General Explanations 

of the 

Administration’s Fiscal Year 2006 

Revenue Proposals

Department of the Treasury 

February 2005 
General Explanations 

of the 

Administration’s Fiscal Year 2006 

Revenue Proposals

Department of the Treasury 

February 2005 
GENERAL EXPLANATIONS OF THE ADMINISTRATION’S FISCAL YEAR 2006 REVENUE

PROPOSALS ...............................................................................................................................................................1

INTRODUCTION..........................................................................................................................................................1

MAKE PERMANENT CERTAIN TAX CUTS ENACTED IN 2001 AND 2003...................................................3

PERMANENTLY EXTEND CERTAIN PROVISIONS OF THE 2001 TAX CUT AND THE 2003 JOBS AND GROWTH TAX CUT

..................................................................................................................................................................................3

TAX INCENTIVES.....................................................................................................................................................5

SIMPLIFY AND ENCOURAGE SAVING .........................................................................................................................5

Expand tax-free saving opportunities.....................................................................................................................5

Consolidate employer-based savings accounts ....................................................................................................11

Establish Individual Development Accounts (IDAs) ............................................................................................16

INVEST IN HEALTH CARE.........................................................................................................................................19

Provide refundable tax credit for the purchase of health insurance ....................................................................19

Provide an above-the-line deduction for high-deductible insurance premiums...................................................23

Provide a refundable tax credit for contributions of small employers to employee HSAs ...................................25

Improve the Health Coverage Tax Credit ............................................................................................................27

Allow the orphan drug tax credit for certain pre-designation expenses...............................................................29

PROVIDE INCENTIVES FOR CHARITABLE GIVING .....................................................................................................30

Permit tax-free withdrawals from IRAs for charitable contributions...................................................................30

Expand and increase the enhanced charitable deduction for contributions of food inventory ............................32

Reform excise tax based on investment income of private foundations................................................................34

Modify tax on unrelated business taxable income of charitable remainder trusts ...............................................36

Modify basis adjustment to stock of S corporations contributing appreciated property ......................................38

Repeal the $150 million limitation on qualified 501(c)(3) bonds.........................................................................39

Repeal certain restrictions on the use of qualified 501(c)(3) bonds for residential rental property ....................40

STRENGTHEN EDUCATION .......................................................................................................................................42

Extend, increase, and expand the above-the-line deduction for qualified out-of-pocket classroom expenses .....42

ENCOURAGE TELECOMMUTING ...............................................................................................................................44

Exclude from income the value of employer-provided computers, software and peripherals..............................44

PROVIDE ASSISTANCE TO DISTRESSED AREAS ........................................................................................................45

Establish Opportunity Zones ................................................................................................................................45

PROVIDE DISASTER RELIEF .....................................................................................................................................51

Provide tax relief for Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) hazard mitigation assistance 

programs.......................................................................................................................................................51

INCREASE HOUSING OPPORTUNITIES.......................................................................................................................53

Provide tax credit for developers of affordable single-family housing ................................................................53

PROTECT THE ENVIRONMENT ..................................................................................................................................56

Extend permanently expensing of brownfields remediation costs ........................................................................56

Exclude 50 percent of gains from the sale of property for conservation purposes...............................................57

INCREASE ENERGY PRODUCTION AND PROMOTE ENERGY CONSERVATION ............................................................59

Extend the tax credit for producing electricity from wind, biomass, and landfill gas and modify the credit for 

electricity produced from biomass ................................................................................................................59

Provide tax credit for residential solar energy systems........................................................................................61

Modify treatment of nuclear decommissioning funds...........................................................................................62

Provide tax credit for purchase of certain hybrid and fuel cell vehicles..............................................................65

Provide tax credit for combined heat and power property...................................................................................69

RESTRUCTURE ASSISTANCE TO NEW YORK CITY....................................................................................................71

Provide tax incentives for transportation infrastructure......................................................................................72

Repeal certain Liberty Zone incentives and other changes..................................................................................73

SIMPLIFY THE TAX LAWS FOR FAMILIES ....................................................................................................75

Simplify adoption tax benefits...............................................................................................................................75

Clarify eligibility of siblings and other family members for child-related tax benefits ........................................77

iii 
STRENGTHEN THE EMPLOYER BASED PENSION SYSTEM......................................................................81

Ensure fair treatment of older workers in cash balance conversions and protect defined benefit plans .............81

Strengthen funding for single-employer pension plans ........................................................................................85

Reflect market interest rates in lump sum payments...........................................................................................107

CLOSE LOOPHOLES AND IMPROVE TAX COMPLIANCE........................................................................109

Combat abusive foreign tax credit transactions.................................................................................................109

Modify the active trade or business test .............................................................................................................111

Impose penalties on charities that fail to enforce conservation easements........................................................112

Eliminate the special exclusion from unrelated business taxable income for gain or loss on the sale or

exchange of certain brownfield properties..................................................................................................114

Apply an excise tax to amounts received under certain life insurance contracts ...............................................116

Limit related party interest deductions...............................................................................................................118

Clarify and simplify qualified tuition programs .................................................................................................120

TAX ADMINISTRATION, UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE, AND OTHER..............................................123

IMPROVE TAX ADMINISTRATION...........................................................................................................................123

Implement IRS Administrative Reforms..............................................................................................................123

Make Section 1203 of the IRS Restructuring and Reform Act of 1998 more effective and fair......................................... 123

Curb the use of frivolous submissions and filings made to impede or delay tax administration ........................................ 125

Allow for the termination of installment agreements for failure to file returns and for failure to make tax deposits ......... 126

Consolidate judicial review of collection due process cases in the United States Tax Court ............................................. 127

Eliminate the monetary threshold for counsel review of offers in compromise ................................................................. 128

Initiate IRS Cost Saving Measures .....................................................................................................................129

Allow the Financial Management Service to retain transaction fees from levied amounts ................................................ 129

Extend the due date for electronically-filed returns and expand the authority to require electronic filing by large

businesses and exempt organizations.................................................................................................................. 130

Other...................................................................................................................................................................132

Allow IRS to access information in the National Directory of New Hires for tax administration purposes....................... 132

Extend IRS Authority to fund undercover operations ........................................................................................................ 133

STRENGTHEN FINANCIAL INTEGRITY OF UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE ................................................................134

Strengthen the financial integrity of the unemployment insurance system by reducing improper benefit 

payments and tax avoidance........................................................................................................................134

REAUTHORIZE FUNDING FOR THE HIGHWAY TRUST FUND ...............................................................137

Extend excise taxes deposited in the Highway Trust Fund.................................................................................137

Allow tax-exempt financing for private highway projects and rail-truck transfer facilities...............................139

EXTEND EXPIRING PROVISIONS....................................................................................................................141

Extend permanently the research and experimentation (R&E) tax credit..........................................................141

Permit disclosure of tax return information for administration of student aid...................................................142

Extend and modify work opportunity tax credit and welfare-to-work tax credit................................................143

Extend the first-time homebuyer credit for the District of Columbia .................................................................145

Extend authority to issue Qualified Zone Academy Bonds.................................................................................146

Extend deduction for corporate donations of computer technology...................................................................148

Extend provisions permitting disclosure of tax return information relating to terrorist activity .......................149

Extend excise taxes deposited in the Leaking Underground Storage Tank (LUST) Trust Fund.........................150

Extend excise tax on coal at current rates..........................................................................................................151

OTHER.....................................................................................................................................................................153

Include Combat pay as earned income for purposes of EITC ............................................................................153

Expand protections for members of the armed forces ........................................................................................154

REFORM OF THE FEDERAL TAX SYSTEM...................................................................................................157

REVENUE ESTIMATES TABLE.........................................................................................................................159

iv 
GENERAL EXPLANATIONS OF THE ADMINISTRATION’S FISCAL YEAR 2006 

REVENUE PROPOSALS 

Introduction 

This report summarizes the revenue proposals in the Administration’s Fiscal Year 2006 Budget. 

These proposals include making permanent the tax cuts enacted in 2001 and 2003, which is 

essential for promoting economic growth and higher levels of income in the future. The other 

proposals, also intended to strengthen the American economy, affect a wide range of areas 

including encouraging saving, investing in health care, assisting distressed areas, providing 

disaster relief, providing incentives for charitable giving, strengthening education, encouraging 

telecommuting, increasing housing opportunities, protecting the environment, and increasing 

energy production and promoting energy conservation. Additionally included are proposals to 

strengthen the employer based pension system, close loopholes and improve tax compliance, 

improve tax administration as well as proposals related to highway reauthorization and proposals 

to extend expiring tax provisions. The report also discusses the Advisory Panel on Federal Tax 

Reform, appointed by the President on January 7, 2005. 

1
MAKE PERMANENT CERTAIN TAX CUTS ENACTED IN 2001 AND 2003 

Permanently Extend Certain Provisions of the 2001 Tax Cut and the 2003 Jobs and 

Growth Tax Cut 

Current Law 

The Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2001 (EGTRRA) created a new 

10-percent individual income tax rate bracket, reduced marginal income tax rates for individuals, 

doubled the child credit and extended its refundability, reduced marriage penalties, eliminated 

the phase-out of personal exemptions and the limitation on certain itemized deductions for 

higher-income taxpayers, provided additional incentives for education, increased IRA and 

pension incentives, provided relief from the alternative minimum tax (AMT), eliminated the 

estate and generation-skipping transfer taxes, and modified the gift tax. These and several other 

provisions of EGTRRA sunset on December 31, 2010. 

The Jobs and Growth Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2003 (JGTRRA) increased the amount of 

qualifying property that can be expensed in the year of purchase rather than being depreciated 

and lowered the tax rates on qualifying dividends and on capital gains. The liberalized 

expensing provision, as extended, sunsets on December 31, 2007. The dividend and capital 

gains provisions sunset on December 31, 2008. 

Reasons for Change 

The tax relief and incentives to work, save, and invest provided by EGTRRA and JGTRRA are 

essential to the long-run performance of the economy. All taxpayers should have the certainty of 

knowing that the provisions of EGTRRA will extend beyond 2010. Taxpayers plan for periods 

far beyond the scheduled sunset dates of the EGTRRA and JGTRRA provisions when saving for 

their children’s education, undertaking new business ventures, planning for retirement, and 

planning future contributions to charity and bequests for their children. Taxpayers require the 

certainty that can be provided today by permanently extending the provisions of EGTRRA and 

JGTRRA. Permanent extension of the provisions is essential for promoting growth and higher 

levels of income in the future. 

Proposal 

The provisions of EGTRRA that sunset on December 31, 2010 would be permanently extended. 

The provisions of JGTRRA that sunset on December 31, 2007 and December 31, 2008 would be 

permanently extended. 

3
Revenue Estimate1 

Fiscal Years 

2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2006-2010 2006-2015

($ in millions) 

313 -48 -363 -9,647 -31,462 -11,901 -53,421 -1,134,323 

1 The estimate includes both receipt and outlay effects. There is no outlay effect for fiscal years 2006-2010. The 

outlay effect is $44,810 million for 2006-2015. 

4
TAX INCENTIVES 

Simplify and Encourage Saving 

EXPAND TAX-FREE SAVING OPPORTUNITIES 

Current Law 

Current law provides multiple tax-preferred individual savings accounts to encourage saving for 

retirement, education, and health expenses. The accounts have overlapping goals but are subject 

to different sets of rules regulating eligibility, contribution limits, tax treatment, and withdrawal 

restrictions. Individual Retirement Accounts (IRAs), including traditional, nondeductible, and 

Roth IRAs, are primarily intended to encourage retirement saving, but can also be used for 

certain education, medical, and other non-retirement expenses. Each of the three types of IRAs is 

subject to a different set of rules regulating eligibility and tax treatment. Coverdell Education 

Savings Accounts (ESAs) and Section 529 Qualified Tuition Plans (QTPs) are both intended to 

encourage saving for education, but each is subject to different rules. Archer Medical Savings 

Accounts (MSAs) and Health Savings Accounts (HSAs) are intended to encourage saving for 

medical expenses. 

Individual Retirement Accounts: Under current law, individuals under age 701⁄2 may make 

contributions to a traditional IRA, subject to certain limits. The contributions are generally 

deductible; however, the deduction is phased out for workers with incomes above certain levels 

who are covered by an employer-sponsored retirement plan. For taxpayers covered by employer 

plans in 2004, the deduction is phased out for single and head-of-household filers with modifiedAGI2

 between $50,000 and $60,000, for married filing jointly filers with modified-AGI between 

$70,000 and $80,000 (increasing in stages to $80,000 to $100,000 in 2007), and for married 

filing separately filers with modified-AGI between $0 and $10,000. For a married, filing jointly 

taxpayer who is not covered, but whose spouse is covered by an employer-sponsored retirement 

plan, the deduction is phased out with modified-AGI between $150,000 and $160,000. Account 

earnings are not includible in gross income until distributed. Distributions (including both 

contributions and account earnings) are includible in gross income for income tax purposes. 

To the extent a taxpayer cannot or does not make deductible contributions to a traditional IRA, a 

taxpayer under age 701⁄2 may make nondeductible contributions. In this case, distributions 

representing a return of basis are not includible in gross income, while distributions representing 

account earnings are includible in gross income. There is no income limit for nondeductible 

contributions to a traditional IRA. 

Individuals of any age may make contributions to a Roth IRA. The contributions are not 

deductible. Allowable contributions are phased out for workers with incomes above certain 

levels. Contributions are phased out for single or head-of-household filers with modified-AGI 

between $95,000 and $110,000, for married filing jointly filers with modified-AGI between 

2

 AGI plus income from education savings bonds, interest paid on education loans, employer-provided adoption 

assistance benefits, IRA deductions, deductions for qualified higher education expenses, and certain other 

adjustments. 

5 
$150,000 and $160,000, and for married filing-separate filers with modified-AGI between $0 

and $10,000. Account earnings accumulate tax free, and qualified distributions (including 

account earnings) are not included in gross income for income tax purposes. Nonqualified 

distributions from Roth IRAs are included in income (to the extent they exceed basis) and 

subject to an additional tax. Distributions are deemed to come from basis first. 

The annual aggregate limit on contributions to all of a taxpayer’s IRAs (traditional, 

nondeductible, and Roth) is the lesser of earnings or $4,000 for 2005 ($4,500 for individuals age 

50 and over). The contribution limit is scheduled to increase in stages to $5,000 ($6,000 for 

individuals age 50 and over) in 2008. 

Taxpayers with AGI of $100,000 or less and who are not married filing separately can convert a 

traditional IRA to a Roth IRA. In general, the conversion amount is included in gross income 

(but not for purposes of the $100,000 limit). 

Early distributions from IRAs are generally subject to an additional 10 percent tax. The tax is 

imposed on the portion of an early distribution that is includible in gross income. It applies in 

addition to ordinary income taxes on the distribution. The additional tax does not apply to a 

rollover to an employer plan or IRA, or if the distribution is made in the cases of death or 

disability, certain medical expenses, first-time homebuyer expenses, qualified higher-education 

expenses, health insurance expenses of unemployed individuals, or as part of a series of 

substantially equal periodic payments. 

Minimum distribution rules require that, beginning at age 701⁄2, the entire amount of a traditional 

IRA be distributed over the expected life of the individual (or the joint lives of the individual and 

a designated beneficiary). Roth IRAs are not subject to minimum distribution rules during the 

account owner’s lifetime. 

Coverdell Education Savings Accounts: Taxpayers may elect to contribute up to $2,000 per year 

to a Coverdell Education Savings Account (ESA) for beneficiaries under age 18. The 

contribution limit is phased out for single filers with modified-AGI between $95,000 and 

$110,000 and for joint filers with modified-AGI between $150,000 and $160,000. Contributions 

are not deductible, but earnings on contributions accumulate tax-free. Distributions are 

excludable from gross income to the extent they do not exceed qualified education expenses that 

are incurred during the year the distributions are made and that are not used to claim another tax 

benefit (such as an education tax credit or a tax-free distribution from a qualified tuition 

program). The earnings portion of a distribution not used to cover qualified education expenses 

is includible in the gross income of the beneficiary and is generally subject to an additional 10 

percent tax. 

Except in the case of a special needs beneficiary, when a beneficiary reaches age 30, the account 

balance is deemed to have been distributed for nonqualified purposes. However, prior to the 

beneficiary reaching age 30, tax-free (and penalty-free) rollovers of account balances may be 

made to an ESA benefiting another family member. 

6
Section 529 Qualified Tuition Programs: Contributions to a QTP are not deductible from income 

for federal tax purposes, but earnings on contributions accumulate tax-free. Taxpayers may 

exclude from gross income amounts distributed from a QTP and used for qualified higher 

education expenses, so long as the distribution is not used for the same educational expenses for 

which another tax benefit (such as an education tax credit or a tax-free distribution from an ESA) 

is claimed. Nonqualified distributions are subject to an additional tax. A change in the 

designated beneficiary of an account is not treated as a distribution, and therefore is not subject 

to income tax, if the new beneficiary is a member of the family of the prior beneficiary. Neither 

contributors nor beneficiaries may direct the investment of the account. 

There is no specific dollar cap on annual contributions to a QTP. In addition, there is no limit on 

contributions to a QTP account based on the contributor’s income, contributions are allowed at 

any time during the beneficiary’s lifetime, and the account can remain open after the beneficiary 

reaches age 30. However, a QTP must provide adequate safeguards to prevent contributions on 

behalf of a designated beneficiary in excess of amounts necessary to provide for the qualified 

higher education expenses of the beneficiary. 

Some states allow contributions to be excluded from income for state income tax purposes. 

Health Savings Accounts: Individuals who are covered by a qualifying high deductible health 

plan and not covered by any non-high deductible health plan other than certain permitted or 

disregarded coverage may contribute to a Health Savings Account (HSA) that can be used to 

reimburse the individuals’ and their dependents’ health expenses. Employers may also make 

contributions to employees’ HSAs. The high deductible health plan may be provided by an 

employer or purchased in the individual insurance market. Individuals who are eligible for 

Medicare or to be claimed as a dependent on someone else’s return may not contribute to an 

HSA. Contributions to HSAs are deductible and qualified distributions are excluded from gross 

income. Nonqualified distributions are subject to income tax and, if taken prior to age 65, an 

additional 10 percent tax. 

Archer Medical Savings Accounts: Self-employed individuals and individuals employed by 

small employers maintaining a high deductible health plan (defined more restrictively than under 

the HSA) are allowed to accumulate funds in an Archer Medical Savings Account (MSA) on a 

tax-preferred basis to pay for medical expenses. An individual is eligible to establish an MSA 

only if the employee (or the employee's spouse) is covered by a high-deductible health plan (and 

not covered by any non-high deductible health plan). Although individuals with MSAs can 

continue to contribute to them as long as they are with an MSA participating employer, no new 

MSAs are permitted after the end of 2005 except with respect to individuals being hired after 

2005 by an MSA-participating employer. Contributions to MSAs are deductible and qualified 

distributions are excluded from gross income. Nonqualified distributions are subject to income 

tax and, if taken prior to age 65, an additional 15 percent tax. 

Reasons for Change 

The plethora of individual savings accounts, each subject to different rules regarding eligibility, 

contributions, tax treatment, and withdrawal, creates complexity and redundancy in the Code. 

Taxpayers must determine their eligibility for each account separately and then must decide 

7 
which plan or plans are best for them given their circumstances. Furthermore, as their 

circumstances change over time, taxpayers must continually re-evaluate their eligibility for each 

plan and which best meets their needs. The current list of non-retirement exceptions within IRAs 

weakens the focus on retirement saving, and the IRA exceptions and special purpose savings 

vehicles place a burden on taxpayers to document that withdrawals are used for certain purposes 

that Congress has deemed qualified. In addition, the restrictions on withdrawals and additional 

tax on early distributions discourage many taxpayers from making contributions because they are 

concerned about the inability to access the funds should they need them. Consolidating the three 

types of IRAs under current law into one account dedicated solely to retirement, and creating a 

new account that could be used to save for any reason would simplify the taxpayer’s decisionmaking process while further encouraging savings. 

Savings will be further simplified and encouraged by administrative changes to the tax filing 

process that, beginning in the 2007 filing season, will allow taxpayers to direct that their tax 

refunds be directly deposited into more than one account. Consequently, taxpayers will be able, 

for example, to direct that a portion of their tax refunds be deposited into a Retirement Savings 

Account or Lifetime Savings Account described below. Simplifying the rules, making savings 

opportunities universally available, and making it easier for people to set money aside through 

direct deposit will complement the Administration’s commitment to programs focusing on 

financial education and, specifically, retirement planning. 

Proposal 

The proposal would consolidate the three types of current law IRAs into a single account: a 

Retirement Savings Account (RSA). RSAs would be dedicated solely to retirement savings; 

other withdrawals would be subject to tax and penalty as described below. Instead of a list of 

exceptions for penalty-free early withdrawals, a new account, a Lifetime Savings Account (LSA) 

would be created that could be used to save for any purpose, including retirement savings, health 

care, emergencies, and education. 

Individuals could contribute up to $5,000 per year (or earnings includible in gross income, if 

less) to their RSA. As under current law IRAs, for an individual who is married filing a joint 

return, the compensation limitation will only be binding if the combined includible compensation 

of the spouses is less than $10,000. No income limits would apply to RSA contributions. 

Contributions would have to be in cash. Contributions would be nondeductible, but earnings 

would accumulate tax-free, and qualified distributions would be excluded from gross income. 

The RSA contribution limit would be indexed for inflation. 

Qualified distributions from the retirement account would be distributions made after age 58 or 

in the event of death or disability. Any other distribution would be a nonqualified distribution 

and, as with current non-qualified distributions from Roth IRAs, would be includible in income 

(to the extent it exceeds basis) and subject to a 10 percent additional tax. Distributions would be 

deemed to come from basis first. As with current law Roth IRAs, no minimum required 

distribution rules would apply to RSAs during the account owner’s lifetime. Married individuals 

could roll amounts from their RSA over to their spouses’ RSA. 

8
Existing Roth IRAs would be renamed RSAs and be made subject to the new rules for RSAs. 

Existing traditional and nondeductible IRAs could be converted into an RSA by taking the 

conversion amount into gross income, similar to a current-law Roth conversion. However, no 

income limit would apply to the ability to convert. Taxpayers who convert IRAs to RSAs before 

January 1, 2007, could include the conversion amount in income ratably over 4 years. 

Conversions made on or after January 1, 2007, would be included in income in the year of the 

conversion. Existing traditional or nondeductible IRAs that are not converted to RSAs could not 

accept any new contributions. New traditional IRAs could be created to accommodate rollovers 

from employer plans, but they could not accept any new individual contributions. Individuals 

wishing to roll an amount directly from an employer plan to an RSA could do so by taking the 

rollover amount (excluding basis) into gross income (i.e., “converting” the rollover, similar to a 

current law Roth conversion). 

Amounts converted to an RSA from a traditional IRA or from an Employer Retirement Savings 

Account (ERSA) would be subject to a 5-year holding period. Distributions attributable to a 

conversion from a traditional IRA or ERSA (other than amounts attributable to a Roth-type 

account in an ERSA) prior to the end of the 5-year period starting with the year the conversion 

was made or, if earlier, the date on which the individual turns 58, becomes disabled, or dies 

would be subject to an additional 10 percent early distribution tax on the entire amount. The 5-

year period is separately determined for each conversion contribution. To determine the amount 

attributable to a conversion, a distribution is treated as made in the following order: regular 

contributions; conversion contributions (on a first-in-first-out basis); earnings. To the extent a 

distribution is treated as made for a conversion contribution, it is treated as made first from the 

portion, if any, that was required to be included in gross income because of the conversion. 

Individuals could contribute up to $5,000 per year to their LSA, regardless of wage income. No 

income limits would apply to LSA contributions. Contributions would have to be in cash. The 

time period for which the contribution limit applies is the calendar year. Contributions would be 

nondeductible, but earnings would accumulate tax-free, and all distributions would be excluded 

from gross income, regardless of the individual’s age or use of the distribution. As with current 

law Roth IRAs, no minimum required distribution rules would apply to LSAs during the account 

owner’s lifetime. 

Contribution limits would apply to all accounts held in an individual’s name, rather than to 

contributors. Thus, contributors could make annual contributions of up to $5,000 each to the 

accounts of other individuals, but the aggregate of all contributions to all accounts held in a 

given individual’s name could not exceed $5,000. The LSA contribution limit would be indexed 

for inflation. 

Control over an account in a minor's name would be exercised exclusively for the benefit of the 

minor, until the minor reached the age of majority (determined under applicable state law), by 

the minor's parent or legal guardian acting in that capacity. Married individuals could roll 

amounts from their LSAs over to their spouses’ LSAs. 

Taxpayers would be able to convert balances in Coverdell Education Savings Accounts (ESAs) 

and Section 529 Qualified Tuition Plans (QTPs) to LSA balances. All conversions made before 

9 
--

January 1, 2007, would be on a tax-free basis, subject to the following limitations. An amount 

can be rolled into an individual’s LSA from a QTP only if that individual was the beneficiary of 

the QTP or ESA as of December 31, 2004. The amount that can be rolled over to an LSA from 

an ESA is limited to the sum of the amount in the accounts as of December 31, 2004, plus any 

contributions to and earnings on the accounts in 2005. The amount that can be rolled over to any 

LSA from a QTP is limited to the sum of (i) the lesser of $50,000 or the amount in the QTP as of 

December 31, 2004, plus (ii) any contributions and earnings to the QTP during 2005. Total 

rollovers to an individual’s LSA attributable to 2005 contributions to the individual’s ESAs and 

QTPs cannot exceed $5,000 (plus any earnings on those contributions). 

QTPs would continue to exist as separate types of accounts, but could be offered inside an LSA. 

For example, state agencies that administer QTPs could offer LSAs with the same investment 

options available under the QTP. The plan administrator would be freed from the additional 

reporting requirements of a QTP for investments in an LSA, but investors would be subject to 

the annual LSA contribution limit. Distributions for purposes other than education would not be 

subject to federal income-tax or penalties. However, states would be free to provide state tax 

incentives, and administrators would be free to provide investment incentives, for savings used 

for educational purposes. 

The Saver’s Credit would apply to contributions to an RSA but would not apply to contributions 

to an LSA. 

Both LSAs and RSAs would become effective beginning on January 1, 2006. 

Revenue Estimate 

Fiscal Years 

2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2006-2010 2006-2015

($ in millions) 

3,709 7,151 4,069 1,693 199 16,821 1,461 

10
CONSOLIDATE EMPLOYER-BASED SAVINGS ACCOUNTS 

Current Law 

Qualified Retirement Plans: Under Code section 401, employers may establish for the benefit of 

employees a retirement plan that may qualify for tax benefits, including a tax deduction to the 

employer for contributions, a tax deferral to the employee for elective contributions and their 

earnings, and a tax exemption for the fund established to pay benefits. To qualify for tax 

benefits, the plan must satisfy multiple requirements. Among the requirements, the plan may not 

discriminate in favor of highly-compensated employees (HCEs) with regard either to coverage or 

to amount or availability of contributions or benefits. The following cover some, but not all, of 

the defined-contribution plan rules. 

Contribution Limits. The total annual contribution to a participant’s account may not exceed the 

lesser of $42,000 or 100 percent of compensation. 

General Nondiscrimination Requirement. Qualified plans, both defined-benefit and definedcontribution, must comply with the section 401(a)(4) prohibition on contributions or benefits that 

discriminate in favor of HCEs. Detailed regulations spell out the calculations required for 

satisfying this provision, including optional safe harbors and a general test for nondiscrimination. 

Contribution Tests. In addition to the general nondiscrimination requirement, definedcontribution plans that have after-tax contributions or matching contributions are subject to the 

actual contribution percentage (ACP) test. This test measures the contribution rate to HCEs’ 

accounts relative to the contribution rate to non-highly-compensated employees’ (NHCEs’) 

accounts. To satisfy the test, the ACP of HCEs generally cannot exceed the following limits: 

200 percent of the NHCEs’ ACP if the NHCEs’ ACP is 2 percent or less; two percentage points 

over the NHCEs’ ACP if the NHCEs’ ACP is between 2 percent and 8 percent; or 125 percent of 

the NHCEs’ ACP if the NHCEs’ ACP is 8 percent or more. 

Three “safe-harbor” designs are deemed to satisfy the ACP test automatically for employer 

matching contributions (up to 6 percent of compensation) that do not increase with an 

employee’s rate of contributions or elective deferrals. In the first, vested employer matching 

contributions on behalf of NHCEs are equal to 100 percent of elective deferrals up to 3 percent 

of compensation, and 50 percent of elective deferrals between 3 and 5 percent of compensation. 

In the second, vested employer matching contributions follow an alternative matching formula 

such that the aggregate amount of matching contributions is no less than it would be under the 

first design. In the third, vested employer non-elective contributions are at least 3 percent of 

compensation made on behalf of all eligible NHCEs. 

Vesting. In general, employer contributions must vest at least as quickly as under one of the 

following schedules. Under graded vesting, 20 percent of the benefit is vested after three years of 

service and an additional 20 percent vests with each additional year of service, so that the 

employee is fully vested after seven years of service. Under cliff vesting, the employee has no 

vested interest until five years of service has been completed, but is then fully vested. However, 

matching contributions must vest more quickly: under graded vesting, the first 20 percent must 

11
vest after two years of service, so that the employee is fully vested after six years of service, and 

under cliff vesting, the employee becomes fully vested after three years of service. 

401(k) plans. Private employers may establish 401(k) plans, which allow participants to choose 

to take compensation in the form of cash or a contribution to a defined-contribution plan 

(“elective deferral”). In addition to the rules applying to qualified defined-contribution plans, 

401(k) plans are subject to additional requirements. 

Annual deferrals under a 401(k) plan may not exceed $14,000 in 2005 (increasing to $15,000 by 

2006). Participants aged 50 or over may make additional “catch-up” deferrals of up to $4,000 

(increasing to $5,000 by 2006). Elective deferrals are immediately fully vested. 

401(k) plans are subject to an actual deferral percentage (ADP) test, which generally measures 

employees’ elective-deferral rates. In applying the ADP test, the same numerical limits are used 

as under the ACP test. Three 401(k)-plan “safe-harbor” designs (similar to the safe-harbor 

designs for the ACP test described above) are deemed to satisfy the ADP test automatically. 

SIMPLE 401(k) plans. Employers with 100 or fewer employees and no other retirement plan 

may establish SIMPLE 401(k) plans. Deferrals of SIMPLE participants may not exceed 

$10,000. SIMPLE participants aged 50 or over may make additional “catch-up” deferrals of up 

to $2,000 (increasing to $2,500 by 2006). All contributions are immediately fully vested. In lieu 

of the ADP test, SIMPLE plans are subject to special contribution requirements, including a 

lower annual elective deferral limit and either a matching contribution not exceeding 3 percent of 

compensation or non-elective contribution of 2 percent of compensation.3 

Thrift plans. Employers may establish thrift plans under which participants may choose to make 

after-tax cash contributions. Such after-tax contributions, along with any matching contributions 

that an employer elects to make, are subject to the ACP test (without the availability of an ACP 

safe harbor). Employee contributions under a thrift plan are not subject to the $14,000 limit that 

applies to employee pre-tax deferrals. 

Roth-treatment of contributions. Effective after December 31, 2005, participants in 401(k) and 

403(b) plans can elect Roth treatment for their contributions: That is, contributions would not be 

excluded from income and distributions would not be included in income. Roth contributions 

must be accounted for in a separate account. There are no required minimum distributions 

during an employee’s lifetime, but heirs, other than a spouse, are subject to required minimum 

distributions. 

Salary reduction simplified employee pensions (SARSEPs). Employees can elect to have 

contributions made to a SARSEP or to receive the amount in cash. The amount the employee 

elects to have contributed to the SARSEP is not currently includible in income and is limited to 

the dollar limit applicable to employee deferrals in a 401(k) plan. SARSEPs are available only 

for employers who had 25 or fewer eligible employees at all times during the prior taxable year 

and are subject to a special nondiscrimination test. The rules permitting SARSEPs were repealed 

3 Employer contributions and employee deferrals may be made to SIMPLE IRAs under rules very similar to those 

applicable to SIMPLE 401(k) plans. 

12 
in 1996, but employee deferral contributions can still be made to SARSEPs that were established 

prior to January 1, 1997. 

403(b) plans: Section 501(c)(3) organizations and public schools may establish tax-sheltered 

annuity plans, also called 403(b) plans. The rules applicable to these plans are different in 

certain respects than rules applicable to qualified plans under section 401. Benefits may 

generally only be provided through the purchase of annuities or contributions to a custodial 

account invested in mutual funds. Contribution limits (including catch-ups), deferral limits, and 

minimum distribution rules are generally the same as for 401(k) plans. However, certain 

employees with 15 years of service may defer additional amounts according to a complicated 

three-part formula. Some 403(b) plans are subject to some nondiscrimination rules. 

Governmental 457(b) plans: State and local governments may establish eligible plans under 

section 457(b).4 In general, these plans are subject to different rules than qualified plans that are 

defined under section 401. Contributions and plan earnings are tax-deferred until withdrawal. 

Contributions may not exceed the lesser of 100 percent of compensation or $14,000 in 2005 

(increasing to $15,000 by 2006). However, participants may make additional contributions of up 

to twice the standard amount are permitted in the last three years before normal retirement age. 

Additional “catch-up” contributions of up to $4,000 (increasing to $5,000 by 2006) may be made 

for participants age 50 or over. 

Reasons for Change 

The rules covering employer retirement plans are among the lengthiest and most complicated 

sections of the tax code and associated regulations. The extreme complexity imposes substantial 

compliance, administrative, and enforcement costs on employers, participants, and the 

government (and hence, taxpayers in general). Moreover, because employer sponsorship of a 

retirement plan is voluntary, the complexity discourages many employers from offering a plan at 

all. This is especially true of the small employers who together employ about two-fifths of 

American workers. Complexity is often cited as a reason the coverage rate under an employer 

retirement plan has not grown above about 50 percent overall, and has remained under 25 

percent among employees of small firms. Reducing unnecessary complexity in the employer 

plan area would save significant compliance costs and would encourage additional coverage and 

retirement saving. 

Proposal 

The proposal would consolidate those types of defined-contribution accounts that permit 

employee deferrals or employee after-tax contributions, including 401(k), SIMPLE 401(k), 

Thrift, 403(b), and Governmental 457(b) plans, as well as SIMPLE IRAs and SARSEPs, into 

Employer Retirement Savings Accounts (ERSAs), which would be available to all employers 

and have simplified qualification requirements. 

The proposal would become effective for years beginning after December 31, 2005. 

4

 Tax-exempt organizations are also permitted to establish eligible section 457(b) plans, but such plans are not 

funded arrangements and are generally limited to management or highly compensated employees. 

13 
ERSAs would follow the existing rules for 401(k) plans, subject to the plan qualification 

simplifications described below. Thus, employees could defer wages of up to $14,000 annually 

(increasing to $15,000 by 2006), with employees aged 50 and older able to defer an additional 

$4,000 (increasing to $5,000 by 2006). The maximum total contribution (including employer 

contributions) to ERSAs would be the lesser of 100 percent of compensation or $42,000. The 

taxability of contributions and distributions from an ERSA would be the same as contributions 

and distributions from the plans that the ERSA would be replacing. Thus, contributions could be 

pre-tax deferrals or after-tax employee contributions or Roth contributions, depending on the 

design of the plan. Distributions of Roth and non-Roth after-tax employee contributions and 

qualified distributions of earnings on Roth contributions would not be included in income. All 

other distributions would be included in the participants’ income. 

Existing 401(k) and Thrift plans would be renamed ERSAs and could continue to operate as 

before, subject to the simplification described below. Existing SIMPLE 401(k) plans, SIMPLE 

IRAs, SARSEPs, 403(b) plans, and governmental 457(b) plans could be renamed ERSAs and be 

subject to ERSA rules, or could continue to be held separately, but if held separately could not 

accept any new contributions after December 31, 2006, with a special transition for collectively 

bargained plans and plans sponsored by state and local governments. 

Special Rule for Small Employers. Employers that had 10 or fewer employees making at least 

$5,000 during the prior year would be able to fund an ERSA by contributing to a custodial 

account, similar to a current-law IRA, provided the employer’s contributions satisfy the designbased ERSA safe harbor described below. This custodial account would provide annual 

reporting relief for small employers as well as relief from most of the ERISA fiduciary rules 

under circumstances similar to the fiduciary relief currently provided to sponsors of SIMPLE 

IRAs. 

ERSA Nondiscrimination Testing. The following single test would apply for satisfying the 

nondiscrimination requirements with respect to contributions for ERSAs: the average 

contribution percentage of HCEs could not exceed 200 percent of NHCEs’ percentage if the 

NHCEs’ average contribution percentage is 6 percent or less. In cases in which the NHCEs’ 

average contribution percentage exceeds 6 percent, the goal of increasing contributions among 

NHCEs would be deemed satisfied, and no nondiscrimination testing would apply. For this 

purpose, “contribution percentage” would be calculated for each employee as the sum of all 

employee and employer contributions divided by the employee’s compensation. The ACP and 

ADP tests would be repealed. Plans sponsored by state and local governments or churches 

would not be subject to this test. A plan sponsored by a section 501(c)(3) organization would not 

be subject to this nondiscrimination test (unless the plan permits after-tax or matching 

contributions) but would be required to permit all employees of the organization to participate. 

