 

administration of these requirements, including rules for situations in which no estate tax return 

is required to be filed or gifts are excluded from gift tax under section 2503, for situations in 

which the surviving joint tenant or other recipient may have better information than the executor, 

and for the timing of the required reporting in the event of adjustments to the reported value 

subsequent to the filing of an estate or gift tax return. 

The proposal would be effective as of the date of enactment. 

123 
MODIFY RULES ON VALUATION DISCOUNTS 

Current Law5

The fair market value of property transferred, whether on the death or during the life of the 

transferor, generally is subject to estate or gift tax at the time of the transfer. Sections 2701 

through 2704 of the Internal Revenue Code were enacted to prevent the reduction of taxes 

through the use of “estate freezes” and other techniques designed to reduce the value of the 

transferor’s taxable estate and discount the value of the taxable transfer to the beneficiaries of the 

transferor without reducing the economic benefit to the beneficiaries. Generally, section 2704(b) 

provides that certain “applicable restrictions” (that would normally justify discounts in the value 

of the interests transferred) are to be ignored in valuing interests in family-controlled entities if 

those interests are transferred (either by gift or on death) to or for the benefit of other family 

members. The application of these special rules results in an increase in the transfer tax value of 

those interests above the price that a hypothetical willing buyer would pay a willing seller, 

because section 2704(b) generally directs an appraiser to ignore the rights and restrictions that 

would otherwise support significant discounts for lack of marketability and control. 

Reasons for Change

Judicial decisions and the enactment of new statutes in most states, in effect, have made section 

2704(b) inapplicable in many situations by recharacterizing restrictions such that they no longer 

fall within the definition of an “applicable restriction”. In addition, the Internal Revenue Service 

has identified additional arrangements designed to circumvent the application of section 2704. 

Proposal

This proposal would create an additional category of restrictions (“disregarded restrictions”) that 

would be ignored in valuing an interest in a family-controlled entity transferred to a member of 

the family if, after the transfer, the restriction will lapse or may be removed by the transferor 

and/or the transfer’s family. Specifically, the transferred interest would be valued by substituting 

for the disregarded restrictions certain assumptions to be specified in regulations. Disregarded 

restrictions would include limitations on a holder’s right to liquidate that holder’s interest that are 

more restrictive than a standard to be identified in regulations. A disregarded restriction also 

would include any limitation on a transferee’s ability to be admitted as a full partner or to hold an 

equity interest in the entity. For purposes of determining whether a restriction may be removed 

by member(s) of the family after the transfer, certain interests (to be identified in regulations) 

held by charities or others who are not family members of the transferor would be deemed to be 

held by the family. Regulatory authority would be granted, including the ability to create safe 

harbors to permit taxpayers to draft the governing documents of a family-controlled entity so as 

to avoid the application of section 2704 if certain standards are met. This proposal would make 

conforming clarifications with regard to the interaction of this proposal with the transfer tax 

marital and charitable deductions. 

 

124 

5

 The Administration’s baseline assumes that the laws governing the estate, gift and generation-skipping taxes as in 

effect during 2009 are extended permanently. Consequently, the discussion of Current Law set forth above reflects 

the applicable law as in effect during 2009. 
This proposal would apply to transfers after the date of enactment of property subject to 

restrictions created after October 8, 1990 (the effective date of section 2704). 

125 
REQUIRE A MINIMUM TERM FOR GRANTOR RETAINED ANNUITY TRUSTS 

(GRATS) 

Current Law

Section 2702 provides that, if an interest in a trust is transferred to a family member, the value of 

any interest retained by the grantor is valued at zero for purposes of determining the transfer tax 

value of the gift to the family member(s). This rule does not apply if the retained interest is a 

“qualified interest.” A fixed annuity, such as the annuity interest retained by the grantor of a 

GRAT, is one form of qualified interest, so the gift of the remainder interest in the GRAT is 

determined by deducting the present value of the retained annuity during the GRAT term from 

the fair market value of the property contributed to the trust. 

Generally, a GRAT is an irrevocable trust funded with assets expected to appreciate in value, in 

which the grantor retains an annuity interest for a term of years that the grantor expects to 

survive. At the end of that term, the assets then remaining in the trust are transferred to (or held 

in further trust for) the beneficiaries, who generally are descendants of the grantor. If the grantor 

dies during the GRAT term, however, the trust assets (at least the portion needed to produce the 

retained annuity) are included in the grantor’s gross estate for estate tax purposes. To this extent, 

although the beneficiaries will own the remaining trust assets, the estate tax benefit of creating 

the GRAT (specifically, the tax-free transfer of the appreciation during the GRAT term in excess 

of the annuity payments) is not realized. 

Reasons for Change

GRATs have proven to be a popular and efficient technique for transferring wealth while 

minimizing the gift tax cost of transfers, providing that the grantor survives the GRAT term and 

the trust assets do not depreciate in value. The greater the appreciation, the greater the transfer 

tax benefit achieved. Taxpayers have become adept at maximizing the benefit of this technique, 

often by minimizing the term of the GRAT (thus reducing the risk of the grantor’s death during 

the term), in many cases to two years, and by retaining annuity interests significant enough to 

reduce the gift tax value of the remainder interest to zero or to a number small enough to 

generate only a minimal gift tax liability. 

Proposal

This proposal would require, in effect, some downside risk in the use of this technique by 

imposing the requirement that a GRAT have a minimum term of ten years.6 The proposal would 

also include a requirement that the remainder interest have a value greater than zero and would 

prohibit any decrease in the annuity during the GRAT term. Although a minimum term would 

not prevent “zeroing-out” the gift tax value of the remainder interest, it would increase the risk of 

the grantor’s death during the GRAT term and the resulting loss of any anticipated transfer tax 

benefit. 

This proposal would apply to trusts created after the date of enactment. 

 

126 

6

 Cf. section 673 as applicable to a so-called Clifford trust created before or on March 1, 1986, with a ten-year 

minimum term. 
UPPER-INCOME TAX PROVISIONS

REINSTATE THE 39.6-PERCENT RATE 

Current Law

Prior to the enactment of the Economic Growth Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2001 

(EGTRRA), the highest individual income tax rate was 39.6 percent. EGTRRA reduced the 

39.6-percent tax rate temporarily to 35 percent, with the reduction phased in over several years. 

The Jobs and Growth Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2003 (JGTRRA) accelerated the 

reduction, and since 2003, the highest statutory individual income tax rate has been 35 percent. 

For 2010, it applies to taxable income over $373,650. The 35-percent tax rate sunsets after 2010. 

Reason for Change

Increasing the income tax liability of higher-income taxpayers would reduce the deficit, make the 

income tax system more progressive and distribute the cost of government more fairly among 

taxpayers of various income levels. 

Proposal

The Administration’s tax receipts baseline assumes a policy of permanently extending the 

EGTRRA tax rates. This proposal would permit the EGTRRA reduction in the highest income 

tax rate to sunset after 2010. Thus, beginning in 2011, the highest income tax rate would be 39.6 

percent. At 2010 levels, the 39.6-percent rate would apply to taxable incomes over $373,650 for 

married taxpayers filing jointly, heads of household and single filers. However, the taxable 

income levels at which this rate begins to apply would be indexed for inflation for 2011 and for 

each year thereafter. 

127 
REINSTATE THE 36-PERCENT RATE FOR TAXPAYERS WITH INCOME OVER 

$250,000 (MARRIED) AND $200,000 (SINGLE) 

Current Law

Prior to the enactment of EGTRRA, the second highest individual income tax rate was 36 

percent. EGTRRA reduced the 36-percent tax rate temporarily to 33 percent, with the reduction 

phased in over several years. JGTRRA accelerated the reduction, and since 2003 the second 

highest statutory individual income tax rate has been 33 percent. In 2010, it applies to taxable 

income over $209,250 if married filing jointly ($171,750 if single) but less than the income 

levels at which the 35-percent rate applies. The 33-percent tax rate sunsets after 2010. 

