39–006 

113TH CONGRESS REPORT " ! HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 2d Session 113–527 

CHILD TAX CREDIT IMPROVEMENT ACT OF 2014 

JULY 17, 2014.—Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the State of 

the Union and ordered to be printed 

Mr. CAMP, from the Committee on Ways and Means, 

submitted the following 

R E P O R T 

together with 

DISSENTING VIEWS 

[To accompany H.R. 4935] 

[Including cost estimate of the Congressional Budget Office] 

The Committee on Ways and Means, to whom was referred the 

bill (H.R. 4935) to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to 

make improvements to the child tax credit, having considered the 

same, report favorably thereon with an amendment and recommend that the bill as amended do pass. 

CONTENTS 

Page 

I. SUMMARY AND BACKGROUND ............................................................... 2 

A. Purpose and Summary ..................................................................... 2 

B. Background and Need for Legislation ............................................. 2 

C. Legislative History ............................................................................ 3 

II. EXPLANATION OF THE BILL ................................................................... 3 

A. Modification of Child Tax Credit (sec. 24 of the Code) .................. 3 

III. VOTES OF THE COMMITTEE .................................................................... 4 

IV. BUDGET EFFECTS OF THE BILL ............................................................ 5 

A. Committee Estimate of Budgetary Effects ...................................... 5 

B. Statement Regarding New Budget Authority and Tax Expenditures Budget Authority .................................................................. 7 

C. Cost Estimate Prepared by the Congressional Budget Office ....... 7 

D. Macroeconomic Impact Analysis ...................................................... 10 

V. OTHER MATTERS TO BE DISCUSSED UNDER THE RULES OF 

THE HOUSE .............................................................................................. 10 

A. Committee Oversight Findings and Recommendations ................. 10 

B. Statement of General Performance Goals and Objectives ............. 10 

C. Information Relating to Unfunded Mandates ................................ 10 


jbell on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
2 

D. Applicability of House Rule XXI 5(b) .............................................. 10 

E. Tax Complexity Analysis .................................................................. 10 

F. Congressional Earmarks, Limited Tax Benefits, and Limited 

Tariff Benefits ................................................................................. 14 

G. Duplication of Federal Programs ..................................................... 14 

H. Disclosure of Directed Rule Makings .............................................. 14 

VI. CHANGES IN EXISTING LAW MADE BY THE BILL, AS REPORTED 14 

VII. DISSENTING VIEWS ................................................................................... 16 

The amendment is as follows: 

Strike all after the enacting clause and insert the following: 

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Child Tax Credit Improvement Act of 2014’’. 

SEC. 2. IMPROVEMENTS TO CHILD TAX CREDIT. 

(a) ELIMINATION OF MARRIAGE PENALTY.—Section 24(b)(2) of the Internal Revenue 

Code of 1986 is amended by striking ‘‘means—’’ and all that follows and inserting 

‘‘means $75,000 (twice such amount in the case of a joint return).’’. 

(b) INFLATION ADJUSTMENT OF CREDIT AMOUNT AND PHASEOUT THRESHOLDS.— 

Section 24 of such Code is amended by adding at the end the following new subsection: 

‘‘(g) INFLATION ADJUSTMENT.— 

‘‘(1) IN GENERAL.—In the case of any taxable year beginning after 2014, the 

$1,000 amount in subsection (a) and the $75,000 amount in subsection (b)(2) 

shall each be increased by an amount equal to— 

‘‘(A) such dollar amount, multiplied by 

‘‘(B) the cost-of-living adjustment determined under section 1(f)(3) for the 

calendar year in which the taxable year begins, determined by substituting 

‘calendar year 2013’ for ‘calendar year 1992’ in subparagraph (B) thereof. 

‘‘(2) ROUNDING.—Any increase determined under paragraph (1) shall be 

rounded— 

‘‘(A) in the case of the $1,000 amount in subsection (a), to the nearest 

multiple of $50, and 

‘‘(B) in the case of the $75,000 amount in subsection (b)(2), to the nearest 

multiple of $1,000.’’. 

(c) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendments made by this section shall apply to taxable years beginning after December 31, 2014. 