ERSA Safe Harbor. The design-based safe harbor described below would be sufficient to satisfy 

the nondiscrimination test for ERSAs described above. The design of the plan must be such that 

all eligible NHCEs are eligible to receive fully vested employer contributions (including 

14 
--

matching or non-elective contributions, but not including employee elective deferrals or after-tax 

contributions) of at least 3 percent of compensation. To the extent that the employer 

contributions of 3 percent of compensation for NHCEs are matching contributions rather than 

non-elective contributions, the match formula must be one of two qualifying formulas. The first 

formula would be a 50 percent employer match for the elective contributions of the employee up 

to 6 percent of the employee’s compensation. The second would be any alternative formula such 

that the rate of an employer’s matching contribution does not increase as the rate of an 

employee’s elective contributions increases, and the aggregate amount of matching contributions 

at such rate of elective contribution is at least equal to the aggregate amount of matching 

contributions which would be made if matching contributions were made on the basis of the 

percentages described in the first formula. In addition, the rate of matching contribution with 

respect to an HCE at any rate of elective contribution cannot be greater than that with respect to 

an NHCE. 

Revenue Estimate 

Fiscal Years 

2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2006-2010 2006-2015

($ in millions) 

-224 -335 -357 -382 -411 -1,709 -14,816 

15
ESTABLISH INDIVIDUAL DEVELOPMENT ACCOUNTS (IDAs) 

Current Law 

Under section 25B, certain low-income taxpayers are allowed a non-refundable credit for 

qualified retirement savings contributions up to $2,000. The maximum credit rate is 50 percent 

and is phased out for single filers with adjusted gross income between $15,000 and $25,000 

($22,500 and 37,500 for head of households and $30,000 and $50,000 for joint returns). The 

credit does not apply to contributions made after December 31, 2006. No other current tax 

provision is specifically targeted to encourage low-income families to save and develop a pool of 

capital to be used for purposes such as a first-time home purchase, higher education expenses, or 

small business capitalization. 

Individual Development Accounts (IDAs) were first authorized under the Personal Work and 

Responsibility Act of 1996. The Assets for Independence Act of 1998 established a five-year 

IDA demonstration program, with an annual appropriation of $25 million. Under the program, 

which the Department of Health and Human Services administers, an IDA can be opened by 

certain individuals who meet a net worth test and are eligible for the Earned Income Tax Credit 

or for Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (the successor to AFDC). Individuals’ 

contributions are not deductible but are matched by contributions from a program run by a state 

or a participating nonprofit organization. The matching contributions and their earnings are not 

taxable to the individual. Withdrawals can be made for higher education, first-home purchase, or 

small business capitalization. Matching amounts are typically held separately, and withdrawals 

must be paid directly to a mortgage provider, institution of higher education, or business 

capitalization account at a financial institution. Match rates chosen by the state or nonprofit must 

be between 50 and 400 percent. 

Reasons for Change 

One third of all Americans have no assets available for investment, and another fifth have only 

negligible assets. The United States household savings rate lags far behind other industrial 

nations, constraining national economic growth and keeping many Americans from entering the 

economic mainstream by buying a house, obtaining an adequate education, or starting a business. 

To ameliorate this situation by establishing IDA programs more broadly, federal support is 

needed both for the matching funds and for the administrative costs of the programs. In addition, 

financial education is an essential component of a policy to assist lower-income persons in 

building assets. By helping program sponsors to defray the costs associated with matching 

participants’ contributions, administering the accounts, and providing financial education, the 

credit will both stimulate savings and encourage a sensible approach to lifetime financial 

planning. 

Proposal 

The Administration’s proposal would create a tax credit, subject to the provisions of the General 

Business Credit, to defray the cost of establishing and running IDA programs, contributing 

matching funds to the appropriate accounts, and providing financial education to account 

16 
holders. Program sponsors could be qualified financial institutions, qualified nonprofits, or 

qualified Indian tribes, but the accounts would have to be held by an institution eligible under 

current law to serve as the custodian of IRAs. The goals and broad outline of this program are 

similar to those of the IDA demonstration program; however, certain specific design features are 

intended to facilitate administration through the tax system. 

Individuals between the ages of 18 and 60 who are not dependents or students and meet certain 

income requirements would be eligible to establish and contribute to an IDA. For single filers, 

the income limit would be $20,000 in modified AGI. The corresponding thresholds for head-ofhousehold and joint filers would be $30,000 and $40,000 respectively. (Married individuals 

filing separately could not participate.) Modified AGI is AGI as ordinarily computed, plus 

certain exempt items. In all cases eligibility would be determined by the individual’s 

circumstances for the previous taxable year. Eligibility limits would be indexed annually for 

inflation after the first year the credit is available. Sponsors would match contributions from 

eligible account holders on a dollar-for-dollar basis up to $500 per year. The main account 

(including earnings) and an account containing the matching amounts (including earnings) would 

be tracked separately by the sponsor. 

Program sponsors (and, if the sponsor is exempt, other persons as provided in regulations) could 

claim a tax credit for an IDA program. The credit would have two components: First, a $50-peraccount credit could be claimed each year to offset the ongoing costs of maintaining and 

administering each account and providing financial education to participants. Except for the first 

year that an account is open, the credit would be available only for accounts with a balance at 

year’s end of more than $100. In addition, there is a credit for the dollar-for-dollar matching 

amounts. 

Participants could generally withdraw their contributions and matching funds (including 

earnings) for qualified purposes, which include certain higher education expenses, first-time 

home purchase expenditures, and small business capitalization. The financial institution at 

which the IDA is held would generally be required to disburse the funds directly to another 

financial institution (in cases of home purchase or business start-up) or to an institution of higher 

education. Non-qualified distributions could not be made from the account containing the 

matching funds (including earnings). Non-qualified withdrawals from the account containing the 

participant's contributions could result in the forfeiture of some or all of the amounts in the 

matching-fund account. Matching funds and earnings would generally be available, without 

penalty, to the account holder for any purpose after he or she attains the age of 61. 

Contributions to IDAs by individuals would not be deductible, and the earnings on the 

contributions would be taxable to the account holder. Matching amounts and earnings on those 

amounts would not be taxable to the account holder at any time. 

The proposal includes explicit regulatory authority for Treasury to adopt rules to permit IDA 

program sponsors to verify the eligibility of individuals seeking to open accounts and to ensure 

that these individuals have not previously opened such an IDA. The authority would also extend 

to rules governing the recapture of credits claimed with respect to non-eligible individuals and 

with respect to matching amounts and earnings that are forfeited. 

17 
-- --

The proposed effective date allows sufficient time to establish the regulatory and operational 

infrastructure for IDA programs, including regulations making it practical for exempt persons to 

serve as program sponsors. Thus the credit could generally be claimed for taxable years ending 

after December 31, 2006, and beginning before January 1, 2014. The credit would apply with 

respect to the first 900,000 IDA accounts opened after December 31, 2006, and before January 1, 

2012, and with respect to matching funds for participant contributions that are made after 

December 31, 2006, and before January 1, 2014. 

Revenue Estimate 

Fiscal Years 

2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2006-2010 2006-2015

($ in millions) 

-134 -286 -326 -300 -1,046 -1,763 

18
Invest in Health Care 

PROVIDE REFUNDABLE TAX CREDIT FOR THE PURCHASE OF HEALTH 

INSURANCE 

Current Law 

Under present law, individuals who purchase their own health insurance may claim an itemized 

deduction for the premiums only to the extent that the premiums, when combined with other 

unreimbursed medical care expenses, exceed 7.5 percent of AGI. Other medical care expenses 

include expenses of the taxpayer, a spouse, or a dependent for medical care, qualified long-term 

care services, and premiums for qualified long-term care insurance (subject to a dollar limit). 

Employer-provided health insurance and reimbursements for medical care are generally excluded 

from gross income for income tax purposes and from wages for employment tax purposes. 

Active employees participating in a cafeteria plan may pay their employee share of premiums 

and other medical care expenses on the same pre-tax basis. 

Premiums for health insurance (or an arrangement having the effect of health insurance) paid by 

self-employed individuals who are not eligible for subsidized employer coverage are deductible 

in computing AGI. 

In addition, individuals are allowed to accumulate funds in a health savings account (HSA) or in 

more limited circumstances in a medical savings account (Archer MSA) on a tax-preferred basis 

to pay for medical expenses, provided they are covered by a high-deductible health plan (and no 

other health plan). Employer contributions to HSAs and MSAs are excluded from employee 

income for income and employment tax purposes. Individual contributions to HSAs and MSAs 

are deductible in computing the individual’s AGI. Earnings on the account accumulate tax-free 

and medical withdrawals are not taxable. Nonmedical withdrawals are subject to an additional 

tax if made before age 65 and are includable in income regardless of age. Contributions are 

limited depending upon the amount of the health insurance deductible (within limits), certain 

caps, the type of coverage (single or other) and whether the account is an HSA or MSA. 

Reimbursements made to an individual from accident or health insurance (or an arrangement 

having the effect of accident or health insurance) for injuries or sickness are excluded from gross 

income. 

Finally, under the Trade Adjustment Assistance Reform Act of 2002, a refundable Health 

Coverage Tax Credit (HCTC) is provided to eligible individuals for the cost of qualified health 

coverage. The credit is equal to 65 percent of the amount paid by certain individuals receiving 

(or eligible to receive) a trade readjustment allowance or by certain individuals between the ages 

of 55 and 64 who are receiving pension benefits from the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation. 

Reasons for Change 

According to some estimates, 45 million Americans are currently without health insurance 

coverage. Assistance to low income individuals and families can provide an incentive to 

19 
purchase health insurance. The assistance should not discourage individuals from entering the 

labor force or from earning additional income. The assistance also needs to be made available in 

advance and with certainty, so that uninsured individuals receive financial assistance at the same 

time they purchase health insurance. A health tax credit made available in advance for 

individuals who are not covered by public or employer-provided health plans will provide this 

assistance. In addition, allowing the credit to be applied to health insurance purchased through 

private and state purchasing groups and at state option to certain state insurance programs will 

enhance the tax credit’s purchasing power and improve coverage options. 

Proposal 

The proposal would create a refundable income tax credit (Health Insurance Tax Credit -HITC) 

for the cost of health insurance purchased by individuals under age 65. The credit would provide 

a subsidy of up to 90 percent of the health insurance premium, up to a maximum credit of $1,000 

per adult and $500 per child for up to two children. The maximum subsidy percentage of 90 

percent would apply for low-income taxpayers and would be phased down at higher incomes. 

Individuals participating in public or employer-provided health plans would generally not be 

eligible for the tax credit. Individuals would not be allowed to claim the HITC for the same 

period as receiving the Health Coverage Tax Credit (HCTC). In addition, individuals would not 

be allowed to claim the HITC for the same period as they claim any above-the line deduction for 

their premiums. 

If the health insurance purchased qualifies as a high deductible health plan for HSA purposes, at 

the individual’s option, 30 percent of the credit could be contributed to a special HSA (or in a 

special account within an individual’s HSA). The rules currently applicable to HSAs would 

apply to the special HSA (or separate account), except that withdrawals that exceed qualified 

medical expenses would subject the HSA owner to a tax equal to 100 percent of the amount of 

the withdrawal. The 30 percent credit would be counted toward the HSA contribution limit. 

Individuals with no dependents who file a single return and have modified AGI up to $15,000 

would be eligible for the maximum subsidy rate of 90 percent and a maximum tax credit of 

$1,000. The subsidy percentage for these individuals would be phased down ratably from 90 

percent to 50 percent between $15,000 and $20,000 of modified AGI, and then phased out 

completely at $30,000 of modified AGI. 

All other filers with modified AGI up to $25,000 would be eligible for the maximum subsidy 

rate of 90 percent, and the maximum credit of $1,000 per adult and $500 per child for up to two 

children. The subsidy percentage would be phased out ratably between $25,000 and $40,000 of 

modified AGI in the case of a policy covering only one adult, and between $25,000 and $60,000 

of modified AGI in the case of a policy or policies covering more than one adult. The maximum 

credit for these other filers would vary by income and the number of adults and children covered 

by a policy. For example, the maximum tax credit would equal $3,000 for families with 

modified AGI up to $25,000 who obtain a policy covering two adults and two or more children. 

The maximum allowable premium for credit purposes would be $1,111 for an adult and $556 for 

a child at all income levels. These dollar amounts would be indexed by the medical care 

component of the Consumer Price Index based on all urban consumers. 

20 
Examples of the maximum credit: 

(1) Individuals with No Dependents Filing a Single Return 

Modified AGI $15,000 $20,000 $30,000 

Maximum Credit $1,000 $556 $0 

(2) Other Filers Obtaining a Policy Covering Only One Adult 

Modified AGI $25,000 $30,000 $40,000 

Maximum Credit $1,000 $667 $0 

(3) Other Filers Obtaining a Policy Covering Two Adults 

Modified AGI $25,000 $40,000 $60,000 

Maximum Credit $2,000 $1,143 $0 

(4) Other Filers Obtaining a Policy Covering Two Adults and One Child 

Modified AGI $25,000 $40,000 $60,000 

Maximum Credit $2,500 $1,429 $0 

(5) Other Filers Obtaining a Policy Covering Two Adults and Two or More Children 

Modified AGI $25,000 $40,000 $60,000 

Maximum Credit $3,000 $1,714 $0 

Individuals could claim the tax credit for health insurance premiums paid as part of the normal 

tax-filing process. Alternatively, the tax credit would be available in advance at the time the 

insurance is purchased. Individuals would reduce their premium payment by the amount of the 

credit and the health insurer would be reimbursed by the Department of the Treasury for the 

amount of the advance credit. Eligibility for the advance credit would be based on the 

individual’s prior year tax return. 

21
--

Eligible health insurance plans would be required to meet minimum coverage standards, 

including coverage for high medical expenses. In addition to the non-group insurance market, 

qualifying health insurance could also be purchased through private purchasing groups, statesponsored insurance purchasing pools and state high-risk pools. Elsewhere in the budget, the 

Administration proposes providing $4 billion in federal grants to states to set up purchasing 

pools. These pools would combine purchasing power across individuals and make it easier and 

faster to shop for coverage. 

Also, at state option, effective after December 31, 2006, the tax credit would be allowed for 

certain individuals not otherwise eligible for public health insurance programs to buy into 

privately contracted state sponsored purchasing groups (such as Medicaid or SCHIP purchasing 

pools for private insurance or state government employee programs for states in which Medicaid 

or SCHIP does not contract with private plans.) States could, under limited circumstances, 

provide additional contributions to individuals who purchased private insurance through such 

purchasing groups. The maximum state contribution would be $2,000 per adult for up to two 

adults for individuals with incomes up to 133 percent of poverty. The maximum state 

contribution would phase down ratably reaching $500 per adult at 200 percent of poverty. 

Individuals with income above 200 percent of poverty would not be eligible for a state 

contribution. States would not be allowed to provide any other explicit or implicit cross 

subsidies. 

The health insurance tax credit would be effective for taxable years beginning after December 

31, 2005 and would be available in advance beginning July 1, 2007. 

Revenue Estimate5 

Fiscal Years 

2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2006-2010 2006-2015

($ in millions) 

-97 -5,095 -7,057 -7,899 -8,276 -28,424 -73,975 

5 The estimate includes both receipt and outlay effects. The outlay effect is $64,078 million for 2006-2015. 

22 
PROVIDE AN ABOVE-THE-LINE DEDUCTION FOR HIGH-DEDUCTIBLE 

INSURANCE PREMIUMS 

Current Law 

Under present law, individuals who purchase their own health insurance may claim an itemized 

deduction for the premiums only to the extent that the premiums, when combined with other 

unreimbursed medical care expenses, exceed 7.5 percent of AGI. Other medical care expenses 

include expenses of the taxpayer, a spouse, or a dependent for medical care, qualified long-term 

care services, and premiums for qualified long-term care insurance (subject to a dollar limit). 

Employer-provided health insurance and reimbursements for medical care are generally excluded 

from gross income for income tax purposes and from wages for employment tax purposes. 

Active employees participating in a cafeteria plan may pay their employee share of premiums 

and other medical care expenses on the same pre-tax basis. 

Premiums for health insurance (or an arrangement having the effect of health insurance) paid by 

self-employed individuals who are not eligible for subsidized employer coverage are deductible 

in computing AGI. 

Under the Trade Adjustment Assistance Reform Act of 2002, a refundable Health Coverage Tax 

Credit (HCTC) is provided to eligible individuals for the cost of qualified health coverage. 

In addition, individuals are allowed to accumulate funds in a health savings account (HSA) or in 

more limited circumstances in a medical savings account (Archer MSA) on a tax-preferred basis 

to pay for medical expenses, provided they are covered by a high-deductible health plan (and no 

other health plan except for certain permitted or disregarded coverage). Individuals who 

participate in Medicare or are eligible to be claimed as a dependent on someone else’s return 

may not contribute to an HSA or an MSA. Employer contributions to HSAs and MSAs are 

excluded from employee income for income and employment tax purposes. Individual 

contributions to HSAs and MSAs are deductible in computing the individual’s AGI. Earnings on 

the account accumulate tax-free and medical withdrawals for the taxpayer, a spouse or a 

dependent are not taxable. Nonmedical withdrawals are subject to an additional tax if made 

before age 65 and are includable in income regardless of age. Contributions are limited 

depending upon the amount of the health insurance deductible (within limits), certain caps, the 

type of coverage (single or other) and whether the account is an HSA or MSA. In addition, the 

definition of a qualified high deductible health plan differs for an HSA from an MSA. For 

example, in 2005 the health insurance deductible in an HSA can be as low as $1,000 for single 

coverage ($2,000 family) compared to $1,750 for single coverage ($3,500 family) in an MSA. 

Reimbursements made to an individual from accident or health insurance (or an arrangement 

having the effect of accident or health insurance) for injuries or sickness are excluded from gross 

income. 

23
--

Reasons for Change 

Allowing all individuals to deduct the cost of high deductible health plans will encourage the use 

of those plans. Providing a deduction for the premium "above-the-line" will generally level the 

playing field for a segment of the population that does not have employer-sponsored coverage 

and encourage cost consciousness in the purchase of health care through greater reliance on high 

deductible health plans. 

Proposal 

Individuals who contribute to an HSA because they are covered under high deductible health 

plans in the individual insurance market would be allowed a deduction in the amount of the 

premium in determining AGI (i.e., whether or not the person itemizes deductions). Similar to 

HSA rules, an individual would not qualify for the deduction if, in addition to the high deductible 

plan for which the deduction is claimed, he or she is covered by other health insurance, except 

for health insurance that provides only certain benefits. Individuals claiming the Health 

Insurance Tax Credit (HITC) or Health Coverage Tax Credit (HCTC) or covered by employer 

plans or public plans or otherwise not eligible to contribute to an HSA would not qualify for the 

deduction. Premiums deducted by self-employed individuals could not also be deducted as high 

deductible health plans. 

The deduction would be available for tax years beginning after December 31, 2005. 

Revenue Estimate 

Fiscal Years 

2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2006-2010 2006-2015

($ in millions) 

-200 -2,029 -2,316 -2,636 -2,876 -10,057 -28,495 

24
PROVIDE A REFUNDABLE TAX CREDIT FOR CONTRIBUTIONS OF SMALL 

EMPLOYERS TO EMPLOYEE HSAs 

Current Law 

Under present law, individuals who purchase their own health insurance may claim an itemized 

deduction for the premiums only to the extent that the premiums, when combined with other 

unreimbursed medical care expenses, exceed 7.5 percent of AGI. Other medical care expenses 

include expenses of the taxpayer, a spouse, or a dependent for medical care, qualified long-term 

care services, and premiums for qualified long-term care insurance (subject to a dollar limit). 

Employer-provided health insurance and reimbursements for medical care are generally excluded 

from gross income for income tax purposes and from wages for employment tax purposes. 

Active employees participating in a cafeteria plan may pay their employee share of premiums 

and other medical care expenses on the same pre-tax basis. 

Premiums for health insurance (or an arrangement having the effect of health insurance) paid by 

self-employed individuals who are not eligible for subsidized employer coverage are deductible 

in computing AGI. 

Under the Trade Adjustment Assistance Reform Act of 2002, a refundable Health Coverage Tax 

Credit (HCTC) is provided to eligible individuals for the cost of qualified health coverage. The 

credit is equal to 65 percent of the amount paid by certain individuals receiving (or eligible to 

receive) a trade readjustment allowance or by certain individuals between the ages of 55 and 64 

who are receiving pension benefits from the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation. 

In addition, individuals are allowed to accumulate funds in a health savings account (HSA) or in 

more limited circumstances in a medical savings account (Archer MSA) on a tax-preferred basis 

to pay for medical expenses, provided they are covered by a high-deductible health plan (and no 

other health plan). In particular, employer contributions to HSAs and MSAs are deductible from 

employer income and are excluded from employee income for income and employment tax 

purposes. Individual contributions to HSAs and MSAs are deductible in computing the 

individual’s AGI. Earnings on the accounts accumulate tax-free and medical withdrawals are not 

taxable. Nonmedical withdrawals are subject to an additional tax if made before age 65 and are 

includable in income regardless of age. Contributions are limited depending upon the amount of 

the health insurance deductible (within limits), certain caps, the type of coverage (single or 

other), and whether the account is an HSA or MSA. 

Reimbursements made to an individual from accident or health insurance (or an arrangement 

having the effect of accident or health insurance) for injuries or sickness are excluded from gross 

income. 

Reasons for Change 

According to recent estimates, more than 9 million American workers in firms of fewer than 100 

employees are currently without health coverage, most of whom are full-time employees. 

Providing an incentive for sponsoring high-deductible coverage along with HSA accounts would 

25 
--

encourage employers to offer coverage and contribute toward the health care of their employees. 

In addition, high-deductible plans may encourage cost consciousness more than generous first 

dollar coverage plans. 

Proposal 

The proposal would create a subsidy in the form of a refundable credit to small 

nongovernmental, for-profit employers for employer contributions made to an HSA account. A 

small employer would be defined as an employer that normally employs fewer than 100 

employees on a typical business day. Reimbursements of up to $200 for employer contributions 

to an HSA for single coverage and $500 for family coverage would be available under this 

program. In order to receive the credit, the employer would be required to maintain a highdeductible health plan (as defined for purposes of the HSA) accessible to all employees, but the 

employer would not be required to make contributions toward employees’ premiums under that 

plan. The tax credit would not be included in income and would not be subject to general 

business tax credit rules. The employer would not be entitled to a deduction for the amount 

reimbursed by the credit. The credit would not be available for carry back or carry forward. 

The amount of the employer contribution to the HSA for which a credit is claimed would be 

maintained in a special HSA (or in a special account within the employee’s HSA). The rules 

currently applicable to HSAs would apply to the special HSA (or separate account), except that 

withdrawals that exceed qualified medical expenses would subject the HSA owner to a tax equal 

to 100 percent of the amount of the withdrawal. Sole proprietors, partners and S-corporation 

shareholders would be eligible for the credit to the extent their business is a small employer 

(which provides the same HSA contribution to all employees who have the same type of 

coverage) or has no employees. However, self-employed individuals would not be entitled to 

any deductions for the amount reimbursed by the credit. The credit will be pro-rated if eligible 

coverage is held for less than 12 months. 

The HSA tax credit would be effective for taxable years beginning after December 31, 2005. 

Revenue Estimate6 

Fiscal Years 

2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2006-2010 2006-2015

($ in millions) 

-79 -391 -1,071 -1,937 -2,614 -6,092 -22,690 

6

 The estimate includes both receipt and outlay effects. The outlay effect is $4,930 million for 2006-2015. 

26 
IMPROVE THE HEALTH COVERAGE TAX CREDIT 

Current Law 

The Health Coverage Tax Credit (HCTC) was created under the Trade Adjustment Assistance 

(TAA) Reform Act of 2002 for the purchase of qualified health insurance for eligible individuals 

and for their family members. The HCTC is refundable and equal to 65 percent of the cost of 

qualified health insurance paid by eligible individuals, including certain recipients of the TAA or 

Alternative TAA (ATAA) benefits and certain individuals between the ages of 55 and 64 who 

are receiving pension benefits from the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation (PBGC). 

Individuals can claim the HCTC as part of the tax-filing process or through an advance payment 

program at the time qualified insurance is purchased. The HCTC is not available (either for the 

eligible individual or the eligible individual’s family) once the eligible individual becomes 

entitled to Medicare coverage. 

Since 1997, the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) has provided 

protections for individuals who have 12 months of creditable coverage (generally prior 

continuous health coverage without a gap lasting 63 days or longer). To be a qualified statebased HCTC plan, however, a plan must provide similar protections for HCTC-eligible 

individuals who have only 3 months of creditable coverage. 

Reasons for Change 

Making the requirements for qualified state-based coverage under the HCTC more consistent 

with the HIPAA rules encourages plans to participate in the HCTC program. Also, there are 

many cases in which the eligible individual is (or becomes) entitled to Medicare coverage but 

has a spouse who is younger. In these cases, the younger spouse is not entitled to the credit, even 

though the younger spouse would be entitled to the credit if he or she were receiving benefit 

checks from the PBGC (as a survivor or divorcee). Finally, a number of issues should be 

clarified in order to facilitate the administration of the HCTC. 

Proposal 

First, the proposal would subject state-based HCTC coverage to rules more like the HIPAA rules 

by allowing state-based coverage to impose a pre-existing condition restriction for a period of up 

to 12 months, provided the plan reduces the restriction period by the length of the eligible 

individual’s creditable coverage (as of the date they apply for the state-based coverage). This 

provision would be effective for eligible individuals applying for coverage after December 31, 

2005. Second, effective for taxable years beginning after December 31, 2005, the proposal 

would permit spouses of HCTC-eligible individuals to claim the HCTC when the HCTC-eligible 

individual becomes entitled to Medicare coverage. The spouse, however, would have to be at 

least 55 years old and meet the other HCTC eligibility requirements. Third, the proposal would 

provide the following clarifications: 

(1) Clarify that individuals who elect to receive one-time lump sum payments from the 

PBGC and certain alternative PBGC payees would be eligible for the HCTC. 

27
--

(2) For purposes of the state-based coverage rules, deem the Commonwealths of Puerto Rico 

and the Northern Mariana Islands as well as American Samoa, Guam, and the U.S. Virgin 

Islands to be states. 

(3) Clarify that providers of health insurance could include employers and administrators of 

health plans and would allow disclosure of certain information necessary to carry out the 

advance payment program to providers of health insurance or their contractors. 

(4) Clarify that state continuation coverage provided under a state law would automatically 

qualify as “qualified health insurance,” as federally mandated COBRA continuation 

coverage, without meeting the requirements relating to state-based qualified coverage. 

(5) Apply the same list of “other specified coverage” to all eligible individuals by changing 

the definition of “other specified coverage” for “eligible ATAA recipients” to conform to 

the definition applied to other eligible individuals. 

Revenue Estimate7 

Fiscal Years 

2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2006-2010 2006-2015

($ in millions) 

-3 -13 -15 -18 -19 -68 -179 

7

 The estimate includes both receipt and outlay effects. The outlay effect is $130 million for 2006-2015. 

28 
-- -- -- -- -- --

ALLOW THE ORPHAN DRUG TAX CREDIT FOR CERTAIN PRE-DESIGNATION 

EXPENSES 

Current Law 

Taxpayers may claim a 50-percent credit for expenses related to human clinical testing of drugs 

for the treatment of certain rare diseases and conditions, generally those that afflict less than 

200,000 persons in the United States (orphan drug credit). Qualifying expenses are those paid or 

incurred by the taxpayer after the date on which the drug is designated as a potential treatment 

for a rare disease or disorder by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in accordance with the 

section 526 of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act. Research expenses claimed for the 

orphan drug credit are not eligible for the credit for increasing research under section 41 of the 

Internal Revenue Code. 

Reasons for Change 

Currently, expenditures for human clinical trials are eligible for the credit only after the FDA 

designates the drug as a potential treatment for a rare disease or condition. Expenses for clinical 

trials that the taxpayer undertakes while the FDA reviews the taxpayer’s application for 

designation are ineligible. This creates an incentive to defer clinical testing for orphan drugs 

until the taxpayer receives the FDA’s approval and complexity for taxpayers by treating predesignation and post-designation clinical expenses differently. The proposal would reduce the 

incentive to defer clinical testing while the FDA reviews the taxpayer’s application for 

designation of a drug as an orphan drug and simplify the credit by treating pre-designation 

expenses and post-designation expenses equally. 

Proposal 

Taxpayers that incur expenses prior to FDA designation would be permitted to claim the orphan 

drug credit for these expenses if the drug receives FDA designation as a potential treatment for a 

rare disease or condition before the due date (including extensions) for filing the tax return for 

the year in which the FDA application was filed. 

The proposal would be effective for qualified expenses incurred after December 31, 2004. 

Revenue Estimate 

Fiscal Years 

2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2006-2010 2006-2015

($ in millions) 

-1 -3 

29
Provide Incentives for Charitable Giving 

PERMIT TAX-FREE WITHDRAWALS FROM IRAS FOR CHARITABLE 

CONTRIBUTIONS 

Current Law 

Eligible individuals may make deductible contributions to a traditional individual retirement 

arrangement (traditional IRA). Other individuals with taxable income may make nondeductible 

contributions to a traditional IRA. Earnings and pre-tax contributions in a traditional IRA are 

includible in income when withdrawn. Withdrawals made before age 591⁄2 are subject to an 

additional 10-percent excise tax, unless an exception applies. 

Individuals with adjusted gross incomes (AGI) below certain levels may make nondeductible 

contributions to a Roth IRA. Amounts withdrawn from a Roth IRA as a qualified distribution 

are not includible in income. A qualified distribution is a distribution made (1) after 5 years and 

(2) after the holder has attained age 591⁄2, died, or become disabled or is made for first-time 

homebuyer expenses of up to $10,000. Distributions from a Roth IRA that are not qualified 

distributions are includible in income to the extent the distributions are attributable to earnings, 

and are also subject to the 10-percent early withdrawal tax (unless an exception applies). 

Individuals who itemize their deductions may claim a deduction for contributions made to 

qualified charitable organizations. Total deductible contributions may not exceed 50 percent of 

the taxpayer’s AGI, and lower deductibility limits apply in the case of contributions of 

appreciated property and contributions to certain private foundations. Excess amounts may be 

carried forward and deducted in future years. In addition, the total of most categories of itemized 

deductions, including charitable contributions, is reduced by 3 percent of AGI in excess of a 

certain threshold ($145,950 for most filers in 2005). 

Reasons for Change 

Under current law, a taxpayer who wishes to donate otherwise taxable IRA assets to charity must 

first include the taxable amounts in income and then claim a deduction for charitable 

contributions. Because not all taxpayers can deduct the full amount of their charitable 

contributions, current law effectively discourages some taxpayers from contributing their IRA 

assets to charity. Allowing taxpayers to exclude from income direct transfers from IRAs to 

qualified charities will stimulate additional charitable giving by simplifying the required tax 

calculations and eliminating the current-law tax disincentives. 

Proposal 

Individuals would be allowed to exclude from gross income (and thus from AGI for all purposes 

under the Code) distributions made after age 65 from a traditional or Roth IRA directly to a 

qualified charitable organization. The exclusion would not apply to indirect gifts through a split 

interest entity such as a charitable remainder trust or pooled income fund, or through the 

purchase of a charitable gift annuity. The exclusion would be available without regard to the 

percentage of AGI limits that apply to deductible contributions. An amount transferred directly 

30 
to a charitable organization would be counted as a distribution for purposes of the required 

minimum distribution rules. The exclusion for transfers to charitable organizations would apply 

only to the extent the individual does not receive any benefit in exchange for the transfer. No 

charitable deduction would be allowed with respect to any amount that is excludable from 

income under this provision. If an amount transferred from the IRA would otherwise be 

nontaxable, such as a qualified distribution from a Roth IRA or the return of nondeductible 

contributions from a traditional IRA, the normal charitable contribution deduction rules would 

apply. 

The proposal would be effective for distributions made after the date of enactment. 

Revenue Estimate 

Fiscal Years 

2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2006-2010 2006-2015

($ in millions) 

-70 -335 -318 -318 -313 -304 -1,588 -3,095

31
EXPAND AND INCREASE THE ENHANCED CHARITABLE DEDUCTION FOR 

CONTRIBUTIONS OF FOOD INVENTORY 

Current Law 

A taxpayer’s deduction for charitable contributions of inventory property generally is limited to 

the taxpayer’s basis (typically, cost) in the inventory. However, for certain contributions of 

inventory, C corporations may claim an enhanced deduction equal to the lesser of (1) the 

taxpayer’s basis in the contributed property, plus one-half of the gain that would have been 

realized had the property been sold or (2) two times basis. To be eligible for the enhanced 

deduction, the inventory must be contributed to a charitable organization (other than a private 

nonoperating foundation), and the donee must (1) use the property consistent with the donee’s 

exempt purpose solely for the care of the ill, the needy, or infants, (2) not transfer the property in 

exchange for money, other property, or services, and (3) provide the taxpayer a written statement 

that the donee’s use of the property will be consistent with these requirements. To claim the 

enhanced deduction, the taxpayer must establish that the fair market value of the donated item 

exceeds basis. 

Reasons for Change 

The lack of incentives for businesses other than C corporations (including many farmers and 

small businesses) to donate food inventory to charity reduces the ability of charities to combat 

hunger. Increasing the amount of the enhanced deduction for contributions of food inventory, 

making it available to any taxpayer engaged in a trade or business, and clarifying the method of 

determining fair market value in the case of surplus food will increase donations of food 

inventory. 

Proposal 

Eligibility for the enhanced deduction for donations of food inventory would be expanded to 

include businesses other than C corporations. The amount of the enhanced deduction for 

donations of food inventory would be increased to the lesser of: (1) fair market value, or (2) two 

times basis. To ensure consistent treatment of all businesses claiming an enhanced deduction for 

donations of food inventory, the enhanced deduction for qualified food donations by S 

corporations and non-corporate taxpayers would be limited to 10 percent of net income from the 

associated trade or business. A special provision would allow taxpayers with a zero or low basis 

in the qualified food donation (e.g., taxpayers that use the cash method of accounting for 

purchases and sales, and taxpayers that are not required to capitalize indirect costs) to assume a 

basis equal to 25 percent of fair market value. The enhanced deduction would be available only 

for donations of “apparently wholesome food” (food intended for human consumption that 

meets all quality and labeling standards imposed by federal, state, and local laws and regulations, 

even though the food may not be readily marketable due to appearance, age, freshness, grade, 

size, surplus, or other conditions). The fair market value of “apparently wholesome food” that 

cannot or will not be sold solely due to internal standards of the taxpayer or lack of market, 

would be determined by taking into account the price at which the same or substantially the same 

food items (taking into account both type and quality) are sold by the taxpayer at the time of the 

contribution or, if not so sold at such time, in the recent past. 

32 
These proposed changes in the enhanced deduction for donations of food inventory would be 

effective for taxable years beginning after December 31, 2004. 

Revenue Estimate 

Fiscal Years 

2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2006-2010 2006-2015

($ in millions) 

-42 -87 -96 -106 -116 -127 -532 -1,388

33
REFORM EXCISE TAX BASED ON INVESTMENT INCOME OF PRIVATE 

FOUNDATIONS 

Current Law 

Private foundations that are exempt from federal income tax generally are subject to a twopercent excise tax on their net investment income. The excise tax rate is reduced to one percent 

in any year in which the foundation’s distributions for charitable purposes exceed the average 

level of the foundation’s charitable distributions over the five preceding taxable years (with 

certain adjustments). Private foundations that are not exempt from federal income tax, including 

certain charitable trusts, must pay an excise tax equal to the excess (if any) of the sum of the 

excise tax on net investment income and the amount of the unrelated business income tax that 

would have been imposed if the foundation were tax exempt, over the income tax imposed on the 

foundation. Under current law, private nonoperating foundations generally are required to make 

annual distributions for charitable purposes equal to at least five percent of the fair market value 

of the foundation’s noncharitable use assets (with certain adjustments). The amount that a 

foundation is required to distribute annually for charitable purposes is reduced by the amount of 

the excise tax paid by the foundation. 

Reasons for Change 

The current “two-tier” structure of the excise tax on private foundation net investment income 

may discourage foundations from significantly increasing their distributions for charitable 

purposes in any particular year. Under the current formula, any increase in the foundation’s 

percentage payout in a given year (by increasing the average percentage payout) makes it more 

difficult for the foundation to qualify for the reduced one percent excise tax rate in subsequent 

years. Eliminating the “two-tier” structure of this excise tax would ensure that private 

foundations do not suffer adverse excise tax consequences if they increase their grantmaking in a 

particular year to respond to charitable needs. Such a change would also simplify tax planning 

and the calculation of the excise tax for private foundations. In addition, lowering the excise tax 

rate for all foundations would make additional funds available for charitable purposes. 

Proposal 

This proposal would replace the two rates of tax on private foundations that are exempt from 

federal income tax with a single tax rate of one percent. The tax on private foundations not 

exempt from federal income tax would be equal to the excess (if any) of the sum of the onepercent excise tax on net investment income and the amount of the unrelated business income tax 

that would have been imposed if the foundation were tax exempt, over the income tax imposed 

on the foundation. The special reduced excise tax rate available to tax-exempt private 

foundations that maintain their historic level of charitable distributions would be repealed. 

The proposal would be effective for taxable years beginning after December 31, 2004. 

34
--

Revenue Estimate 

Fiscal Years 

2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2006-2010 2006-2015

($ in millions) 

-148 -98 -105 -111 -119 -581 -1,321 

35
MODIFY TAX ON UNRELATED BUSINESS TAXABLE INCOME OF CHARITABLE 

REMAINDER TRUSTS 

Current law 

A charitable remainder annuity trust is a trust that is required to pay, at least annually, a fixed 

dollar amount of at least five percent of the initial value of the trust to a noncharity for the life of 

an individual or for a period of 20 years or less, with the remainder passing to charity. A 

charitable remainder unitrust is a trust that generally is required to pay, at least annually, a fixed 

percentage of at least five percent of the fair market value of the trust’s assets determined at least 

annually to a non-charity for the life of an individual or for a period of 20 years or less, with the 

remainder passing to charity. A trust does not qualify as a charitable remainder annuity trust if 

the annuity for a year is greater than 50 percent of the initial fair market value of the trust’s 

assets. A trust does not qualify as a charitable remainder unitrust if the percentage of assets that 

are required to be distributed at least annually is greater than 50 percent. A trust does not qualify 

as a charitable remainder annuity trust or a charitable remainder unitrust unless the value of the 

remainder interest in the trust is at least 10 percent of the value of the assets contributed to the 

trust. 