Reason for Change

Increasing the income tax liability of higher-income taxpayers would reduce the deficit, make the 

income tax system more progressive and distribute the cost of government more fairly among 

taxpayers of various income levels. 

Proposal

The Administration’s tax receipts baseline assumes a policy of permanently extending the 

EGTRRA tax rates. This proposal would permit the EGTRRA reduction in the second highest 

income tax rate to sunset after 2010. Thus, beginning in 2011, the second highest tax rate would 

be 36 percent. The taxable income levels at which that rate begins to apply would vary by filing 

status and would be indexed annually for inflation. The 36-percent tax rate would apply to 

taxable income above the following amounts but less than the income levels at which the 39.6-

percent rate would apply: $250,000 less the standard deduction and two personal exemptions, 

indexed from 2009, for married taxpayers filing jointly; $200,000 less the standard deduction 

and one personal exemption, indexed for inflation from 2009, for single filers. The 28-percent 

tax rate bracket would be expanded so that taxpayers earning less than these amounts would not 

see their taxes rise as a result of the increased tax rate brackets. 

128 
REINSTATE THE LIMITATION ON ITEMIZED DEDUCTIONS FOR TAXPAYERS 

WITH INCOME OVER $250,000 (MARRIED) AND $200,000 (SINGLE) 

Current Law

Individual taxpayers may elect to itemize their deductions instead of claiming a standard 

deduction. In general, itemized deductions include medical and dental expenses (in excess of 7.5 

percent of AGI), state and local property taxes and either income or sales taxes, interest paid, 

gifts to charities, casualty and theft losses (in excess of 10 percent of AGI), job expenses and 

certain miscellaneous expenses (some only in excess of 2 percent of AGI). 

Prior to the enactment of EGTRRA, otherwise allowable itemized deductions (other than 

medical expenses, investment interest, theft and casualty losses, and gambling losses) were 

reduced by 3 percent of the amount by which AGI exceeded a statutory floor that was indexed 

annually for inflation, but not by more than 80 percent of the otherwise allowable deductions. 

EGTRRA reduced the itemized deduction limitation in three steps. For 2006 and 2007, itemized 

deductions were reduced by 2 percent of AGI over the floor, but not by more than 53-1/3 

percent. For 2008 and 2009, itemized deductions were reduced by 1 percent of AGI over the 

floor, but not by more than 26-2/3 percent. For 2010, the reduction was completely eliminated. 

However, beginning in 2011, the full itemized deduction reduction of 3 percent of AGI 

exceeding the floor is scheduled to be reinstated. 

For 2010, the AGI floor, if it were applicable, would be $167,100 ($83,550 if married filing 

separately). 

Reason for Change

Limiting the tax benefit of higher-income taxpayers’ itemized deductions would reduce the 

deficit, make the income tax system more progressive, and distribute the cost of government 

more fairly among taxpayers of various income levels. 

Proposal

The Administration’s tax receipts baseline assumes a policy of permanently extending the 

EGTRRA repeal of the limitation on itemized deductions. This proposal would allow the 

elimination of the limitation on itemized deduction enacted in EGTRRA to sunset after 2010. 

Thus, itemized deductions (other than medical expenses, investment interest, theft and casualty 

losses, and gambling losses) would be reduced by 3 percent of the amount by which AGI 

exceeds indexed statutory floors but not by more than 80 percent of the otherwise allowable 

deductions. For 2011, the AGI floors would be $250,000 for married taxpayers filing jointly and 

$200,000 for single taxpayers in 2009 dollars, determined as adjusted for inflation between 2009 

and 2011. After 2011, the floors would be indexed annually for inflation. 

129 
REINSTATE THE PERSONAL EXEMPTION PHASEOUT (PEP) FOR TAXPAYERS 

WITH INCOME OVER $250,000 (MARRIED) AND $200,000 (SINGLE) 

Current Law

Individual taxpayers generally are entitled to a personal exemption for the taxpayer and for each 

dependent. The amount of each personal exemption is $3,650 for 2010 and is indexed annually 

for inflation. 

Prior to the enactment of EGTRRA, all personal exemptions were reduced or completely phased 

out simultaneously for higher-income taxpayers. For a taxpayer with adjusted gross income 

(AGI) in excess of the threshold amount for the taxpayer’s filing status, the amount of each 

personal exemption was reduced by 2 percent of the exemption amount for that year for each 

$2,500 ($1,250 if married filing separately) or fraction thereof by which AGI exceeded that 

threshold. EGTRRA reduced the otherwise applicable reduction of personal exemptions by onethird for 2006 and 2007, by two-thirds for 2008 and 2009, and eliminated it completely for 2010. 

However, beginning in 2011, the full personal exemption phase-out is scheduled to be reinstated. 

Reason for Change

Limiting the tax benefit of higher-income taxpayers’ personal exemptions would reduce the 

deficit, make the income tax system more progressive, and distribute the cost of government 

more fairly among taxpayers of various income levels. 

Proposal

The Administration’s tax receipts baseline assumes a policy of permanently extending the 

EGTRRA repeal of the personal exemption phase-out. This proposal would allow the 

elimination of the personal exemption phase-out enacted in EGTRRA to sunset after 2010. For 

2011, the AGI floors would be adjusted for inflation starting with a value of $250,000 in 2009 

for married taxpayers filing jointly ($125,000 if filing separately) and $200,000 in 2009 for 

single taxpayers. After 2011, the AGI floors would be indexed annually for inflation. 

130 
IMPOSE A 20-PERCENT RATE ON CAPITAL GAINS AND DIVIDENDS FOR 

TAXPAYERS WITH INCOME OVER $250,000 (MARRIED) AND $200,000 (SINGLE) 

Current Law

A separate rate structure applies to long-term capital gains and qualified dividends. Under 

current law, the maximum rate of tax on the adjusted net capital gain of an individual is 15 

percent. In addition, any adjusted net capital gain otherwise taxed at a 10- or 15-percent rate is 

taxed at a zero-percent rate. These rates apply for purposes of both the regular tax and the 

alternative minimum tax (AMT). Qualified dividends generally are taxed at the same rate as 

capital gains. 

Capital losses generally are deductible in full against capital gains. In addition, individual 

taxpayers may deduct up to $3,000 of capital losses from ordinary income in each year. Any 

remaining unused capital losses may be carried forward indefinitely to a future year. 

The zero- and 15-percent rates for qualified dividends and capital gains are scheduled to sunset 

for taxable years beginning after December 31, 2010. In 2011, the maximum rate on capital 

gains would increase to 20 percent, while the tax rates for dividends would go back to the higher 

ordinary tax rates of up to 39.6 percent. 

Reasons for Change

Lower- and middle-income taxpayers should be protected from the tax increase that would 

otherwise occur in 2011. Allowing the 15-percent rate to expire for high-income taxpayers who 

are most able to absorb the rate increase would still keep the top rate for long-term capital gains 

at historically low levels. The 20-percent maximum rate on capital gains would be the same as 

the maximum capital gains rate enacted in 1987, and is the same as the top rate enacted in 1981. 

Taxing qualified dividends at the same low rate as capital gains reduces the tax bias against 

equity investment and helps promote more efficient allocation of capital since investors can 

choose to reallocate their dividends to the most productive investments. 

Proposal

The Administration’s tax receipts baseline assumes a policy of permanently extending the zeroand 15-percent tax rates for qualified dividends and long-term capital gains for certain taxpayers. 