I. SUMMARY AND BACKGROUND 

A. PURPOSE AND SUMMARY

H.R. 4935, reported by the Committee on Ways and Means, provides for elimination of the marriage penalty within the child tax 

credit by raising the phaseout threshold for joint filers from 

$110,000 to $150,000. H.R. 4935 also indexes the phaseout thresholds and the $1,000 credit amount for inflation for taxable years beginning after December 31, 2014. 

B. BACKGROUND AND NEED FOR LEGISLATION

While the Committee continues actively to pursue comprehensive 

tax reform as a critical means of promoting economic growth, job 

creation, and tax simplification, the Committee also believes that 

it is important to act immediately to provide permanent tax relief 

for American families. By eliminating the marriage penalty in the 

child tax credit and indexing the $1,000 credit amount and income 

phase-outs for inflation, H.R. 4935 would treat married couples 

raising children more fairly, while also ensuring that the value of 

the child credit is not eroded by inflation. 


jbell on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
3 

1Sec. 24(c)(1). Unless otherwise stated, all section references are to the Internal Revenue Code 

of 1986, as amended (the ‘‘Code’’). 2Sec. 24(a). 

3Sec. 24(d). The refundable portion of the credit is referred to as the ‘‘additional child tax 

credit.’’ 

C. LEGISLATIVE HISTORY

Background 

H.R. 4935 was introduced on June 23, 2014, and was referred to 

the Committee on Ways and Means. 

Committee action 

The Committee on Ways and Means marked up H.R. 4935, the 

‘‘Child Tax Credit Improvement Act of 2014,’’ on June 25, 2014, 

and ordered the bill, as amended, favorably reported (with a 

quorum being present). 

Committee hearings 

The importance of, and need for improvements in, the child tax 

credit were discussed at no fewer than three hearings during the 

112th and 113th Congresses: • Full Committee hearing on How the Tax Code’s Burdens on Individuals and Families Demonstrate the Need for Comprehensive 

Tax Reform (April 13, 2011). • Oversight Subcommittee hearing on Improper Payments in the 

Administration of Refundable Tax Credits (May 25, 2011). • Full Committee hearing on the President’s Fiscal Year 2015 

Budget Proposal with the U.S. Department of the Treasury Secretary Jacob J. Lew (Mar. 6, 2014). 

II. EXPLANATION OF THE BILL 

A. MODIFICATION OF CHILD TAX CREDIT (SEC. 24 OF THE CODE) 

PRESENT LAW

An individual may claim a tax credit for each qualifying child 

under the age of 17.1 The amount of the credit per child is $1,000.2

A child who is not a citizen, national, or resident of the United 

States cannot be a qualifying child. 

The aggregate amount of child credits that may be claimed is 

phased out for individuals with modified adjusted gross income 

(‘‘MAGI’’) over a threshold amount. Specifically, the otherwise allowable child tax credit is reduced by $50 for each $1,000 (or fraction thereof) of MAGI over $75,000 for unmarried taxpayers, 

$110,000 for married individuals filing joint returns, and $55,000 

for married individuals filing separate returns. For purposes of this 

limitation, MAGI includes certain otherwise excludable income 

earned by U.S. citizens or residents living abroad or in certain U.S. 

territories. These dollar amounts are not indexed for inflation. 

The credit is allowable against both the regular tax and the alternative minimum tax. To the extent the child credit exceeds the 

taxpayer’s tax liability, the credit is refundable in an amount equal 

to 15 percent of the taxpayer’s earned income in excess of a threshold dollar amount (the ‘‘earned income’’ formula).3 For taxable 

years beginning before January 1, 2018, the dollar amount is 

$3,000 (not indexed for inflation). For taxable years beginning after 


jbell on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
4 

4Sec. 24(d)(1)(B)(ii). 

5Sec. 24(e). 

December 31, 2017, the dollar amount is $10,000 (indexed for inflation after 2000). The staff of the Joint Committee on Taxation estimates that the indexed $10,000 amount would be $13,600 in 2014. 

A taxpayer with three or more children may determine the refundable portion of the child tax credit using an ‘‘alternative formula,’’ if it results in a larger refundable credit than determined 

under the earned income formula. Under the alternative formula, 

the additional child tax credit equals the amount by which the employee share of the taxpayer’s Social Security taxes exceed the taxpayer’s earned income credit.4

Earned income is defined as the sum of wages, salaries, tips, and 

other taxable employee compensation plus net self-employment 

earnings which are taken into account in computing the individual’s taxable income. Otherwise excludable combat pay is treated 

as earned income for these purposes. 