Distributions from a charitable remainder trust, which are included in the income of the 

beneficiary for the year that the annuity or unitrust amount is required to be distributed, are 

treated in the following order as: (1) ordinary income to the extent of the trust’s undistributed 

ordinary income for that year and all prior years; (2) capital gains to the extent of the trust’s 

undistributed capital gain for that year and all prior years; (3) other income to the extent of the 

trust’s undistributed other income for that year and all prior years; and (4) corpus (trust 

principal). 

Charitable remainder trusts are exempt from federal income tax. However, charitable remainder 

trusts lose their income tax exemption for any year in which they have unrelated business taxable 

income. Any taxes imposed on the trust are required to be allocated to trust corpus. 

Reasons for Change 

Under current law, a charitable remainder trust that has any unrelated business taxable income 

loses its tax-exempt status for the year. The Administration believes that imposing a tax equal to 

100 percent of any unrelated business taxable income received by a charitable remainder trust is 

a more appropriate remedy than loss of tax exemption for the year. 

Proposal 

The Administration proposes to levy a 100-percent excise tax on the unrelated business taxable 

income of a charitable remainder trust, in lieu of depriving the trust of its federal income tax 

exemption for any year in which unrelated business taxable income is received. The unrelated 

business taxable income would be considered income of the trust for purposes of determining the 

character of the distribution made to the beneficiary. The amount of the tax would be allocated 

to corpus. 

36
The proposal would be effective for taxable years beginning after December 31, 2004, regardless 

of when the trust was created. 

Revenue Estimate 

Fiscal Years 

2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2006-2010 2006-2015

($ in millions) 

-6 -5 -6 -6 -6 -7 -30 -69

37
MODIFY BASIS ADJUSTMENT TO STOCK OF S CORPORATIONS CONTRIBUTING 

APPRECIATED PROPERTY 

Current Law 

If an S corporation contributes money or other property to a charity, each shareholder takes into 

account the shareholder’s pro rata share of the contribution in determining income tax liability. 

A shareholder of an S corporation reduces the basis in the stock of the S corporation by the 

amount of the charitable contribution that flows through to the shareholder. In many cases, a 

shareholder’s basis in S corporation stock reflects the basis of the contributed property, whereas 

the charitable contribution deduction reflects the value of the contributed property. As a result, 

current law prevents some S corporation shareholders from obtaining the full benefit of the 

charitable contribution deduction. 

Reasons for Change 

The proposal modifies the rules for adjusting the basis of S corporation stock to preserve the 

benefit of providing a charitable contribution deduction for contributions of appreciated property 

by an S corporation. 

Proposal 

The proposal would allow an S corporation shareholder to increase the basis of the S corporation 

stock by an amount equal to the excess of the charitable contribution deduction that flows 

through to the shareholder over the shareholder’s pro rata share of the adjusted basis of the 

contributed property. 

The proposal would be effective for taxable years beginning after December 31, 2004. 

Revenue Estimate 

Fiscal Years 

2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2006-2010 2006-2015

($ in millions) 

-4 -20 -21 -25 -28 -32 -126 -354

38
REPEAL THE $150 MILLION LIMITATION ON QUALIFIED 501(C)(3) BONDS 

Current Law 

The Tax Reform Act of 1986 established a $150 million limit on the volume of outstanding, nonhospital, tax-exempt bonds for the benefit of any one 501(c)(3) organization. The provision was 

repealed in 1997 with respect to bonds issued after August 5, 1997, at least 95 percent of the net 

proceeds of which are used to finance capital expenditures incurred after that date. Thus, the 

limitation continues to apply to bonds more than five percent of the net proceeds of which 

finance or refinance (1) working capital expenditures or (2) capital expenditures incurred on or 

before August 5, 1997. 

Reasons for Change 

The $150 million limitation results in complexity and provides disparate treatment depending on 

the nature and timing of bond-financed expenditures. Issuers must determine whether an issue 

consists of non-hospital bonds, and must calculate the amount of non-hospital bonds that are 

allocable to a particular tax-exempt organization. In addition, issuers must determine whether 

more than five percent of the net proceeds of each issue of non-hospital bonds finances working 

capital expenditures, or capital expenditures incurred on or before August 5, 1997, in order to 

determine whether the issue is subject to the limitation. Complete repeal of the limitation would 

enable private universities to utilize tax-exempt financing on a basis comparable to public 

universities. 

Proposal 

The $150 million limit on the volume of outstanding, non-hospital, tax-exempt bonds for the 

benefit of any one 501(c)(3) organization would be repealed in its entirety, effective for bonds 

issued after the date of enactment. 

Revenue Estimate 

Fiscal Years 

2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2006-2010 2006-2015

($ in millions) 

-3 -6 -10 -11 -10 -10 -47 -92

39
REPEAL CERTAIN RESTRICTIONS ON THE USE OF QUALIFIED 501(C)(3) BONDS 

FOR RESIDENTIAL RENTAL PROPERTY 

Current Law 

Interest on state or local bonds is generally excluded from gross income. However, this 

exclusion does not apply to private activity bonds unless a specific exemption is provided in the 

Code. 

One type of tax-exempt private activity bond is a qualified 501(c)(3) bond. In general, an issue 

consists of qualified 501(c)(3) bonds if, among other things, at least 95 percent of its net 

proceeds are used by no person other than a 501(c)(3) organization or a state or local 

governmental unit. For this purpose, any activity of a 501(c)(3) organization that constitutes an 

unrelated trade or business is a non-qualifying use. 

Current law contains a special limitation (the residential rental property limitation) under which, 

in general, an issue does not consist of qualified 501(c)(3) bonds if any of its net proceeds are 

used to provide residential rental property for family units. However, this limitation does not 

apply if: (1) the first use of the financed property is pursuant to the issue; (2) the property meets 

the low-income set-aside requirements described below for qualified residential rental projects 

under the exempt facility bond rules; or (3) the property is substantially rehabilitated (i.e., in 

general, rehabilitation expenditures must equal or exceed the owner’s adjusted basis in the 

property) during the two-year period ending one year after the acquisition. 

In addition to qualified 501(c)(3) bonds, current law authorizes the issuance of tax-exempt 

private activity bonds for certain exempt facilities that are owned or operated by private, forprofit entities. One type of exempt facility is a qualified residential rental project. A qualified 

residential rental project is a project for residential rental property if, at all times during a 

specified project period, the project meets one of the following requirements elected by the 

issuer: (1) at least 20 percent of the residential units are occupied by individuals whose income 

is 50 percent or less of area median gross income; or (2) at least 40 percent of the residential 

units are occupied by individuals whose income is 60 percent or less of area median gross 

income. 

Reasons for Change 

The residential rental property limitation results in complexity, and provides disparate treatment 

for new and existing property used by 501(c)(3) organizations. In applying the residential rental 

property limitation, issuers must first determine whether existing property is residential rental 

property. For example, an assisted living facility may or may not constitute residential rental 

property, depending in part on the amount of nursing services provided. Issuers must also 

determine whether existing property satisfies the low-income set-aside or rehabilitation 

requirements. Failure to meet the requirements could result in a loss of tax-exemption on the 

bonds, retroactive to the date of issue. Simplification would be achieved if the residential rental 

property limitation were repealed. 

40
--

Proposal 

The residential rental property limitation would be repealed, effective for bonds issued after the 

date of enactment. As under current law, the use of residential rental property by a 501(c)(3) 

organization would be a qualifying use only to the extent it did not constitute an unrelated trade 

or business. 

Revenue Estimate 

Fiscal Years 

2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2006-2010 2006-2015

($ in millions) 

-2 -5 -9 -16 -24 -56 -278 

41
Strengthen Education 

EXTEND, INCREASE, AND EXPAND THE ABOVE-THE-LINE DEDUCTION FOR 

QUALIFIED OUT-OF-POCKET CLASSROOM EXPENSES 

Current Law 

Individual taxpayers who itemize their deductions may claim a deduction for unreimbursed, jobrelated expenses to the extent those expenses and other miscellaneous deductions exceed 2 

percent of adjusted gross income. Such deductions may not be allowed for purposes of the 

alternative minimum tax. 

For taxable years 2002, 2003, 2004 or 2005, taxpayers who are K-12 teachers and certain other 

school personnel in a school for at least 900 hours during a school year may deduct, whether or 

not they itemize, up to $250 paid or incurred in connection with books, supplies, computer 

equipment and other equipment and supplemental materials used in the classroom. 

Reasons for Change 

Teachers and other school personnel often incur expenses related to classroom activities or for 

professional training that are not reimbursed. These expenditures enhance the quality of 

education received by students but diminish a teacher's properly-measured ability to pay taxes. 

Allowing school personnel to deduct such expenditures on their federal income tax return 

encourages dedicated personnel who supplement available school resources at their own 

expense. 

Proposal 

The current-law provision would be made permanent and the maximum deduction increased to 

$400. As under current law, the provision would apply to teachers and other school personnel 

employed by public entities, charter schools or private schools (as determined under state law). 

The current-law 900-hour rule would be clarified to refer to a school year ending during the 

taxable year. Eligible, unreimbursed expenses would be expanded to include teacher training 

expenses related to current teaching positions. Neither travel nor lodging expenses nor 

expenditures related to religious instruction or activities would be eligible. Expenses claimed as 

an above-the-line deduction could not be claimed as an itemized deduction or taken into account 

in determining any other tax benefit such as Hope or lifetime learning credits. Taxpayers would 

be required to retain receipts for eligible expenditures along with a certification from a principal 

or other school official that the expenditures qualified. 

The proposal would be effective for expenses incurred in taxable years beginning after 

December 31, 2005. 

42
--

Revenue Estimate 

Fiscal Years 

2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2006-2010 2006-2015

($ in millions) 

-27 -267 -279 -282 -285 -1,140 -2,630 

43
--

Encourage Telecommuting 

EXCLUDE FROM INCOME THE VALUE OF EMPLOYER-PROVIDED 

COMPUTERS, SOFTWARE AND PERIPHERALS 

Current Law 

The value of computers, software and other office equipment provided by an employer to an 

employee for use at the employee’s home is generally excludable from income to the extent that 

the employee uses the equipment to perform work for the employer, and includible in income to 

the extent that the employee uses the equipment for personal purposes or to carry on a trade or 

business other than working as an employee of the employer. 

Reasons for Change 

Current law imposes significant recordkeeping requirements on employers and their workers 

who use employer-provided computer equipment and services to telecommute. These 

requirements encourage noncompliance and raise the cost of telecommuting. Removing these 

requirements would lower the costs of telecommuting, benefiting workers, their families and the 

environment. 

Proposal 

An individual would be allowed to exclude from income the value of any computers, software or 

other office equipment provided by such individual’s employer if the equipment is necessary for 

the individual to perform work for the employer at home.8 The employee would be required to 

make substantial business use of the equipment to perform work for the employer. Substantial 

business use would include standby use for periods when work from home may be required by 

the employer, such as during work closures caused by the treat of terrorism, inclement weather, 

or natural disasters. The exclusion would apply to all use of such equipment, including use by the 

employee for personal purposes or to carry on a trade or business other than working as an 

employee of the employer. 

The proposal would be effective for taxable years beginning after December 31, 2005. 

Revenue Estimate 

Fiscal Years 

2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2006-2010 2006-2015

($ in millions) 

-29 -50 -50 -55 -65 -249 -767 

8 If the employer provided the employee with use of equipment after the end of the equipment’s depreciable life, the 

value of such use to the employee would be deemed to be zero. 

44 
Provide Assistance to Distressed Areas 

ESTABLISH OPPORTUNITY ZONES 

Current Law 

The Internal Revenue Code contains various incentives to encourage the development of 

economically distressed areas, including incentives for businesses located in empowerment 

zones, enterprise communities and renewal communities, the new markets tax credit, the work 

opportunity tax credit and the welfare-to-work tax credit. 

Empowerment Zones 

There are currently 40 empowerment zones—30 in urban areas and 10 in rural areas—that have 

been designated through a competitive application process. State and local governments 

nominated distressed geographic areas, which were selected on the strength of their strategic 

plans for economic and social revitalization. The urban areas were designated by the Secretary 

of the Department of Housing and Urban Development. The rural areas were designated by the 

Secretary of the Department of Agriculture. Designations of empowerment zones will remain in 

effect until December 31, 2009. 

Incentives for businesses in empowerment zones include (1) a 20-percent wage credit for 

qualifying wages, (2) additional expensing for qualified zone property, (3) tax-exempt financing 

for certain qualifying zone facilities, (4) deferral of capital gains on sales and reinvestment in 

empowerment zone assets, and (5) exclusion of 60 percent (rather than 50 percent) of the gain on 

the sale of qualified small business stock held more than 5 years. 

The wage credit provides a 20 percent subsidy on the first $15,000 of annual wages paid to 

residents of empowerment zones by businesses located in these communities, if substantially all 

of the employee’s services are performed within the zone. The credit is not available for wages 

taken into account in determining the work opportunity tax credit. 

Enterprise zone businesses are allowed to expense the cost of certain qualified zone property 

(which, among other requirements, must be used in the active conduct of a qualified business in 

an empowerment zone) up to an additional $35,000 above the amounts generally available under 

section 179.9 In addition, only 50 percent of the cost of such qualified zone property counts 

toward the limitation under which section 179 deductions are reduced to the extent the cost of 

section 179 property exceeds a specified amount. 

Qualified enterprise zone businesses are eligible to apply for tax-exempt financing 

(empowerment zone facility bonds) for qualified zone property. These empowerment zone 

facility bonds do not count against state private activity bond limits, instead a limit is placed 

upon each zone, depending on population and whether the zone is in an urban or rural area. 

9

 Section 179 provides that, in place of depreciation, certain taxpayers, typically small businesses, may elect to 

deduct up to $100,000 of the cost of section 179 property placed in service each year. In general, section 179 

property is defined as depreciable tangible personal property that is purchased for use in the active conduct of a trade 

or business. 

45 
Enterprise Communities 

Current law authorized the designation of 95 enterprise communities, 65 in urban areas and 30 in 

rural areas. Qualified businesses in these communities were entitled to similar favorable taxexempt financing benefits as those in empowerment zones. Designations of enterprise 

communities were made in 1994 and remained in effect through 2004. Many enterprise 

communities have since been re-designated as part of an empowerment zone or a renewal 

community. 

Renewal Communities 

The Community Renewal Tax Relief Act of 2000 authorized 40 renewal communities, at least 12 

of which must be in rural areas. Forty renewal communities have been chosen through a 

competitive application process similar to that used for empowerment zones. The 40 

communities were designated by the Department of Housing and Urban Development in 2002 

and that designation continues through 2009. 

Renewal community tax benefits include: (1) a 15-percent wage credit for qualifying wages; (2) 

additional section 179 expensing for qualified renewal property; (3) a commercial revitalization 

deduction; and (4) an exclusion for capital gains on qualified community assets held more than 

five years. 

The wage credit and increased section 179 expensing operate in a similar fashion as in 

empowerment zones. The primary difference is that the wage credit is smaller, equal to 15 

percent for the first $10,000 of wages. 

The commercial revitalization deduction applies to certain nonresidential real property or other 

property functionally related to nonresidential real property. A taxpayer may elect to either: (1) 

deduct one-half of any qualified revitalization expenditures that would otherwise be capitalized 

for any qualified revitalization building in the tax year the building is placed in service; or (2) 

amortize all such expenditures ratably over a 120-month period beginning with the month the 

building is placed in service. A qualified revitalization building is any nonresidential building 

and its structural components placed in service by the taxpayer in a renewal community. If the 

building is new, the original use of the building must begin with the taxpayer. If the building is 

not new, the taxpayer must substantially rehabilitate the building and then place it in service. 

The total amount of qualified revitalization expenditures for any building cannot be more than 

the smaller of $10 million or the amount allocated to the building by the commercial 

revitalization agency for the state in which the building is located. A $12 million cap on allowed 

commercial revitalization expenditures is placed on each renewal community annually. 

New Markets Tax Credit 

The new markets tax credit provides a tax credit to investors who make “qualified equity 

investments” in privately-managed investment vehicles called “community development 

entities,” or “CDEs.” The CDEs must apply for and receive an allocation of tax credit authority 

from the Treasury Department and must use substantially all of the proceeds of the qualified 

46 
equity investments to make qualified low-income community investments. One type of qualified 

low-income community investment is an investment in a qualified active low-income community 

business. In general, a “qualified active low-income community business” is any corporation 

(including a nonprofit corporation), partnership or proprietorship that meets the following 

requirements: 

(1) At least 50 percent of the gross income of the business is derived from the active 

conduct of a qualified business within a low-income community (as defined in section 45D(e)). 

For this purpose, a “qualified business” generally does not include (1) the rental of real property 

other than substantially improved nonresidential property; (2) the development or holding of 

intangibles for sale or license; (3) the operation of a private or commercial golf course, country 

club, massage parlor, hot tub facility, suntan facility, racetrack or other facility used for 

gambling, or a liquor store; or (4) farming if the value of the taxpayer’s assets used in the 

business exceeds $500,000. 

(2) At least 40 percent of the use of the tangible property of the business is within a lowincome community. 

(3) At least 40 percent of the services performed for the business by its employees are 

performed in a low-income community. 

(4) Collectibles (other than collectibles held primarily for sale to customers in the 

ordinary course of business) constitute less than five percent of the assets of the business. 

(5) Nonqualified financial property (which includes debt instruments with a term in 

excess of 18 months) comprises less than five percent of the assets of the business. 

A portion of a business may be tested separately for qualification as a qualified active lowincome community business. 

Work Opportunity and Welfare-to-Work Tax Credits 

As described under the proposal, “EXTEND AND MODIFY WORK OPPORTUNITY TAX 

CREDIT AND WELFARE-TO-WORK TAX CREDIT,” on pages 140 to 141, employers may 

be entitled to a work opportunity tax credit or a welfare-to-work tax credit for certain wages paid 

to eligible employees. 

Reasons for Change 

A number of America’s neighborhoods have lost a significant portion of their economic base as a 

result of our changing economy, for example, due to loss of manufacturing or textile 

employment, and are now in the process of transitioning to a more diverse, broad-based, 21st 

century economy. Opportunity zones would ease that transition by targeting federal resources 

and encouraging new and existing businesses to invest in these areas. 

47
Proposal 

Forty opportunity zones—28 urban and 12 rural—would be created. The zone designation and 

corresponding incentives for these 40 zones would be in effect from January 1, 2006, to 

December 31, 2015. As described below, the tax incentives applicable to opportunity zones 

would include: (1) an exclusion of 25 percent of taxable income for opportunity zone businesses 

with average annual gross receipts of $5 million or less; (2) additional section 179 expensing for 

opportunity zone businesses; (3) a commercial revitalization deduction; and (4) a wage credit for 

businesses that employ opportunity zone residents within the zone. 

Selection of Opportunity Zones 

The Secretary of Commerce would select opportunity zones through a competitive process. A 

county, city or other general purpose political subdivision of a state (a “local government”) 

would be eligible to nominate an area for opportunity zone status if the local government was 

designated by the Secretary of Commerce as a “Community in Transition.” Two or more 

contiguous local governments designated as Communities in Transition could submit a joint 

application. 

A local government could be designated as a Community in Transition if has experienced the 

following: (1) a loss of at least three percent of its manufacturing establishments from 1993 to 

2003 (urban areas must have had at least 100 manufacturing establishments in 1993); (2) a loss 

of at least three percent of its retail establishments from 1993 to 2003; and (3) a loss of at least 

20 percent of its manufacturing jobs from 1993 to 2003. 

Local governments not making the original Community in Transition list could appeal to the 

Secretary of Commerce. Other factors demonstrating a loss of economic base within the local 

government could be considered in the appeal. 

Applicants for opportunity zone status would have to develop and submit a “Community 

Transition Plan” and a “Statement of Economic Transition.” The Community Transition Plan 

would have to set concrete, measurable goals for reducing local regulatory and tax barriers to 

construction, residential development and business creation. Communities that have already 

worked to address these issues would receive credit for recent improvements. The Statement of 

Economic Transition would have to demonstrate that the local community’s economic base is in 

transition, as indicated by a declining job base and labor force, and other measures, during the 

past decade. 

In evaluating applications, the Secretary of Commerce could consider other factors, including: 

(1) changes in unemployment rates, poverty rates, household income, homeownership and labor 

force participation; (2) the educational attainment and average age of the population; and (3) for 

urban areas, the number of mass layoffs occurring in the area’s vicinity over the previous decade. 

The majority of a nominated area would have to be located within the boundary of one or more 

local governments designated as a Community in Transition. A nominated area would have to 

have a continuous boundary (that is, an area must be a single area; it cannot be comprised of two 

48
or more separate areas) and could not exceed 20 square miles if an urban area or 1,000 square 

miles if a rural area. 

A nominated urban area would have to include a portion of at least one local government 

jurisdiction with a population of at least 50,000. The population of a nominated urban area could 

not exceed the lesser of: (1) 200,000; or (2) the greater of 50,000 or ten percent of the 

population of the most populous city in the nominated area. A nominated rural area would have 

to have a population of at least 1,000 and no more than 30,000. 

“Rural area” would be defined as any area that is (1) outside of a metropolitan statistical area 

(within the meaning of section 143(k)(2)(B)) or (2) determined by the Secretary of Commerce, 

after consultation with the Secretary of Agriculture, to be a rural area. “Urban area” would be 

defined as any area that is not a rural area. 

Empowerment zones and renewal communities would be eligible to apply for opportunity zone 

status, but would be required to relinquish their current status and benefits once selected. 

Opportunity zone benefits for converted empowerment zones and renewal communities would 

expire on December 31, 2009. The selection of empowerment zones or renewal communities to 

convert to opportunity zones would be based on the same criteria that apply to other 

communities, but would not count against the limitation of 40 new opportunity zones. 

Enterprise communities would also be eligible to apply for opportunity zone status. Aside from 

automatically being eligible to apply, enterprise communities would be treated as other areas that 

do not belong to either an empowerment zone or a renewal community once selected: benefits 

would be in effect for 10 years and the selection of an enterprise community as an opportunity 

zone would count against the limit of 40 new opportunity zones. 

Reporting requirements identifying construction, residential development, job creation, and other 

positive economic results would apply to opportunity zones. 

Tax Incentives Applicable to Opportunity Zones 

Exclusion of 25 percent of taxable income for certain opportunity zone businesses. A business 

would be allowed to exclude 25 percent of its taxable income if (1) it qualified as an 

“opportunity zone business” and (2) it satisfied a $5 million gross receipts test. 

The definition of an opportunity zone business would be based on the definition of a “qualified 

active low-income community business” for purposes of the new markets tax credit, treating 

opportunity zones as low-income communities. However, a nonprofit corporation would not 

qualify for treatment as an opportunity zone business. In addition, a portion of a business could 

not be tested separately for qualification as an opportunity zone business. 

The $5 million gross receipts test would be satisfied if the average annual gross receipts of the 

business for the three-taxable-year period ending with the prior taxable year did not exceed $5 

million. Rules similar to the rules of section 448(c) would apply. 

49
--

Additional section 179 expensing. An opportunity zone business would be allowed to expense 

the cost of section 179 property that is qualified zone property, up to an additional $100,000 

above the amounts generally available under section 179. In addition, only 50 percent of the cost 

of such qualified zone property would count toward the limitation under which section 179 

deductions are reduced to the extent the cost of section 179 property exceeds a specified amount. 

Commercial revitalization deduction. A commercial revitalization deduction would be available 

for opportunity zones in a manner similar to the deduction for renewal communities. A $12 

million annual cap on these deductions would apply to each opportunity zone. 

Wage credit. Individuals who live and work in an opportunity zone would constitute a new 

target group with respect to wages earned within the zone under a combined work opportunity 

tax credit and welfare-to-work tax credit, as proposed under “EXTEND AND MODIFY WORK 

OPPORTUNITY TAX CREDIT AND WELFARE-TO-WORK TAX CREDIT,” on pages 140 to 

141. 

Other Benefits for Opportunity Zones 

Individuals, organizations, and governments within an opportunity zone would receive priority 

designation when applying for new markets tax credits and the following other federal programs: 

21st Century After-school, Early Reading First, and Striving Readers funding; Community 

Based Job Training Grants; Community Development Block Grants, Economic Development 

Administration grants, and HOME Funding; and USDA Telecommunications Loans, Distance 

Learning and Telemedicine grants, and Broadband loans. 

Revenue Estimate 

Fiscal Years 

2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2006-2010 2006-2015

($ in millions) 

-433 -806 -853 -899 -912 -3,903 -9,594 

50
Provide Disaster Relief 

PROVIDE TAX RELIEF FOR FEDERAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY 

(FEMA) HAZARD MITIGATION ASSISTANCE PROGRAMS 

Current Law 

The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) of the Department of Homeland Security 

generally conducts mitigation assistance programs to provide grant funds through state and local 

governments for businesses and individuals for cost-effective responses to natural hazards. 

FEMA may make grants in the aftermath of major disaster, in anticipation of natural hazard, or 

in areas of severe repetitive loss. Grants may fund demolition, retro-fitting, elevation, or other 

measures to reduce the future cost of property damage. 

Under current tax law, gross income includes governmental disaster payments unless they fall 

into certain statutory or administrative exceptions, which generally provide for relief with respect 

to damages or expenses incurred. These exceptions would not encompass payments to mitigate 

future damage. 

In the case of an involuntary conversion, current tax law generally provides for a deferral of gain 

to the extent that a property owner purchases replacement property that is similar, or related in 

service or use to the converted property, within a specified time period. Generally, the time 

period runs from the date of conversion until two years after the close of the first taxable year in 

which gain is realized from the conversion. Nevertheless, the period may be longer, depending 

on the circumstances. The owner’s cost basis in the replacement property generally is the same 

as in the converted property, decreased by the amount of any money or loss, and increased by the 

amount of any gain, recognized on the conversion. 

In the case of the sale or exchange of a principal residence, current tax law generally provides for 

an exclusion of up to $250,000 ($500,000 for certain joint returns) of gain. The property owner 

must have owned and used the property as his or her principal residence, for periods aggregating 

two years or more, during the five-year period ending on the date of the sale or exchange, and 

must not have used the exclusion during the two-year period ending on the date of the sale or 

exchange. 

Reasons for Change 

There is concern that property owners may decline to participate in mitigation assistance 

programs because of the potential tax obligation. Tax relief would reduce any such impediment 

to participation in FEMA programs. 

Proposal 

Generally, the proposal would amend the Tax Code to exclude FEMA mitigation grants from 

gross income. To prevent a double benefit, a business that receives a tax-free mitigation grant 

and uses the grant to purchase or repair property could not claim a deduction for those expenses. 

The exclusion would apply only to FEMA mitigation grants, and not to any compensation from 

51 
FEMA in connection with the acquisition, through a mitigation assistance program, of property 

situated in a disaster or hazard area. However, if property is acquired by FEMA, and the owner 

replaces the property within the period specified by current law in the case of involuntary 

conversion, then instead of reflecting the compensation in gross income, the owner would have a 

carry-over cost basis in the replacement property (as in the case of replacement of converted 

property). If FEMA pays the cost of improving property (such as by retro-fitting, elevation or 

otherwise), pursuant to a mitigation assistance program, the cost of improvement would be 

excluded from gross income, but there would be no increase in the owner’s cost basis in the 

property. Thus, if the property is later sold, any resulting gain potentially would be taxable 

(subject to any exclusion that may be available under current law). 

Generally, the proposal would be effective for mitigation assistance received after December 31, 

2004, but Treasury would have administrative authority to provide retroactive relief. 

Revenue Estimate 

Fiscal Years 

2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2006-2010 2006-2015

($ in millions) 

-20 -40 -40 -40 -40 -40 -200 -400

52
Increase Housing Opportunities 

PROVIDE TAX CREDIT FOR DEVELOPERS OF AFFORDABLE SINGLE-FAMILY 

HOUSING 

Current Law 

No tax credits are available to developers of new or rehabilitated, affordable single-family 

housing. Current law does provide tax credits to owners of qualified low-income rental units 

through the low-income housing tax credit (LIHTC). The LIHTC may be claimed over a 10-year 

period for a portion of the cost of rental housing occupied by tenants having incomes below 

specified levels. The credit percentage for newly constructed or substantially rehabilitated 

housing that is not federally subsidized is adjusted monthly by the Internal Revenue Service so 

that generally the 10 annual credit amounts have a present value of 70 percent of qualifying 

costs. The credit percentage for substantially rehabilitated housing that is federally subsidized 

and for existing buildings is calculated to have a present value of 30 percent of qualified 

expenditures. For 2004, the aggregate first-year credit authority allocated to each state was the 

greater of $2.075 million or $1.80 per capita. This limit is indexed annually. Tax credits are 

allocated to particular projects by state or local housing agencies pursuant to publicly announced 

plans for allocation. Authority to allocate credits may be carried forward by agencies to the 

following calendar year. Unused credit allocations may be returned to an agency for 

reallocation. Credit allocations may revert to the agency if less than 10 percent of the taxpayer's 

reasonably expected qualifying basis is expended within 6 months of receiving the allocation. 

Authority not used in a timely manner reverts to a national pool for distribution to states 

requesting additional authority. Agencies may award less than the maximum credits generally 

applicable. Generally, a qualifying building must be placed in service in the year the credit is 

allocated unless at least 10 percent of the taxpayer's reasonably expected basis in the property is 

expended in the year of allocation or within 6 months of the allocation date. Rules are provided 

for the allocation of costs to individual units in multi-unit projects and to property that is part of a 

project but used for purposes other than rental housing. The tax credit period begins with the 

taxable year in which qualified buildings are placed in service (or, in certain circumstances, the 

succeeding taxable year). Credits are recaptured if the required number of units is not rented to 

qualifying tenants for a period of 15 years. 

Current law allows tax-exempt bonds (mortgage revenue bonds) to be issued by state and local 

governments to finance mortgages at interest rates that are below-market for homebuyers who 

meet certain income and purchase price limits. In general, eligible individuals must be first-time 

homebuyers and have incomes of 115 percent (100 percent for families with less than 3 

members) or less of the greater of area or statewide median gross income (applicable median 

family income). The subsidy is recaptured under certain conditions if the home is sold within 9 

years of the date of purchase. 

Reasons for Change 

The quality of life in distressed neighborhoods can be improved by increasing home ownership. 

Existing buildings in these neighborhoods often need extensive renovation before they can 

provide decent owner-occupied housing. Renovation may not occur because the costs involved 

53 
exceed the prices at which the housing units could be sold. Similarly, the costs of new 

construction may exceed their market value. Properties will sit vacant and neighborhoods will 

remain blighted unless the gap between development costs and market prices can be filled. 

Proposal 

The proposal would create a single-family housing tax credit (SFHTC). First-year credit 

authority of amounts equal to LIHTC allocations would be made available annually to states 

(including U.S. possessions) beginning in calendar year 2006. Pursuant to a plan of allocation, 

state or local housing credit agencies would award first-year credits to new or rehabilitated 

housing units comprising a project for the development of single-family housing in census tracts 

with median incomes of 80 percent or less of the greater of area or statewide median income, or 

in areas of chronic economic distress (following rules similar to those used in connection with 

mortgage revenue bonds) designated within the 5 years prior to allocation. Rules similar to the 

current law rules for the LIHTC would apply regarding carry forward and return of unused 

credits and a national pool for unused credits. Units in condominiums and cooperatives could 

qualify as single-family housing. Credits would be awarded as a fixed amount for individual 

units comprising a project. The present value of the credits with respect to a unit, as of the 

beginning of the credit period (described below), could not exceed 50 percent of the eligible 

basis of the unit. For these purposes, present value would be determined based on the mid-term 

applicable federal rate in effect for the date the agency allocated credits to the project. Rules 

similar to the current law rules for the LIHTC would apply to determine eligible basis of 

individual units. Neither land nor existing structures would be included in eligible basis. Units 

in rehabilitated structures would qualify only if rehabilitation expenditures exceeded $25,000. 

The taxpayer (developer or investor partnership) owning the housing unit immediately prior to 

the date of sale to a qualified buyer (or, if later, the date a certificate of occupancy was issued) 

would be eligible to claim SFHTCs over a 5-year period beginning on that date. No credits with 

respect to a housing unit would be available unless the unit was sold within a 1-year period 

beginning on the date a certificate of occupancy is issued with respect to that unit. 

Eligible homebuyers would have incomes at 80 percent (70 percent for families with less than 3 

members) or less of applicable median family income. They would not have to be first-time 

homebuyers. Rules similar to the mortgage revenue bond provisions would apply to determine 

applicable median family income. As in the case of mortgage revenue bonds, homebuyers would 

be subject to recapture provisions in certain circumstances. In particular, recapture rules would 

apply if the homebuyer (or a subsequent buyer) sold the property to a nonqualified buyer within 

3 years of the date of initial sale of the unit. The recapture amount would equal half the gain 

resulting from the resale, reduced by 1/36th of that gain for each month between the initial sale 

and the sale to a nonqualified buyer. The recapture amount would be paid to the agency making 

the credit allocation pursuant to a lien for this purpose recorded at the time of initial purchase. 

No recapture provision would apply to taxpayers eligible to claim SFHTCs. If a housing unit for 

which any credit is claimed were converted to rental property by the initial homebuyer within the 

first 3 years following the purchase, no deductions could be claimed. 

The proposal would be effective beginning with first-year credit allocations for calendar year 

2006. The Treasury Department would have the authority to promulgate necessary reporting 

requirements. 

54 
--

Revenue Estimate 

Fiscal Years 

2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2006-2010 2006-2015

($ in millions) 

-7 -84 -342 -815 -1,425 -2,673 -17,370 

55
--

Protect the Environment 

EXTEND PERMANENTLY EXPENSING OF BROWNFIELDS REMEDIATION COSTS 

Current Law 

Taxpayers can elect to treat certain environmental remediation expenditures that would 

otherwise be chargeable to a capital account as deductible in the year paid or incurred. The 

deduction applies for both regular and alternative minimum tax purposes. The expenditure must 

be incurred in connection with the abatement of hazardous substances at a qualified 

contaminated site (so-called “brownfields”). This provision applies only to expenditures paid or 

incurred before January 1, 2006. 

Hazardous substances are defined generally for purposes of the brownfields provision by 

reference to sections 101(14) and 102 of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, 

Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980 (CERCLA). A qualified contaminated site generally is 

any property that (1) is held for use in a trade or business, for the production of income, or as 

inventory; (2) contains (or potentially contains) a hazardous substance; and (3) is certified by the 

appropriate state environmental agency as to the presence (or potential presence) of a hazardous 

substance. However, sites that are identified on the national priorities list under CERCLA do not 

qualify as qualified contaminated sites. 

Reasons for Change 

The Administration believes that encouraging environmental remediation is an important 

national goal. The brownfields provision encourages the cleanup of contaminated brownfields, 

thereby enabling them to be brought back into productive use in the economy and mitigating 

potential harms to public health. Extending the special treatment accorded to brownfields on a 

permanent basis would remove doubt among taxpayers as to the deductibility of remediation 

expenditures and would promote the goal of encouraging environmental remediation. 

Proposal 

The expensing of brownfield remediation expenditures would be made permanent by eliminating 

the restriction that qualified expenditures must be paid or incurred before January 1, 2006. 

Revenue Estimate 

Fiscal Years 

2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2006-2010 2006-2015

($ in millions) 

-138 -215 -203 -195 -184 -935 -1,743 

56
EXCLUDE 50 PERCENT OF GAINS FROM THE SALE OF PROPERTY FOR 

CONSERVATION PURPOSES 

Current Law 

A taxpayer who sells property must generally recognize, and pay taxes on, the full amount of any 

gain realized, even if the property is an interest in environmentally sensitive land or water and 

the sale is to an entity that will protect the land or water from development. By contrast, to 

encourage donations for conservation purposes, the tax law provides a charitable contribution 

deduction not only for gifts to charity of a taxpayer’s entire interest in property but also for 

conservation-oriented donations of partial interests, such as remainder interests and conservation 

easements. A charitable contribution deduction may also be available in certain cases where the 

property is sold to a charity for less than its fair market value (that is, a “bargain sale”). In some 

cases, if a qualified conservation easement has been donated, land burdened by that easement 

may receive a reduced valuation for estate tax purposes. 

Reasons for Change 

Some landowners may want their land to be protected for conservation purposes but cannot 

afford simply to donate either the land or an easement on the land, especially if the land is the 

landowner's primary salable asset. By adding an incentive for sales to qualified conservation 

groups, the current proposal complements the existing provisions that encourage charitable 

donations. This proposal would encourage the sale of appreciated, environmentally sensitive 

land and land rights to qualified conservation groups, thus achieving conservation goals through 

voluntary sales of property, rather than imposing government regulation on land use. The 

proposal would achieve this goal by strengthening the ability of conservation groups to compete 

with other potential buyers of appreciated, environmentally sensitive land. 

Proposal 

When land (or an interest in land or water) is voluntarily sold for conservation purposes (as 

defined below), only 50 percent of any capital gain would be included in the seller’s income. 

The exclusion would be computed without regard to improvements. To be eligible for the partial 

exclusion, the sale must be to a qualified conservation organization. A qualified conservation 

organization is either a governmental unit or a charity that is a qualified organization under 

section 170(h)(3) and that is organized and operated primarily for conservation purposes. 

Conservation purposes means the preservation of land areas for outdoor recreation by, or the 

education of, the general public; the protection of a relatively natural habitat of fish, wildlife, or 

plants, or similar ecosystem; or the preservation of open space where the preservation is for the 

scenic enjoyment of the general public or pursuant to a clearly delineated federal, state, or local 

governmental conservation policy. 