The 0- and 15-percent tax rates for long-term capital gains and qualified dividends would be 

extended permanently for taxpayers with incomes up to $250,000 for joint returns and $200,000 

for single taxpayers. The 20-percent tax rate on long-term capital gains and qualified dividends 

would apply for married taxpayers filing jointly with income over $250,000 less the standard 

deduction and two personal exemptions (indexed from 2009) and for single taxpayers with 

income over $200,000 less the standard deduction and one personal exemption (indexed from 

2009). The reduced rates on gains on assets held over 5 years would be repealed. 

This proposal is effective for taxable years beginning after December 31, 2010. 

131 
LIMIT THE TAX RATE AT WHICH ITEMIZED DEDUCTIONS REDUCE TAX 

LIABILITY TO 28 PERCENT 

Current Law

Current law permits the allowable portion of an individual taxpayer’s itemized deductions to 

reduce the amount of taxable income. This, in effect, applies those deductions first to the taxable 

income in the highest tax bracket, and then to the next lower tax brackets in descending order. 

Individual taxpayers may elect to itemize their deductions instead of claiming a standard 

deduction. In general, itemized deductions include medical and dental expenses (in excess of 7.5 

percent of AGI), state and local property taxes and either income or sales taxes, interest paid, 

gifts to charities, casualty and theft losses (in excess of 10 percent of AGI), and job expenses and 

certain miscellaneous expenses (some only in excess of 2 percent of AGI). 

For higher-income taxpayers, otherwise allowable itemized deductions (other than medical 

expenses, investment interest, theft and casualty losses, and gambling losses) were reduced prior 

to 2010 if AGI exceeds a statutory floor that is indexed annually for inflation. Prior to the 

enactment of EGTRRA, itemized deductions were reduced by 3 percent of AGI over the 

threshold but not by more than 80 percent of the otherwise allowable deductions. EGTRRA 

reduced the itemized deduction limitation in three steps. For 2006 and 2007, itemized 

deductions were reduced by 2 percent of AGI over the threshold, but not by more than 53-1/3 

percent. For 2008 and 2009, itemized deductions were reduced by 1 percent of AGI over the 

threshold, but not by more than 26-2/3 percent. For 2010, the reduction was completely 

eliminated. However, beginning in 2011, the full itemized deduction reduction of 3 percent of 

AGI exceeding the floor, but not by more than 80 percent, is scheduled to be reinstated. 

For 2010, the AGI floor, if it were applicable, would be $167,100 ($83,550 if married filing 

separately). 

A separate Budget proposal would adjust the 2011 income thresholds beyond which itemized 

deductions are reduced to $250,000 (indexed for inflation from 2009) for married taxpayers 

filing jointly and $200,000 (indexed for inflation from 2009) for single taxpayers. Thereafter, 

the thresholds would be indexed for inflation annually. 

Reasons for Change

Increasing the income tax liability of higher-income taxpayers would reduce the deficit, make the 

income tax system more progressive, and distribute the cost of government more fairly among 

taxpayers of various income levels. 

Proposal

The proposal would limit the value of all itemized deductions by limiting the tax value of those 

deductions to 28 percent whenever they would otherwise reduce taxable income in the 36 or 39.6 

percent tax brackets. A similar limitation also would apply under the AMT. 

132 
This proposal would apply to itemized deductions after they have been reduced under a separate 

budget proposal that would reinstate the pre-EGTRRA limitation on certain itemized deductions, 

but with adjusted AGI thresholds in 2011 of $250,000 (indexed from 2009) for married 

taxpayers filing jointly and $200,000 (indexed from 2009) for other taxpayers. After 2011, these 

thresholds would be indexed. 

The proposal is effective for taxable years beginning after December 31, 2010.

133 
USER FEES

SUPPORT CAPITAL INVESTMENT IN THE INLAND WATERWAYS 

Current Law 

The Inland Waterways Trust Fund is supported by a 20-cents-per-gallon tax on liquids used as 

fuel in a vessel in commercial waterway transportation. Commercial waterway transportation is 

defined as any use of a vessel on any inland or intracoastal waterway of the United States (1) in 

the business of transporting property for compensation or hire or (2) in transporting property in 

the business of the owner, lessee, or operator of the vessel (other than fish or other aquatic 

animal life caught on the voyage). The inland or intracoastal waterways of the United States are 

the inland and intracoastal waterways of the United States described in section 206 of the Inland 

Waterways Revenue Act of 1978. Exceptions are provided for deep-draft ocean-going vessels, 

passenger vessels, State and local governments, and certain ocean-going barges. 

Reasons for Change 

The fuel excise tax does not raise enough revenue to pay for the users’ 50-percent share of the 

capital costs of the locks and dams that make barge transportation possible on inland and 

intracoastal waterways. Moreover, the tax is not the most efficient method for financing 

expenditures on those waterways. Adequate funding for inland and intracoastal waterways can 

be provided through a more efficient user fee system that is based on lock usage and is tied to the 

level of spending for inland waterways construction, replacement, expansion, and rehabilitation 

work. 

Proposal 

The tax on liquids used as fuel in a vessel in commercial waterway transportation would be 

phased out and replaced by a fee system based on lock usage. The tax rate would be reduced to 

10 cents per gallon beginning January 1, 2013. The tax would be repealed for periods after 

December 31, 2014. The fee system based on lock usage would be phased in beginning on 

October 1, 2011. For calendar year 2015 and each subsequent calendar year, the fee schedule 

would be adjusted as necessary to maintain an appropriate level of net assets in the Inland 

Waterways Trust Fund. 

The proposal would be effective, as described above, upon enactment. 

 

135 
OTHER INITIATIVES

EXTEND AND MODIFY THE NEW MARKETS TAX CREDIT 

Current Law

The new markets tax credit (NMTC) is a 39-percent credit for qualified equity investments made 

to acquire stock in a corporation, or a capital interest in a partnership, that is a qualified 

community development entity (CDE) that is held for a period of seven years. The allowable 

credit amount for any given year is the applicable percentage (5 percent for the year the equity 

interest is purchased from the CDE and for each of the two subsequent years, and 6 percent for 

each of the following four years) of the amount paid to the CDE for the investment at its original 

issue. The NMTC is available for a taxable year to the taxpayer who holds the qualified equity 

investment on the date of the initial investment or on the respective anniversary date that occurs 

during the taxable year. The credit is recaptured if at any time during the seven-year period that 

begins on the date of the original issue of the investment the entity ceases to be a qualified CDE, 

the proceeds of the investment cease to be used as required, or the equity investment is 

redeemed. 

Under current law, the NMTC can be used to offset federal income tax liability but cannot be 

used to offset alternative minimum tax (AMT) liability. 

The NMTC expired on December 31, 2009. 

Reasons for Change

A two-year extension of the NMTC would allow CDEs to continue to generate investments in 

low-income communities. 

Proposal

The proposal would extend the new markets tax credit for two years (2010 and 2011), with an 

allocation amount of $5.0 billion each year, and would make other improvements to the NMTC. 

The proposal would be effective upon enactment. 

137 
REFORM AND EXTEND BUILD AMERICA BONDS 

Current Law

Build America Bonds are a new borrowing tool for State and local governments that were 

enacted as part of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (“ARRA”). These 

bonds are conventional taxable bonds issued by State and local governments. The Treasury 

Department makes direct payments to State and local governmental issuers (called “refundable 

tax credits”) to subsidize a portion of their borrowing costs in an amount equal to 35 percent of 

the coupon interest on the bonds. Issuance of Build America Bonds is limited to original 

financing for public capital projects for which issuers otherwise could use tax-exempt 

“governmental bonds” (as contrasted with “private activity bonds” which benefit private 

entities). There are no volume limitations on issuance of Build America Bonds for 2009 and 

2010, but authority to issue these bonds expires at the end of 2010. Build America Bonds are an 

alternative to traditional tax-exempt bonds. 