The buyer must provide a written statement representing that it is a qualified conservation 

organization and that it intends to hold the property exclusively for conservation purposes and 

not to transfer it for valuable consideration other than to a qualified conservation organization in 

a transaction that would qualify for this 50 percent exclusion if the buyer/transferor were taxable. 

The partial exclusion would not be available for sales pursuant to a condemnation order but 

would apply to any gain recognized in a sale that is made in response to the threat or imminence 

57 
-- --

of such an order. If the property sold is less than the taxpayer’s entire interest in the property, it 

must satisfy requirements like those applicable to qualified conservation contributions under 

section 170(h). In addition, the taxpayer or a member of the taxpayer’s family must have owned 

the property sold for the three years immediately preceding the date of the sale. 

To prevent abuse, significant penalties would be imposed on any subsequent transfer or use of 

the property other than exclusively for conservation purposes, or any subsequent removal of a 

conservation restriction contained in an instrument of conveyance of the property. 

Sales of property under this provision at a price that is less than the fair market value of the 

property may qualify as bargain sales, but only to the extent that the proceeds of the sale, net of 

capital gains taxes under this provision, are lower than the after-tax proceeds that would have 

resulted if the property had been sold at fair market value and the seller had paid tax on the full 

amount of the resulting gain. 

The provision would be effective for sales taking place on or after January 1, 2006 and before 

January 1, 2009. 

Revenue Estimate 

Fiscal Years 

2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2006-2010 2006-2015

($ in millions) 

-47 -92 -105 -60 -304 -304 

58
Increase Energy Production and Promote Energy Conservation 

EXTEND THE TAX CREDIT FOR PRODUCING ELECTRICITY FROM WIND, 

BIOMASS, AND LANDFILL GAS AND MODIFY THE CREDIT FOR ELECTRICITY 

PRODUCED FROM BIOMASS 

Current Law 

Taxpayers are allowed a tax credit for electricity produced from wind, biomass, landfill gas, and 

certain other sources. Biomass includes both closed-loop biomass and open-loop biomass. 

Closed-loop biomass is organic material from a plant that is planted exclusively for purposes of 

being used at a qualified facility to produce electricity. Open-loop biomass is any agricultural 

livestock waste nutrients or any solid, nonhazardous cellulosic waste material that is segregated 

from other waste materials and is derived from (a) any of the following forest-related resources: 

mill and harvesting residues, precommercial thinnings, slash, and brush; (b) solid wood waste 

materials, including waste pallets, crates, dunnage, manufacturing and construction wood wastes 

(other than pressure-treated, chemically treated, or painted wood wastes), and landscape or rightof-way tree trimmings, but not including municipal solid waste, gas derived from the 

biodegradation of solid waste, or paper which is commonly recycled; or (c) agricultural sources, 

including orchard tree crops, vineyard, grain, legumes, sugar, and other crop byproducts or 

residues. Open-loop biomass does not include biomass that is co-fired with coal. Thus, 

electricity produced from biomass, other than closed-loop biomass, co-fired with coal does not 

qualify for the credit. The credit rate is 1.5 cents per kilowatt hour for electricity produced from 

wind and closed-loop biomass and 0.75 cent per kilowatt hour for electricity produced from 

open-loop biomass and landfill gas (both adjusted for inflation since 1992). The inflationadjusted credit rates for 2004 were 1.8 cents and 0.9 cent per kilowatt hour. The electricity must 

be sold to an unrelated third party and the credit is limited to the first 10 years of production at a 

wind or closed-loop biomass facility and generally to the first 5 years of production at an openloop biomass or landfill gas facility. To qualify for the credit, the electricity must be produced at 

a facility placed in service before January 1, 2006. 

Reasons for Change 

The tax credit helps make electricity produced from wind, biomass, and landfill gas competitive 

with other forms of electricity. These renewable energy sources will be an important part of the 

Nation’s long-term energy supply. Expanding the availability of the credit to open-loop biomass 

co-fired with coal would increase the production of electricity from biomass. 

Proposal 

The credit for electricity produced from wind, biomass other than agricultural livestock waste 

nutrients, and landfill gas would be extended for two years to electricity produced at facilities 

placed in service before January 1, 2008. In addition, a credit at 60 percent of the generally 

applicable rate for electricity produced from open-loop biomass would be allowed for electricity 

produced from open-loop biomass (other than agricultural livestock waste nutrients) co-fired in 

coal plants during the period from January 1, 2006, through December 31, 2008. 

59
Revenue Estimate 

Fiscal Years 

2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2006-2010 2006-2015

($ in millions) 

-48 -144 -321 -260 -160 -163 -1,048 -1,779

60
PROVIDE TAX CREDIT FOR RESIDENTIAL SOLAR ENERGY SYSTEMS 

Current Law 

A 10-percent investment tax credit is provided to businesses for qualifying equipment that uses 

solar energy to generate electricity, to heat or cool or provide hot water for use in a structure, or 

to provide solar process heat. No credit is available for nonbusiness purchases of solar energy 

equipment. 

Reasons for Change 

A tax credit for solar energy equipment used to generate electricity (photovoltaic equipment) or 

heat water (solar water heating equipment) will reduce the cost of these investments and 

encourage individuals to adopt these systems. Solar energy will be an important part of the 

Nation’s long-term energy supply. Increasing the demand for these systems should also increase 

private-sector research to reduce costs further and increase efficiency. 

Proposal 

Individuals that purchase photovoltaic equipment or solar water heating equipment for use in a 

dwelling unit that the individual uses as a residence would be allowed a nonrefundable personal 

credit equal to 15 percent of the cost of the equipment and its installation. Equipment would 

qualify for the credit only if it is used exclusively for purposes other than heating swimming 

pools. The Secretary of the Treasury would be authorized to prescribe regulations providing for 

recapture of the credit if the equipment is used in a manner inconsistent with this requirement. 

An individual would be allowed a cumulative maximum credit of $2,000 per residence for 

photovoltaic equipment and $2,000 per residence for solar water heating equipment. The credit 

would apply only to solar water heating equipment placed in service after December 31, 2004, 

and before January 1, 2008, and to photovoltaic systems placed in service after December 31, 

2004, and before January 1, 2010. 

Revenue Estimate 

Fiscal Years 

2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2006-2010 2006-2015

($ in millions) 

-5 -11 -19 -24 -34 -16 -104 -104

61
MODIFY TREATMENT OF NUCLEAR DECOMMISSIONING FUNDS 

Current Law 

Although accrual basis taxpayers generally may not deduct an item until economic performance 

occurs, a taxpayer responsible for nuclear power plant decommissioning may elect to deduct 

contributions made to a qualified nuclear decommissioning fund. 

A qualified nuclear decommissioning fund is a segregated fund that is established by the 

taxpayer, restricted to certain types of investments, and used exclusively for the payment of 

decommissioning costs, taxes on fund income, and management costs. Contributions to the fund 

are deductible in the year made to the extent they were collected as part of the cost of service to 

ratepayers. Withdrawals from the fund to pay for decommissioning expenses are included in 

income at the time of withdrawal, but the taxpayer also is entitled to a deduction for 

decommissioning expenses as economic performance for those costs occurs. A 20-percent tax 

rate applies to the taxable income of the fund. 

Nuclear decommissioning costs are otherwise deductible (without regard to section 280B) 

expenses to be incurred in connection with the entombment, decontamination, dismantlement, 

removal, and disposal of a nuclear plant that has permanently ceased the production of 

electricity. 

Accumulations in a qualified fund are limited to the amount necessary to pay post-1983 nuclear 

decommissioning costs (determined as if decommissioning costs accrued ratably over the 

estimated useful life of the plant). To prevent accumulations of funds in excess of those required 

to pay post-1983 decommissioning costs and to ensure that contributions to the fund are not 

deducted more rapidly than level funding, taxpayers are required to obtain a ruling from the IRS 

to establish the maximum annual contribution that may be made to the fund. Taxpayers are 

required to obtain subsequent rulings setting new ruling amounts in certain instances. 

A qualified fund may be transferred in connection with the sale, exchange, or other transfer of 

the nuclear power plant to which it relates. If the transferee is eligible to maintain a qualified 

fund and continues to maintain the fund after the transfer while satisfying certain other 

conditions, the regulations treat the transfer as a nontaxable transaction. No gain or loss is 

recognized on the transfer of the qualified decommissioning fund and the transferee takes the 

transferor’s basis in the fund. The regulations also permit the IRS to treat a transfer that does not 

satisfy these conditions as a nontaxable transaction (with continued qualification of the fund) 

when that is necessary and appropriate to carry out the purposes of the statutory and regulatory 

provisions relating to qualified funds. 

Regulators may also require utilities to set aside amounts for nuclear decommissioning in excess 

of the amount allowed as a deductible contribution. In addition, pursuant to regulatory 

requirements, taxpayers may have set aside amounts for nuclear decommissioning prior to the 

enactment of the qualified fund rules in 1984. The treatment of these pre-1984 amounts varies. 

Some taxpayers may have received no tax benefit while others may have deducted the amounts 

or excluded the amounts from gross income. 

62
Reasons for Change 

The Administration is concerned that appropriate incentives be provided to insure adequate funds 

are available for the decommissioning of nuclear power plants. The favorable tax treatment of 

contributions to nuclear decommissioning funds recognizes the national importance of the 

establishment of segregated reserve funds for paying nuclear decommissioning costs. Although 

the favorable tax treatment was adopted at a time when nuclear power plants were operated by 

regulated public utilities, deregulation will not reduce the need for such funds. Deregulation 

will, however, generally eliminate traditional cost of service determinations for ratemaking 

purposes. In many cases, a line charge or other fee will be imposed by a state or local 

government or a public utility commission to ensure that adequate funds will be available for 

decommissioning, but there is no assurance that this will be the case under all state deregulation 

plans. 

State deregulation plans frequently require utilities to divest electricity generation assets, 

including nuclear power plants and related nuclear decommissioning funds. The transferor of a 

nuclear power plant also may be required to fund the full amount of the plant’s decommissioning 

costs in connection with the transfer. The policy of limiting fund accumulations to the amount 

necessary to pay post-1983 nuclear decommissioning costs may discourage these transactions 

and increase the risk that decommissioning costs will not be adequately funded. 

Deregulation has also made it increasingly common for nuclear decommissioning funds to be 

transferred in transactions that do not satisfy the generally applicable regulatory conditions for 

nontaxability. Uncertainty concerning the tax treatment of these transfers may be impeding the 

transition to deregulated electricity markets. 

Proposal 

The cost of service limitation would be eliminated. Thus, unregulated taxpayers would be 

allowed a deduction for amounts contributed to a qualified nuclear decommissioning fund. 

The maximum contribution and deduction for a taxable year generally would be limited to the 

ruling amount obtained from the IRS, but taxpayers would be permitted to make contributions in 

excess of the ruling amount in two cases. First, taxpayers would be permitted to make transfers 

to a qualified fund of amounts held in certain nonqualified nuclear decommissioning funds to the 

extent such amounts do not exceed the present value of the amount required to pay the plant’s 

pre-1984 decommissioning costs. Transfers would be permitted from a fund in which amounts 

are irrevocably set aside pursuant to the requirements of a state or federal agency exclusively for 

the purpose of funding the decommissioning of the nuclear power plant. Second, if the present 

value of the amount required to pay the plant’s pre-1984 decommissioning costs exceeds the 

amount held in such nonqualified funds, the taxpayer would be permitted to contribute an 

amount equal to the excess. Any portion of the amount transferred under these rules that exceeds 

the amount previously deducted (other than under the qualified fund rules) or excluded from the 

taxpayer’s gross income on account of the taxpayer’s liability for decommissioning costs would 

be allowed as a deduction ratably over the remaining useful life of the nuclear power plant. If 

the qualified fund is subsequently transferred, deductions under this rule for periods subsequent 

to the transfer will be allowed to the transferee rather than the transferor unless the transferor is 

63 
tax exempt. Accumulations in the fund attributable to amounts contributed under these rules 

would not be taken into account in determining the ruling amount for the fund. 

The treatment of transfers of qualified funds would be clarified. Any transfer of a qualified fund 

in connection with the transfer of the power plant with respect to which the fund was established 

would be nontaxable and no gain or loss will be recognized by the transferor or transferee as a 

result of the transfer. 

The proposal would also permit taxpayers to make deductible contributions to a qualified fund 

after the end of the nuclear power plant’s estimated useful life and would provide that nuclear 

decommissioning costs are deductible when paid. 

The proposal would be effective for taxable years beginning after December 31, 2004. 

Revenue Estimate 

Fiscal Years 

2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2006-2010 2006-2015

($ in millions) 

-47 -166 -162 -170 -177 -183 -858 -1,881

64
PROVIDE TAX CREDIT FOR PURCHASE OF CERTAIN HYBRID AND FUEL CELL 

VEHICLES 

Current Law 

No generally available income tax credit for purchases of hybrid vehicles is available currently. 

A 10-percent tax credit is provided for the cost of a qualified electric vehicle, up to a maximum 

credit of $4,000. A qualified electric vehicle is a motor vehicle that is powered primarily by an 

electric motor drawing current from rechargeable batteries, fuel cells, or other portable sources 

of electric current, the original use of which commences with the taxpayer, and that is acquired 

for use by the taxpayer and not for resale. The credit is reduced by 75 percent in 2006 and does 

not apply to vehicles placed in service after 2006. 

Certain costs of qualified clean-fuel property, including clean-fuel vehicles, may be deducted 

when such property is placed in service. Qualified electric vehicles do not qualify for the cleanfuel vehicle deduction. The deduction for clean-fuel vehicles is reduced by 75 percent in 2006 

and does not apply to property placed in service after 2006. 

Reasons for Change 

The transportation sector now accounts for 67 percent of U.S. oil consumption. Cars, sport 

utility vehicles, light trucks, and minivans alone account for 42 percent of U.S. oil consumption, 

about 20 to 40 percent of all urban smog-forming emissions, and 16 percent of greenhouse gas 

emissions. Almost all of these vehicles use a single gasoline-fueled engine. 

Hybrid vehicles, which have more than one source of power on board the vehicle, and electric 

vehicles have the potential to reduce petroleum consumption, air pollution, and greenhouse gas 

emissions. The proposed credits will encourage the purchase of highly fuel-efficient vehicles 

that incorporate advanced automotive technologies and will help to move hybrid and fuel cell 

vehicles from the laboratory to the highway. These vehicles can significantly reduce oil 

consumption, emissions of air pollutants, and emissions of carbon dioxide, the most prevalent 

greenhouse gas. 

Proposal 

The proposal would provide temporary tax credits for certain hybrid and fuel cell vehicles: 

(1) Credit for qualified hybrid vehicles. A credit, of up to $4,000, would be available for 

purchases of qualified hybrid vehicles after December 31, 2004, and before January 1, 2009. 

The credit would be: 

(a) $250 if the rechargeable energy storage system provides at least 5 percent but less than 

10 percent of the maximum available power; 

(b) $500 if the rechargeable energy storage system provides at least 10 percent and less than 

20 percent of the maximum available power; 

(c) $750 if the rechargeable energy storage system provides at least 20 percent and less than 

30 percent of the maximum available power; and 

65 
(d) $1,000 if the rechargeable energy storage system provides 30 percent or more of the 

maximum available power. 

If the vehicle’s fuel economy exceeds the 2000 model year city fuel economy, the amount of 

credit shown in (a) through (d) above would be increased by the following amounts: 

(i) $500 if the vehicle achieves at least 125 percent but less than 150 percent of the 2000 

model year city fuel economy; 

(ii) $1,000 if the vehicle achieves at least 150 percent but less than 175 percent of the 2000 

model year city fuel economy; 

(iii) $1,500 if the vehicle achieves at least 175 percent but less than 200 percent of the 2000 

model year city fuel economy; 

(iv) $2,000 if the vehicle achieves at least 200 percent but less than 225 percent of the 2000 

model year city fuel economy; 

(v) $2,500 if the vehicle achieves at least 225 percent but less than 250 percent of the 2000 

model year city fuel economy; and 

(vi) $3,000 if the vehicle achieves at least 250 percent of the 2000 model year city fuel 

economy. 

(2) Credit for qualified fuel cell vehicles. A credit of up to $8,000 would be available for the 

purchase of new qualified fuel cell vehicles after December 31, 2004, and before January 1, 

2013. The credit would be $4,000, but, if the vehicle’s fuel economy exceeds the 2000 model 

year city fuel economy, the credit would increase by the following amounts: 

(i) $1,000 if the vehicle achieves at least 150 percent but less than 175 percent of the 2000 

model year city fuel economy; 

(ii) $1,500 if the vehicle achieves at least 175 percent but less than 200 percent of the 2000 

model year city fuel economy; 

(iii) $2,000 if the vehicle achieves at least 200 percent but less than 225 percent of the 2000 

model year city fuel economy; 

(iv) $2,500 if the vehicle achieves at least 225 percent but less than 250 percent of the 2000 

model year city fuel economy; 

(v) $3,000 if the vehicle achieves at least 250 percent but less than 275 percent of the 2000 

model year city fuel economy; 

(vi) $3,500 if the vehicle achieves at least 275 percent but less than 300 percent of the 2000 

model year city fuel economy; and 

(vii) $4,000 if the vehicle achieves at least 300 percent of the 2000 model year city fuel 

economy. 

66
The 2000 model year city fuel economy would be the following: 

If the vehicle inertia The 2000 model year city fuel economy is: 

weight class is: For a passenger automobile: For a light truck: 

1,500 or 1,750 lbs 

2,000 lbs 

2,250 lbs 

2,500 lbs 

2,750 lbs 

3,000 lbs 

3,500 lbs 

4,000 lbs 

4,500 lbs 

5,000 lbs 

5,500 lbs 

6,000 lbs 

6,500 lbs 

7,000 or 8,500 lbs 

43.7 mpg 37.6 mpg 

38.3 mpg 33.7 mpg 

34.1 mpg 30.6 mpg 

30.7 mpg 28.0 mpg 

27.9 mpg 25.9 mpg 

25.6 mpg 24.1 mpg 

22.0 mpg 21.3 mpg 

19.3 mpg 19.0 mpg 

17.2 mpg 17.3 mpg 

15.5 mpg 15.8 mpg 

14.1 mpg 14.6 mpg 

12.9 mpg 13.6 mpg 

11.9 mpg 12.8 mpg 

11.1 mpg 12.0 mpg 

The “vehicle inertia weight class” is defined in regulations prescribed by the Environmental 

Protection Agency for purposes of title II of the Clean Air Act. 

A qualifying hybrid vehicle is a motor vehicle that draws propulsion energy from on-board 

sources of stored energy which include both (1) an internal combustion engine or heat engine 

using combustible fuel, and (2) a rechargeable energy storage system. A qualifying fuel cell 

vehicle is a motor vehicle that is propelled by power derived from one or more cells which 

convert chemical energy directly into electricity by combining oxygen with hydrogen fuel which 

is stored on board the vehicle and may or may not require reformation prior to use. A qualifying 

vehicle must meet all applicable regulatory requirements. 

The percentage of maximum available power provided by the rechargeable energy storage 

system means the maximum value available from the battery or other energy storage device, 

during a standard power test, divided by the sum of the battery or other energy storage device 

and the SAE net power of the heat engine. 

These credits would be available for all qualifying light vehicles including cars, minivans, sport 

utility vehicles, and light trucks. Taxpayers would be able to claim only one of the credits per 

vehicle and taxpayers who claim either credit would not be able to claim the qualified electric 

vehicle credit or the deduction for clean-fuel vehicle property for the same vehicle. Business 

taxpayers claiming either credit would be subject to the limitations on the general business credit 

and would be required to reduce the basis of the vehicle by the amount of the credit. 

67
Revenue Estimate 

Fiscal Years 

2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2006-2010 2006-2015

($ in millions) 

-13 -260 -447 -614 -680 -23 -2,024 -2,532

68
PROVIDE TAX CREDIT FOR COMBINED HEAT AND POWER PROPERTY 

Current Law 

Combined heat and power (CHP) systems are used to produce electricity (and/or mechanical 

power) and usable thermal energy from a single primary energy source. No income tax credit is 

currently provided for investments in CHP property. 

Depreciation allowances for CHP property vary by asset use and capacity. Assets used to 

produce electricity with a capacity of 500 kilowatts or less are classified with other 

manufacturing assets, and generally have cost recovery periods of five to ten years. Other assets 

employed in the production of electricity have either a 15-year or 20-year recovery period. For 

assets that are structural components of buildings, however, the recovery period is either 39 years 

(if nonresidential real property) or 27.5 years (if residential rental property). 

Reasons for Change 

Combined heat and power systems utilize thermal energy that is otherwise wasted when 

producing electricity by more conventional methods. CHP systems achieve a greater level of 

overall energy efficiency, and thereby lessen the consumption of primary fossil fuels. They can 

lower total energy costs and reduce carbon emissions. An investment tax credit for CHP assets 

is expected to encourage increased energy efficiency by accelerating planned investment in CHP 

systems. The increased demand for such equipment should, in turn, reduce CHP production 

costs and spur additional technological innovations in CHP systems. 

Proposal 

The proposal would establish a 10-percent investment credit for qualified CHP systems with an 

electrical capacity in excess of 50 kilowatts or with a capacity to produce mechanical power in 

excess of 67 horsepower (or an equivalent combination of electrical and mechanical energy 

capacities). CHP property would be defined as property comprising a system that uses the same 

energy source for the simultaneous or sequential generation of (1) electricity or mechanical shaft 

power (or both) and (2) steam or other forms of useful thermal energy (including heating and 

cooling applications). A qualified CHP system would be required to produce at least 20 percent 

of its total useful energy in the form of thermal energy and at least 20 percent of its total useful 

energy in the form of electrical or mechanical power (or a combination thereof) and would also 

be required to satisfy an energy-efficiency standard. For CHP systems with an electrical 

capacity in excess of 50 megawatts (or a mechanical energy capacity in excess of 67,000 

horsepower), the total energy efficiency of the system would have to exceed 70 percent. For 

smaller systems, the total energy efficiency would have to exceed 60 percent. For this purpose, 

total energy efficiency would be calculated as the sum of the useful electrical, thermal, and 

mechanical power produced by the system at normal operating rates, measured on a Btu basis, 

divided by the lower heating value of the primary fuel source for the system. The eligibility of 

qualified CHP property would be verified under regulations prescribed by the Secretary of the 

Treasury. 

69
Qualified CHP assets that are assigned cost recovery periods of less than 15 years would be 

eligible for the credit, but only if the taxpayer elects to treat such property as having a 22-year 

class life. Thus, for such property, regular tax depreciation allowances would be calculated 

using a 15-year recovery period and the 150 percent declining balance method. 

The credit would be treated as an energy credit under the investment credit component of the 

section 38 general business credit, and would be subject to the rules and limitations governing 

that credit. Taxpayers using the credit for CHP equipment would not be entitled to any other tax 

credit for the same equipment. 

The credit would apply to investments in CHP equipment placed in service after December 31, 

2004, but before January 1, 2010. 

Revenue Estimate 

Fiscal Years 

2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2006-2010 2006-2015

($ in millions) 

-17 -109 -84 -105 -114 -36 -448 -394

70
Restructure Assistance to New York City 

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 attack 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 include: (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.10 

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 property must be purchased by the taxpayer after September 10, 2001, and 

placed in service before January 1, 2007, or for nonresidential real property and residential rental 

property, January 1, 2010. 

The five-year recovery period for qualified leasehold improvement property applies, in general, 

to buildings located in the New York Liberty Zone if the improvement is 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 is available after March 9, 

2002, and before January 1, 2006, with respect to certain state or local bonds outstanding on 

September 11, 2001. 

Businesses are allowed to expense the cost of certain qualified New York Liberty Zone property, 

up to an additional $35,000 above the amounts generally available under section 179.11 In 

10 The Working Families Tax Relief Act of 2004 amended certain of the New York Liberty Zone provisions relating 

to tax-exempt bonds. 11 Section 179 provides that, in place of depreciation, certain taxpayers, typically small businesses, may elect to 

deduct up to $100,000 of the cost of section 179 property placed in service each year. In general, section 179 

71 
addition, only 50 percent of the cost of such qualified New York Liberty Zone property counts 

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 some of the existing tax incentive provisions. 

Proposal 

Provide tax incentives for transportation infrastructure 

The Administration proposes to sunset certain existing New York Liberty Zone tax benefits and 

to provide in their place 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 2006 to 2015, 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 2015. 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 Internal 

Revenue 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. 

property is defined as depreciable tangible personal property that is purchased for use in the active conduct of a trade 

or business. 

72 
Repeal certain Liberty Zone incentives and other changes 

The following New York Liberty Zone incentives would be terminated as of the date of 

enactment: (1) the special depreciation allowance for qualified New York Liberty Zone 

property; (2) the five-year recovery period for depreciation of qualified New York Liberty Zone 

leasehold improvement property; (3) increased section 179 expensing for qualified New York 

Liberty Zone property; and (4) the extended replacement period for the nonrecognition of gain 

for certain involuntary conversions. Property placed in service after the date of enactment would 

be ineligible for the first three incentives listed above unless a binding written contract is in 

effect on the date of enactment and the property is placed in service before the original sunset 

dates set forth in the Act. The extended replacement period for involuntarily converted property 

would end on the earlier of (1) the date of enactment of the proposal or (2) the last day of the 

five-year period specified in the Act. Other related changes to the Internal Revenue Code would 

be made as appropriate. 

Revenue Estimate 

Fiscal Years 

2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2006-2010 2006-2015

($ in millions) 

Provide tax incentives for transportation infrastructure 

0 -200 -200 -200 -200 -200 -1,000 -2,000 

Repeal certain Liberty Zone incentives and other changes 

0 200 200 200 200 200 1,000 2,000 

73
SIMPLIFY THE TAX LAWS FOR FAMILIES 

SIMPLIFY ADOPTION TAX BENEFITS 

Current Law 

Under current law, for taxable years through 2010, two tax benefits are provided to taxpayers 

who adopt children: (1) a nonrefundable 100 percent tax credit for a limited amount of qualified 

expenses incurred in the adoption of a child; and (2) an exclusion from gross income of a limited 

amount of qualified adoption expenses paid or reimbursed by an employer under an adoption 

assistance program. In 2005, the separate limits on qualified adoption expenses for the credit 

and the exclusion are $10,630. Taxpayers may use both adoption tax benefits, but the same 

expenses cannot be used for both benefits. Taxpayers who adopt children with special needs 

may claim the full $10,630 credit or exclusion even if adoption expenses are less than that 

amount. Taxpayers may carry forward unused credit amounts for up to five years. If modified 

adjusted gross income exceeds $159,450 (in 2005), both the credit amount and the amount 

excluded from gross income are reduced pro-rata over the next $40,000 of modified adjusted 

gross income. The maximum credit and exclusion and the income at which the phase-out range 

begins are indexed annually for inflation. The limits for the tax credit and the exclusion are per 

adoption, so that benefits for a given adoption may be claimed over several years. 

For taxable years after 2010, taxpayers will be able to claim the adoption credit only for the 

adoption of a child with special needs, only for qualified expenses they actually incur, the 

qualified expense limit will be $6,000, the credit will be reduced pro-rata between $75,000 and 

$115,000 of modified adjusted gross income, and the credit amount and beginning of the phaseout range will not be indexed annually for inflation. The exclusion of employer-provided 

adoption assistance from gross income is not available to taxpayers for taxable years beginning 

after 2010. However, as a result of the Administration’s separate proposal to permanently extend 

all provisions of EGTRRA, both the adoption tax credit and the exclusion for employer-provided 

adoption assistance would remain in effect with all of their current, pre-2011 provisions and 

limits. 

Reasons for Change 

The phase-out provisions of both adoption tax benefits increase complexity for all taxpayers who 

use the adoption tax benefits, including the vast majority who are not affected by the phase-outs. 

Moreover, the phase-outs increase marginal tax rates very substantially for taxpayers with 

incomes in the phase-out range. For example, a family that, in 2005, has $10,630 of adoption 

expenses eligible for the tax credit and that is in the phase-out range has its marginal tax rate 

increased by 26.0 percentage points over what its marginal tax rate would otherwise be. 

Proposal 

The Administration proposes to eliminate the income-related phase-outs of the adoption tax 

credit and exclusion. The proposal would be effective for taxable years beginning after 

December 31, 2005. 

75
--

Revenue Estimate 

Fiscal Years 

2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2006-2010 2006-2015

($ in millions) 

-4 -40 -42 -43 -45 -174 -426 

76
CLARIFY ELIGIBILITY OF SIBLINGS AND OTHER FAMILY MEMBERS FOR 

CHILD-RELATED TAX BENEFITS 

Current Law 

A taxpayer may be eligible to claim a qualifying child for various tax benefits, including the 

dependent exemption, head of household filing status, the child tax credit, the child and 

dependent care tax credit, and the earned income tax credit (EITC). A qualifying child must 

meet the following three tests: 

• Relationship – The child generally must be the taxpayer’s son, daughter, grandchild, 

sibling, niece or nephew, or foster child. 

• Residence – The child must live with the taxpayer in the same principal place of abode 

for over half the year. 

• Age – The child must be under the age of 19, a full-time student if over age 18 and under 

age 24, or totally and permanently disabled. However, the child must be under age 13 

for the child and dependent care tax credit and under age 17 for purposes of the child tax 

credit. 

A taxpayer cannot claim a qualifying child if the taxpayer is a qualifying child of another 

taxpayer. 

Under some circumstances (e.g., a three-generation household), two or more taxpayers may be 

eligible to claim the same child for tax benefits. Current law allows the eligible taxpayers to 

decide among themselves who will claim the child-related tax benefits. If more than one eligible 

taxpayer actually claims the same qualifying child, then the following tiebreaker tests determine 

which taxpayer is entitled to the child-related tax benefits. 

• An eligible parent’s claim supersedes all other claims. 

• If the child’s parents do not file a joint return and both claim the child on separate 

returns, then the tax benefits accrue to the parent with whom the child resides the 

longest. If both parents reside with the child for the same length of time, then the 

benefits accrue to the parent with the highest adjusted gross income (AGI). 

• If the child’s parents do not claim the child, then the tax benefits accrue to the claimant 

with the highest AGI. 

Reasons for Change 

The Working Families Tax Relief Act of 2004 (WFTRA) created a uniform definition of 

qualifying child, allowing, in many circumstances, a taxpayer to claim the same child for five 

different child-related tax benefits. WFTRA also simplified eligibility rules, making it easier for 

both taxpayers and the IRS to determine if an individual is a qualifying child. By eliminating a 

burdensome support test, WFTRA also reduced recording-keeping requirements. 

However, WFTRA may have some unintended consequences. Under prior law, taxpayers could 

not claim siblings for certain child-related tax benefits unless they could demonstrate that they 

cared for them as if they were their very own. Congress repealed this factual test, responding to 

77 
concern that it was difficult to administer. However, this change also effectively denied 

assistance to some low-income taxpayers who are the sole guardians of their siblings while 

giving higher-income families an opportunity to avoid income limitations on child tax benefits. 

For example, a 20-year-old taxpayer works 30 hours a week at a minimum wage job while going 

to school full-time. Her parents are dead, and she is the legal guardian of her 15-year-old 

brother, with whom she resides for over half the year. Under prior law, she could claim her 

brother for the EITC because, in addition to meeting other requirements, she cared for him as if 

he were her own child. Under WFTRA, the brother is still considered the sister’s qualifying 

child. However, eliminating the “care for” test means that the 20-year-old is also considered to 

be the qualifying child of her 15-year-old brother: she meets the relationship, residency, and age 

tests. Because a qualifying child cannot claim another qualifying child, the older sister is not 

eligible for the EITC.12 

In other cases, the elimination of the “care for” test makes it possible for some taxpayers to avoid 

income limitations on certain child-related tax benefits by allowing other family members, who 

have lower incomes, to claim the taxpayers’ sons and daughters as qualifying children. For 

example, a couple lives with their 26-year-old son and 16-year-old daughter. The son is not a 

qualifying child because of his age and his lack of a permanent and total disability. In addition, 

the son earns less than $30,000 a year, placing him in the EITC income range. If the parents 

have moderate income, they may find that the family could receive larger child tax benefits if 

their son claims his sister as a qualifying child and receives the EITC. For a very high-income 

couple, the gains to the family of allowing the son to claim the sister as a dependent may be even 

greater, because the couple’s income is too high to benefit from the dependent exemption and 

child tax credits, as well as the EITC. 

Current law thus allows some families to obtain certain child tax benefits, even when the parents’ 

income is too high to qualify, while denying the EITC to some low-income working taxpayers 

who are the sole guardians of their siblings. Current law also creates complexity by encouraging 

families to engage in multiple computations in order to determine how to maximize tax benefits. 

Proposal 

The proposal would stipulate that a taxpayer is not a qualifying child of another individual if the 

taxpayer is older than that individual. However, an individual could be a qualifying child of a 

younger sibling if that individual is permanently and totally disabled. 

If a parent resides with his or her child for over half the year, only the parent would be eligible to 

claim the child as a qualifying child. However, the parent could waive the child-related tax 

benefits to another member of the household who has higher AGI and is otherwise eligible for 

the child tax benefits. 

The proposal would be effective for tax years beginning after December 31, 2004. 

12 The older sister, however, may be able to claim other child-related tax benefits. Under WFTRA, she is not a 

qualifying child (for purposes other than the EITC) if she provides over half her own support. 

78 
Revenue Estimate13 

Fiscal Years 

2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2006-2010 2006-2015

($ in millions) 

11 166 228 245 256 298 1,193 2,775

13 The estimate includes both receipt and outlay effects. The outlay effect is $670 million for 2006-2015. 

79
STRENGTHEN THE EMPLOYER BASED PENSION SYSTEM 

ENSURE FAIR TREATMENT OF OLDER WORKERS IN CASH BALANCE 

CONVERSIONS AND PROTECT DEFINED BENEFIT PLANS 

Current Law 

Qualified retirement plans consist of defined benefit plans, which allocate investment risk to the 

plan sponsor, and defined contribution plans, which allocate investment risk to plan participants. 

In recent years, many plan sponsors have adopted cash balance and other “hybrid” plans that 

combine features of defined benefit and defined contribution plans. A cash balance plan is a 

defined benefit plan that provides for annual “pay credits” to a participant’s “hypothetical 

account” and “interest credits” on the balance in the hypothetical account. As with traditional 

defined benefit plans, the sponsor of a cash balance plan bears investment risk (as well as some 

mortality risk), and benefits are guaranteed by the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation. 

Otherwise, the cash balance plan functions like a defined contribution plan from the perspective 

of a participant. 

Questions have been raised regarding whether and how cash balance plans satisfy the rules 

relating to age discrimination and the calculation of lump sum distributions. 

Age Discrimination. Code section 411(b)(1)(H) provides that a defined benefit plan fails to 

satisfy the benefit-accrual rules if, under the plan, a participant’s benefit accrual is ceased, or the 

rate of a participant’s benefit accrual is reduced, because of the attainment of any age. Section 

204(b)(1)(H) of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA) and section 

4(i)(1)(A) of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA) set forth similar rules. 

Age-discrimination questions have been raised regarding two aspects of cash balance plans. 

First, some have argued that pay credits for younger participants provide higher benefits than the 

same pay credits for older participants because the pay credits for younger participants accrue 

interest credits over longer periods. Although one federal district court has agreed with this 

analysis, others have rejected it. Compare Cooper v. IBM Personal Pension Plan, 274 F. Supp. 

2d 1010 (S.D. Ill. 2003) (cash balance plan found age-discriminatory) with Campbell v. 

BankBoston, N.A., 206 F. Supp. 2d 70 (D. Mass. 2002) (cash balance plan found not agediscriminatory), aff’d, 327 F.3d 1 (1st Cir. 2003), Eaton v. Onan Corp., 117 F. Supp. 2d 812 

(S.D. Ind. 2000) (same), and Tootle v. ARINC, Inc., 222 F.R.D. 88 (D. Md. 2004) (same). 

Second, some have argued that “conversions” of traditional defined benefit plans to cash balance 

plans disadvantage older participants. A conversion occurs when a plan sponsor amends a 

traditional plan to make it a cash balance plan. A conversion can result in lower future accrual 

rates for some or all participants. If this occurs, ERISA section 204(h) and Code section 4980F 

require that participants receive advance notice. The conversion can also result in “wear-away” 

– a period following the conversion during which a participant’s prior accrued benefits under the 

traditional plan exceed the benefits payable under the cash balance plan. Thus, during wearaway, the benefits under the cash balance formula of some or all participants must “catch up” 

with benefits accrued under the traditional plan. Wear-away may occur for the normal 

retirement benefit, the early retirement benefit, or both. However, under Code section 411(d)(6) 

81 
and ERISA section 204(g), the conversion may not reduce the accrued normal or early retirement 

benefit of any participant. 

Some have argued that the adverse effects of cash balance conversions fall more heavily on older 

participants than on younger participants because traditional plans usually provide more valuable 

accruals to older and longer-service participants. Many plan sponsors have adopted strategies to 

mitigate these effects, including protection of participant expectations through “choice” and 

“grandfathering” as well as avoidance of wear-away. However, these strategies have been 

voluntary, as current law generally gives the plan sponsor broad authority to amend a plan for 

any reason at any time. Hughes Aircraft Co. v. Jacobson, 525 U.S. 432, 443 (1999). 

In December of 2002, Treasury and the IRS proposed regulations to address these and other agediscrimination issues. 67 Fed. Reg. 76123 (Dec. 11, 2002). The proposed regulations provide 

that a cash balance formula is not discriminatory as long as pay credits for older participants are 

equal to or greater than pay credits for younger participants. The proposed regulations also 

provide that cash balance conversions are not discriminatory as long as the conversions satisfy 

one of three permissible methods specified in the regulations. The proposed regulations do not 

prohibit reductions in future accrual rates or benefit wear-away because, under the conditions 

specified in the proposed regulations, those effects are not inherently age-discriminatory. To 

ensure time for Congress to consider legislative changes needed for cash balance plans, the 

Treasury Department has announced the withdrawal of these proposed regulations. 

Calculation of Lump Sum Distributions. Three federal appellate courts have addressed the 

calculation of lump sum distributions under cash balance plans. Berger v. Xerox Corp. 

Retirement Income Guarantee Plan, 338 F.3d 755 (7th Cir. 2003); Esden v. Bank of Boston, 229 

F.3d 154 (2d Cir. 2000), cert. dismissed, 531 U.S. 1061 (2001); Lyons v. Georgia-Pacific 

Salaried Employees Retirement Plan, 221 F.3d 1235 (11th Cir. 2000), cert. denied, 532 U.S. 967 

(2001). All three courts held that a participant’s hypothetical account balance must be projected 

to normal retirement age using the plan’s interest crediting rate, converted to an annuity, and 

then discounted to a lump sum using the section 417(e) interest rate. If the plan’s interest 

crediting rate is the section 417(e) rate, the present value of the normal retirement age annuity 

will be the same as the hypothetical account balance. However, if the plan’s interest crediting 

rate is higher than the section 417(e) rate, the present value of the normal retirement age annuity 

– and the amount of any lump sum distribution – will be greater than the hypothetical account 

balance. This result is sometimes referred to as “whipsaw.” 

These federal court decisions have followed an analysis set out in IRS Notice 96-8. Many plan 

sponsors have responded to whipsaw by limiting the interest crediting rate to the section 417(e) 

rate (or a deemed equivalent). This response effectively makes the section 417(e) rate a ceiling 

on plan interest credits. 

Reasons for Change 

Although cash balance plans and cash balance conversions are not inherently age-discriminatory, 

current law does not provide adequate protection for older workers in every conversion. For 

example, the statutory age-discrimination rules do not prevent a plan sponsor from changing 

future benefit accruals. Also, current law does not prevent a plan sponsor from imposing wear82 
away of normal or early retirement benefits. (Current law actually restricts certain transition 

practices, such as preserving the value of early retirement subsidies through additions to 

participant account balances.) Many plan sponsors have voluntarily tried to mitigate any adverse 

effects that cash balance conversions may have on older and longer-service participants.14 

However, ensuring the fair treatment of older and longer-service participants in conversions 

requires strengthening current law to guarantee reasonable transition protections and to prohibit 

benefit wear-away. 

Inconsistent federal court decisions make it necessary to clarify that cash balance plans are not 

inherently discriminatory as long as older participants are treated at least as well as younger 

participants. Removing uncertainty about the basic legality of cash balance plans is critical to 

preserving the vitality of the defined benefit system, which provides retirement income security 

for millions of American workers and their families. 

As applied by the courts, the whipsaw effect under Notice 96-8 has harmed participants by 

leading plan sponsors to limit interest credits to the section 417(e) rate. This results in lower 

retirement accumulations for participants. The whipsaw effect should be eliminated so that plan 

sponsors can give participants higher interest credits. 

Proposal 

The proposal would accomplish three major objectives: 

1. Ensure fairness for older workers in cash balance conversions. 

2. Protect the defined benefit system by clarifying the status of cash balance plans. 

3. Remove the effective ceiling on interest credits in cash balance plans. 

Ensure fairness for older workers in cash balance conversions. The proposal would provide 

new protections for participants in cash balance conversions that would ensure fair transitions 

from traditional plans to cash balance plans. For each of the first five years after a conversion, 

the benefits earned by any current participant under the cash balance plan would have to be at 

least as valuable as the benefits the participant would have earned under the traditional plan if the 

conversion had not occurred. Additionally, there could be no wear-away of normal or early 

retirement benefits for any current participant at any time. 

To prohibit violations of the new transition protections, there would be a 100 percent excise tax, 

payable by the plan sponsor, on any difference between the benefits required under the proposal 

and the benefits actually provided by the cash balance plan. In recognition of the fact that some 

plan sponsors may be experiencing adverse business conditions, the amount of the excise tax 

could not exceed the greater of the plan’s surplus assets at the time of the conversion or the plan 

14 The General Accounting Office reported that 84 percent of the employers that it surveyed provided full or partial 

transition relief in cash balance conversions. General Accounting Office, Private Pensions: Implications of 

Conversions to Cash Balance Plans at 33 (GAO/HEHS-00-185, Sept. 29, 2000); General Accounting Office, Cash 

Balance Plans: Implications for Retirement Income at 34-5 (GAO/HEHS-00-207, Sept. 29, 2000). 

83 
--

sponsor’s taxable income. Failure to implement the new transition protections would not result 

in disqualification of the plan. 

The excise tax would not apply if participants were given a choice between the traditional 

formula and the cash balance formula or if the cash balance conversion grandfathered current 

participants under the traditional formula. This would preserve flexibility of plan sponsors to 

implement other provisions that protect older and longer-service participants. 

Protect the defined benefit system by clarifying the status of cash balance plans. The proposal 

would clarify that a cash balance plan satisfies the age-discrimination rules if the plan provides 

pay credits for older participants that are not less than the pay credits for younger participants, in 

the same manner as any defined contribution plan. The proposal would also clarify that certain 

transition strategies used in conversions (such as preserving the value of early retirement 

subsidies) do not violate the age-discrimination or other qualification rules. The proposal would 

provide similar rules for other types of hybrid plans and for conversions from traditional plans to 

other types of hybrid plans. 

Remove the effective ceiling on interest credits in cash balance plans. The proposal would 

eliminate whipsaw, providing that a cash balance plan may distribute a participant’s account 

balance as a lump sum distribution as long as the plan does not credit interest in excess of a 

market rate of return. The Secretary would be authorized to provide safe harbors for what 

constitutes a market rate of return and to prescribe appropriate conditions regarding the 

calculation of plan distributions. This would permit plan sponsors to give higher interest credits 

to participants, resulting in larger retirement accumulations. 

Conforming amendments and effective date. There would be conforming amendments under 

ERISA and the ADEA for statutory changes to the existing age-discrimination and distribution 

rules (but not for the new excise tax). 

All changes under the proposal would be effective prospectively. The legislative history would 

state that there would be no inference as to the status of cash balance plans or cash balance 

conversions under current law. 

Revenue Estimate 

Fiscal Years 

2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2006-2010 2006-2015

($ in millions) 

57 62 78 92 104 393 1,096 

84
STRENGTHEN FUNDING FOR SINGLE-EMPLOYER PENSION PLANS 

Current Law 

Defined benefit pension plans are subject to minimum funding requirements imposed under both 

the Internal Revenue Code and the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA). 

In the case of a qualified plan, the Internal Revenue Code excludes contributions to defined 

benefit pension plans from the gross income of participants and allows the plan sponsor a 

deduction for the contributions, subject to certain limits on the maximum deductible amount. 

The calculation of the minimum funding requirements and the limits on deductible contributions 

are based on the plan’s funding method, supplemented by calculations based on a comparison 

between the plan’s assets and a more standardized measure of the plan’s liability, known as 

current liability. These rules for defined benefit pension plans do not apply to governmental 

plans, church plans that have not made an election to be covered by ERISA and certain fully 

insured plans. 

Calculations based on the plan’s funding method 

Selection and use of plan’s funding method. A plan’s funding method (selected from a number 

of acceptable actuarial cost methods) is used to determine the normal cost and, in some funding 

methods, an accrued liability. The normal cost is defined as the portion of the plan’s liability 

that is attributable to the current year’s service, as determined under the actuarial cost method. 

Depending on the actuarial cost method, the normal cost can be based on the benefits that accrue 

during the year (adjusted upwards for expected future pay increases in the case of a plan that 

provides for benefits based on final average pay) or can be a specified portion of the present 

value of the total benefits expected to be paid under the plan. The accrued liability is based on 

the portion of the present value of the total benefits that is associated with the past under the 

actuarial cost method. For example, the actuarial cost method that determines the normal cost as 

the present value of the benefits that accrue during the year determines the accrued liability as 

the present value of the benefits that accrued in prior years. However, some actuarial cost 

methods (such as the aggregate cost method) do not determine an accrued liability. 

Actuarial value of plan assets. A plan’s funding method also includes a method of determining 

the actuarial value of plan assets. The actuarial value of plan assets may differ from the fair 

market value of plan assets (e.g., it may be determined under a formula that “smooths” 

fluctuations in market value by averaging the value over a number of years), but must be 

between 80 and 120 percent of the fair market value of plan assets. 

Actuarial assumptions. The actuarial assumptions that are used to determine liabilities under the 

plan’s funding method are based on the actuary’s best estimate of anticipated experience in the 

plan. For example, the interest rate must be the actuary’s best estimate of the future earnings on 

plan assets. The actuarial valuation generally must be prepared by disregarding the possibility of 

future changes in the plan’s benefit formula, the maximum benefit levels under section 415 or 

the section 401(a)(17) limit on the maximum compensation that can be taken into account under 

a qualified plan. However, if the plan is a single-employer collectively bargained plan, benefit 

increases must be taken into account if they are scheduled to take effect during the term of the 

current collective bargaining agreement. 

85 
Actuarial valuations. Each year, an actuarial valuation is prepared as of the valuation date for 

the year. The valuation entails the determination of the normal cost for the year, the 

determination of the accrued liability (in the case of a funding method that calculates an accrued 

liability) and a comparison of assets with liabilities as of the valuation date. The valuation date 

for a plan year is generally a date within the plan year or within the month preceding the 

beginning of the plan year. However, the valuation for a plan year may be made as of an earlier 

date within the prior plan year, provided that the value of the plan assets exceeded the current 

liability described below as of that earlier date and that adjustments are made for significant 

differences in participants. 

Calculation of minimum funding requirement. As part of the valuation, the accrued liability is 

compared with the actuarial value of plan assets. If the actuarial value of plan assets is less than 

the accrued liability, the shortfall must be amortized in level payments over a number of years. 

The amortization period that applies depends on the source of the unfunded accrued liability. 

For example, to the extent the unfunded accrued liability is attributable to an actuarial loss, the 

amortization period is 5 years; but if it is attributable to a plan amendment adopted after 1976, 

the amortization period is 30 years. The minimum contribution for the year based on the plan’s 

funding method (and subject to override as described below) is generally equal to the sum of the 

normal cost and the amortization payments for the year, adjusted by the funding standard 

account credit balance, as discussed below. If there have been actuarial gains or there have been 

changes in plan provisions or actuarial methods or assumptions that reduce the unfunded accrued 

liability, the amount of those gains or the reduction in unfunded accrued liability as a result of 

those changes is amortized over the same amortization periods that apply to the corresponding 

sources of unfunded accrued liability and each year’s amortization credits are applied to offset 

the amortization charges with respect to actuarial losses or other increases in unfunded accrued 

liability. 

Amortization extensions. A plan sponsor may apply for an extension of the amortization periods 

for a period of up to 10 years. The Internal Revenue Service may approve the extension only if it 

determines that the extension would carry out the purposes of ERISA and provide adequate 

protection for participants under the plan and that failure to permit the extension would be 

adverse to the interests of plan participants and would result in either a substantial risk that the 

plan would terminate or in a substantial curtailment of pension benefits or compensation levels. 

If an extension of the amortization periods is approved, a special interest rate is used to 

determine the amortization schedules. 

Funding standard account. Compliance with the minimum funding requirements is monitored 

using a “funding standard account” that is credited with each year’s contributions and charged 

with each year’s minimum funding requirements. If a sponsor contributes more than the 

minimum required contribution for a plan year, the excess is maintained as a credit balance in the 

funding standard account. The excess contribution, together with interest at the valuation 

interest rate, may be applied as an offset to the next year’s minimum funding requirements. If 

the credit balance is not used to offset the next year’s requirements, the credit balance is carried 

forward, with interest at the valuation interest rate, to subsequent years. 

86
Maximum deductible contribution and full funding limit under the plan’s funding method 

The maximum deductible contribution determined under the plan’s funding method (subject to 

override as described below) is generally equal to the normal cost plus a 10-year amortization of 

any unfunded accrued liability. If an employer that sponsors a plan with an unfunded accrued 

liability contributes additional amounts in order to amortize the unfunded accrued liability more 

quickly (i.e., over a shorter period) than the schedule of amortization payments used to determine 

the minimum required contribution, the additional contributions are reflected in a credit balance 

in the funding standard account, as described above. 

Full funding limit. To the extent the plan’s assets (valued at the lesser of fair market value and 

actuarial value) exceed the plan’s accrued liability (or the accrued liability under the entry age 

normal cost method if the plan’s funding method does not determine an accrued liability), then 

the plan’s deductible contribution determined under the plan’s funding method (subject to the 

override described below) is equal to the normal cost minus that excess. In such a case, where 

the plan is at its “full funding limit,” the required minimum contributions are also reduced. 

Thus, if the plan’s assets (valued at the lesser of fair market value and actuarial value) exceed the 

plan’s accrued liability by more than the normal cost for the year, unless one of the overrides 

described below applies, no deductible contribution is permitted and there is no minimum 

required contribution for the year. This is the case even if the plan is not adequately funded 

under a more accurate measure of liability. 

Current liability and deficit reduction contributions 

Current liability. The minimum required contribution and maximum deductible contribution 

calculated under the plan’s funding method are subject to an override that is based on the plan’s 

current liability. Current liability is calculated as the present value of the plan’s benefits that 

have accrued as of the valuation date (other than benefits that will arise as a result of a future 

unpredictable contingent event, such as a plant shutdown), determined using certain standardized 

actuarial assumptions. For plan years beginning in 2004 or 2005, the interest rate used to 

determine current liability must be within the corridor of 90-100 percent of the weighted 

average of the rate of interest on long-term corporate bonds (as set forth in guidance issued by 

the IRS), where the average is determined for the 48 months preceding the first day of the plan 

year. For plan years beginning in 2006 and thereafter, current liability must be determined using 

an interest rate within the corridor of 90-105 percent of the weighted average of the rate of 

interest on 30-year Treasury bonds, with the same 48-month averaging period and weightings. 

The statute specifies that a standardized mortality table must be used in determining current 

liability, and IRS guidance provides that current liability is generally determined without 

recognizing the value of lump sum options under a plan. 

Deficit reduction contribution requirement. The minimum funding requirements are 

supplemented by a requirement to make deficit reduction contributions in the case of a single 

employer plan sponsored by an employer that has more than 100 employees participating in 

defined benefit plans maintained by that employer. The deficit reduction contribution applies 

only when the actuarial value of the plan’s assets is less than 90 percent of current liability. In 

addition, the deficit reduction contribution rules do not apply if the actuarial value of the plan’s 

87 
assets is between 80 and 90 percent of current liability, provided that the plan’s assets were at 

least 90 percent of current liability in 2 consecutive years out of the last 3 years. 

Deficit reduction contribution amount. If the plan is subject to the deficit reduction contribution 

rules, the minimum required contribution for the year is the greater of the minimum determined 

under the plan’s funding method, as described above, and the sum of (1) the expected increase in 

current liability attributable to benefits accruing during the year, (2) an 18-year amortization of 

the unfunded current liability as of the first plan year beginning in 1988, (3) a specified 

percentage of the unfunded current liability (other than the unfunded current liability attributable 

to pre-1988 service and the current liability attributable to benefits arising as a result of the 

occurrence of an unpredictable contingent event, such as a plant shutdown), and (4) a specified 

contribution related to the current liability attributable to benefits arising from an unpredictable 

contingent event that has occurred. The specified percentage depends on the funded status of the 

plan (varying from 30 percent for a plan with a funded current percentage of 60, down to 18 

percent for a plan with a funded current percentage of at least 90), generally corresponding to an 

amortization period of 4 to 7 years. Under the Pension Funding Equity Act of 2004, commercial 

airlines, steel manufacturers and certain other employers may elect to use special rules to reduce 

significantly the deficit reduction contribution for plan years beginning between December 28, 

2003 and December 27, 2005. 

Maximum deductible overrides. An employer may deduct amounts contributed to the plan that 

are not in excess of the amount necessary to bring the plan’s assets up to the current liability, 

without regard to whether the plan assets exceed the accrued liability under the plan’s funding 

method. For this purpose, current liability may, at the employer’s election, be determined using 

an interest rate as low as 90 percent of the weighted average of the rate of interest on 30-year 

Treasury bonds. However, if the plan has fewer than 100 participants, the current liability is 

determined without regard to plan amendments increasing liabilities for highly compensated 

employees that are made in the last 2 years. If a single-employer plan that is insured by the 

Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation (PBGC) terminates, the deductible contribution limit is 

increased to equal the amount required to make the plan sufficient for benefit liabilities. 

Full funding limit override. Current liability also is used as an override to the otherwise 

applicable full funding limit for a plan. Under this rule, the full funding limit cannot be less than 

the excess of 90 percent of current liability (including the current liability normal cost) over the 

actuarial value of assets. Thus, a plan may not be treated as being at the full funding limit if the 

actuarial value of plan assets is less than 90 percent of the plan’s current liability. 

Alternative minimum funding standard. 

As an alternative to applying the rules described above, a plan which uses the entry age normal 

cost method may satisfy an alternative minimum funding standard. Under the alternative 

minimum funding standard, the minimum required contribution for the year is generally based on 

the amount necessary to bring the plan’s assets up to the present value of the accrued benefits, 

determined using actuarial assumptions that apply when a plan terminates. The alternative 

minimum funding standard has been rarely used. 

88
Minimum funding waivers 

If a plan sponsor of a single-employer plan is unable to satisfy the minimum funding 

requirements for a year without incurring temporary substantial business hardship, the plan 

sponsor may apply for a waiver of the funding requirements for that year. The Internal Revenue 

Service may approve the waiver application if it determines that the application of the minimum 

funding rules would be adverse to the interests of plan participants in the aggregate, but only if 

the plan has not obtained a waiver more than 3 times in a 15-year period. If the amount of the 

waiver is more than $1,000,000, the Internal Revenue Service must consult with the PBGC, and 

a waiver will generally be granted only if the employer provides adequate security. Once the 

minimum funding requirement for a year has been waived, the missed contributions must be 

amortized over a 5-year period, using a statutorily specified interest rate. 

Failure to contribute minimum required funding 

If a plan sponsor is a member of a controlled group of trades or businesses (generally based on 

80 percent ownership) or an affiliated service group, all members of the group are joint and 

severally liable for satisfying the minimum funding requirements. A 10 percent excise tax 

applies if the plan sponsor fails to contribute the minimum required funding for a plan year (i.e., 

the plan has an accumulated funding deficiency). In addition, if the accumulated funding 

deficiency exceeds $1 million, a lien arises in favor of the PBGC. If the funding deficiency is 

not corrected before the Internal Revenue Service issues a notice of deficiency, the excise tax 

increases to 100 percent. 

Timing rules for contributions 

Minimum required contributions. If contributions are made on a date other than the date used in 

the actuarial valuation, the amount of the minimum contribution is adjusted with interest at the 

valuation interest rate, but not beyond the end of the plan year. If a single-employer plan had 

assets that were less than the current liability for the prior plan year, the minimum funding 

requirement for the current year must be substantially satisfied through quarterly contributions 

during the year. In addition, an employer sponsoring such a plan must make sufficient 

contributions during a year to ensure that the plan maintains sufficient liquid assets to pay 3 

years’ worth of benefits. Failure to maintain this balance as of the end of a quarter is known as a 

“liquidity shortfall” and is treated as a failure to meet the quarterly contribution requirements. 

Regardless of whether the quarterly contribution requirements apply, the period for making 

minimum contributions for a plan year extends to 8 1⁄2 months after the end of the plan year. A 

contribution for the plan year that is made during this 8 1⁄2 month period is included in the plan 

assets (as a contribution receivable) for the following plan year’s actuarial valuation. 

Failure to meet quarterly contributions. The sanction for failing to make the quarterly 

contributions is a requirement to increase the contributions using a statutorily specified interest 

rate that was intended to be higher than the otherwise applicable rate. In addition, if the missed 

contributions total more than $1 million, a lien arises in favor of the PBGC. If a plan has a 

liquidity shortfall, the amount of the shortfall is treated as a failure to meet minimum funding 

requirements, giving rise to the excise tax described above. 

89 
Deduction rules. An employer sponsoring a defined benefit pension plan generally may deduct 

amounts contributed to the plan that do not exceed the maximum deductible contribution, 

provided that the contributions are made prior to the tax filing deadline for the tax year. 

Contributions for a tax year that exceed the greater of the maximum deductible contribution and 

the full funding limit are subject to an excise tax if the employer is a taxable entity (including a 

tax-exempt employer that has ever paid unrelated business income tax). 

Form 5500, Schedule B actuarial statement and summary annual report (SAR) 

Form 5500 and Schedule B actuarial statement. Pension plans generally are required to file an 

annual report and annual return under ERISA and the Internal Revenue Code. The Department 

of Labor, Internal Revenue Service and PBGC have consolidated these requirements into the 

Form 5500. Defined benefit pension plans subject to minimum funding standards generally are 

required to file an actuarial statement (Schedule B) each year with their Form 5500. The 

Schedule B must be certified by an enrolled actuary and must report information on the plan’s 

assets, liabilities and compliance with funding requirements. 

The Form 5500 is due 7 months after the end of the plan year (the end of July for a calendar year 

plan). However, a 2 1⁄2 month extension is available (to October 15 for a calendar year plan). 

Copies of the plan’s Form 5500, including the Schedule B actuarial statement and funding 

information, must be made available upon request to plan participants and beneficiaries receiving 

benefits under the plan. The Form 5500 also may be obtained by participants, beneficiaries, and 

the general public from a public document room at the Department of Labor. 

Summary annual report (SAR). Under ERISA, pension plans are required to furnish a summary 

of the Form 5500 to participants and beneficiaries receiving benefits under the plan. Plans must 

use a format set forth in Labor regulations to disclose basic financial information about the plan 

reported on the Form 5500. The SAR also must include a statement that enough money was 

contributed to the plan to keep it funded in accordance with the minimum funding standards, or 

that not enough money was contributed to the plan to keep it funded in accordance with the 

minimum funding standards and the amount of the deficit. If the current value of the assets of a 

plan is less than 70 percent of the current liability under the plan, the SAR also must include the 

percentage of such current value of the plan’s assets. The SAR must be furnished within 9 

months after the end of the plan year (or, if an extension applies for the filing of the Form 5500, 

2 months after the extended due date). 

Participant notice of underfunding. Under section 4011 of ERISA, plan administrators of certain 

underfunded single-employer defined benefit plans covered by the PBGC benefit guarantee 

program are required to notify participants, beneficiaries, alternate payees under qualified 

domestic relations orders, and collective bargaining representatives, if any, of the plan's funding 

status and the limits of the PBGC's guarantee. The notice must be furnished no later than 2 

months after the filing deadline for the Form 5500 for the previous plan year and may be 

distributed with the plan’s SAR. Generally, plans that are less than 90 percent funded and 

required to pay a variable rate premium to the PBGC under its guarantee program are required to 

90
issue such notices. However, in recent years, most plans have been exempt from paying variable 

rate premiums as a result of being at the “full funding limit.” 

Grandfathered floor-offset plans 

ERISA prohibits a defined benefit plan from acquiring employer securities or employer real 

property if immediately after such acquisition such assets would exceed 10 percent of the fair 

market value of the assets in the plan. Under a floor-offset arrangement, the defined benefit plan 

provides the floor, or minimum benefit. That benefit is then offset, or reduced, by the annuitized 

benefit the defined contribution plan could provide. 

The Pension Protection Act of 1987 (PPA 1987) amended ERISA to take assets under a defined 

contribution plan that is part of a floor-offset arrangement into account for purposes of the 10 

percent limit. Thus, the limit applies on an aggregated basis to affected floor-offset 

arrangements, aggregating the separate but associated defined benefit and defined contribution 

plans. However, the PPA 1987 amendment only applies to floor-offset arrangements established 

after December 17, 1987, so that defined contribution plans that are part of floor-offset 

arrangements established on or before December 17, 1987 (so-called "grandfathered floor-offset 

arrangements") are not subject to this limit. 

Benefit limitations 

Plan amendments increasing benefits in severely underfunded plans. If an employer with more 

than 100 participants in defined benefit plans amends the plan to increase benefits, the employer 

is required to post security before the plan amendment can take effect if, after the plan 

amendment, the actuarial value of the plan’s assets would be less than 60 percent of current 

liability (determined without regard to the unamortized portion of pre-1988 unfunded current 

liability). The amount of the required security is the amount by which the assets are less than 60 

percent of current liability after the amendment (or, if smaller, the aggregate increase in current 

liability attributable to all post-1988 benefit increase amendments), but only to the extent this 

amount exceeds $10 million. 

Other limitations on benefit increases. In the case of a defined benefit plan sponsored by an 

employer in bankruptcy, an amendment improving the plan’s benefits generally may not be made 

effective until the reorganization is complete. Similarly, if an employer has an outstanding 

minimum funding waiver for a defined benefit plan or has had the amortization period extended, 

the plan generally may not be amended to improve benefits. 

Limitations on lump sums for plans experiencing liquidity shortfalls. Under section 206(e) of 

ERISA, a plan that has a liquidity shortfall may not make lump sum payments (or other similar 

benefit payments that deplete plan assets on an accelerated basis) during the period of the 

shortfall. The limitation on payments during the period of a liquidity shortfall extends to lump 

sum payments and any other payment that is larger than a single life annuity (plus any social 

security supplements) and to the purchase of an annuity from an insurer. Under the Internal 

Revenue Code, a plan will not be disqualified merely because benefit payments are not made in 

accordance with this limitation during the period of liquidity shortfall. 

91 
Executive funding for nonqualified deferred compensation. Companies can fund nonqualified 

deferred compensation arrangements for executives through a variety of mechanisms that secure 

benefits by segregating assets in a funding vehicle that is not fully available to creditors, such as 

rabbi trusts and insurance policies, without regard to the funded status of the company’s pension 

plans for employees generally. 

Reasons for Change 

The pension funding rules should ensure that pension promises made by businesses to workers 

and retirees will be honored. The recent economic climate has exposed severe weaknesses in the 

pension funding rules. These weaknesses have resulted in serious plan underfunding, and 

terminations of underfunded plans have led to benefit losses for plan participants and record 

deficits for the PBGC. The fact that there have been successive and worsening pension funding 

crises over time demonstrates that fundamental reform is needed. 

Increased claims for plan terminations of significantly underfunded pension plans have resulted 

in a record deficit in the single-employer insurance fund of the PBGC. For the fiscal year ending 

September 30, 2004, the deficit in that fund has increased from $11 billion to $23 billion. The 

increasing PBGC deficit and high levels of plan underfunding are themselves a cause for 

concern. More importantly, however, they are symptomatic of serious structural problems in the 

private defined benefit system. It is important to shore up this structure and strengthen the 

financial health of defined benefit plans. If significantly underfunded pension plans continue to 

terminate, not only will workers lose benefits, but other companies (including those that are 

healthy and have funded their plans in a responsible manner) may have to pay significantly 

higher PBGC premiums or other steps will be needed in order to protect plan participants and 

maintain the solvency of the pension insurance program. 

One reason for this problem is the byzantine and often ineffectual set of funding rules under 

current law. They are needlessly complex and fail to ensure that many pension plans become 

and remain adequately funded. Current rules give employers too much discretion in setting their 

funding targets and provide insufficient opportunity for plans to become well funded. Current 

rules also do not provide enough incentive to be well funded because there are few significant 

consequences that arise from a plan being poorly funded, especially for a plan sponsor in poor 

financial health. 

Current measures of plan funding are not based on measures of assets and liabilities that are 

meaningful and accurate 

Funding targets should not be manipulable. Because a plan’s apparent funded status is a 

function of its chosen actuarial cost method, there is no uniformity in liability measures under 

current law. Furthermore, a plan actuary has substantial discretion in selecting an interest rate 

and the interest rates chosen commonly reflect the high rate of return that is anticipated from 

investing in equities. As a result, companies can report that their pension plans are fully funded, 

when in fact they are substantially underfunded using a more meaningful and accurate measure 

of liability. 

92
Liabilities should be measured accurately using current interest rates. Current law attempts to 

address the manipulability of the funding target by overlaying the requirement to make a deficit 

reduction contribution, which is based on a more standardized measurement of current liability. 

The deficit reduction contribution override to the minimum funding requirements has not been 

wholly effective, as a number of employers have adopted a funding policy that just keeps the 

plan’s assets at 90 percent of current liability in order to avoid application of the deficit reduction 

contribution. Moreover, current liability has a number of structural flaws that result in that value 

having no obvious relationship to the amount of assets needed to pay all of the plan’s benefit 

liabilities if the plan were to terminate. 

One such flaw is that the interest rate used in determining current liability can be selected from 

an interest rate corridor that is based on an average of interest rates over the prior 48 months. As 

a result, during periods of rapidly changing interest rates, the current liability interest rate can be 

significantly out-of-date. For example, in November 2004, the weighted average of the longterm corporate bond rates used to determine current liability was 6.17 percent, while the actual 

rate for that month was 5.59 percent -- such an interest rate difference (.58 percent) can by itself 

materially understate plan liabilities. 

Even if the current liability interest rate reflected current market conditions, it would produce an 

inaccurate measure of the plan’s true liability because it is based on a long-term interest rate and 

fails to take into account the actual timing of when benefit payments will be due under the plan, 

which might be -- and often is -- considerably sooner. As anyone who has ever compared the 

interest rates on a 15-year and a 30-year mortgage knows, market interest rates are sensitive to 

the timing of the relevant cash flows. 

Assets also should be measured accurately. The use of a smoothed actuarial value of assets 

distorts the funded status of the plan. Using fair market value for purposes of the funding rules 

would give a clearer picture of a plan’s funded status. 

The risk of termination must be recognized for plan sponsors in poor financial health. In addition 

to other flaws, the funding targets under current law fail to reflect the additional costs that an 

insurer would charge in providing annuities for a terminating plan. Pension plans sponsored by 

firms in poor financial health pose substantial risk of termination and losses to plan participants 

and the pension insurance fund. Under current rules, such plans are not required to fund to a 

target that adequately reflects the final costs of terminating the plan. While it is not necessary for 

all plans to fund to such a high standard, the pension funding target for a plan should not be 

based on the assumption that the plan will survive indefinitely, particularly if there is a 

substantial risk that the plan will terminate. Accordingly, the pension funding rules should not 

be based on the fundamental assumption that plan assets will always be able to earn an equity 

premium or that plans will be able to earn a long-term interest rate to meet short-term 

obligations. In addition, in the case of a plan with a substantial risk of terminating, the pension 

funding target should reflect the additional cost of terminating the plan and that plan participants 

are increasingly likely to retire early and to take their benefits in lump sum form. 

Because of these flaws in measurements of liabilities and the permitted smoothing of assets, 

funding ratios based on current law measures of assets and liabilities often provide an inaccurate 

93 
picture of a pension plan's true financial status. This is especially true when the smoothed 

current liability is compared with a smoothed actuarial value of assets which can be substantially 

above market value. Inaccurate asset and liability measures can contribute to unpleasant 

surprises about a plan’s funded status for participants if their pension plan terminates. Recent 

well-known plan terminations include a case in which the plan appeared to be 84 percent funded 

on a current liability basis in the year before the plan termination, but when the plan actually 

terminated it turned out to be only 45 percent funded on a termination basis, with a total shortfall 

of $4.3 billion. In another case, the plan appeared to be 94 percent funded on a current liability 

basis in the year before the plan terminated, but when it terminated, the plan was only 33 percent 

funded on a termination basis, with a $2.5 billion shortfall. Had these plans been required to use 

a liability measure that reflected current market interest rates, the timing and form of benefit 

payments, and the cost associated with an actual plan termination, and had that liability been 

compared to the market value of assets, the stated funded status of the plan prior to termination 

would not have been so misleading. 

Underfunded plans should make up their shortfalls over a reasonable period and without funding 

holidays until the shortfall is eliminated 

Amortization periods are too long. The current law 30-year amortization period for plan 

amendments is too long, as there is too much risk that the plan will be terminated before the 30 

years is completed. Furthermore, collectively bargained plans often have a series of benefit 

increases every few years. As a result, these plans are perennially underfunded. While the 

deficit reduction contribution override was designed to address this problem (as well as the 

discretion in setting funding targets under the plan’s funding method), its effectiveness has been 

limited by the ability of a plan sponsor to avoid the application of the deficit reduction 

contribution by keeping a plan funded just above 90 percent of current liability, as noted above. 

Funding standard account credit balances should be eliminated. One flaw in the current funding 

rules worth highlighting is the treatment of funding standard account credit balances. The credit 

balance rules allow an employer to apply their additional contributions from an earlier year --

with assumed interest -- as an offset to the minimum funding requirement for the current year 

without restriction. This allows a plan to have a contribution holiday without regard to whether 

the additional contributions have earned the assumed rate of interest or have instead lost money 

in a down market -- and, more importantly, regardless of the current funded status of the plan. In 

the two dramatic plan termination cases cited above, the credit balance in the funding standard 

accounts served to fully offset otherwise required contributions. As a result, no contributions 

were made to either plan during the three or four years leading up to plan termination. The law 

needs to provide an incentive to adequately fund plans at an appropriate level, without the 

volatility inherent in a credit balance system. 

The rules should provide employers with the opportunity for additional funding 

Additional tax-deductible contributions should be permitted. The rules should provide greater 

flexibility for employers to make additional contributions in good economic times. The current 

funding rules can conceivably place a pension plan sponsor in the position of being unable to 

make deductible contributions in one year and then being subject to accelerated deficit reduction 

94 
contributions in a subsequent year. This problem is caused by the interaction of the minimum 

funding requirements, which are designed to ensure the pension plan's financial integrity, the 

rules governing maximum deductible contributions, which are designed to limit excessive tax 

deductions, and the excise tax on nondeductible contributions. Prohibiting tax-deductible 

contributions whenever the plan’s assets exceed the greater of the plan’s accrued liability and the 

plan’s current liability restricts the ability to build up a cushion that employers can use to protect 

themselves from the risk that contributions will have to be severely increased in poor economic 

times. The law should be revised to allow higher tax-deductible contributions during good 

economic times that would minimize precipitous funding increases during tough economic times, 

and thereby allow a plan sponsor to guard against future periods of low sponsor earnings and/or 

periods of poor plan asset returns. 

Accurate information about a plan’s funding status is needed earlier 

As indicated above, asset and liability measures under current law are often not accurate and 

meaningful measures of the plan’s funding status. As a result, participants who have lost 

benefits when their badly underfunded plan was terminated have often had no advance warning, 

or were led to believe that the level of underfunding was not significant. Information on a plan’s 

funding target and a comparison of that liability to the market value of assets would provide 

more accurate disclosure of a plan’s funded status. Providing the participants and beneficiaries 

with information on the funded status of a plan on a more timely basis would also make this 

information more useful to them. 

The current deadline for filing Form 5500 means that the regulatory agencies are not notified of 

the plan’s funded status for almost 2 years after the actual valuation date. If the market value of 

a plan’s assets is less than its funding target, the relevant regulatory agencies need to monitor 

whether the plan is complying with the funding requirements on a more current basis. 

Eliminate grandfather for pre-1988 floor-offset plans 

The PPA 1987 grandfather for pre-1988 floor-offset plans means that participants in such an 

arrangement are at significant risk. If a company with a grandfathered floor-offset arrangement 

goes out of business, the employer stock held in the related defined contribution plan typically 

becomes worthless, with the result that the defined benefit plan is left with a large unfunded 

liability. This problem has been highlighted by the recent events surrounding the financial 

difficulties of the Enron Corporation, which had maintained a grandfathered floor-offset plan. 

Stronger consequences should apply for persistently underfunded plans 

Restraining liability increases in significantly underfunded plans. Companies should be held 

accountable to make good on the pension promises they have made to their workers and retirees. 

The consequence of not honoring these commitments is that the retirement security of millions of 

current and future retirees is put at risk. Under current law, sponsors of underfunded plans can 

continue to provide for additional accruals and, in some situations even make benefit 

improvements, while pushing the cost of paying for those benefits off into the future. For this 

reason, companies have an incentive to provide generous pension benefits, rather than increase 

95 
current wages, and employees may go along because of the PBGC guarantee. If a company’s 

plan is poorly funded, the company should be precluded from adopting further benefit increases 

unless it fully funds them, especially if it is in a weak financial position. 

Lump sums should be restricted in severely underfunded plans. If a plan is severely 

underfunded, retiring employees should not be able to elect lump sums and similar accelerated 

benefits because the payment of those benefits allows those participants to receive the full value 

of their benefits while depleting the plan assets for the remaining participants. A similar concern 

applies when a severely underfunded plan purchases annuities. 

Additional risk from plan sponsors in poor financial health. Recent history has demonstrated 

that pension funding risk is greatest for employers in poor financial health. Furthermore, 

financial discipline from plan sponsors cannot be expected if there are no consequences 

associated with the lack of such discipline. Thus, if an employer is recognizably in financial 

difficulty and its pension plan is significantly underfunded, even more serious measures are 

called for. Such a plan should be frozen until the funding improves. 

Other changes are needed 

PBGC premium changes. The current premium structure for the PBGC requires a redesign. Not 

only are the premiums too low to cover the PBGC’s expected claims, much less to improve its 

financial status, but they do not take into account the different risks of termination for different 

plans. As a result, healthy plan sponsors are subsidizing plan sponsors that have not acted as 

responsibly. A properly designed insurance system has various mechanisms for encouraging 

responsible behavior that will lessen the likelihood of incurring a loss and discouraging risky 

behavior that heightens the prospects of claims. This problem requires changes in our Nation’s 

pension insurance guarantee system, which are included in the budget being proposed by the 

Department of Labor and the PBGC. 