Tax-exempt bonds have broader program parameters than Build America Bonds, and may be 

used in the following ways: (1) original financing for public capital projects, as with Build 

America Bonds; (2) “current refundings” to refinance prior governmental bonds for interest cost 

savings where the prior bonds are repaid promptly within ninety days of issuance of the 

refunding bonds (as well as one “advance refunding,” in which two sets of bonds for the same 

governmental purpose may remain outstanding concurrently for a period of time longer than 

ninety days); (3) short-term “working capital” financings for governmental operating expenses 

for seasonal cash flow deficits (as well as certain longer-term deficit financings which have strict 

arbitrage restrictions); (4) financing for Code 501(c)(3) nonprofit entities, such as nonprofit 

hospitals and universities; and (5) qualified private activity bond financing for specified private 

projects and programs (including, for example, mass commuting facilities, solid waste disposal 

facilities, low-income residential rental housing projects, and single-family housing for low and 

moderate income homebuyers), which are subject to annual state bond volume caps with certain 

exceptions. 

Reasons for Change

The Build America Bond program has been successful and has expanded the market for State 

and local governmental debt. Through December 2009, more than $64 billion in Build America 

Bonds were issued in over 779 transactions in forty-five States. This program taps into a broader 

market for investors without regard to tax liability (e.g., pension funds may be investors in Build 

America Bonds, though they typically do not invest in tax-exempt bonds). This program delivers 

an efficient Federal subsidy directly to State and local governments (rather than through thirdparty investors). By comparison, tax-exempt bonds can be viewed as inefficient in that the 

Federal revenue cost of the tax exemption is often greater than the benefits to State and local 

governments achieved through lower borrowing costs. This program also has a potentially more 

streamlined tax compliance framework focusing directly on governmental issuers who benefit 

from the subsidy, as compared with tax-exempt bonds and tax credit bonds which involve 

investors as tax intermediaries. This program also has relieved supply pressures in the taxexempt bond market and has helped to reduce interest rates in that market. Making the Build 

America Bond program permanent could promote market certainty and greater liquidity. 

138 
The present 35-percent Federal subsidy rate for the Build America Bond program represents a 

deeper Federal borrowing subsidy for temporary stimulus purposes under ARRA than the 

existing permanent Federal subsidy inherent in tax-exempt bonds. In structuring a permanent 

Build America Bond program in light of Federal revenue constraints, it is appropriate to develop 

a revenue neutral Federal subsidy rate relative to the Federal tax expenditure on tax-exempt 

bonds. 

For such a revenue neutral Federal subsidy rate, it also is appropriate to expand the eligible uses 

for Build America Bonds to include other program purposes for which tax-exempt bonds may be 

used. 

Proposal

Permanent Program for Build America Bonds. This proposal would make the Build America 

Bonds program permanent at a Federal subsidy level equal to 28 percent of the coupon interest 

on the bonds. The proposed Federal subsidy level is intended to be approximately revenue 

neutral relative to the estimated future Federal tax expenditure for tax-exempt bonds. The 

proposed Federal subsidy rate for Build America Bonds should lessen borrowing costs to State 

and local governments compared to tax-exempt bonds due to inefficiencies inherent in the taxexempt bond market. 

Expanded Uses. This proposal would also expand the eligible uses for Build America Bonds to 

include the following: (1) original financing for governmental capital projects, as under the 

initial authorization of Build America Bonds; (2) current refundings of prior public capital 

project financings for interest cost savings where the prior bonds are repaid promptly within 

ninety days of issuance of the current refunding bonds; (3) short-term governmental working 

capital financings for governmental operating expenses (such as tax and revenue anticipation 

borrowings for seasonal cash flow deficits), subject to a thirteen-month maturity limitation; and 

(4) financing for Section 501(c)(3) nonprofit entities, such as nonprofit hospitals and universities. 

The proposal would be effective as of January 1, 2011. 

139 
RESTRUCTURE ASSISTANCE TO NEW YORK CITY: PROVIDE TAX INCENTIVES 

FOR TRANSPORATION INFRASTRUCTURE 

Current Law 

The Job Creation and Worker Assistance Act of 2002 (the Act) provided tax incentives for the 

area of New York City damaged or affected by the terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001. The 

Act created the “New York Liberty Zone,” defined as the area located on or south of Canal 

Street, East Broadway (east of its intersection with Canal Street), or Grand Street (east of its 

intersection with East Broadway) in the Borough of Manhattan in the City of New York, New 

York. New York Liberty Zone tax incentives included: (1) an expansion of the work opportunity 

tax credit (WOTC) for New York Liberty Zone business employees; (2) a special depreciation 

allowance for qualified New York Liberty Zone property; (3) a five-year recovery period for 

depreciation of qualified New York Liberty Zone leasehold improvement property; (4) $8 billion 

of tax-exempt private activity bond financing for certain nonresidential real property, residential 

rental property and public utility property; (5) $9 billion of additional tax-exempt, advance 

refunding bonds; (6) increased section 179 expensing; and (7) an extension of the replacement 

period for nonrecognition of gain for certain involuntary conversions.7

The expanded WOTC credit provided a 40-percent subsidy on the first $6,000 of annual wages 

paid to New York Liberty Zone business employees for work performed during 2002 or 2003. 

The special depreciation allowance for qualified New York Liberty Zone property equals 30 

percent of the adjusted basis of the property for the taxable year in which the property is placed 

in service. Qualified nonresidential real property and residential rental property must be 

purchased by the taxpayer after September 10, 2001, and placed in service before January 1, 

2010. Such property is qualified property only to the extent it rehabilitates real property 

damaged, or replaces real property destroyed or condemned, as a result of the September 11, 

2001, terrorist attacks.8 

The five-year recovery period for qualified leasehold improvement property applied, in general, 

to buildings located in the New York Liberty Zone if the improvement was placed in service 

after September 10, 2001, and before January 1, 2007, and no written binding contract for the 

improvement was in effect before September 11, 2001. 

The $8 billion of tax-exempt private activity bond financing is authorized to be issued by the 

State of New York or any political subdivision thereof after March 9, 2002, and before January 

1, 2010. 

The $9 billion of additional tax-exempt, advance refunding bonds was available after March 9, 

2002, and before January 1, 2006, with respect to certain State or local bonds outstanding on 

September 11, 2001. 

 

7

 The Working Families Tax Relief Act of 2004 amended certain of the New York Liberty Zone provisions relating 

to tax-exempt bonds. 

140 

8

 Other qualified property must have been placed in service prior to January 1, 2007. 
Businesses were allowed to expense the cost of certain qualified New York Liberty Zone 

property placed in service prior to 2007, up to an additional $35,000 above the amounts 

generally available under section 179. In addition, only 50 percent of the cost of such qualified 

New York Liberty Zone property counted toward the limitation under which section 179 

deductions are reduced to the extent the cost of section 179 property exceeds a specified amount. 

A taxpayer may elect not to recognize gain with respect to property that is involuntarily 

converted if the taxpayer acquires within an applicable period (the replacement period) property 

similar or related in service or use. In general, the replacement period begins with the date of the 

disposition of the converted property and ends two years (three years if the converted property is 

real property held for the productive use in a trade or business or for investment) after the close 

of the first taxable year in which any part of the gain upon conversion is realized. The Act 

extended the replacement period to five years for property in the New York Liberty Zone that 

was involuntarily converted as a result of the terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001, if 

substantially all of the use of the replacement property is in New York City. 

Reasons for Change 

Some of the tax benefits that were provided to New York following the attacks of September 11, 

2001, likely will not be usable in the form in which they were originally provided. State and 

local officials in New York have concluded that improvements to transportation infrastructure 

and connectivity in the Liberty Zone would have a greater impact on recovery and continued 

development than would continuing some of the original tax incentives. 