Executive funding for nonqualified deferred compensation. Executives of companies in 

financial difficulty should not be able to benefit by having their nonqualified deferred 

compensation arrangements funded and made more secure, without addressing the risk to the 

retirement income of rank and file employees caused by severely underfunded pension plans. 

Rules also are needed that would preclude funding executive compensation arrangements at a 

time close to termination of an underfunded pension plan covering rank and file employees. 

Plant shutdown benefits should not be permitted. A recurring problem in pension funding is that 

a plan may have special benefits that are only payable in the event that the location at which 

workers are employed ceases operations. Such events are inherently unpredictable, so that it is 

difficult to recognize the costs of these benefits in advance, and current law does not include the 

cost of benefits arising from future unpredictable contingent events in current liability. Yet these 

benefits can dramatically increase the level of underfunding in a plan and by themselves have 

been a considerable source of pension funding problems. Allowing -- and guaranteeing – plant 

shutdown benefits raises fairness issues since other participants and plan sponsors may bear the 

burden of paying for these unfunded benefits. 

96
PBGC guarantee limitations in bankruptcy. While current law limits the benefit increases that 

can be adopted when a company goes into bankruptcy, the amount of the PBGC guarantee 

continues to increase. These guarantees should not continue to grow, especially if bankruptcy 

courts are permitting employers to pay less than the minimum required contribution while they 

are in bankruptcy. A proposal to freeze the PBGC guarantee during bankruptcy is included in 

the budget being proposed by the Department of Labor and the PBGC. 

Perfection of lien in bankruptcy. When missed contributions exceed $1 million, a lien arises 

under current law. While the PBGC normally may perfect that lien, there is an automatic stay 

during a bankruptcy which prevents the PBGC from perfecting that lien. A proposal to allow 

perfecting of these liens during bankruptcy is included in the budget being proposed by the 

Department of Labor and the PBGC. 

Multiemployer plans 

While changes in the current law funding rules may also be needed for multiemployer pension 

plans, there are other factors involved that relate to the funded status of multiemployer plans. 

These factors are under study and, accordingly, the funding rules applicable to multiemployer 

plans are not being addressed at this time. 

Proposal 

The multiple sets of funding rules applicable to single-employer defined benefit plans would be 

rationalized and replaced with a single set of rules that provide for: (1) funding targets that are 

based on meaningful, accurate measures of liabilities that reflect the financial health of the 

employer; (2) the use of market values of assets; (3) a 7-year amortization period for funding 

shortfalls; (4) the opportunity for an employer to make additional deductible contributions in 

good years, even when the plan’s assets are above the funding target; and (5) meaningful 

consequences for employers and plans whose funded status does not improve. Governmental 

plans, non-electing church plans and fully insured plans would continue to be excluded from the 

minimum funding rules. 

These funding rule changes, the addition of meaningful consequences for employers and plans 

whose funded status does not improve, and improved disclosure to plan participants, investors 

and regulators, are part of an overall package of reforms that will improve the health of defined 

benefit pensions and the PBGC guarantee system. As described in the section of the President’s 

Budget relating to the PBGC, this overall package also includes a reform of the premium 

structure for the PBGC, a freeze on the PBGC guarantee during bankruptcy, and a change to the 

bankruptcy law. 

Funding targets that are based on measures of liabilities that are meaningful and accurate and 

that reflect the financial health of the employer 

Funding targets that depend on the plan sponsor’s financial health. The minimum required 

contribution to a single-employer defined benefit pension plan would be based on funding targets 

that vary depending on the financial health of the plan sponsor. For a plan sponsor that is 

healthy (i.e., the plan sponsor is not financially weak, as defined below), the funding target is the 

97 
plan’s ongoing liability. For a plan sponsor that is financially weak, the funding target generally 

is the plan’s at-risk liability. However, if the plan sponsor has become financially weak within 

the past 5 years, there is a phase-in of the target liability, as described below. 

Definition of financially weak. A plan sponsor is financially weak for a plan year if, as of the 

valuation date, any plan sponsor for the plan has senior unsecured debt that is rated as not being 

investment grade by each of the nationally recognized statistical rating organizations that has 

issued a credit rating for the debt (or, if no plan sponsor has senior unsecured debt that is rated, 

all of the nationally recognized statistical rating organizations that have made an issuer credit 

rating for any plan sponsor have rated the sponsor as less than investment grade). However, a 

plan sponsor would not be treated as financially weak if any significant member of the controlled 

group (whether or not a plan sponsor) has senior unsecured debt that is rated as being investment 

grade. 

In addition, a plan sponsor is automatically treated as not being financially weak if it has neither 

senior unsecured debt that is rated nor an issuer credit rating and the employer does not maintain 

defined benefit plans covering at least 500 participants. In the case where no plan sponsor has 

either senior unsecured debt that is rated or an issuer credit rating and the employer maintains 

defined benefit plans covering at least 500 participants, the determination of whether the sponsor 

is financially weak would be made under regulations. It is expected that the regulations would 

generally determine whether the sponsor is financially weak based on financial measures, such as 

whether the long-term debt to equity ratio of the controlled group is 1.5 or more, with debt to 

include the unfunded pension liability (at-risk liability) and equity to be based on fair market 

value for a privately held company or market capitalization for a company whose stock is 

publicly traded. 

Changes in financial health. If a sponsor’s financial health worsens (i.e., the plan sponsor 

becomes financially weak) during a plan year (including having become financially weak before 

enactment), the change in the applicable funding target (and the associated normal cost) is 

phased in ratably over a 5-year period following the year the plan sponsor becomes financially 

weak (without regard to whether any of those years were prior to enactment). However, if a 

sponsor’s financial health improves so that it becomes healthy during a plan year, the funding 

target changes to ongoing liability for the next plan year. 

Ongoing liability. Ongoing liability is equal to the present value of all benefits that the plan is 

expected to pay in the future, based on benefits earned through the beginning of the plan year 

(including early retirement and similar benefits that the participant will grow into with future 

service to the extent of the benefits earned as of the beginning of the plan year). Present value is 

determined by discounting the future expected payments under the plan for the time value of 

money using the corporate bond yield curve described below, where the expected payments are 

determined using a mortality table prescribed by the Secretary of Treasury. Each other 

assumption, including the plan’s turnover and retirement assumption, is required to be actuarially 

reasonable based on the plan’s experience (or other relevant historical experience if the plan has 

no experience). The probability that future payments will be made in the form of a lump sum 

payment is among the factors that are required to be taken into account. Ongoing normal cost is 

the present value of all benefits that the plan is expected to pay that accrue during the plan year 

98 
(including any increase in benefits earned in prior years attributable to compensation increases), 

calculated using the same assumptions as are used for determining ongoing liability. 

At-risk liability. At-risk liability would be based on the same benefits and assumptions as 

ongoing liability, except that the valuation of those benefits would require the use of certain 

actuarial assumptions that would take into account the fact that a plan maintained by a 

financially weak plan sponsor has a greater likelihood to pay benefits on an accelerated basis or 

to terminate its plan. The modified actuarial assumptions are: acceleration in retirement rates 

using the earliest early retirement age; and benefits being distributed in a lump sum payment (or 

in whatever other form of distribution results in the largest liability for the plan). These 

assumptions are designed to reflect behavior that typically occurs prior to plan termination when 

the financial health of the employer deteriorates. In addition, at-risk liability includes a loading 

factor to reflect the additional administrative cost of purchasing a group annuity if the plan were 

to terminate: the loading factor is $700 per participant plus 4 percent of the at-risk liability before 

the loading factor. In no event would the at-risk liability for the plan be less than ongoing 

liability for the plan plus the loading factor (which could occur, for example, if the earliest 

retirement age assumption were to result in less valuable benefits). At-risk normal cost is the 

same as ongoing normal cost, except that at-risk normal cost is generally calculated using the 

assumptions that are used for determining at-risk liability (but does not include the $700 per 

participant loading factor). 

Interest rates used for present value calculations to be based on a yield curve. The applicable 

funding target and normal cost would be determined using a series of interest rates drawn from a 

yield curve for high-quality zero-coupon corporate bonds. This corporate bond yield curve 

would be issued monthly by the Secretary of Treasury and would be based on the interest rates 

(averaged over 90 business days) for high quality corporate bonds (i.e., bonds rated AA) with 

varying maturities. Thus, the interest rates that are used in calculating ongoing liability and atrisk liability would vary, depending on how many years in the future a participant’s benefit 

payment will be made. In the usual situation of an upwardly sloping yield curve, higher interest 

rates would be used to discount benefit payments expected to be made further in the future, with 

lower interest rates applying for benefit payments made in the near term. 

Transition rules. For plan years beginning in 2006 and 2007, the funding target would be 

determined as the weighted average of the value of the applicable funding target liability and 

normal cost for the plan, determined using the methodology described above, and that same 

liability and normal cost determined using the transition interest rate. The transition interest rate 

is the interest rate that would have been used to determine current liability if the law applicable 

to current liability for 2005 were to continue to apply for 2006 and 2007. For 2006, the 

weighting factor would be 2/3 for the calculation using the transition interest rate and 1/3 for the 

calculation using the corporate bond yield curve; and for 2007, the weighting factors would be 

reversed. 

Valuation dates. A plan’s funding target (based on ongoing liability or at-risk liability, as 

applicable) and the market value of its assets for any plan year would be determined as of the 

valuation date for that year. A plan’s valuation date may be any day of the plan year if the plan 

has 100 or fewer participants, and must be the first day of the plan year if the plan has more than 

99 
100 participants. If the valuation date is after the first day of the plan year, the funding target 

excludes the present value of benefits accrued between the first day of the year and the valuation 

date. For purposes of determining plan assets at the valuation date, any contribution that has 

been made for the current plan year is disregarded and any contribution to be made for the prior 

plan year that has not yet been paid is included in the plan assets as a contribution receivable. 

However, for plan years beginning in 2007 and later, only the present value of that contribution 

receivable is included in plan assets, with the present value to be determined using the average 

effective interest rate that applied in determining the prior year’s funding target. 

Minimum contributions for plans with market value of assets below funding target 

If, as of the valuation date for a plan year, the market value of plan assets is less than the 

applicable funding target for the year, the minimum required contribution for the year would be 

equal to the sum of the applicable normal cost for the year and the required amortization 

payments for the shortfall, as described below. The alternate minimum funding standard account 

would be eliminated, but current law permitting waivers of minimum funding requirements 

would continue to apply. 

Amortization payments. Amortization payments would be required in amounts that amortize 

each amortization base over a 7-year period. The initial amortization base is established as of the 

valuation date for the first plan year beginning in 2006 and is equal to the excess, if any, of the 

funding target over the market value of assets as of the valuation date. The shortfall is amortized 

in 7 payments, beginning with a payment as of the valuation date for that plan year and 

continuing on a level basis at each valuation date for the next 6 plan years, where the level 

amortization payments are determined based on the applicable interest rates under the corporate 

bond yield curve. 

For each subsequent plan year, if, at a valuation date, the sum of the market value of assets and 

the present value of future amortization payments (with the present value determined using the 

corporation bond yield curve as of the current valuation date) is less than the funding target, an 

additional amortization base equal to that shortfall is established. That shortfall is similarly 

amortized in 7 equal payments. The current law rules regarding extension of amortization 

periods would no longer be available to reduce the minimum funding requirements for a singleemployer plan. 

This process (i.e., comparing the funding target to the sum of the market value of assets and the 

present value of future amortization payments for past amortization bases, and establishing a new 

amortization base if there is a shortfall) is repeated each year on the valuation date. If, at any 

valuation date, the sum of the market value of assets and the present value of future amortization 

payments exceeds the funding target, no new amortization base would be established for that 

year and the total amortization payments for the next year would be the same as in the prior year 

(except to the extent amortization payments for a prior amortization base cease because that base 

has completed its 7-year amortization period). The amortization payments for each amortization 

base would continue unchanged for 7 years (or until the market value of the plan’s assets on a 

valuation date equals or exceeds the funding target if earlier). If, on a valuation date, the market 

100
value of the plan’s assets equals or exceeds the funding target, then the amortization charges 

would cease and all existing amortization bases would be eliminated. 

Timing rules. The quarterly contribution rules would apply to all plans that have assets less than 

the funding target as of the prior valuation date, and the deadline for the final contribution for the 

year would continue to be 8 1⁄2 months after the end of the plan year. A contribution made after 

the valuation date for the year would be credited against the minimum required contribution for 

the year based on its present value as of the valuation date, discounted from the date actually 

contributed and determined using the average effective interest rate that applied in the 

determination of the funding target under the actuarial valuation. 

Required funding and opportunity to increase funding in good years 

If, as of the valuation date, the market value of plan assets exceeds the funding target by more 

than the applicable normal cost, there would be no required funding for the year. If the market 

value of plan assets exceeds the funding target, but by an amount that is less than the normal cost 

for the year, the required funding for the plan would be equal to the normal cost minus the excess 

of the plan assets over the funding target. However, any plan sponsor would be permitted to 

make additional deductible contributions up to the maximum deductible amount. 

Maximum deductible amount. Funding would be permitted on a tax deductible basis to the 

extent the plan’s assets on the valuation date are less than the sum of the plan’s funding target for 

the plan year, the applicable normal cost and a specified cushion. The cushion amount is defined 

as the sum of (1) 30 percent of the plan’s funding target and (2) an increase to reflect how much 

larger the funding target and applicable normal cost would be if they were to take into account 

anticipated future salary increases, or future benefit increases (based on the average for the past 6 

years) in the case of plans under which the benefits for service to date are not based on 

compensation. To determine how much larger the funding target and applicable normal cost 

would be if they were to take into account anticipated future salary or benefit increases, the 

salary or benefit increase is applied to increase benefits under the plan formula based on service 

as of the valuation date, but limited, as under current law, to the then applicable tax law 

limitations on benefits and compensation. In no event would the maximum deductible 

contribution for any plan year be less than the plan’s unfunded at-risk liability plus the at-risk 

normal cost. 

Effect of contributing more than the minimum. If a plan sponsor contributes more than the 

minimum required contribution for the year, the employer will receive a deduction for the year 

that the contribution is credited for funding purposes, but no adjustment is made to the required 

contributions under the payment schedules that amortize funding shortfalls. Because 

contributing more than the minimum amount (and actual earnings thereon) will increase plan 

assets at the next valuation date, a contribution in excess of the minimum for a year will 

accelerate the date on which the plan’s assets equal or exceed the funding target, after which the 

only required contributions would be the normal cost. 

Further, to the extent that the plan sponsor makes additional contributions for a year so that the 

market value of the plan’s assets at the next valuation date exceed the funding target by more 

101 
than the normal cost for the next year, the plan sponsor will have the flexibility for that next year 

to make contributions up to the maximum level and the sponsor will not be required to make any 

minimum contribution for that year. The flexibility to not make a contribution for a year will 

continue as long as the plan’s assets continue to equal or exceed the sum of the funding target 

and the applicable normal cost. 

The potential for a sponsor to make additional contributions during good economic times (even 

when the plan’s assets exceed its funding target) provides a plan sponsor with the opportunity to 

build up a cushion that can minimize future minimum contributions in bad years. The sponsor 

will also have incentives to choose to make contributions to the plan when it has the cash (even if 

the plan’s assets exceed its funding target) in order to obtain a tax deduction and to minimize the 

risk of having to impose the benefit limitations described below. If an employer makes 

additional contributions, not only will plan participants have greater funding security, but the 

employer will have received an early deduction as well as tax shelter for the earnings on the 

early contribution. 

A contribution made within the time for filing tax returns for a taxable year (which is generally 

not later than 8 1⁄2 months after the end of the taxable year) may be deducted for that taxable 

year, provided that it does not exceed the maximum deductible amount and is treated as a plan 

contribution made for the plan year that contains the last day of the taxable year. No other 

changes would be made in the current law rules relating to the timing of contributions under the 

minimum funding rules and under the maximum deductible limits, or the coordination of taxable 

years and plan years. 

Form 5500, Schedule B actuarial statement and summary annual report (SAR) 

All PBGC-covered, single-employer defined benefit plans would be required to disclose the 

plan’s ongoing liability and at-risk liability in the annual Form 5500 (whether or not the sponsor 

is financially weak). The Schedule B actuarial statement would show the market value of the 

plan’s assets, its ongoing liability and its at-risk liability. 

The SAR would include a presentation of the funding status of the plan for each of the last three 

years. The funding status would be shown as a percentage based on the ratio of the plan’s assets 

to its funding target. In addition, the SAR would include information on the company’s financial 

health and on the PBGC guarantee. 

The due date for furnishing the SAR to participants and beneficiaries for all plans would be 

accelerated to 15 days after the filing date for the Form 5500. A penalty would be imposed for a 

plan administrator’s failure to furnish a SAR in a timely manner. The participant notice 

requirement under section 4011 of ERISA would be eliminated and the SAR disclosure used in 

its place. 

In the case of a plan that covers more than 100 participants and that is subject to the requirement 

to make quarterly contributions for a plan year (i.e., a plan that had assets less than the funding 

target as of the prior valuation date), the deadline for the Schedule B report of the actuarial 

statement would be shortened. The due date would be the 15th day of the second month 

102 
following the close of the plan year (February 15 for a calendar year plan). If any contribution is 

subsequently made for the plan year, the additional contribution would be reflected in an 

amended Schedule B that would be filed with the Form 5500. 

Eliminate grandfather for pre-1988 floor-offset plans 

The PPA 1987 exception for floor-offset arrangements in effect on or before December 17, 1987 

would be eliminated. Floor-offset arrangements would be required to reduce their holdings of 

qualifying employer securities and qualifying employer real property to no more than 10 percent 

of the total combined assets of the defined benefit plan and the related individual account plan 

over a period of no more than 7 years. This requirement to dispose of such property would apply 

on a graduated basis pursuant to regulations. 

Meaningful limitations on plans funded below target levels 

Revision of current limitations on benefits. The current law limitations prohibiting amendments 

improving benefits for a plan sponsor in bankruptcy would be retained. The generally applicable 

prohibition against large benefit increases in plans that are less than 60 percent funded would be 

replaced by the new rules below. The current law prohibition against lump sum payments (and 

other forms of accelerated benefit payments, including the purchase of annuities) in the case of a 

plan with a liquidity shortfall would be retained. These rules would be supplemented by the 

additional limitations on benefits described below. 

Limitation on benefit increases. For a plan where the market value of the plan’s assets is less 

than or equal to 80 percent of the funding target as of the valuation date, no amendment 

increasing benefits would be permitted, unless the sponsor contributes the sum of the minimum 

required contribution and the increase in the funding target attributable to the amendment. If the 

market value of the plan’s assets is above 80 percent of the funding target, but was less than 100 

percent for the prior plan year, then no benefit increase amendment that would cause the market 

value of the plan’s assets to be less than 80 percent of the funding target would be permitted, 

unless the sponsor contributes the minimum required contribution plus the increase in the 

funding target attributable to the amendment (or, if less, the minimum required contribution plus 

the amount necessary to increase the plan’s assets to equal 80 percent of the funding target). For 

a plan where the market value of the plan’s assets was at least 100 percent of the funding target 

as of the prior year, no limit on benefit increases would apply. 

Limitations on accelerated benefit distributions. If either the market value of a plan’s assets is 

less than or equal to 60 percent of the funding target as of the valuation date or the plan sponsor 

is financially weak and the market value of the plan’s assets is less than or equal to 80 percent of 

the funding target as of the valuation date, no lump sum distributions or other accelerated benefit 

forms would be permitted. 

Limitations on accruals for plans with severe funding shortfalls or sponsors in bankruptcy. If 

the plan sponsor is financially weak and the market value of the plan’s assets is less than or equal 

to 60 percent of the funding target as of the valuation date (i.e., the plan is “severely 

103
underfunded”), or for a plan whose sponsor is in bankruptcy and whose assets are less than the 

funding target as of the valuation date, the plan would be required to be frozen. 

Prohibition on funding executive compensation for severely underfunded plans sponsored by 

financially weak employers and for insufficient plan terminations. If a financially weak 

employer has a severely underfunded plan, special rules would apply under ERISA that would 

prohibit the funding of nonqualified deferred compensation for executives. These special rules 

would also apply to prohibit any funding of executive compensation that occurs less than 6 

months before or 6 months after the termination of a plan whose assets are not sufficient to 

provide all benefits due under the plan. 

Under the special rules, a company would not be permitted to devote its resources to fund an 

executive’s nonqualified deferred compensation arrangements through a rabbi trust, insurance 

policy or other funding mechanism that limits immediate access to such resources by the 

company or by creditors. The rules would apply to any top executive in any company in the 

controlled group (or former employee who was a top executive at the time of termination of 

employment). 

Accordingly, a plan would have a right of action under ERISA against any top executive whose 

nonqualified deferred compensation arrangement was funded during the period of the 

prohibition. The right would permit recovery of the total amount that was funded, together with 

attorney’s fees. The sponsor of any plan to which these rules apply would be required to notify 

the plan fiduciaries of its funded deferred compensation arrangements when any funding of 

deferred compensation arrangements for executives occurs in the case of a plan that is severely 

underfunded or when the plan terminates. The plan fiduciaries would have access to the 

company’s books to ascertain whether the company met its obligation in this regard. Plan 

fiduciaries would be obligated, under existing law, to take reasonable steps to pursue the cause of 

action afforded by this new provision. 

New plans. Except for the prohibitions against lump sums and other accelerated benefit forms, 

the various limitations on benefits and the prohibition on securing executive compensation would 

not apply for the first five years after a plan is established. 

Timing rules to implement limitations. A series of special timing rules apply for determining 

whether a plan’s funding percentage is below one of the thresholds for applying the benefit 

limitation thresholds described above, based on annual certifications that are to be provided by 

the plan actuary. If a plan was subject to a benefit limitation in the prior year, then the funding 

percentage is presumed not to have improved in the current year until the enrolled actuary 

certifies that the funded status at the valuation date for the current plan year has improved 

sufficiently so that the benefit limitation does not apply for the current year. If a benefit 

limitation did not apply in the prior year, but the funding percentage for that year was no more 

than 10 percentage points above the threshold for applying that benefit limitation, then the plan’s 

funding percentage is automatically presumed to have been reduced by 10 percentage points for 

the current plan year as of the first day of the 4th month of the plan year (so that the benefit 

limitation applies for the current year beginning on that day) unless and until the enrolled actuary 

certifies that the funded status is such that the benefit limitation does not apply for the current 

104 
year. In any other case, if an actuarial certification fails to be completed by the first day of the 

10th month of the plan year, then the plan’s funding percentage for the plan year is presumed to 

not exceed 60 percent for the current year beginning on that day for purposes of the benefit 

limitations. 

With respect to the requirement that a plan be frozen when the sponsor is in bankruptcy if the 

plan assets are less than the funding target as of the valuation date, an automatic freeze would 

occur at the time of entering bankruptcy during a plan year unless and until the enrolled actuary 

certifies that plan assets are at least equal to the funding target as of the valuation date for the 

plan year. If such a certification is made during the plan year, then the freeze is released 

retroactively to the valuation date. 

For the purpose of these timing rules, the actuary’s certification is to be based on information 

available to the actuary at the time of the certification regarding the market value of plan assets 

and the actuary’s best estimate of the plan’s funding target on the valuation date for the current 

plan year. If the actuary determines that the funded percentage using the actual funding target 

would result in a change in the application of the benefit limitations, the actuary must notify the 

plan administrator of the change. 

Participant notice of benefit or guarantee limitation. Plans that become subject to benefit 

limitations or to special limitations on the PBGC guarantee (including plans of sponsors that 

enter bankruptcy) would be required under ERISA to furnish a related notice to affected 

participants and beneficiaries. The notice would be required to be furnished within a reasonable 

time after the date the limitation applies (or, to the extent set forth by the Secretary of Labor, a 

reasonable period before the limitation applies). A notice also would be required to be furnished 

within a reasonable time of the date a limitation ceases to apply. A penalty would be imposed 

under Title I of ERISA for a plan administrator’s failure to furnish the required notice. The 

Secretary of Labor would be authorized to issue regulations describing the form, content, and 

timing of the notice. 

Restoration of plan benefits. Plans that are frozen or for which lump sums or other accelerated 

benefit forms are prohibited would be permitted to resume accruals and accelerated benefit forms 

in a subsequent plan year only by a plan amendment. The plan amendment may be adopted at 

any time after the first valuation date on which the plan’s assets exceed the applicable threshold 

percentage. The plan amendment would be subject to the limitations on benefit increases and 

also would result in a phase-in of the PBGC guarantee. 

Prohibition on plant shutdown benefits 

Plans would not be permitted to provide benefits that are payable upon a plant shutdown or any 

similar unpredictable contingent event as determined under regulations. A plan that contains 

such a benefit would be required to eliminate the benefit, but only with respect to an event that 

occurs after the effective date, and such a plan amendment would not violate the anti-cutback 

rules. If a benefit becomes payable as a result of such a plant shutdown event that occurs after 

February 1, 2005 and before the effective date for the prohibition, the benefit would not be 

covered by the PBGC guarantee. 

105 
--

Effective dates 

The proposal generally would be effective for plan years beginning in 2006. The new benefit 

limitations (including the prohibition on unpredictable contingent event benefits) would be 

effective for plan years beginning in 2007. In the case of a collective bargaining agreement in 

effect on the date of enactment, the benefit limitations (other than the prohibition on 

unpredictable contingent event benefits) would not be effective before the end of the term of that 

agreement (without regard to extensions) or, if earlier, the first plan year beginning in 2009. In 

the case of a collective bargaining agreement that provided for an unpredictable contingent event 

benefit on February 1, 2005, the prohibition on unpredictable contingent event benefits would 

not be effective before the end of the term of that agreement (without regard to extension) or, if 

earlier, the first plan year beginning in 2008. 

Revenue Estimate 

Fiscal Years 

2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2006-2010 2006-2015

($ in millions) 

151 1,432 -869 -2,699 -1,762 -3,747 -12,735 

106
REFLECT MARKET INTEREST RATES IN LUMP SUM PAYMENTS 

Current Law 

In the case of qualified defined benefit plans (other than government plans and certain church 

plans), the amount of the distribution made in the form of a lump sum must be no less than the 

actuarial value of the annuity benefit under the plan, determined using a statutorily specified 

interest rate and mortality table. The same rule also generally applies to other benefit forms that 

are accelerated in comparison to life annuity payments. The statutorily specified interest rate is 

the average of the rate of interest on 30-year Treasury securities for the month preceding the 

distribution or, in accordance with regulations, at some earlier time specified under the plan. As 

there are no 30-year Treasury securities outstanding, the interest rate on the Treasury bond due 

February 15, 2031 is used for this purpose. 

Reasons for Change 

Interest rates used for determining lump sums should accurately reflect the cost of settling the 

employee’s pension. The current use of the rate of interest on 30-year Treasury securities for 

purposes of determining lump sums creates a mismatch between the amount of an employee’s 

lump sum and the value of the annuity that the employee would otherwise receive. This 

mismatch may create an incentive for retirees to select one form of benefit payment (a lump 

sum) rather than an annuity. Changing the interest rate used to determine lump sums to marketdetermined interest rates that reflect the timing of expected benefit payments would remove this 

bias and ensure that the amount of the lump sum is the same as the value of the annuity. Any 

such change should provide a transition period, so that employees who are expecting to retire in 

the near future are not subject to an abrupt change in the amount of their lump sums as a result of 

changes in law. 

Proposal 

Lump sum calculations would be calculated using interest rates that are drawn from a zerocoupon corporate bond yield curve. The yield curve would be issued monthly by the Secretary 

of Treasury and would be based on the interest rates (averaged over 90 business days) for high 

quality corporate bonds with varying maturities. Thus, the interest rates that would apply would 

depend on how many years in the future a participant’s annuity payment will be made. In the 

usual situation of an upwardly sloping yield curve, higher interest rates would be used to 

discount annuity payments expected to be made further out in the future, with lower interest rates 

applying for annuity payments made in the near term. 

There would be no change in law relating to the determination of minimum lump sums for 

distributions in plan years beginning in 2005 and 2006. The new rules would go fully into effect 

for plan years beginning on or after January 1, 2009 and would be phased in for the plan years 

that begin in 2007 and 2008. For distributions in plan years beginning in 2007 and 2008, lump 

sum calculations would be determined as the weighted average of the value of the lump sum 

determined using current law and the value of the lump sum determined using the methodology 

applicable to subsequent plan years. For plan years beginning in 2007, the weighting factor 

107
-- --

would be 2/3 for the “old” methodology and 1/3 for the new methodology; and for plan years 

beginning in 2008, the weighting factors would be reversed. 

Revenue Estimate 

Fiscal Years 

2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2006-2010 2006-2015

($ in millions) 

-3 -8 -15 -20 -46 -241 

108
CLOSE LOOPHOLES AND IMPROVE TAX COMPLIANCE 

COMBAT ABUSIVE FOREIGN TAX CREDIT TRANSACTIONS 

Current Law 

In order to prevent the double taxation of a taxpayer’s foreign source income – taxation of the 

same income by the source country where the income is earned and by the United States – 

taxpayers are permitted a credit for certain foreign taxes. The amount of foreign taxes that may 

be credited each year generally is limited to the U.S. tax liability on a taxpayer’s foreign-source 

income, in order to ensure that the credit serves its purpose of mitigating double taxation of 

cross-border income without offsetting the U.S. tax on U.S.-source income. A foreign tax credit 

for foreign taxes paid with respect to certain income is not permitted unless the taxpayer meets 

specific holding period requirements. For dividends, the recipient of the dividend generally must 

have held the stock for more than 15 days (within a 31-day testing period) in the case of common 

stock and 45 days (within a 91-day testing period) in the case of preferred stock. For 

withholding taxes on other types of income, the income recipient generally must have held the 

property for more than 15 days (within a 31-day testing period). 

Reasons for Change 

The purpose of the foreign tax credit is to eliminate potential double taxation. Transactions 

structured to exploit the foreign tax credit rules to eliminate tax altogether are not consistent with 

this purpose of the foreign tax credit provisions. These transactions can involve the 

inappropriate separation of foreign taxes from the related foreign income. The Treasury 

Department uses existing authority under section 901 and other provisions of the Code to address 

transactions or structures that produce inappropriate foreign tax credit results. However, 

additional regulatory authority in this area would facilitate the development of rules that directly 

address these types of transactions. 

Proposal 

The proposal would grant regulatory authority to the Treasury Department to address 

transactions that involve inappropriate separation of foreign taxes from the related foreign 

income in cases where taxes are imposed on any person in respect of income of an entity. 

Because the types of transactions involved are varied, the regulations could provide for the 

disallowance of a credit for all or a portion of the foreign taxes, or for the allocation of the 

foreign taxes among the participants in the transaction in a manner that is more consistent with 

the underlying economics of the transaction. 

The proposal generally would be effective after enactment. 

109
Revenue Estimate 

Fiscal Years 

2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2006-2010 2006-2015

($ in millions) 

1 2 2 2 2 3 11 26

110
MODIFY THE ACTIVE TRADE OR BUSINESS TEST 

Current Law 

Section 355 allows corporations to avoid recognizing gain in certain spin-off and split-off 

transactions provided that, among other things, the active trade or business test is satisfied. The 

active trade or business test requires that, immediately after the distribution, the distributing 

corporation and the corporation the stock of which is distributed (the controlled corporation) be 

engaged in a trade or business that has been actively conducted throughout the 5-year period 

ending on the date of the distribution. A corporation is treated as engaged in the active conduct 

of a trade or business only if it is engaged in the active conduct of a trade or business or 

substantially all of its assets consist of stock and securities of a corporation controlled by it 

(immediately after the distribution) which is so engaged. There is no statutory requirement that a 

certain percentage of the distributing corporation’s or controlled corporation’s assets be used in 

that active trade or business in order for the active trade or business test to be satisfied. 

Reasons for Change 

The Administration understands that some taxpayers have engaged in transactions involving a 

non-pro rata distribution in which a corporate shareholder of a distributing corporation receives a 

distribution of stock of a controlled corporation where the controlled corporation’s assets 

substantially consist of investment assets. The Administration believes that these transactions 

resemble redemptions for cash. 

Proposal 

Under the proposal, in the case of a non-pro rata distribution, in order for a corporation to satisfy 

the active trade or business test, as of the date of the distribution at least 50 percent of its assets, 

by value, must be used, or held for use, in a trade or business that satisfies the active trade or 

business test. 

Revenue Estimate 

Fiscal Years 

2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2006-2010 2006-2015

($ in millions) 

2 6 8 8 8 8 38 87

111
IMPOSE PENALTIES ON CHARITIES THAT FAIL TO ENFORCE CONSERVATION 

EASEMENTS 

Current Law 

In general, there is a deduction for charitable contributions, subject to certain limitations that 

depend on the type of taxpayer, property contributed, and charity receiving the contribution. 

Gifts of partial interests in property generally are not deductible as charitable contributions. 

However, to encourage donations for conservation purposes, the tax law provides a charitable 

contribution deduction for certain contributions of partial interests in real property, such as a 

remainder interest and a restriction (granted in perpetuity) on the use that may be made of the 

real property. To qualify, the real property interest must be contributed to a qualified 

organization exclusively for conservation purposes. Conservation purpose is defined as the 

preservation of land areas for outdoor recreation by, or the education of, the general public; the 

protection of a relatively natural habitat of fish, wildlife, or plants, or similar ecosystem; the 

preservation of open space where the preservation is for the scenic enjoyment of the general 

public or pursuant to a clearly delineated federal, state, or local governmental conservation 

policy; or the preservation of an historically important land area or certified historic structure. A 

contribution is not treated as exclusively for conservation purposes unless the conservation 

purpose is protected in perpetuity. To qualify to receive such qualified conservation 

contributions, a charity must have a commitment to protect the conservation purposes of the 

contribution and have the resources to enforce the restrictions. In addition, in the instrument of 

conveyance the donor must prohibit the charity from subsequently transferring the easement (or 

in the case of a remainder interest, the property) unless the charity ensures that the conservation 

purposes that the contribution was originally intended to advance continue to be carried out. 

Reasons for Change 

The Treasury Department is concerned that in some cases taxpayers are claiming charitable 

contribution deductions for contributions of perpetual conservation restrictions, but the charities 

that receive those contributions are failing to monitor and enforce the conservation restrictions 

for which charitable contribution deductions were claimed. 

Proposal 

The proposal would impose significant penalties on any charity that removes or fails to enforce a 

conservation restriction for which a charitable contribution deduction was claimed, or transfers 

such an easement without ensuring that the conservation purposes will be protected in perpetuity. 

The amount of the penalty would be determined based on the value of the conservation 

restriction shown on the appraisal summary provided to the charity by the donor. 

The Secretary would be authorized to waive the penalty in certain cases, such as if it is 

established to the satisfaction of the Secretary that, due to an unexpected change in the 

conditions surrounding the real property, retention of the restriction is impossible or impractical, 

the charity receives an amount that reflects the fair market value of the easement, and the 

proceeds are used by the charity in furtherance of conservation purposes. The Secretary also 

112
would be authorized to require such additional reporting as may be necessary or appropriate to 

ensure that the conservation purposes are protected in perpetuity. 

The proposal would be effective for taxable years beginning after December 31, 2004. 

Revenue Estimate 

Fiscal Years 

2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2006-2010 2006-2015

($ in millions) 

3 8 8 8 9 9 42 96

113
ELIMINATE THE SPECIAL EXCLUSION FROM UNRELATED BUSINESS TAXABLE 

INCOME FOR GAIN OR LOSS ON THE SALE OR EXCHANGE OF CERTAIN 

BROWNFIELD PROPERTIES 

Current law 

In general, an organization that is otherwise exempt from federal income tax is taxed on income 

from any trade or business regularly carried on by the organization that is not substantially 

related to the organization’s exempt purposes. Gains or losses from the sale, exchange or other 

disposition of property (other than stock in trade, inventory, or property held primarily for sale to 

customers in the ordinary course of the trade or business) generally are excluded from unrelated 

business taxable income. However, such amounts may be taxable if they are derived from 

property that is debt-financed. The amount of income that is taxable is determined based on the 

ratio of the outstanding indebtedness incurred by the organization in acquiring or improving the 

property to the adjusted basis of the property. The debt-financed income rules do not apply in 

the case of certain indebtedness, such as indebtedness that is incurred in the performance or 

exercise of the purpose or function constituting the basis for the organization’s exemption. 

The American Jobs Creation Act created a special exclusion from unrelated business taxable 

income of gain or loss from the sale or exchange of certain brownfield properties by a taxexempt organization, whether the properties are held directly or indirectly through a partnership. 

For property to qualify for the exclusion, the property must be acquired during a five-year period 

beginning January 1, 2005 and ending December 31, 2009, although the property may be 

disposed of after that date. Certain certification requirements must be met. In addition, the 

exempt organization (or the partnership of which it is a partner) must spend a minimum amount 

on remediation expenses, which may be determined by averaging expenses across multiple 

qualifying brownfield properties for a period of up to eight years. 

The Act also created a special exception to the debt-financed property rules for qualifying 

brownfield properties. Thus, gain or loss from the sale or exchange of qualifying brownfield 

properties is not taxed even if the exempt organization (or partnership) incurred debt to acquire 

or improve the property. 

Reasons for Change 

The new provision adds considerable complexity to the Code and would be difficult to 

administer. In addition, there may be concerns about the effectiveness of the new provision 

because there is no limit on the amount of gain that is exempt from unrelated business income 

tax. The new provision could exempt from income tax real estate development considerably 

beyond mere environmental remediation. 

Proposal 

The proposal would eliminate this special exclusion retroactive to January 1, 2005. 