Proposal 

The proposal would provide tax credits to New York State and New York City for expenditures 

relating to the construction or improvement of transportation infrastructure in or connecting to 

the New York Liberty Zone. New York State and New York City each would be eligible for a 

tax credit for expenditures relating to the construction or improvement of transportation 

infrastructure in or connecting to the New York Liberty Zone. The tax credit would be allowed 

in each year from 2011 to 2020, inclusive, subject to an annual limit of $200 million (for a total 

of $2 billion in tax credits), and would be divided evenly between the State and the City. Any 

unused credits below the annual limit would be added to the $200 million annual limit for the 

following year, including years after 2020. Similarly, expenditures that exceed the annual limit 

would be carried forward and subtracted from the annual limit in the following year. The credit 

would be allowed against any payments (other than payments of excise taxes and social security 

and Medicare payroll taxes) made by the City and State under any provision of the Code, 

including income tax withholding. The Treasury Department would prescribe such rules as are 

necessary to ensure that the expenditures are made for the intended purposes. The amount of the 

credit received would be considered State and local funds for the purpose of any Federal 

program. 

The proposal would be effective on January 1, 2011. 

141 
IMPLEMENT UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE INTEGRITY LEGISLATION 

Current Law

The Federal Unemployment Tax Act (FUTA) currently imposes a Federal payroll tax on 

employers of 6.2 percent of the first $7,000 paid annually to each employee. Generally, these 

funds support the administrative costs of the unemployment insurance system. Employers in 

States that meet certain Federal requirements are allowed a credit against FUTA taxes of up to 

5.4 percent, making the minimum net Federal rate 0.8 percent. States also impose an 

unemployment tax on employers. A State’s unemployment insurance taxes are first placed in the 

State’s own clearing account and then deposited into its Federal unemployment insurance trust 

fund account from which the State pays unemployment benefits. State recoveries of 

overpayments of unemployment insurance benefits must be similarly deposited and used 

exclusively to pay unemployment benefits. 

While States may assess penalties for overpayments of benefits, amounts collected as penalties 

or interest on benefit overpayments may be treated as general receipts by the States. 

Reasons for Change

States’ abilities to reduce benefit overpayments and increase overpayment recoveries are limited 

by funding. The mandatory redeposit of the collection of all unemployment benefits 

overpayments prevents States from redirecting some of these amounts to future recovery activity. 

Although States might use penalties or interest on overpayments to increase collections, there is 

no requirement that such amounts be directed for additional enforcement activities. 

Proposal

The proposal would increase resources for the recovery of State unemployment benefit 

overpayments and delinquent employer taxes. The proposal would allow States to redirect up to 

5 percent of overpayment recoveries to additional enforcement activity. The proposal would 

require States to impose a penalty of at least 15 percent on recipients of fraudulent 

overpayments, and penalty revenue would be used exclusively for additional enforcement 

activity. The proposal would expand the ability to collect benefit overpayments due to a State 

from income tax refunds owed to a benefit recipient. The proposal would allow States to deposit 

up to 5 percent of moneys recovered in the course of an unemployment insurance tax 

investigation into a special fund dedicated to implementing the State Unemployment Tax Act 

(SUTA) Dumping Prevention Act of 2004 or enforcing State laws relating to employer fraud or 

tax evasion. The proposal would require employers to report a “start work date” to the National 

Directory of New Hires for all new hires. 

The proposal would be effective upon the date of enactment. 

142 
Levy Payments to Federal Contractors with Delinquent Tax Debt

AUTHORIZE POST-LEVY DUE PROCESS 

Current Law 

Before the IRS can issue a levy for an unpaid federal tax liability, it must give the taxpayer an 

opportunity for an administrative collection due process (CDP) hearing. As exceptions to this 

general rule, a CDP hearing is not required prior to the IRS issuing a levy for liabilities that arise 

from either a state tax refund or a disqualified employment tax levy. A disqualified employment 

tax levy is any levy served in connection with an employment tax liability if the person subject to 

the levy or a predecessor requested a CDP hearing with respect to unpaid employment 

taxes within the two-year period prior to the beginning of the taxable period for which the levy is 

served. When these exceptions apply, the CDP hearing takes place within a reasonable time 

after the levy. 

Prior to making a disbursement to federal contractors, an automated check for Federal tax 

liabilities generally occurs using the Federal Payment Levy Program (FPLP). When a tax 

liability is identified, the IRS issues a CDP notice to the federal contractor, but cannot levy the 

payment until the CDP requirements are complete. 

Reason for Change 

When the FPLP identifies a federal contractor as having federal employment tax liabilities, the 

opportunity to levy payments to the contractor may be lost because the CDP requirements cannot 

be completed before the payment is made. 

Proposal 

The proposal would allow the IRS to issue levies prior to a CDP hearing for federal employment 

tax liabilities of federal contractors identified under the FPLP. When a levy is issued prior to a 

CDP hearing under this proposal, the taxpayer would have an opportunity for a CDP hearing 

within a reasonable time after the levy. 

The proposal would be effective for levies issued after December 31, 2010. 

143 
 INCREASE LEVY AUTHORITY TO 100 PERCENT FOR VENDOR PAYMENTS 

Current Law 

If a federal vendor has an unpaid tax liability, the IRS can levy 100 percent of any payment due 

to the vendor for goods or services sold or leased to the federal government. 

Reason for Change 

The statutory language “goods or services sold or leased” has been interpreted as excluding 

payments for the sale or lease of real estate or other types of property not considered “goods or 

services.” 

Proposal 

The proposal would clarify that the IRS can levy 100 percent of any payment due to a federal 

vendor with unpaid tax liabilities, including payments made for the sale or lease of real estate 

and other types of property not considered “goods or services.” 

The proposal would be effective for payments made after the date of enactment. 

144 
ALLOW OFFSET OF FEDERAL INCOME TAX REFUNDS TO COLLECT 

DELINQUENT STATE INCOME TAXES FOR OUT-OF-STATE RESIDENTS 

Current Law

Generally, the Treasury refunds a taxpayer who makes an overpayment (by withholding or 

otherwise) of Federal tax. The overpayment amount is reduced by debts of the taxpayer for pastdue child support, debts to Federal agencies, fraudulently obtained unemployment compensation, 

and past-due, legally enforceable State income tax obligations. In the latter case, offset is 

permitted only if the delinquent taxpayer resides in the State seeking the offset. 

Reasons for Change

Under current law, a delinquent taxpayer could escape Federal offset from a State as long as he 

or she is a non-resident. Foreclosing this possibility would better leverage the capacity of the 

Federal tax offset program for the country as a whole. 

PROPOSAL

Offset of Federal refunds to collect State income tax would be permissible regardless of where 

the delinquent taxpayer resides. 

The proposal would be effective on the date of enactment. 

145 
APPENDIX: EXTENDING CURRENT POLICIES

The first step in addressing the nation’s fiscal problems is to be forthright about them – and to 

establish an honest baseline that measures where we are before new policies are enacted. The 

Administration’s Budget does so by adjusting the Budget Enforcement Act (BEA) baseline to 

reflect the true cost of the current policy path. The BEA baseline, which is commonly used in 

budgeting and is defined in a now expired statute, with some exceptions reflects the projected 

receipts level under current law. However, under current law, relief from the AMT expired at 

the end of 2009, a situation which, if not addressed, would cause millions of Americans to begin 

paying this additional tax. Furthermore, the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts would expire entirely at the 

end of 2010. These expirations were written into law not for policy reasons; instead, they reflect 

decisions made to artificially reduce the cost estimates of AMT relief and the 2001 and 2003 tax 

cuts in order to fit these policies within certain budget process rules. As a result, the BEA’s 

“current law” baseline is not an accurate reflection of the consequences of continuing with 

current policies. The Administration’s Budget uses an adjusted tax baseline that assumes a 

policy of continuing AMT relief and the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts, so as to project future receipts 

under current policy and to better measure the effects of the Administration’s proposed policy 

changes. 