114
Revenue Estimate 

Fiscal Years 

2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2006-2010 2006-2015

($ in millions) 

1 4 12 23 37 49 125 242

115
APPLY AN EXCISE TAX TO AMOUNTS RECEIVED UNDER CERTAIN LIFE 

INSURANCE CONTRACTS 

Current Law 

Death benefits received under a life insurance contract are generally not subject to federal 

income tax unless there has been a "transfer for valuable consideration." Income tax on the 

accrual of cash value of a life insurance contract is generally deferred until amounts are 

distributed in excess of the policyholder's investment in the contract; policyholder loans are not 

treated as distributions. However, if a life insurance contract is a modified endowment contract 

(that is, a life insurance contract with an accelerated premium payment pattern), then 

distributions are taxed on an income-first basis, and policyholder loans are treated as 

distributions. 

The favorable treatment afforded life insurance contracts is limited to contracts that (i) are life 

insurance contracts under the applicable state or foreign law, and (ii) satisfy actuarial tests that 

are designed to limit the investment orientation of the contract. In order for a contract to qualify 

as a life insurance contract under the applicable state or foreign law, the owner of the contract 

must have an insurable interest in the insured at the time the contract is issued. In a number of 

states, a charity may have an insurable interest in a consenting donor. In a smaller number of 

states, a partnership or trust in which a charity is a partner may have an insurable interest in the 

charity's donors, regardless of the identity of the other participants in the arrangement. 

In general, charitable organizations are exempt from federal income tax. However, a charity 

generally is subject to tax on income derived from any unrelated trade or business regularly 

carried on by it. An unrelated trade or business is any trade or business that is not substantially 

related to the charitable, educational or other purpose or function constituting the basis for the 

organization’s tax exemption. Certain types of income, such as dividends and interest, are 

excluded from unrelated business taxable income unless derived from debt-financed property. 

Reasons for Change 

The Treasury Department has learned of arrangements involving life insurance contracts in 

which both charities and non-charities have an interest. In these arrangements, a participating 

charity typically has an insurable interest in the insured individuals, who are also donors to the 

charity. The non-charity participant or participants have no relationship to the insured, except by 

reason of this arrangement. The Treasury Department is concerned that, in many cases, such 

arrangements do more to facilitate investment by private investors in life insurance contracts 

than to further a charity's exempt purposes. Moreover, these arrangements may inappropriately 

afford benefits to private investors that would not otherwise be available without the charity's 

involvement. 

Proposal 

An excise tax of 25 percent would be imposed upon any person who receives death benefits, 

dividends, withdrawals, loans, or surrenders under a life insurance contract, if (i) a charity has 

ever had a direct or indirect ownership interest in the contract, and (ii) a person other than a 

116 
charity has ever had a direct or indirect interest in the same contract (including an interest in an 

entity holding an interest in that contract). The excise tax would not be deductible for federal 

income tax purposes, and the amount of excise tax paid would not be included in the 

policyholder's investment in the contract. 

The excise tax would not apply to situations in which: (i) each non-charity involved in the 

arrangement has an insurable interest in the insured independent of the charity; (ii) each noncharity's only interest in the life insurance contract is as a named beneficiary; or (iii) the 

transaction is exempt from the excise tax under regulations prescribed by the Secretary, based on 

factors including the arms' length nature of the transaction, the relative economic benefits to the 

charity and non-charity participants, and the likelihood of abuse. The Secretary would be 

granted authority to promulgate regulations to carry out the purposes of the provision, including 

rules to prevent avoidance of the tax through the use of intermediaries. 

The proposal would be effective with respect to amounts received under life insurance contracts 

entered into after February 7, 2005. 

Revenue Estimate 

Fiscal Years 

2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2006-2010 2006-2015

($ in millions) 

2 7 12 17 23 28 87 323

117
LIMIT RELATED PARTY INTEREST DEDUCTIONS 

Current Law 

Section 163(j) of the Code applies to limit the deductibility of certain interest paid by a 

corporation to related persons (“disqualified interest”). Disqualified interest for these purposes 

generally means interest paid or accrued by a corporation to a related person if such interest 

income is not subject to federal income tax. Disqualified interest also includes interest paid or 

accrued by a corporation to an unrelated person if the underlying indebtedness is guaranteed by a 

related foreign person or tax exempt organization and such interest is not subject to U.S. 

withholding tax. The limitations of section 163(j) only apply to a corporation with a debt-toequity ratio that exceeds 1.5 to 1. If such a corporation has net interest expense that exceeds 50 

percent of its adjusted taxable income (computed by adding back net interest expense, 

depreciation, amortization and depletion, and any net operating loss deduction), no deduction is 

allowed for disqualified interest in excess of the 50-percent limit. Interest that is disallowed in a 

taxable year under section 163(j) may be carried forward for deduction in a future year; there is 

no time limit on this carryforward. In addition, excess limitation (i.e., the amount by which the 

corporation’s 50-percent limit exceeds its net interest expense for a taxable year) may be carried 

forward up to three years. 

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. Tightening the rules 

of section 163(j) is necessary to eliminate these inappropriate income-reduction opportunities. 

Proposal 

Section 163(j) would be revised to tighten the limitation on the deductibility of interest paid to 

related persons. The current law 1.5 to 1 debt-to-equity safe harbor would be eliminated. The 

adjusted taxable income threshold for the limitation would be reduced from 50 percent to 25 

percent of adjusted taxable income with respect to disqualified interest other than interest paid to 

unrelated parties on debt that is subject to a related-party guarantee (hereinafter referred to as 

“guaranteed debt”). Interest on guaranteed debt generally would be subject to the current law 50 

percent of adjusted taxable income threshold. The indefinite carryforward for disallowed interest 

under the adjusted taxable income limitation of current law would be limited to ten years. The 3-

year carryforward of excess limitation would be eliminated. 

Pursuant to section 424 of the AJCA, the Treasury Department is conducting a study of the 

effectiveness of and deficiencies in the current section 163(j) rules for addressing these incomereduction opportunities. Congress has requested a report regarding this study by June 30, 2005. 

Such report may include recommendations for further modifications to these rules to ensure the 

elimination of inappropriate income-reduction opportunities. 

The proposal would be effective on the date of first committee action. 

118
Revenue Estimate 

Fiscal Years 

2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2006-2010 2006-2015

($ in millions) 

74 128 134 141 148 155 706 1,607

119
CLARIFY AND SIMPLIFY QUALIFIED TUITION PROGRAMS 

Current Law 

A section 529 program may be a prepaid tuition program or a savings program. Under either 

type of program, a contributor creates an account for the benefit of a particular designated 

beneficiary (DB) to provide for the DB’s higher education expenses. 

Income tax. Earnings in a section 529 account accumulate tax-free. If a distribution is used 

to pay qualified higher education expenses (qualified expenses), the distribution is tax-free. If a 

distribution is not used to pay qualified expenses, the earnings portion of the distribution is 

subject to federal income tax, plus a 10 percent additional tax (subject to exceptions, including 

death, disability or receipt of a scholarship). A change in the DB of a section 529 account is not 

treated as a “distribution” for income tax purposes if the new DB is a member of the old DB’s 

family. 

Gift and Generation-Skipping Transfer (GST) Taxes on Contributions. A contribution to a 

section 529 account is treated as a completed gift of a present interest from the contributor to the 

DB. Therefore, contributions to a section 529 account qualify for the per-donee annual gift tax 

exclusion (currently $11,000); gifts sheltered by this exclusion are also exempt from GST tax. A 

contributor may contribute up to five times the per-donee annual gift tax exclusion to a section 

529 account and, for gift and GST tax purposes, treat the contribution as having been made 

ratably over five years, beginning in the year in which the contribution is made. 

Gift and GST Taxes on Distributions. Because a contribution to a section 529 account is 

treated as a completed gift, a distribution from a section 529 account generally is not subject to 

gift or GST tax. Those taxes may, however, apply to a change of DB. Gift or GST tax (or both) 

may be imposed if the new DB is in a generation below that of the former DB, or if the new DB 

is not a family member of the former DB. 

Estate Tax. Section 529 accounts generally are excluded from the gross estate of the 

contributor (unless the contributor is also the DB). If, however, the contributor elected the 

special five-year allocation rule for gift tax annual exclusion purposes, any amounts contributed 

that are allocable to the years following the year of the contributor’s death are includible in the 

contributor’s gross estate. Amounts distributed on account of the death of the DB are includible 

in the DB’s gross estate. 

Reasons for Change 

Current law regarding the transfer tax treatment of section 529 accounts is unclear and in some 

situations imposes tax in a manner inconsistent with generally applicable transfer tax provisions. 

The law should be clarified to provide taxpayers with certainty as to the tax consequences of a 

transfer and to eliminate the inappropriate imposition of transfer taxes. 

In addition, current law creates opportunities for inappropriate use of section 529 programs. For 

example, taxpayers may seek to avoid gift and GST taxes by changing the DB of existing section 

529 accounts. Taxpayers also may seek to use section 529 accounts as retirement accounts with 

120 
all the tax benefits but none of the restrictions and requirements of qualified retirement accounts. 

This proposal would simplify the tax consequences of section 529 accounts and promote 

utilization of the accounts to save for higher education. 

Proposal 

As under current law, contributions to section 529 accounts would be treated as completed gifts 

to the DB, subject to applicable gift and GST taxes. The special five-year allocation rule would 

continue to apply. 

Each section 529 account would have only one contributor. A section 529 program would be 

permitted to accept contributions to a section 529 account only from the account’s contributor (or 

the contributor’s revocable trust) and, to the extent provided by the Secretary in regulations, from 

other persons in a de minimis amount. 

The contributor would be permitted to withdraw funds from the account during the contributor’s 

life, subject to income tax on the income portion of the withdrawal. An additional tax also would 

apply to the income portion of a withdrawal by the contributor, unless the withdrawal is due to 

the DB’s death, disability, receipt of a scholarship or attendance at a U.S. military academy. The 

amount of the additional tax generally would be 10 percent on the income portion of the 

withdrawal. If a withdrawal occurs more than twenty years after the account was originally 

created, the additional tax on the earnings portion of that withdrawal would be increased from 10 

percent to 20 percent. 

The contributor would have the ability to name another person to administer the account (the 

account administrator). The account administrator would have no beneficial interest in the 

account. The account administrator would be permitted to change the DB from time to time. 

Neither the account administrator nor the account administrator’s spouse would be permitted to 

be or become a DB of the account, except as provided by the Secretary in regulations. 

Except for withdrawals by the contributor, distributions from a section 529 account would be 

permitted to be made only to or for the benefit of the DB. Distributions used for the DB’s 

qualified expenses would not trigger income tax. As under current law, a DB would be subject 

to income tax on the accrued income portion of any distribution not used for qualified expenses 

(a nonqualified distribution). 

The income portion of a nonqualified distribution to a DB (or a deceased DB’s estate) also would 

be subject to a 10 percent additional tax unless this tax would not have applied under current law 

(which exempts distributions made due to the DB’s death, disability, receipt of a scholarship or 

attendance at a U.S. military academy). 

No transfer tax or income tax would be imposed by reason of a change of DB and there would be 

no limit on the age of a DB. However, a new excise tax payable from the account would apply if 

(i) a nonqualified distribution is made to a DB who is neither the account’s contributor nor the 

initial DB of the account, (ii) the total amount of nonqualified distribution exceeds $50,000 

(computed on a cumulative, lifetime basis for each DB) and (iii) the nonqualified distribution is 

not made as a result of the DB’s disability, receipt of a scholarship or attendance at a U.S. 

121 
--

military academy. The excise tax would not apply to a distribution made to a deceased DB’s 

estate. The excise tax would eliminate the potential transfer tax benefit of using a section 529 

account for purposes not intended by the statute. The excise tax would be imposed at the rate of 

35 percent on the first $100,000 of cumulative nonqualified distributions in excess of $50,000, 

and at the rate of 50 percent on any amount of cumulative nonqualified distributions in excess of 

$150,000. The excise tax would be withheld by the section 529 program administrator and paid 

directly to the Internal Revenue Service, unless the account administrator or the DB provides a 

certification to the section 529 program administrator establishing that the current distribution is 

not subject to the excise tax. For purposes of this withholding and payment requirement, the 

section 529 program administrator would be allowed to rely on these certifications. To the extent 

this excise tax applies to a nonqualified distribution, the 10 percent additional tax on the income 

portion discussed above would not apply to that distribution. 

As under current law, a contributor’s gross estate would include only the per-donee annual gift 

tax exclusion used for calendar years after the year of the contributor’s death. However, upon 

the DB’s death, the account would be distributed to the DB’s estate unless, within a stated period 

of time after the DB’s death, either the contributor withdraws the funds from the account, or the 

account administrator names a new DB. The DB’s gross estate would include only amounts (if 

any) paid to the DB’s estate or pursuant to the DB’s general power of appointment. 

To preserve the ability to verify the contributor, initial DB, and date of creation of each section 

529 account, only direct trustee to trustee rollovers would be permitted. Additional rules would 

prevent transfers for consideration of interests in section 529 accounts. The rules applicable to 

trusts contributing to section 529 accounts would be clarified. Special rules would apply to 

implement the purposes of the provision when a contributor is the initial DB of an account and 

when a contributor does not name another person as account administrator. Special rules also 

would apply to a series of changes in the DB of an account followed by a distribution to the 

initial DB. The Secretary would be granted broad regulatory authority to ensure that section 529 

accounts are used in a manner consistent with congressional intent. 

The proposal generally would be effective for section 529 accounts (including prepaid tuition 

contracts) established after the date of enactment. Additional contributions to existing section 

529 savings accounts would be prohibited unless those accounts elect to be governed by the new 

rules. Any modified reporting requirements would apply after the date of enactment to all 

section 529 accounts. 

Revenue Estimate 

Fiscal Years 

2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2006-2010 2006-2015

($ in millions) 

4 12 13 14 20 63 222 

122
TAX ADMINISTRATION, UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE, AND OTHER 

Improve Tax Administration 

IMPLEMENT IRS ADMINISTRATIVE REFORMS 

Make Section 1203 of the IRS Restructuring and Reform Act of 1998 more effective and 

fair 

Current Law 

Section 1203 of the IRS Restructuring and Reform Act of 1998 (RRA98) requires the 

Commissioner of Internal Revenue to terminate an employee for certain specifically enumerated 

violations committed by the employee in connection with the performance of the employee’s 

official duties. The Commissioner has non-delegable authority to determine whether mitigating 

factors support a personnel action other than termination for a covered violation. 

Reasons for Change 

The Administration’s proposal would enhance the IRS’ effectiveness by more carefully tailoring 

the types of conduct by IRS employees that are subject to sanctions, by reinforcing the 

seriousness with which covered violations will be handled, by providing clear guidance to IRS 

employees regarding covered conduct and associated penalties, and by allowing the imposition 

of penalties that are commensurate with specific violations. 

Current law requires the termination of an IRS employee for the failure to timely file tax returns, 

except when such failure is due to reasonable cause and not due to willful neglect. An IRS 

employee who fails to timely file a refund return (i.e., for a year for which the employee is 

entitled to a refund) is subject to termination even though a taxpayer who files a refund return 

late generally is not subject to any penalty. Late-filed refund return cases have constituted a 

significant percentage of the section 1203 cases to date, and these cases do not represent the type 

of serious conduct for which the penalties imposed by the statute should apply. In addition, a 

number of section 1203 cases have involved allegations of wrongful conduct by IRS employees 

against other IRS employees. The Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration has 

recommended that these types of cases be removed from the list of violations covered by section 

1203 of RRA98. Such allegations can be addressed by existing administrative and statutory 

procedures. The Administration’s proposal would eliminate late refund returns and employee vs. 

employee acts from the list of covered violations. The proposal also would strengthen taxpayer 

protections by enhancing the Commissioner’s ability to punish the unauthorized access of 

taxpayer return information. 

Current law requires termination for any covered violation unless the Commissioner personally 

determines that mitigating factors justify some other personnel action. The proposal would 

require the Commissioner to establish guidelines outlining specific penalties, up to and including 

termination, for specific types of covered violations. These guidelines will provide notice to IRS 

employees of the punishment that would result from specific violations. This change would 

improve IRS employee morale and enhance the fundamental fairness of the statute. 

123 
Proposal 

The Administration’s proposal would modify section 1203 of RRA98 by (i) removing the latefiling of refund returns from the list of violations; (ii) removing employee vs. employee acts (i.e., 

for violation of an employee’s, rather than a taxpayer’s, Constitutional or civil rights) from the 

list of violations; and (iii) adding the unauthorized inspection of returns or return information to 

the list of violations. In addition, the proposal would require the Commissioner to establish 

guidelines outlining specific penalties, up to and including termination, for specific types of 

wrongful conduct covered by section 1203 of RRA98. The Commissioner would retain the nondelegable authority to determine whether mitigating factors support a personnel action other that 

specified in the guidelines for a covered violation. 

The proposal would be effective upon enactment. 

Revenue Estimate 

[No revenue effect] 

124
Curb the use of frivolous submissions and filings made to impede or delay tax 

administration 

Current Law 

The IRS may assert a penalty of $500 on an individual who files an income tax return that, 

first, either does not contain sufficient information to allow the IRS to determine whether the 

tax shown on the return is correct or contains information indicating that the tax shown is 

substantially incorrect and, second, was filed based on a position that is frivolous or, based on 

information on the return, was intended to delay or impede tax administration. 

Reasons for Change 

The IRS has been faced with a significant number of individuals who are filing returns based on 

frivolous arguments or who are seeking to hinder tax administration by filing returns that are 

patently incorrect. In addition, taxpayers are using existing procedures for Collection Due 

Process hearings, offers in compromise, and installment agreements to impede or delay tax 

administration by raising frivolous arguments. The IRS generally must address such frivolous 

arguments through mandated procedures, which results in delay and additional administrative 

burden and expense. Allowing the IRS to assert more substantial penalties for frivolous 

submissions, and to dismiss frivolous requests without the need to follow otherwise mandated 

procedures, would deter egregious taxpayer behavior and enable the IRS to utilize its resources 

more efficiently. 

Proposal 

The Administration’s proposal would increase the penalty for filing frivolous income tax returns 

from $500 to $5,000. In addition, the proposal would permit the IRS to dismiss requests for 

Collection Due Process hearings, installment agreements, and offers in compromise if they are 

based on frivolous arguments or are intended to delay or impede tax administration. Individuals 

submitting such requests would be subject to a $5,000 penalty for repeat behavior or failure to 

withdraw the request after being given the opportunity to do so. The IRS would be permitted to 

maintain administrative records of frivolous submissions by taxpayers. The IRS, however, 

would be required to remove the designation of a taxpayer if, after a reasonable period of time, 

no further frivolous submissions are made by the taxpayer. Finally, the proposal would require 

the IRS to publish, at least annually, a listing of positions, arguments, requests, and proposals 

deemed frivolous for purposes of non-return submissions covered by the provision. 

The proposal would be effective for submissions made on or after the date of enactment. 

Revenue Estimate 

[No revenue effect] 

125
Allow for the termination of installment agreements for failure to file returns and for 

failure to make tax deposits 

Current Law 

The IRS may terminate an agreement with a taxpayer to pay a tax liability in installments only 

for specific statutory reasons. These statutory reasons do not include a taxpayer’s failure to file 

required returns or a taxpayer’s failure to make required tax deposits. 

Reasons for Change 

The IRS administrative procedures specify that installment agreements contain a provision 

requiring taxpayers to meet all return filing and deposit obligations during the term of the 

agreement. This provision is intended to ensure that the privilege of paying a tax liability in 

installments is extended only to those taxpayers willing to commit to future compliance. The 

installment agreement statute, however, does not allow the IRS to terminate an agreement even if 

a taxpayer fails to file required returns or fails to make required federal tax deposits, and the 

taxpayer may incur significant additional unpaid tax liability before the IRS can terminate the 

agreement. 

Proposal 

The Administration’s proposal would permit the IRS to terminate an installment agreement if 

a taxpayer fails to timely file tax returns or if a taxpayer fails to timely make required federal 

tax deposits. 

The proposal would be effective for failures occurring on or after the date of enactment. 

Revenue Estimate 

[No revenue effect] 

126
Consolidate judicial review of collection due process cases in the United States Tax Court 

Current Law 

The Collection Due Process (CDP) statutes entitle taxpayers to notice and a right to a CDP 

hearing with the IRS Office of Appeals (Appeals) after the filing of a notice of federal tax lien 

and prior to an intended levy. The taxpayer may request judicial review of a determination by 

Appeals. The CDP statutes currently provide that venue for the review of an Appeals 

determination in a CDP case depends on which court (i.e., Tax Court or district court) would 

have jurisdiction over the underlying tax. Under this rule, the Tax Court reviews CDP cases 

involving deficiency-type taxes, generally income and estate taxes. The district court reviews 

cases involving nondeficiency-type taxes, generally employment and excise taxes. 

Reasons for Change 

The current statute, which divides responsibility for judicial review between the Tax Court and 

district courts, was intended to give jurisdiction to the court that would have the most expertise 

over the underlying tax. In practice, however, taxpayer challenges in CDP cases have focused 

primarily on collection issues rather than liability issues. In particular, relatively few district 

court CDP cases have involved challenges to the underlying tax liability. The division of 

jurisdiction between the Tax Court and the district courts has needlessly complicated the CDP 

process by making it more confusing and expensive for taxpayers. A taxpayer who mistakenly 

files a request for review with the wrong court must incur the expense of refiling the case in the 

correct court. In certain circumstances, a taxpayer may be required to seek judicial review in 

both the Tax Court and a district court. In addition, there are indications that some taxpayers are 

using the CDP venue provisions to delay collection activity by deliberately filing the case with 

the wrong court. Most cases seeking judicial review of Appeals determinations in CDP cases 

already are handled by the Tax Court. This proposal not only will simplify and streamline the 

CDP process for taxpayers, but will also enable the Government and taxpayers to benefit from 

the Tax Court’s expertise in CDP issues. 

Proposal 

The Administration’s proposal would provide that the United States Tax Court shall be the 

exclusive venue for suits to obtain judicial review of any determination issued by Appeals after a 

CDP hearing. The proposal would be effective for Appeals determinations made after the date of 

enactment. 

Revenue Estimate 

[No revenue effect] 

127
Eliminate the monetary threshold for counsel review of offers in compromise 

Current Law 

Whenever a compromise is reached between the IRS and a taxpayer under section 7122, a record 

of the compromise must be placed on file along with an opinion from the IRS Office of Chief 

Counsel. The opinion of Chief Counsel is not required when the total liability, including 

penalties and interest, is less than $50,000. All compromises, regardless of amount, are subject 

to continuous quality review by the Secretary. 

Reasons for Change 

The Administration’s proposal would allow the IRS to more efficiently direct resources for offer 

in compromise (OIC) cases while retaining existing quality review procedures. Many OIC cases 

do not present any significant legal issues, and the required legal review for cases meeting the 

statutory threshold can delay the acceptance process under current administrative procedures. 

The proposal would require the establishment of criteria for determining when review by Chief 

Counsel is appropriate. By retaining the requirement of continuous quality review by the 

Secretary, this proposal would insure that the overall quality of case dispositions does not 

decline. 

Proposal 

The Administration’s proposal would eliminate the requirement that the opinion of Chief 

Counsel be placed on file for any accepted offer in compromise involving unpaid tax, penalty, 

and interest equal to or exceeding $50,000. This proposal would require the Secretary to 

establish standards for determining when an opinion of Chief Counsel must be obtained. The 

proposal would be effective for offers in compromise submitted or pending on or after the date of 

enactment. 

Revenue Estimate 

[No revenue effect] 

128
INITIATE IRS COST SAVING MEASURES 

Allow the Financial Management Service to retain transaction fees from levied amounts 

Current Law 

The IRS may continuously levy up to 100 percent of certain federal payments to a delinquent 

taxpayer under the Federal Payment Levy Program (FPLP). The FPLP is administered by the 

Financial Management Service (FMS) of the Department of the Treasury. By statute, FMS must 

charge the IRS the costs incurred by FMS in developing and operating the FPLP. For the current 

fiscal year, the IRS expects that the FPLP fees charged by FMS will be between $8 and $9 

million. 

Reasons for Change 

The IRS pays the FPLP fees to FMS out of the IRS’ own appropriations. The FPLP fees have 

increased since the inception of the program due to increased FMS costs and increased use of the 

FPLP program. The proposal would alter internal government accounting to effectively 

eliminate accounting costs. 

Proposal 

The Administration’s proposal would allow FMS to retain directly a portion of the levied funds 

as payment for FMS’ fees. A delinquent taxpayer, however, would receive full credit for the 

amount levied upon – i.e., the amount credited to a taxpayer’s account would not be reduced by 

FMS’ fee. The proposal would be effective upon enactment. 

Revenue Estimate 

[No revenue effect] 

129
Extend the due date for electronically-filed returns and expand the authority to require 

electronic filing by large businesses and exempt organizations 

Current Law 

Individual taxpayers must file their income tax returns, and pay any tax balance due, on or 

before April 15 following the close of the calendar year. (A taxpayer may request an extension 

of time to file a return, but no extension of time is available for the making of tax payments.) A 

variety of filing methods may be used by taxpayers, including electronic filing, mailing with the 

U.S. Postal Service, and delivery by certain private carriers. A taxpayer’s failure to timely file a 

return or timely pay a tax is subject to penalties and/or interest. 

The Secretary may require electronic filing by taxpayers (other than individuals, estates and 

trusts) that file at least 250 returns annually. Before requiring electronic filing, the Secretary 

must take into account the ability of taxpayers to comply at a reasonable cost. Partnerships that 

have more than 100 partners are required to file their returns electronically. 

Reasons for Change 

Electronic filing benefits taxpayers by improving the accuracy of filed returns, providing an 

acknowledgement that the return has been received by the IRS, and speeding the processing of 

refunds. Electronic filing also benefits the government through reduced processing costs. 

Congress established a goal of having at least 80 percent of all federal tax and information 

returns filed electronically by 2007. Although the number of taxpayers filing returns 

electronically has steadily increased each year, the current rate of growth is not sufficient to meet 

this goal. Providing incentives for taxpayers to file electronically will help the IRS achieve the 

80 percent goal established by Congress. 

Although almost all businesses and exempt organizations prepare their returns electronically, 

many submit them in paper form to the IRS. Most businesses and organizations have the ability 

to file returns electronically at a minimal additional cost. By expanding the authority to require 

more businesses and exempt organizations to file their returns electronically, additional progress 

can be made toward achieving the goal of having 80 percent of all returns filed electronically by 

2007. 

Proposal 

The Administration’s proposal would extend the return filing and payment date for individual 

income tax returns from April 15 to April 30, if the return is filed electronically. In order to 

qualify for this extended return due date, any balance due must be paid by electronic funds 

transfer by the extended date. The due date for returns filed on paper would remain April 15. 

The Administration’s proposal also would expand the Secretary’s authority to require businesses 

(including corporations, partnerships and other business entities) and exempt organizations to file 

their returns electronically. The Administration’s proposal would lower the current 250-return 

130 
minimum for mandatory electronic filing, but would maintain the minimum at a high enough 

level to avoid imposing an undue burden on taxpayers. Before implementing any new electronic 

filing requirement, the Secretary would take into account the ability of taxpayers to comply at a 

reasonable cost and would balance the benefits of electronic filing against any burdens that might 

be imposed on taxpayers. The Administration’s proposal also would require the Secretary to 

implement the expanded electronic filing authority incrementally in order to provide taxpayers 

with adequate time to prepare to file their returns electronically. Taxpayers that fail to file their 

returns electronically when required would be subject to a monetary penalty. The penalty may 

be waived if the taxpayer had reasonable cause for failing to file electronically. The proposal 

would be effective for taxable years beginning after December 31, 2005. 

Revenue Estimate 

[No revenue effect] 

131
OTHER 

Allow IRS to access 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 (EITC) and verifying a 

taxpayer’s employment that is reported on a tax return. 

Under various state laws, the IRS may negotiate for access to employment and unemployment 

data directly from state agencies that maintain these data. Generally, the IRS obtains 

employment and unemployment data less frequently than quarterly, and there are significant 

internal costs of preparing these data for use. 

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 allow the 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. 

Revenue Estimate 

[No revenue effect] 

132
Extend IRS Authority to fund undercover operations 

Current Law 

The IRS is authorized to use proceeds it receives from undercover operations to offset necessary 

and reasonable expenses incurred in such operations. The IRS’ authority to use proceeds from 

undercover operations is scheduled to expire on December 31, 2005. 

Reasons for Change 

The IRS’ authority to use proceeds from undercover operations places the IRS on equal footing 

with other federal law enforcement agencies. The IRS uses this authority to facilitate long-term, 

complicated criminal investigations, including investigations of international money laundering 

activities that often are connected to terrorism. The expiration of this authority would disrupt 

ongoing investigations. An extension would preserve the IRS’ ability to pursue these important 

criminal investigations. 

Proposal 

The proposal would extend the IRS’ authority to use the proceeds received from undercover 

operations through December 31, 2010. 

Revenue Estimate 

[No revenue effect] 

133
Strengthen Financial Integrity of Unemployment Insurance 

STRENGTHEN THE FINANCIAL INTEGRITY OF THE UNEMPLOYMENT 

INSURANCE SYSTEM BY REDUCING IMPROPER BENEFIT PAYMENTS AND TAX 

AVOIDANCE 

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. States also impose 

an unemployment tax on employers. 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. State Unemployment Insurance taxes are deposited into the state’s Federal 

Unemployment Insurance Trust Fund and are used by the state to pay unemployment benefits. 

State recoveries of overpayments of Unemployment Insurance benefits must be similarly 

deposited and used exclusively to pay unemployment benefits. 

While states may enact penalties for overpayments, 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 overpayments and increase overpayment recoveries are limited by 

funding. The mandatory redeposit of collection of unemployment benefits overpayments 

prevents states from redirecting these amounts to future recovery activity. The mandatory 

redeposit rule also limits the ability of states to use private collection agencies. To the extent that 

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 incentives available for the recovery of state unemployment benefit 

overpayments, and delinquent employer taxes. The proposal allows states to redirect up to 5 

percent of overpayment recoveries to additional enforcement activity. The proposal would 

require states to impose a 15 percent penalty on recipients of fraudulent overpayments; the 

penalty would be used exclusively for additional enforcement activity. States also would be 

required to take overpayments resulting from employer fault into account for purposes of the 

employer’s experience rating account, even if the overpayment is later recovered. In certain 

circumstances relating to fraudulent overpayments or delinquent employer taxes, states would be 

allowed to permit private collection agencies to retain a portion of such overpayments or 

delinquent taxes collected. Finally, at the request of a state, the Secretary of the Treasury will 

reduce any income tax refund owed to a benefit recipient when that recipient owes a benefit 

overpayment to the state. 

The incentives would be available beginning January 1, 2006. 

134
-- --

Revenue Estimate 

Fiscal Years 

2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2006-2010 2006-2015

($ in millions) 

6 -6 -129 -530 -659 -2,856 

135
REAUTHORIZE FUNDING FOR THE HIGHWAY TRUST FUND 

EXTEND EXCISE TAXES DEPOSITED IN THE HIGHWAY TRUST FUND 

Current Law 

Excise taxes imposed on nonaviation gasoline, diesel fuel, kerosene, special motor fuels, heavy 

highway vehicles, and tires for heavy highway vehicles are generally deposited in the Highway 

Trust Fund. (Receipts attributable to the Leaking Underground Storage Tank (LUST) Trust 

Fund tax are deposited in the LUST Trust Fund. In addition, part of the tax attributable to 

gasoline and special motor fuels used in motorboats and gasoline used in small engines is 

retained in the general fund and the remainder is transferred from the Highway Trust Fund either 

to the Boat Safety or Sport Fish Restoration Account in the Aquatic Resources Trust Fund or to 

the land and water conservation fund.) Tax is imposed on nonaviation gasoline at a rate of 18.4 

cents per gallon, on diesel fuel and kerosene at a rate of 24.4 cents per gallon, and on special 

motor fuels at varying rates. The tax rates are scheduled to fall, generally by 0.1 cent per gallon, 

on April 1, 2005 (reflecting the scheduled expiration of the LUST Trust Fund tax) and to 4.3 

cents per gallon (or comparable rates in the case of special motor fuels) on October 1, 2005. A 

tax equal to 12 percent of the sales price is imposed on the first retail sale of heavy highway 

vehicles (generally, trucks with a gross weight greater than 33,000 pounds, trailers with a gross 

weight greater than 26,000 pounds, and highway tractors). In addition, a highway use tax of up 

to $550 per year is imposed on highway vehicles with a gross weight of at least 55,000 pounds. 

A tax also is imposed on tires with a rated load capacity exceeding 3,500 pounds, generally at a 

rate of 0.945 cent per pound of excess. The taxes on heavy highway vehicles and tires for heavy 

highway vehicles are scheduled to expire on September 30, 2005. 

Reasons for Change 

The extension of the taxes on nonaviation gasoline, diesel fuel and kerosene, special motor fuels, 

heavy highway vehicles, and tires for heavy highway vehicles is necessary to provide for the 

continued federal investment in the improvement of the Nation’s transportation infrastructure. 

The Administration’s proposed Safe, Accountable, Flexible, and Efficient Transportation Equity 

Act (SAFETEA) describes these investments and also provides for the extension of these taxes at 

their current rates. 

Proposal 

The taxes on nonaviation gasoline, diesel fuel and kerosene, and special motor fuels would be 

extended at their current rates, except to the extent attributable to the LUST Trust Fund tax (see 

the proposal on page 147), through September 30, 2011. The taxes on heavy highway vehicles 

and tires for heavy highway vehicles also would be extended at their current rates through 

September 30, 2011. 

137
--

Revenue Estimate 

Fiscal Years 

2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2006-2010 2006-2015

($ in millions) 

10 11 11 11 11 54 65 

138
ALLOW TAX-EXEMPT FINANCING FOR PRIVATE HIGHWAY PROJECTS AND 

RAIL-TRUCK TRANSFER FACILITIES 

Current law 

Interest on state or local bonds is generally excluded from gross income. However, this 

exclusion generally does not apply to “private activity bonds.” In general, a bond is a private 

activity bond if either: (1) more than ten percent of its proceeds is used for a private business use 

and more than ten percent of its debt service is secured by or payable from property used for a 

private business use; or (2) more than the lesser of $5 million or five percent of the proceeds is 

loaned to a nongovernmental person. 

The Code contains several exceptions under which interest on private activity bonds is excluded 

from gross income. One category of tax-exempt private activity bonds is “exempt facility 

bonds.” Facilities eligible for exempt facility bond financing include airports, docks and 

wharves, mass commuting facilities, water, sewage and solid waste disposal facilities, qualified 

residential rental projects, facilities for the local furnishing of electric energy or gas, local district 

heating or cooling facilities, qualified hazardous waste facilities, high-speed intercity rail 

facilities, environmental enhancements of hydro-electric generating facilities, qualified public 

educational facilities, and qualified green building and sustainable design projects. The volume 

of most tax-exempt private activity bonds is restricted by per-state limits. The annual volume 

limits are $75 per resident of the state or $225 million, if greater, and are indexed for inflation 

beginning in 2003. 

Reasons for Change 

Economic growth and productivity depend on a modern, well-connected national transportation 

network. Allowing a limited amount of tax-exempt private activity bonds to be issued for 

highway projects and surface freight transfer facilities would encourage private sector 

investment in these projects. 

Proposal 

Two new categories of exempt facility bonds would be authorized to finance highway facilities 

and surface freight transfer facilities. Issuance of the bonds would not be subject to the general 

private activity bond volume cap, but rather would be subject to a separate volume limitation of 

$15 billion in the aggregate. The Secretary of Transportation would allocate the $15 billion of 

authority among eligible projects. 

Highway facilities eligible for financing under the program would consist of any surface 

transportation project eligible for federal assistance under title 23 of the United States Code, or 

any project for an international bridge or tunnel for which an international entity authorized 

under federal or state law is responsible. Surface freight transfer facilities would consist of 

facilities for the transfer of freight from truck to rail or rail to truck, including any temporary 

storage facilities directly related to those transfers. Examples of eligible surface freight transfer 

facilities would include cranes, loading docks and computer-controlled equipment that are 

139
integral to such freight transfers. Examples of non-qualifying facilities would include lodging, 

retail, industrial or manufacturing facilities. 

The proposal would be effective for bonds issued after the date of enactment. 

Revenue Estimate 

Fiscal Years 

2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2006-2010 2006-2015

($ in millions) 

-5 -22 -47 -75 -92 -97 -333 -601

140
--

EXTEND EXPIRING PROVISIONS 

EXTEND PERMANENTLY THE RESEARCH AND EXPERIMENTATION (R&E) TAX 

CREDIT 

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 into a three-tiered alternative credit 

that has lower credit rates (ranging from 2.65 to 3.75 percent) and lower statutory fixed base 

percentages (ranging from 1 to 2 percent). The R&E credit is scheduled to expire on December 

31, 2005. 

Reasons for Change 

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

economic growth. However, uncertainty about the future availability of the R&E 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 credit should be made 

permanent. 

Proposal 

The proposal would make the R&E credit permanent. 

Revenue Estimate 

Fiscal Years 

2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2006-2010 2006-2015

($ in millions) 

-2,097 -4,601 -5,944 -6,889 -7,669 -27,200 -76,225 

141
PERMIT DISCLOSURE OF TAX RETURN INFORMATION FOR ADMINISTRATION 

OF STUDENT AID 

Current Law 

The IRS may disclose a taxpayer’s filing status, adjusted gross income, and identity information 

to the Education Department (ED) – but not to ED contractors – only for purposes of establishing 

income contingent repayment amounts for certain student loans. This provision is scheduled to 

expire on December 31, 2005. 