Index to inflation the 2009 parameters of the AMT as enacted in the American Recovery and 

Reinvestment Act of 2009. The Administration’s baseline projection of current policy reflects 

annual indexation of the AMT exemption amounts in effect for taxable year 2009 ($46,700 for 

single taxpayers, $70,950 for married taxpayers filing a joint return and surviving spouses, and 

$35,475 for married taxpayers filing a separate return and for estates and trusts); the income 

thresholds for the 28-percent rate ($87,500 for married taxpayers filing a separate return and 

$175,000 for all other taxpayers); and the income thresholds for the phaseout of the exemption 

amounts ($150,000 for married taxpayers filing a joint return and surviving spouses, $112,500 

for single taxpayers, and $75,000 for married taxpayers filing a separate return). The baseline 

projection of current policy also extends AMT relief for nonrefundable personal credits. 

 

Continue the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts. Most of the tax reductions enacted in 2001 and 2003 

expire on December 31, 2010. The Administration’s baseline projection of current policy 

continues all of these expiring provisions except for repeal of estate, gift, and generationskipping transfer (GST) taxes. Estate and gift and GST taxes are assumed to be extended at 

parameters in effect for calendar year 2009 (a top rate of 45 percent and an exemption amount of 

$3.5 million). 

We also include in the baseline a policy of permanently extending the ARRA’s temporary 

expansion of (a) the refundability of the child tax credit and (b) the earned income tax credit for 

married couples (which were proposals in the FY 2010 Budget). 

 

147 
TABLES OF REVENUE ESTIMATE

Revenue estimates begin on next page. 

 

149 
150 

2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2

Temporary recovery measures

Extend the making work pay tax credit 4/ ..................................................................... 0 -30,132 -31,075 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Provide $250 refundable credit for Federal, State and local government retirees not eligible for social security benefits 4/ ........................................................................ -38 -212 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Extend COBRA health insurance premium assistance 4/ ................................................ -3,188 -5,237 -228 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Provide additional tax credits for investment in qualified property used in a qualified advanced energy manufacturing project .................................................................. 0 -284 -731 -1,145 -1,114 -539 -122 72 114 

Extend temporary increase in expensing for small businesses ....................................... -706 -440 434 268 186 135 76 43 24 

Extend temporary bonus depreciation for certain property ............................................. -22,445 -15,216 11,912 7,478 5,149 3,912 2,580 1,685 1,063 

Extend option for cash assistance to States in lieu of housing tax credits 4/ ........................ -2,435 -1,798 91 269 429 511 538 538 538 

 Subtotal, temporary recovery measures -28,812 -53,319 -19,597 6,870 4,650 4,019 3,072 2,338 1,739 1

Tax cuts for families and individuals

Expand the earned income tax credit (EITC) 4/ ............................................................ 0 -85 -1,674 -1,645 -1,636 -1,628 -1,639 -1,663 -1,692 -1

Expand the child and dependent care tax credit 4/ ...................................................... 0 -377 -1,345 -1,359 -1,368 -1,373 -1,377 -1,374 -1,365 -1Provide for automatic enrollment in IRAs and double the tax credit for small employer plan startup costs 4/ ............................................................................................. 0 0 -506 -825 -876 -982 -1,113 -1,261 -1,423 -1Expand saver's credit 4/ .......................................................................................... 0 -323 -2,683 -2,996 -3,029 -3,109 -3,195 -3,323 -3,490 -3Extend American opportunity tax credit 4/ .................................................................. 0 -951 -6,875 -7,444 -7,815 -8,400 -8,841 -8,632 -8,738 -8

 Subtotal, tax cuts for families and individuals 0 -1,736 -13,083 -14,269 -14,724 -15,492 -16,165 -16,253 -16,708 -17

Tax cuts for businesses

Eliminate capital gains taxation on investments in small business stock ........................... 0 0 0 0 -55 -280 -731 -1,217 -1,591 -1

Make research & experimentation tax credit permanent ................................................ -3,044 -5,346 -5,969 -6,622 -7,286 -7,945 -8,597 -9,244 -9,887 -10

Remove cell phones from listed property ..................................................................... -69 -277 -226 -238 -248 -266 -281 -296 -314 

 Subtotal, tax cuts for businesses -3,113 -5,623 -6,195 -6,860 -7,589 -8,491 -9,609 -10,757 -11,792 -12

Continue certain expiring provisions through calendar year 2011 4/ -8,867 -21,539 -11,926 -2,205 -1,581 -1,422 -1,309 -1,013 -1,138 -1Other revenue changes and loophole closers

Reform treatment of financial institutions and products:

Impose a financial crisis responsibility fee ............................................................... 0 8,000 8,000 9,000 9,000 9,000 9,000 9,000 9,000 10

Require accrual of income on forward sale of corporate stock .................................... 1 5 12 19 26 33 36 38 40 

(in millions of dollars)

Table 1 Revenue Estimates of FY 2011 Budget Proposals 1/ 2/ 3/

Fiscal Years

Require ordinary treatment of income from day-to-day dealer activities for certain  dealers of equity options and commodities ............................................................ 49 169 214 226 240 254 270 286 303 

Modify the definition of “control” for purposes of section 249 ....................................... 2 15 30 32 34 36 38 41 43 

 subtotal, reform treatment of financial institutions and products ..................... 52 8,189 8,256 9,277 9,300 9,323 9,344 9,365 9,386 10

Reinstate Superfund taxes

Reinstate Superfund excise taxes ........................................................................ 0 440 611 650 689 724 756 787 808 

Reinstate Superfund environmental income tax ...................................................... 0 763 997 1,079 1,148 1,197 1,239 1,281 1,321 1

 subtotal, reinstate Superfund taxes ......................................................... 0 1,203 1,608 1,729 1,837 1,921 1,995 2,068 2,129 2

Make unemployment insurance surtax permanent ......................................................... 0 0 1458 1501 1539 1571 1596 1616 1631 

Repeal LIFO method of accounting for inventories ...................................................... 0 0 2,667 6,007 7,070 7,120 7,162 7,224 7,207 7Repeal gain limitation for dividends received in reorganization exchanges ........................ 0 46 77 78 78 81 83 85 86 

Reform U.S. international tax system:

Defer deduction of interest expense related to deferred income ................................. 0 2,024 3,357 3,343 3,350 3,434 3,520 3,572 1,803 Foreign tax credit reform: Determine the foreign tax credit on a pooling basis .................. 0 1,928 3,198 3,184 3,191 3,271 3,353 3,403 3,439 3

Foreign tax credit reform: Prevent splitting of foreign income and foreign taxes ............... 0 1,226 2,223 2,494 2,707 2,875 3,006 3,106 3,186 3Tax currently excess returns associated with transfers of intangibles offshore ............... 0 635 1,580 1,573 1,577 1,616 1,657 1,681 1,699 1Limit shifting of income through intangible property transfers ....................................... 0 12 32 54 78 104 131 159 189 Disallow the deduction for excess non-taxed reinsurance premiums paid to affiliates ...... 0 22 53 54 54 50 50 54 58 

Limit earnings stripping by expatriated entities ......................................................... 0 211 352 353 356 368 379 385 390 

Repeal 80/20 company rules .............................................................................. 0 83 111 111 112 116 120 122 123 Prevent the avoidance of dividend withholding taxes ................................................ 219 275 135 91 94 96 97 102 109 

Modify the tax rules for dual capacity taxpayers ...................................................... 0 381 676 734 788 846 907 972 1,044 1

Combat under-reporting of income through use of accounts and entities in in offshore jurisdictions .................................................................................... 27 72 161 716 919 447 381 549 686 

 subtotal, reform U.S. international tax system 246 6,869 11,878 12,707 13,226 13,223 13,601 14,105 12,726 11