Reasons for Change 

ED’s student financial aid application requires applicants (and their parents) to provide 

information on adjusted gross income, earnings from employment, income tax liability, and type 

of tax return filed. Financial aid applications are processed by ED contractors, but neither ED nor 

a contractor is permitted to receive return information from the IRS to verify the information on 

the financial aid applications. Allowing ED to use return information from the IRS to verify 

financial aid applications would significantly reduce fraud and error, allowing financial aid to be 

directed to those students who are truly in need. In particular, statistical studies indicate that Pell 

Grant overpayments could be reduced by hundreds of millions of dollars each year if this type of 

verification were permitted. 

Proposal 

The Administration’s proposal would supplant the existing provision, permitting the IRS to 

disclose to ED and ED’s contractors identity information, filing status, adjusted gross income, 

earnings from employment, income tax liability, and type of tax return filed for purposes of 

verifying student financial aid applications, as well as establishing repayment amounts. ED and 

its contractors would remain subject to confidentiality restrictions and safeguards with respect to 

return information. The legislation would help to reduce fraud and error in student financial aid 

programs. 

The proposal would apply to requests for disclosures made after the date of enactment. 

Revenue Estimate 

[No revenue effect] 

142
EXTEND AND MODIFY WORK OPPORTUNITY TAX CREDIT AND WELFARE-TOWORK TAX CREDIT 

Current Law 

Under current law, employers are generally entitled to a work opportunity tax credit (WOTC) for 

the first $6,000 of cash wages paid to several target groups of economically disadvantaged or 

handicapped workers. The maximum WOTC credit is generally $2,400 per worker. For the 

summer youth target group, the credit is limited to the first $3,000 of cash wages and the 

maximum credit is $1,200. For workers employed between 120 and 400 hours, the WOTC credit 

rate is 25 percent of qualified wages. For workers employed over 400 hours, the WOTC credit 

rate is 40 percent. Employers must reduce their deduction for wages paid by the amount of the 

credit claimed. The minimum employment period that employees must work before employers 

can claim the WOTC credit is 120 hours. 

The welfare-to-work (WTW) tax credit enables employers to claim a tax credit for eligible wages 

paid to certain qualified long-term welfare recipients. The WTW credit is 35 percent of the first 

$10,000 of eligible wages in the first year of employment and 50 percent of the first $10,000 of 

eligible wages in the second year of employment. Thus, the maximum credit is $8,500 per 

qualified employee. Employers must reduce their deduction for wages paid by the amount of the 

credit claimed. The minimum employment period that employees must work before employers 

can claim the WTW credit is 400 hours. 

Other limitations, including the tax liability limitations governing the general business credit, 

restrict the amount of WOTC and WTW credits that can be claimed. 

Current WOTC target groups include qualified: (1) recipients of Temporary Assistance to 

Needy Families (TANF); (2) veterans; (3) ex-felons; (4) high-risk youth; (5) participants in statesponsored vocational rehabilitation programs; (6) summer youth; (7) food stamp recipients; and 

(8) Supplemental Security Income (SSI) recipients. A qualified long-term welfare recipient for 

purposes of the WTW credit is: (1) a member of a family that has received TANF for at least 18 

consecutive months ending on the hiring date; (2) a member of a family that has received TANF 

for a total of 18 months after August 5, 1997, provided the hiring date is within two years of the 

date when the 18-month total is reached; or (3) a member of family ineligible for TANF because 

of any federal- or state-imposed time limit, if the family member is hired within two years of the 

date of benefit cessation. 

For the WOTC credit, eligible wages include only cash wages. For the WTW credit, eligible 

wages include amounts paid by the employer for: (1) educational assistance excludable under a 

section 127 program; (2) health plan coverage for the employee, but not more than the applicable 

premium defined under section 4980B(f)(4); and (3) dependent care assistance excludable under 

section 129. 

Membership in most WOTC and WTW target groups requires eligible persons to be members of 

families that benefit from means-tested government programs, to live in areas with high poverty 

rates, or to have participated in government programs that provide benefits to handicapped 

workers. However, ex-felons are required to be members of families which have incomes for a 

143 
--

specified 6-month period that, when annualized, do not exceed 70 percent of the Lower Living 

Standard published by the Bureau of Labor Statistics. State employment security agencies 

(SESAs) are responsible for certifying that individuals are eligible for the credits. 

Many workers eligible for the WTW credit are also eligible for WOTC. Employers of such 

workers may claim either the WOTC or WTW credit, but not both, in any taxable year. The 

WOTC and WTW credits are effective for workers hired before January 1, 2006. 

Reasons for Change 

The WOTC and WTW credits provide tax incentives to employers for hiring economically 

disadvantaged workers, but the rules for computing the credits differ in ways that are hard to 

justify. Employers of WTW-eligible long-term welfare recipients, who generally are more costly 

to employ than WOTC workers, receive lower credits in the initial phase of employment than 

employers of WOTC workers. Because many WTW employees are also eligible for WOTC, 

employers of these workers compute credits under both sets of rules to determine which credit is 

more advantageous. To compute WTW credits, employers have to calculate the value of certain 

fringe benefits paid to each WTW worker hired, which is difficult and costly relative to the 

expected tax benefits. The family-income test for the WOTC credit’s ex-felon target group is 

burdensome for administrative agencies and reduces employer incentives for hiring ex-felons. 

Proposal 

The proposal would simplify the employment incentives by combining the credits into one credit 

and making the rules for computing the combined credit simpler. The credits would be 

combined by creating a new welfare-to-work target group under the work opportunity tax credit. 

The minimum employment periods and credit rates for the first year of employment under the 

present work opportunity tax credit would apply to welfare-to-work employees. The maximum 

amount of eligible wages would continue to be $10,000 for welfare-to-work employees and 

generally $6,000 for other target groups ($3,000 for summer youth). In addition, the second-year 

50-percent credit currently available under the welfare-to-work credit would continue to be 

available for welfare-to-work employees under the modified work opportunity tax credit. 

Qualified wages would be limited to cash wages. The work opportunity tax credit would also be 

simplified by eliminating the requirement to determine family income for ex-felons. The 

modified work opportunity tax credit would apply to individuals who begin work after December 

31, 2005, and before January 1, 2007. 

Revenue Estimate 

Fiscal Years 

2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2006-2010 2006-2015

($ in millions) 

-131 -166 -65 -16 -5 -383 -383 

144
-- -- -- --

EXTEND THE FIRST-TIME HOMEBUYER CREDIT FOR THE DISTRICT OF 

COLUMBIA 

Current Law 

A one-time, nonrefundable $5,000 credit is available to purchasers of a principal residence in the 

District of Columbia who have not owned a residence in the District during the year preceding 

the purchase. The credit phases out for taxpayers with modified adjusted gross income between 

$70,000 and $90,000 ($110,000 and $130,000 for joint returns). 

The credit does not apply to purchases after December 31, 2005. 

Reasons for Change 

The homeownership rate in the District of Columbia is significantly below the rate for 

neighboring states and the nation as a whole. Homeownership fosters healthy, vibrant 

communities and is a key to revitalizing the Nation’s capital. Extending the credit would 

enhance the District’s ability to attract new homeowners and establish a stable residential base. 

Proposal 

The first-time homebuyer credit for the District of Columbia would be extended for one year, 

making the credit available with respect to purchases through December 31, 2006. 

Revenue Estimate 

Fiscal Years 

2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2006-2010 2006-2015

($ in millions) 

-1 -18 -19 -19 

145
EXTEND AUTHORITY TO ISSUE QUALIFIED ZONE ACADEMY BONDS 

Current Law 

Under current law, state and local governments can issue qualified zone academy bonds 

(QZABs) to fund the improvement of certain eligible public schools. An eligible holder of a 

QZAB receives annual federal income tax credits. These annual credits compensate the holder 

for lending money and, therefore, are treated like taxable interest payments for federal tax 

purposes. Eligible holders are banks, insurance companies, and corporations actively engaged in 

the business of lending money. The credit rate for a QZAB is set on its day of sale by reference 

to credit rates established by the Department of the Treasury. The maximum term of a QZAB is 

determined by reference to the adjusted applicable federal rate (AFR) published by the Internal 

Revenue Service. The higher the AFR, the shorter the maximum term (rounded to whole years) 

so as to keep the extent of the federal subsidy approximately equal to half the face amount of the 

bond. 

Current law establishes authority to issue $400 million of QZABs for each year from 1998 

through 2005. The annual cap is allocated among the states in proportion to their respective 

populations of individuals with incomes below the poverty line. Unused authority to issue 

QZABs may be carried forward for two years (three years for authority arising in 1998 and 1999) 

after the year for which the authority was established. 

A number of requirements must be met for a bond to be treated as a QZAB. First, the bond must 

be issued pursuant to an allocation of bond authority from the issuer's state educational agency. 

Second, at least 95 percent of the bond proceeds must be used for an eligible purpose at a 

qualified zone academy. Eligible purposes include rehabilitating school facilities, acquiring 

equipment, developing course materials, or training teachers. A qualified zone academy is a 

public school (or an academic program within a public school) that is designed in cooperation 

with business and is either (1) located in an empowerment zone or enterprise community, or (2) 

attended by students at least 35 percent of whom are estimated to be eligible for free or reducedcost lunches under the National School Lunch Act. Third, private entities must have promised to 

contribute to the qualified zone academy certain property or services with a present value equal 

to at least 10 percent of the bond proceeds. There is no requirement that issuers of QZABs 

report issuance to the Internal Revenue Service (IRS). Issuers of tax-exempt bonds must report 

issuance to the IRS by filing information returns. 

Reasons for Change 

Aging school buildings and new educational technologies create a need to renovate older school 

buildings and to develop new curricula. Many school systems have insufficient fiscal capacity to 

finance needed renovation and programs. The QZAB provision encourages the development of 

innovative school programs through public/private partnerships. A reporting requirement would 

facilitate evaluation of this provision and assist in its administration by the IRS. 

146
--

Proposal 

The authority to issue $400 million of QZABs per year would be extended for two years to 2006 

and 2007. For QZABs issued after the date of enactment, issuers would be required to report 

issuance to the IRS in a manner similar to the information returns required for tax-exempt bonds. 

Revenue Estimate 

Fiscal Years 

2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2006-2010 2006-2015

($ in millions) 

-3 -8 -13 -18 -20 -62 -162 

147
-- -- -- --

EXTEND DEDUCTION FOR CORPORATE DONATIONS OF COMPUTER 

TECHNOLOGY 

Current Law 

The deduction for charitable contributions of ordinary income property is generally limited to the 

lesser of the taxpayer’s cost basis in the property or fair market value. The Taxpayer Relief Act 

of 1997 provided an enhanced deduction for a three-year period for charitable contributions of 

computer technology or equipment to elementary and secondary schools and charities formed for 

the purpose of supporting elementary and secondary education. In 2000, this provision was 

extended for an additional three-year period and expanded to apply to charitable contributions of 

computer technology or equipment to post-secondary educational institutions and public 

libraries. It was extended again in 2004. For contributions made in taxable years beginning 

before January 1, 2006, the amount of the deduction is equal to the taxpayer's basis in the 

donated property plus one-half of the amount of ordinary income that would have been realized 

if the property had been sold. The enhanced deduction is limited to twice the taxpayer’s basis in 

the donated property. To qualify for the enhanced deduction, the contribution must satisfy 

various requirements. This provision does not apply to contributions made in taxable years 

beginning after December 31, 2005. 

Reasons for Change 

This provision provides an incentive for businesses to contribute computer equipment and 

software for the benefit of local communities and students at the elementary, secondary, and 

post-secondary school levels, by providing public libraries and educational institutions with 

needed technological resources. Because the need for technological resources is continuing, this 

provision should be extended. 

Proposal 

The Administration proposes to extend the deduction, which expires with respect to donations 

made in taxable years beginning after December 31, 2005, to apply to donations made in taxable 

years beginning before January 1, 2007. 

Revenue Estimate 

Fiscal Years 

2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2006-2010 2006-2015

($ in millions) 

-73 -49 -122 -122 

148
EXTEND PROVISIONS PERMITTING DISCLOSURE OF TAX RETURN 

INFORMATION RELATING TO TERRORIST ACTIVITY 

Current Law 

Current law permits disclosure by the IRS of return information to aid the investigation or 

response to terrorism in two situations. First, if a specified official of a federal law enforcement 

or intelligence agency submits a written request, the IRS may disclose a taxpayer’s identity and 

return information to such agency’s officers and employees involved with a terrorist incident, 

threat, or activity. The head of a federal law enforcement agency in turn may make disclosures 

to state or local law enforcement agencies working as part of a team on the investigation or 

response. Second, if the IRS wishes to apprise a federal law enforcement agency of a terrorist 

incident, threat, or activity, the IRS may disclose a taxpayer’s identity and return information to 

the agency’s head (who in turn may disclose the information to agency officers and employees as 

necessary). With respect to returns and return information that the taxpayer supplied (other than 

taxpayer identity information), the IRS cannot make the disclosure to federal law enforcement or 

intelligence agency officers and employees without a court order indicating there is reasonable 

cause to believe the returns and return information at issue are relevant to the terrorist incident, 

threat or activity. If a federal law enforcement or intelligence agency seeks returns or return 

information, specified officials in the Department of Justice may apply for an ex parte court 

order. If the IRS wishes to apprise a federal law enforcement agency of a terrorist incident, 

threat, or activity, the IRS may apply for an ex parte court order and may make disclosures to the 

Department of Justice as necessary to prepare such application on behalf of the IRS. 

Reasons for Change 

This disclosure authority relating to terrorist activities expires on December 31, 2005. The 

Administration believes that extension would help provide continued support for investigations 

and responses relating to terrorism. 

Proposal 

The Administration proposes to extend this authority until December 31, 2006. 

Revenue Estimate 

[No revenue effect] 

149
-- -- --

EXTEND EXCISE TAXES DEPOSITED IN THE LEAKING UNDERGROUND 

STORAGE TANK (LUST) TRUST FUND 

Current Law 

An excise tax is imposed, generally at a rate of 0.1 cent per gallon, on gasoline, on other liquid 

motor fuels used on highways, in aviation, on inland waterways, or in diesel-powered trains, and 

on special motor fuels used in motorboats. Receipts from the tax are deposited in the Leaking 

Underground Storage Tank (LUST) Trust Fund. The tax is scheduled to expire on March 31, 

2005. 

Reasons for Change 

The LUST Trust Fund tax should be extended to ensure the availability of funds to pay clean-up 

costs associated with leaks from underground storage tanks. 

Proposal 

The LUST Trust Fund tax would be extended at the current rate through March 31, 2007. 

Revenue Estimate 

Fiscal Years 

2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2006-2010 2006-2015

($ in millions) 

74 152 77 229 229

150
-- -- -- -- -- -- --

EXTEND EXCISE TAX ON COAL AT CURRENT RATES 

Current Law 

An excise tax is imposed on coal at a rate of $1.10 per ton for coal from underground mines and 

$0.55 per ton for coal from surface mines. In either case, the tax imposed with respect to a ton of 

coal may not exceed 4.4 percent of the amount for which it is sold by the producer. Receipts 

from the tax are deposited in the Black Lung Disability Trust Fund. Amounts in the Fund are 

used to pay compensation, medical, and survivor benefits to eligible miners and their survivors 

and to cover costs of program administration. Miners and survivors qualify for benefits from the 

Fund only if the miner’s mine employment terminated before 1970 or no mine operator is liable 

for the payment of benefits. The Fund is also permitted to borrow from the general fund any 

amounts necessary to make authorized expenditures if excise tax receipts do not provide 

sufficient funding. 

Reduced rates of tax apply after the earlier of December 31, 2013, or the date on which the Black 

Lung Disability Trust Fund has repaid, with interest, all amounts borrowed from the general fund 

of the Treasury. The reduced rates of tax are $0.50 per ton for coal from underground mines and 

$0.25 per ton for coal from surface mines. In addition, the maximum tax imposed with respect to 

a ton of coal is reduced from 4.4 percent of the amount for which it is sold by the producer to 2 

percent of that amount. 

Reasons for Change 

To reduce the duration of the general fund subsidy for black lung disability programs, excise tax 

rates on coal should remain at their current levels until all amounts borrowed from the general 

fund of the Treasury have been repaid with interest. 

Proposal 

The proposal would retain the excise tax on coal at the current rates until the date on which the 

Black Lung Disability Trust Fund has repaid, with interest, all amounts borrowed from the 

general fund of the Treasury. After repayment of the Fund’s debt, the reduced rates of $0.50 per 

ton for coal from underground mines and $0.25 per ton for coal from surface mines would apply 

and the tax per ton of coal would be capped at 2 percent of the amount for which it is sold by the 

producer. The proposal would be effective for coal sales after December 31, 2004. 

Revenue Estimate 

Fiscal Years 

2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2006-2010 2006-2015

($ in millions) 

479 

151
OTHER 

INCLUDE COMBAT PAY AS EARNED INCOME FOR PURPOSES OF EITC 

Current Law 

Subject to certain limitations, compensation earned by members of the Armed Forces while 

serving in combat zones may be excluded from gross income. Enlisted personnel and warrant 

officers may exclude the full amount of compensation earned in combat zones. Commissioned 

officers may also exclude compensation earned in combat zones, but only to the extent it does 

not exceed the maximum amount that enlisted personnel receive. For up to two years following 

service in a combat zone, military personnel may also exclude compensation earned while 

hospitalized from wounds, disease, or injuries incurred while serving in a combat zone. 

Nontaxable compensation is not includable in earned income for purposes of computing the 

earned income tax credit (EITC). However, a taxpayer may elect to treat combat pay otherwise 

excluded from gross income as earned income for purposes of the EITC, effective for taxable 

years ending after October 4, 2004, and before January 1, 2006. 

Reasons for Change 

Excluding combat pay from earned income can decrease or increase the amount of the EITC 

received by military personnel serving in combat zones. The effect of the exclusion varies 

depending on a number of factors, including the taxpayer’s rank, number of years of service in 

the military, number of months in a combat zone, marital status, and number of children. The 

effects of the exclusion are most adverse among very low-ranking enlisted personnel who serve 

in combat zones for most or all of the tax year. However, in 2004, the exclusion likely increased 

the EITC for most military personnel. 

Extending the availability of the election to include combat pay as earned income for purposes of 

the EITC would assist very low-ranking enlisted personnel who serve long periods in combat 

zones, without disadvantaging other military personnel also serving in combat zones. 

Proposal 

The Administration proposes to extend this provision through December 31, 2006. 

153
EXPAND PROTECTIONS FOR MEMBERS OF THE ARMED FORCES 

Current Law 

Under section 7508 of the Code, generally when a member of the Armed Forces is serving in a 

designated combat zone or contingency operation, the period spent in the combat zone, plus 180 

days, is ignored in determining the timeliness of a variety of actions taken by either the IRS or 

the servicemember with respect to a federal tax liability. (Special rules apply to servicemembers 

who are hospitalized as a result of an injury sustained while serving in a combat zone.) Interest 

and penalties do not accrue during this period. Although the IRS is permitted to pursue certain 

assessment and collection actions during this time, the IRS suspends all assessment and 

collection actions against a member of the Armed Forces serving in a designated combat zone or 

contingency operation. Section 510 of the Servicemembers Civil Relief Act provides that if a 

servicemember’s ability to pay a federal or state income tax liability arising before or during 

military service is materially affected by military service (whether or not in a combat zone), 

collection action with respect to the tax liability is deferred for the period of military service and 

up to 180 days after the servicemember’s termination or release from military service. (The 

statute of limitation for the collection of tax affected by the deferral also is extended.) The 

deferral does not apply to certain Social Security taxes. No interest or penalties accrue on the 

unpaid income tax liability during the period of deferment. 

Reasons for Change 

Armed Forces reservists and National Guardsmen called to active duty often experience 

significant decreases in income and disruptions to their businesses. These disruptions increase 

the longer that these servicemembers remain on active duty. Current law provides these 

servicemembers additional time to address tax liabilities, including liabilities resulting from the 

disruption of being called to active duty, if the servicemember is in a designated combat zone or 

if the servicemember can demonstrate that his or her ability to pay an outstanding tax liability 

has been materially affected by military service. Even outside these situations, Armed Forces 

reservists and National Guardsmen called to active duty still experience significant personal and 

financial disruption and, in addition, may not be able to respond fully to tax assessment or 

collection actions. Extending existing protections will improve the morale and effectiveness of 

our Armed Forces while providing the IRS, state taxing authorities and servicemembers 

sufficient time to address outstanding tax liabilities. 

Proposal 

The Administration’s proposal would extend the protections of section 7508 to all Armed Forces 

reservists and National Guardsmen called to active duty. Thus, the changes would result in the 

suspension of IRS assessment and collection action against Armed Forces reservists and National 

Guardsmen on active duty and would extend the time that these individuals would have to 

comply with their tax obligations, such as the filing of returns. While these individuals are on 

active duty, interest and penalties would not accrue on any federal tax liability owed. In addition, 

the proposal would extend the protections in Section 510 of the Servicemembers Civil Relief Act 

to suspend the assessment and collection of any state income tax liability for all servicemembers 

(including Armed Forces reservists and National Guardsmen) serving in a designated combat 

154 
zone or contingency operation and for all other Armed Forces reservists and National 

Guardsmen called to active duty. 

The proposal would be effective upon enactment. 

155
REFORM OF THE FEDERAL TAX SYSTEM 

On January 7, 2005, the President established an Advisory Panel on Federal Tax Reform to 

develop options to improve the tax system. The current tax system is complex, is perceived by 

many as unfair, and distorts household and business decisions. The excessive time taxpayers 

spend to understand and comply with the tax system is a burden and wastes resources. 

Taxpayers spend an estimated six billion hours to comply with the tax system at a cost of more 

than $100 billion annually. Individuals and businesses need a tax system that is simpler, and 

easier to understand and comply with. Faith in the fairness of our tax system is undermined 

when taxpayers believe others can exploit the complexities of the law to avoid paying tax. At the 

same time, Americans deserve a tax code that will allow them to make decisions based more on 

economic merit, free of the distortions generated by the tax system. The economic costs 

associated with these distortions can total hundreds of billions of dollars annually. 

The Advisory Panel will broadly focus on revenue-neutral reforms that make the tax system 

simpler, encourage economic growth, and promote fairness, while recognizing the importance of 

homeownership and charitable giving in American society. Information on the Advisory Panel 

and its deliberations can be found at www.taxreformpanel.gov. The Advisory Panel will provide 

options for reforming the tax system to the Secretary of the Treasury no later than July 31, 2005. 

These options will help the Treasury Secretary and others within the Administration develop 

specific recommendations for the President. 

157
--- --- ---

--- --- ---

--- --- --- --- --- --- 

--- --- --- --- --- --- 

--- --- --- --- --- --- 

--- --- --- --- ---

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 

--- --- --- --- --- --- 

--- --- --- --- ---

---

---

--- ---

------

---

---

---

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 

---

---

---

Fiscal Years 

(in millions of dollars) 

-9

-

-3

-3

-3

-2

-

-109

-32

-9

-58

-245

-3

-6-9

-16

-8 

-9 

2013 

-20,442 

-8,706 

-1,841 

-487 

-859 

-3,329 

-184 

-3,690 

-3,309 

-22 

-302 

-169 

-146 

-47 

-44 

-725 

-1,630 

-107,945 

-32,102 

-10,005 

-54,400 

-238,417 

-2,692 

-6,205 -9,198 

-16,219 

-7 

-42 

-10 

2012 

-15,145 

-7,466 

-32,102 

-1,734 

-468 

-860 

-2,851 

-2,486 

-216 

-3,444 

-3,130 

-21 

-298 

-154 

-135 

-38 

-684 

-2,240 

-106,048 

-10,531 

-51,215 

-227,809 

-5,553 -9,003 

-15,598 

-7 

-37 

-10 

2011 

-6,761 -6,121 

-5,415 

-5,101 

-1,097 

-346 

-175 

-1,101 

-1,598 

-255 

-3,139 

-2,960 

-20 

-14,639 

-299 

-140 

-126 

-31 

-650 

-3,082 

-67,820 

-22,423 

-118,341 

-2,954 -8,520 

Revenue Estimates */ 

FY 2006 Budget Proposals Affecting Receipts 

3 

5 

-7 

-32 

-10 

2010 

-568 

-5,076 

-4,073 

-2,192 

-11,901 

199 

-411 

-300 

-512 

-8,276 

-2,876 

-2,614 

-19 

-13,785 

-304 

-127 

-119 

-24 

-623 

-6 

-28 

-10 

2009 

-16,725 

-7,473 

-5,417 

-1,847 

-31,462 

1,693 

-382 

-326 

985 

-7,899 

-2,636 

-1,937 

-18 

-12,490 

-313 

-116 

-111 

-16 

-600 

-6 

-25 

-11 

-9 

2008 

537 

-5,268 

-3,402 

-1,514 

-9,647 

4,069 

-357 

-286 

3,426 

-7,057 

-2,316 

-1,071 

-15 

-10,459 

-318 

-106 

-105 

-580 

547 

-363 

-318 

-96 

-6 

-21 

-10 

-5 

2007 

-910 

7,151 

-335 

-134 

6,682 

-5,095 

-2,029 

-391 

-13 

-7,528 

-98 

-554 

509 

-48 

-79 

-3 

-379 

-335 

-87 

-5 

-20 

-6 

-2 

2006 

-557 

3,709 

-224 

3,485 

-97 

-200 

-148 

-603 

309 

4 

313 

-70 

-42 

-6 -4 

-3 

2005 

-125 

Modifications of pension plans............................................... 

Expand tax-free savings opportunities............................... 

pre-designation expenses ............................................. tions contributing appreciated property ......................... income of charitable remainder trusts ........................... 501(c)(3) bonds for residential rental property............... 

Expensing for small business................................................. 

Marriage penalty relief 2/........................................................ Education incentives.............................................................. 

transfer taxes, and modification of gift taxes...................... 

2001 and 2003........................................................... 

Consolidate employer-based savings accounts................. 

Total simplify and encourage saving.......................... 

health insurance 3/......................................................... 

Improve the Health Coverage Tax Credit 5/....................... 

Total invest in health care.......................................... 

charitable contributions.................................................. of private foundations..................................................... 

Marginal individual income tax rate reductions...................... 

Other incentives for families and children.............................. 

Total provide incentives for charitable giving............. 

Dividends tax rate structure................................................... Capital gains tax rate structure.............................................. 

Child tax credit 1/................................................................... 

Establish Individual Development Accounts...................... 

deductible insurance premiums..................................... small employers to employee HSAs 4/.......................... 

deduction for contributions of food inventory................. 

qualified 501(c)(3) bonds............................................... 

Total make permanent certain tax cuts enacted in 

Provide a refundable tax credit for contributions of 

Make Permanent Certain Tax Cuts Enacted in 2001 

and 2003 (assumed in the baseline): 

Repeal certain restrictions on the use of qualified 

Invest in health care: 

Provide refundable tax credit for the purchase of 

Reform excise tax based on investment income 

Modify basis adjustment to stock of S corporaExpand and increase the enhanced charitable Provide an above-the-line deduction for highAllow the orphan drug tax credit for certain 

Provide incentives for charitable giving: 

Permit tax-free withdrawals from IRAs for 

Modify tax on unrelated business taxable 

Repeal of estate and generation-skipping 

Repeal the $150 million limitation on 

Simplify and encourage saving: 

Tax Incentives: 

159
---

---

---

---

---

--- --- --- --- --- 

---

--- --- --- 

---

---

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 

---

-

-3

-30

-159 

-92 

-50 

2013 

-298 

-103 

-1,126 

-40 

-159 

-140 

-204 

10 

-426 

-200 

200 308 

258 

-3,125 

-28,426 

-168 

-197 

-60 

-49 

2012 

-294 

-89 

-1,055 

-40 

-168 

-145 

12 

-390 

-200 

200 274 

225 

-2,694 

-26,565 

-176 

-190 

-36 

-47 

2011 

-289 

-76 

-984 

-40 

-176 

-158 

16 

-368 

-200 

200 293 

246 

-2,084 

-22,260 

-285 

-184 

-16 

-183 

-23 

-45 

2010 

-65 

-912 

-40 

-1,425 

-184 

-163 

-36 

-421 

-200 

200 

-18,252 

298 

253 

Fiscal Years 

(in millions of dollars) 

-282 

-195 

-34 

-177 

-43 

2009 

-55 

-899 

-40 

-815 

-60 

-255 

-160 

-680 

-114 

-1,165 

-200 

200 

-15,616 

256 

213 

-279 

-853 

-203 

-24 

-170 

-42 

2008 

-50 

-40 

-342 

-105 

-308 

-260 

-614 

-105 

-1,173 

-200 

200 

-10,658 

245 

203 

-267 

-806 

-215 

-307 

-19 

-162 

-447 

-40 

2007 

-50 

-40 

-84 

-92 

-321 

-84 

-1,033 

-200 

200 

-3,987 

228 

188 

-27 

-433 

-7 

-138 

-185 

-11 

-166 

-260 

-4 

2006 

-29 

-40 

-47 

-144 

-109 

-690 

-200 

200 

1,092 

166 

162 

-5 

-47 

-13 

-17 

-275 

11 

2005 

-20 

-48 

-130 

11 

and other changes ........................................................ 

remediation costs........................................................... 

systems.......................................................................... and fuel cell vehicles 6/.................................................. 

for child-related tax benefits 7/.......................................... 

Provide tax incentives for transportation infrastructure...... 

single-family housing...................................................... 

property for conservation purposes ............................... 

credit for electricity from biomass................................... 

power property............................................................... 

promote energy conservation................................. 

Total simplify the tax laws for families......................... 

provided computers, software, and peripherals ............ 

Repeal certain New York City Liberty Zone incentives ..... 

Total restructure assistance to New York City .......... 

funds.............................................................................. 

classroom expenses...................................................... 

Establish Opportunity zones.............................................. 

Total protect the environment.................................... 

Total tax incentives............................................ 

Simplify adoption tax benefits................................................ 

Management Agency (FEMA) hazard mitigation assistance programs..................................................... 

Increase housing opportunities: 

Provide tax credit for developers of affordable 

wind, biomass, and landfill gas and modify the tax 

Clarify elegibility of siblings and other family members 

energy conservation: 

Extend the tax credit for producing electricity from 

Strengthen education: 

Extend, increase, and expand the above-the-line 

deduction for qualified out-of-pocket 

Provide tax credit for purchase of certain hybrid 

Protect the environment: 

Extend permanently expensing of brownfields 

Modify treatment of nuclear decommissioning Provide tax credit for residential solar energy 

Encourage telecommuting: 

Exclude from income the value of employerExclude 50 percent of gains from the sale of 

Total increase energy production and 

Restructure assistance to New York City: 

Increase energy production and promote 

Provide tax credit for combined heat and 

Provide tax relief for Federal Emergency 

Provide assistance to distressed areas: 

Simplify the Tax Laws for Families: 

Provide disaster relief: 

160
---

---

--- ---

---

---

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 

--- ------ --- --- --- --- --- 

--- ---

--- ---

--- --- --- 

---

-

-2

-

-

3 

11 

307 

5 

2013 

141 

-38 

10 23 47 

180 

33 

-674 

-30 

-699 

-59 

-59 

-109 

-1,623 

-1,520 

3 

9 

10 

297 

5 

2012 

127 

-32 

34 40 

171 

30 

325 

-30 

300 

-94 

-94 

-106 

-1,613 

-1,518 

3 

9 

10 

290 

5 

2011 

116 

-26 

45 34 

163 

26 

-116 

-29 

-140 

11 

-99 

-88 

-105 

-1,479 

-1,389 

3 

8 

9 

272 

5 

-525 

2010 

104 

-20 

-1,678 

49 28 

155 

20 

-530 

11 

-97 

-86 

-102 

-1,762 

Fiscal Years 

(in millions of dollars) 

2 

8 

9 

241 

5 

-124 

2009 

92 

-15 

-2,622 

37 23 

148 

14 

-129 

11 

-92 

-81 

-97 

-2,699 

-8 

2 

8 

8 

212 

-6 

4 

-2 

2008 

78 

-869 

-799 

23 17 

141 

13 

11 

-75 

-64 

-91 

-3 

2 

8 

8 

188 

6 

4 

10 

2007 

62 

1,432 

1,491 

12 12 

134 

12 

11 

-47 

-36 

-84 

2 

6 

8 

4 7 

4 

159 

2006 

57 

151 

208 

128 

10 

-22 

-12 

-56 

1 

2 

3 

1 2 

74 

83 

-5 

-5 

2005 

compliance............................................................. 

Increase Indian gaming activity fees 8/.............................. 

Strengthen funding for single-employer pension plans.......... 

Total reauthorize funding for the Highway Trust Fund....... 

conversions and protect defined benefit plans................... 

Modify the active trade or business test............................. 

conservation easements................................................ sale or exchange of certain brownfields ........................ certain life insurance contracts....................................... 

Clarify and simplify qualified tuition programs.................... 

benefit payments and tax avoidance 6/.......................... 

Modify pesticide registration fee 8/..................................... Trust Fund 6/...................................................................... projects and rail-truck transfer facilities.............................. 

Dominican Republic, and Panama 6/................................. 

Reflect market interest rates in lump sum payments............. 

Combat abusive foreign tax credit transactions................. Total strengthen the employer-based pension system...... 

Limit related party interest deductions............................... 

cost saving measures.................................................... 

insurance and other................................................... 

Strengthen the Employer-Based Pension System: 

Ensure fair treatment of older workers in cash balance 

Strengthen financial integrity of unemployment insurance: 

Strengthen the financial integrity of the unemployment insurance system by reducing improper 

Eliminate the special exclusion from unrelated 

business taxable income for gain or loss on the 

Implement IRS administrative reforms and initiate 

Reauthorize Funding for the Highway Trust Fund: 

Extend excise taxes deposited in the Highway 

Impose penalties on charities that fail to enforce Apply an excise tax to amounts received under 

Close Loopholes and Improve Tax Compliance: Tax Administration, Unemployment Insurance, 

Allow tax-exempt financing for private highway 

Implement free trade agreement with Bahrain, 

Total close loopholes and improve tax 

Total tax administration, unemployment 

Improve tax administration: 

and Other: 

Other proposals: 

Promote Trade: 

161
---

--- --- --- --- 

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- 

---

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- 

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 

--- --- --- --- --- --- 

---

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 

*/ Estimates presented for certain provisions identified below, include the effects on both receipts and outlays. For these provisions, estimates differ from those included in Table 17-3 o1/ Affects both receipts and outlays. The outlay effect is $9,660 in 2012, $9,371 in 2013, $9,236 in 2014, $9,052 in 2015 and $37,319 for 2006 - 2015. 2/ Affects both receipts and outlays. The outlay effect is $321 million in 2011, $1,965 million in 2012, $1,958 in 2013, $1,949 in 2014, $1,940 in 2015 and $7,491 in 2006 - 2015. 3/ Affects both receipts and outlays. The outlay effect is $78 million in 2006, $3,660 million in 2007, $5,514 in 2008, $6,529 million in 2009, $7,035 million in 2010, $7,513 million in 201

$8,328 million in 2013, $8,553 million in 2014, $8,785 million in 2015, $22,816 in 2006 - 2010 and $64,078 in 2006 - 2015. 

4/ Affects both receipts and outlays. The outlay effect is $18 million in 2006, $87 million in 2007, $237 in 2008, $392 million in 2009, $589 million in 2010, $631 million in 2011, $710 mi

$711 million in 2013, $767 million in 2014, $788 million in 2015, $1,323 in 2006 - 2010 and $4,930 in 2006 - 2015. 

5/ Affects both receipts and outlays. The outlay effect is $3 million in 2006, $10 million in 2007, $11 in 2008, $13 million in 2009, $14 million in 2010, $14 million in 2011, $15 million in 2

$16 million in 2013, $17 million in 2014, $17 million in 2015, $51 in 2006 - 2010 and $130 in 2006 - 2015. 

6/ Net of income offsets. 7/ Affects both receipts and outlays. The outlay effect is $34 million in 2006, $45 million in 2007, $50 in 2008, $59 million in 2009, $77 million in 2010, $70 million in 2011, $72 million in 

$81 million in 2013, $87 million in 2014, $95 million in 2015, $265 in 2006 - 2010 and $670 in 2006 - 2015. 

8/ The proposal affects receipts and is included in the Administration's legislative proposals, but is not described in these General Explanations. 

-10

-10

-287

-20 

-9,436 

2013 

330 

-9,746 

-278,101 

-20 

-8,707 

2012 

328 

-9,015 

-263,977 

-20 

-8,034 

2011 

326 

-8,340 

-149,821 

-5 

-20 

-7,371 

2010 

-7,669 

323 

-39,390 

Fiscal Years 

(in millions of dollars) 

-16 

-18 

-6,601 

2009 

-6,889 

322 

-56,149 

of the President's Budget, which presents only the effect on receipts of the Administration's legislative proposals. 

-65 

-13 

-5,704 

2008 

-5,944 

318 

-26,550 

-166 

-8 

-4,453 

2007 

-4,601 

-18 

-49 

77 

312 

-7,046 

-131 

-1 

-3 

-1,849 

2006 

-2,097 

-73 

152 

304 

-344 

District of Columbia....................................................................................... 

Extend authority to issue Qualified Zone Academy 

74 

2005 

74 

201 

welfare-to-work tax credit................................................ 

Bonds............................................................................... 

computer technology......................................................... 

Abandoned mine reclamation fees 8/................................... 

Total extend expiring provisions................................. 

Total budget proposals................................................ 

information related to terrorist activity............................... 

Extend excise taxes deposited in the Leaking .................... Extend excise tax on coal at current rates 6/....................... 

(R&E) tax credit.............................................................. 

Extend and modify work opportunity tax credit and 

Underground Storage Tank (LUST) Trust Fund 6/...... 

Extend permanently the research & experimentation 

Extend provisions permitting disclosure of tax return 

Extend the first-time homebuyer credit for the Extend deduction for corporate donations of 

Extend Expiring Provisions: 

162