Reform treatment of insurance companies and products:

Modify rules that apply to sales of life insurance contracts .......................................... 0 22 71 84 101 117 136 156 179 

Modify dividends-received deduction for life insurance company separate accounts ......... 0 149 379 407 432 441 468 492 511 Expand pro rata interest expense disallowance for corporate-owed life insurance (COLI) 0 20 87 183 276 437 659 910 1,293 1
151 

2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 20

(in millions of dollars)

Fiscal Years

Permit partial annuitization of a nonqualified annuity contract ....................................... 0 5 21 39 59 81 105 132 160 1 subtotal, reform treatment of insurance companies and products .................. 0 196 558 713 868 1,076 1,368 1,690 2,143 2,6

Eliminate fossil fuel preferences: Eliminate oil and gas preferences:

Repeal enhanced oil recovery credit 5/ .................................................................. 000000000

Repeal credit for oil and gas produced from marginal wells 5/ .................................... 000000000Repeal expensing of intangible drilling costs ............................................................ 0 1,202 1,582 1,089 914 848 694 482 374 3Repeal deduction for tertiary injectants .................................................................. 0 5 9 9 8 7 6 6 5 Repeal exemption to passive loss limitation for working interests in oil and  natural gas properties ....................................................................................... 0 20 24 19 18 17 17 17 16 Repeal percentage depletion for oil and natural gas wells .......................................... 0 522 895 933 969 1,009 1,052 1,095 1,141 1,1Repeal domestic manufacturing deduction for oil and gas production ........................... 0 851 1,470 1,559 1,650 1,742 1,831 1,920 2,007 2,0Increase geological and geophysical amortization period for independent producers to seven years ................................................................................................ 0 44 160 246 231 177 122 67 28 

 subtotal, eliminate oil and gas preferences ............................................. 0 2,644 4,140 3,855 3,790 3,800 3,722 3,587 3,571 3,6

 Eliminate coal preferences:

Repeal expensing of exploration and development costs .......................................... 0 32 55 49 45 45 44 40 37 

Repeal percentage depletion for hard mineral fossil fuels .......................................... 0 57 98 102 106 109 111 115 119 1

Repeal capital gains treatment for royalties ............................................................ 10 18 25 48 67 78 87 95 103 1

Repeal domestic manufacturing deduction for coal and other hard mineral fossil fuels ...... 0 3 5 5 5 6 6 6 7 

 subtotal, eliminate coal preferences ...................................................... 10 110 183 204 223 238 248 256 266 2 subtotal, eliminate fossil fuel preferences ................................................... 10 2,754 4,323 4,059 4,013 4,038 3,970 3,843 3,837 3,9

Tax carried (profit) interests as ordinary income ............................................................ 0 1,452 3,289 3,914 3,741 3,176 2,534 1,975 1,530 1,3

Modify the cellulosic biofuel producer credit ............................................................... 784 6,569 8,058 4,901 2,659 1,491 309 0 0 Eliminate the advanced earned income tax credit 4/ ...................................................... 0 120 72 70 69 68 69 69 72 Deny deduction for punitive damages ........................................................................ 0 0 22 32 33 34 35 36 38 Repeal lower-of-cost-or-market inventory accounting method .......................................... 0 0 286 1,423 2,045 1,402 1,127 283 296 3Reduce the tax gap and make reforms: Expand Information Reporting:

Require information reporting on payments to corporations ....................................... 0 84 612 777 924 983 1,040 1,095 1,152 1,2Require information reporting for rental property expense payments .............................. 0 179 267 281 296 312 327 342 357 3Require information reporting for private separate accounts of life insurance companies ... 0 1 2 3 4 4 6 7 8 Require a certified Taxpayer Identification Number from contractors and allow certain withholding .......................................................................................... 0 17 44 63 72 76 79 83 86 Require increased information reporting for certain government payments for

 property and services ....................................................................................... 0 25 70 58 28 30 32 34 35 

Increase information return penalties ..................................................................... 0 20 34 35 35 36 42 43 43 

subtotal, expand information reporting ................................................... 0 326 1,029 1,217 1,359 1,441 1,526 1,604 1,681 1,7

 Improve compliance by businesses:

Require greater electronic filing of returns ...............................................................

Implement standards clarifying when employee leasing companies can be held liable  for their clients' Federal employment taxes ............................................................ 0 4 6 6 7 7 7 8 8 

Increase certainty with respect to worker classification ............................................. 0 11 214 543 688 766 848 933 1,020 1,1

 subtotal, improve compliance by businesses .......................................... 0 15 220 549 695 773 855 941 1,028 1,12

 Strengthen tax administration:

Codify "economic substance" doctrine .................................................................. 0 23 77 157 272 366 476 593 682 7

Allow assessment of criminal restitution as tax ......................................................... 0 0 3 4 4 4 4 4 4 

Revise offer-in-compromise application rules ............................................................ 1 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 Expand IRS access to information in the National Directory of New Hires for tax  administration purposes ....................................................................................

Make repeated willful failure to file a tax return a felony ............................................. 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 2 

Facilitate tax compliance with local jurisdictions ...................................................... 000001111Extension of statute of limitations where State adjustment affects Federal tax liability ...... 0 3 4 4 4 4 5 5 5 Improve investigative disclosure statute .................................................................. 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 2 

subtotal, strengthen tax administration ................................................... 1 29 87 168 285 380 491 608 699 7

 Expand penalties:

Clarify that bad check penalty applies to electronic checks and other payment forms ...... 0 1 2 2 2 3 3 3 3 Impose a penalty on failure to comply with electronic filing requirements ........................ 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 2 

 subtotal, expand penalties .................................................................. 0 1 2 2 2 4 4 4 5 

 subtotal, reduce the tax gap and make reforms .......................................... 1 371 1,338 1,936 2,341 2,598 2,876 3,157 3,413 3,6

Modify estate and gift valuation discounts and other reforms:

Require consistent valuation for transfer and income tax purposes .............................. 40 135 171 182 192 204 216 229 243 2

Modify rules on valuation discounts ........................................................................ 0 666 1,413 1,531 1,671 1,818 1,972 2,135 2,305 2,4

Require a minimum term for grantor retained annuity trusts (GRATs) ........................... 0 15 46 93 160 231 308 389 477 5

No Revenue EffectNo Revenue Effect
152 

2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 20

(in millions of dollars)

Fiscal Years

subtotal, estate and gift ........................................................................ 40 816 1,630 1,806 2,023 2,253 2,496 2,753 3,025 3,3

 Subtotal, other revenue changes and loophole closers 1,133 28,585 45,520 50,153 50,842 49,375 48,565 48,269 47,519 48,7

Upper-income tax provisions

Reinstate the 39.6% rate ....................................................................................... 0 12,829 23,625 26,379 29,292 32,074 34,871 37,682 40,527 43,4Reinstate the 36% rate for taxpayers with income over $250,000 (married) and $200,000 (single) ................................................................................................ 0 1,680 2,592 2,916 3,264 3,602 3,938 4,278 4,608 4,9

Reinstate the limitation on itemized deductions (Pease) for taxpayers with income over $250,000 (married) and $200,000 (single) ......................................................... 0 5,159 11,230 12,834 14,221 15,564 16,857 18,127 19,340 20,4Reinstate the personal exemption phaseout (PEP) for taxpayers with income over $250,000 (married) and $200,000 (single) ............................................................... 0 1,681 3,695 4,285 4,770 5,244 5,714 6,197 6,714 7,2

Impose 20% rate on capital gains and dividends for taxpayers with income over $250,000 (married) and $200,000 (single) ............................................................... 1,344 12,165 -263 3,315 8,230 11,372 12,370 13,288 14,162 14,Limit the tax rate at which itemized deductions reduce tax liability to 28% ........................... 0 7,896 21,582 24,500 27,019 29,351 31,570 33,938 36,268 38,4

 Subtotal, upper-income tax provisions 1,344 41,410 62,461 74,229 86,796 97,207 105,320 113,510 121,619 129,4

User fees

Support capital investment in the inland waterways ...................................................... 0 0 196 163 187 129 100 72 70 

Other initiatives

Extend and modify the new markets tax credit ............................................................ 0 -113 -229 -345 -430 -480 -511 -510 -441 -2

Reform and extend build America bonds 4/ .................................................................. 0 8 -3 -3 -3 -4 -4 -4 -4 

Restructure assistance to New York City: Provide tax incentives for transportation infrastructure ...................................................................................................... 0 -200 -200 -200 -200 -200 -200 -200 -200 -2

Implement unemployment insurance integrity legislation ................................................ 0 0 42 42 16 -4 -75 -175 189 -Levy payments to Federal contractors with delinquent tax debt:

Authorize post-levy due process ........................................................................... 0 77 115 119 124 109 113 118 122 

Increase levy authority to 100% for vendor payments ................................................ 0 61 87 86 90 78 82 85 88 

 subtotal, levy payments to Federal contractors with delinquent tax debt ......... 0 138 202 205 214 187 195 203 210 2

Allow offset of Federal income tax refunds to collect delinquent State income taxes for out-of-state residents .......................................................................................

 Subtotal, other initiatives 0 -167 -188 -301 -403 -501 -595 -686 -246 -4

Total Effect of FY 2011 Budget Tax Proposals Relative to Current Policy -38,315 -12,389 57,188 107,780 118,178 124,824 129,379 135,480 141,063 147,8

T

No Revenue Effect

Department of the TreasuryNotes:

1/ Presentation in this table does not reflect the order in which these proposals were estimated.2/ Appendix A details the budgetary impact of extending certain tax policies relative to current law. These extensions are estimates before the other policy proposals that follow in this table. 3/ Table 14-3 in the Analytical Perspectives of the FY 2011 Budget includes the effects of a number of proposals that are not reflected here. These proposals include the interaction of the $250 economic recov

the making work pay tax credit, increase fees for Migratory Bird Hunting and Conservation Stamps, change retention policy for consular fees, trade initiatives, implement program integrity allocation adjustmenrevise terrorism risk insurance program and the allowances for health insurance reform and jobs initiatives.

4/ This provision affects both receipts and outlays. The combined effects are shown here and the outlays effects included in these estimates are detailed in Appendix B.5/ This provision is estimated to zero receipt effect under the Administration's current projections for energy prices.
153 

2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 

Adjustments to reflect current policy:

Index to inflation the 2009 parameters of the alternative minimum tax as enacted in the  American Recovery and Reinvestment Act ............................................................... -12,957 -64,062 -32,378 -37,907 -45,102 -53,220 -62,494 -72,492 -84,034 

Continue the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts:

Permanently extend the 2009 estate tax law ............................................................ -2,034 6,176 -18,858 -23,701 -26,005 -28,052 -30,215 -32,168 -34,255 

Tax dividends with a 0%/15% rate structure ............................................................ -2,263 -22,869 -4,070 -12,415 -21,501 -26,648 -27,634 -28,619 -29,378 Tax capital gains with a 0%/15% rate structure ......................................................... -854 -7,737 -1,535 -4,883 -9,429 -12,275 -13,288 -14,211 -15,107 

Expand expensing for small businesses ............................................................... 0 -3,174 -5,608 -4,352 -3,482 -2,838 -2,345 -2,035 -1,868 

Marginal individual income tax rate reductions ......................................................... 0 -80,985 -124,474 -135,234 -145,800 -155,995 -166,159 -176,260 -186,268 

Repeal the limitation on itemized deductions (Pease) ................................................ 0 -4,576 -9,702 -10,832 -12,010 -13,144 -14,238 -15,318 -16,340 Repeal the personal exemption phaseout (PEP) ...................................................... 0 -1,591 -3,377 -3,809 -4,259 -4,698 -5,131 -5,587 -6,076 

Increase the child credit 2/ ................................................................................. 0 -3,994 -28,144 -28,201 -28,358 -28,481 -28,626 -28,737 -28,843 Provide marriage penalty relief 2/ ........................................................................ 0 -15,030 -27,580 -29,169 -30,945 -32,741 -34,288 -35,916 -37,574 

Provide education incentives .............................................................................. 3 -735 -1,367 -1,435 -1,505 -1,578 -1,653 -1,731 -1,813 

Provide other incentives for families and children ...................................................... 5 -420 -894 -911 -924 -942 -959 -978 -993 

Expand earned income tax credit by providing marriage penalty relief 2/ ........................... 0 -21 -1,740 -1,687 -1,659 -1,627 -1,617 -1,612 -1,618 Reduce the earnings threshold for the refundable portion of the child tax credit to $3,000 2/ ... 0 0 -9,579 -9,414 -9,341 -9,198 -9,156 -9,068 -9,096 

Total Effect of Adjustments to BEA Baseline to reflect Current Policy ........................... -18,100 -199,018 -269,306 -303,950 -340,320 -371,437 -397,803 -424,732 -453,263 

Department of the TreasuryNotes:

1/ Proposals in this table are estimated before the proposals in Table 1.2/ This provision affects both receipts and outlays. The combined effects are shown here and the outlays effects included in these estimates are detailed in Appendix B.

2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 

Fiscal Years

(in millions of dollars)

Appendix A: Bridge from the Budget Enforcement Act Baseline to Current Policy Baseline 1/

Fiscal Years

Appendix B: Outlay Effects Included in Revenue Estimates

2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 

Increase the child credit .......................................................................................... 0 759 15,179 15,133 15,122 14,965 14,894 14,829 14,859 

Provide marriage penalty relief ................................................................................. 0 -583 2,411 2,307 2,239 2,165 2,111 2,085 2,068 

Expand earned income tax credit by providing marriage penalty relief .............................. 0 0 1,656 1,606 1,580 1,547 1,539 1,535 1,542 Reduce the earnings threshold for the refundable portion of the child tax credit to $3,000 ... 0 0 9,579 9,414 9,341 9,198 9,156 9,068 9,096 

Extend the making work pay tax credit ........................................................................ 0 703 21,265 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Provide $250 refundable credit for federal, state and local government retirees not eligible for social security benefits ........................................................................... 0 100 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Extend COBRA health insurance premium assistance ................................................... 319 524 23 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Extend option for cash assistance to States in lieu of housing tax credits ........................... 2,435 1,815 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Expand the earned income tax credit (EITC) ............................................................... 0 83 1,667 1,635 1,628 1,622 1,634 1,659 1,689 

Expand the child and dependent care tax credit ............................................................ 0 0 399 406 403 398 403 406 408 Provide for automatic enrollment in IRAs and double the tax credit for small employer plan startup costs ................................................................................................ 0 0 83 146 149 158 177 200 223 Expand saver's credit ............................................................................................. 0 570 3,715 1,402 1,369 1,366 1,349 1,337 1,339 Extend American opportunity tax credit ..................................................................... 0 0 2,941 3,058 3,146 3,268 3,441 3,363 3,330 Continue certain expiring provisions through calendar year 2011 .................................... 66 91 23 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Eliminate the advanced earned income tax credit ......................................................... 0 -120 -72 -70 -69 -68 -69 -69 -72 

Reform and extend build America bonds ..................................................................... 0 266 1,216 2,630 4,108 5,608 7,105 8,595 10,078 

Total Outlay Effect of Proposals ............................................................................... 2,820 4,208 60,085 37,667 39,016 40,227 41,740 43,008 44,560 

Department of the Treasury

(in millions of dollars)