For a credit to be allowable with respect to any child, the name 

and taxpayer identification number of the child must be included 

on the taxpayer’s tax return.5

REASONS FOR CHANGE

The Committee believes that a tax credit for families with children recognizes the expense of raising children and the importance 

of helping families raise children. Accordingly, the Committee believes that indexing for inflation both the credit amount and the 

phaseout thresholds of the child tax credit is an important means 

of ensuring that the value of the credit is not diluted. 

Additionally, the Committee believes that, where possible, marriage penalties in the tax code should be eliminated. By increasing 

the phaseout threshold for married taxpayers who file joint returns 

to twice that of unmarried taxpayers, the bill eliminates marriage 

penalties with respect to the child credit. 

EXPLANATION OF PROVISION

The proposal modifies the child tax credit in three ways. First, 

the $1,000 credit amount is indexed for inflation to the nearest 

multiple of $50 in calendar years beginning after 2014. Second, the 

beginning of the child credit phaseout for joint filers is increased 

from $110,000 to $150,000 (for married individuals filing separate 

returns, the amount applicable to an unmarried individual, i.e., 

$75,000, applies). Third, the income phaseout thresholds are indexed for inflation to the nearest $1,000 in calendar years beginning after 2014. 

EFFECTIVE DATE

The proposal applies to taxable years beginning after December 

31, 2014. 

III. VOTES OF THE COMMITTEE 

In compliance with clause 3(b) of rule XIII of the Rules of the 

House of Representatives, the following statement is made concerning the vote of the Committee on Ways and Means in its conVerDate Mar 15 2010 06:31 Jul 18, 2014 Jkt 039006 PO 00000 Frm 00004 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR527.XXX HR527

jbell on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
5 

sideration of H.R. 4935, the Child Tax Credit Improvement Act of 

2014, on June 25, 2014. 

The bill, H.R. 4935, was ordered favorably reported as amended 

by a roll call vote of 22 yeas to 15 nays (with a quorum being 

present). The vote was as follows: 

Representative Yea Nay Present Representative Yea Nay Present 

Mr. Camp .............................. X ........... ............. Mr. Levin .............................. ........... X .............

Mr. Johnson ........................... X ........... ............. Mr. Rangel ........................... ........... ........... .............

Mr. Brady .............................. X ........... ............. Mr. McDermott ..................... ........... X .............

Mr. Ryan ............................... X ........... ............. Mr. Lewis .............................. ........... X .............

Mr. Nunes ............................. X ........... ............. Mr. Neal ............................... ........... X .............

Mr. Tiberi .............................. X ........... ............. Mr. Becerra .......................... ........... X .............

Mr. Reichert .......................... X ........... ............. Mr. Doggett .......................... ........... X .............

Mr. Boustany ......................... X ........... ............. Mr. Thompson ...................... ........... X .............

Mr. Roskam ........................... X ........... ............. Mr. Larson ............................ ........... X .............

Mr. Gerlach ........................... X ........... ............. Mr. Blumenauer ................... ........... X .............

Mr. Price ............................... X ........... ............. Mr. Kind ............................... ........... X .............

Mr. Buchanan ....................... X ........... ............. Mr. Pascrell .......................... ........... X .............

Mr. Smith .............................. X ........... ............. Mr. Crowley .......................... ........... X .............

Mr. Schock ............................ X ........... ............. Ms. Schwartz ........................ ........... X .............

Ms. Jenkins ........................... X ........... ............. Mr. Davis .............................. ........... X .............

Mr. Paulsen ........................... X ........... ............. Ms. Sanchez ......................... ........... X .............

Mr. Marchant ........................ X ........... .............

Ms. Black .............................. X ........... .............

Mr. Reed ............................... ........... ........... .............

Mr. Young ............................. X ........... .............

Mr. Kelly ................................ X ........... .............

Mr. Griffin ............................. X ........... .............

Mr. Renacci ........................... X ........... .............

IV. BUDGET EFFECTS OF THE BILL 

A. COMMITTEE ESTIMATE OF BUDGETARY EFFECTS

In compliance with clause 3(d) of rule XIII of the Rules of the 

House of Representatives, the following statement is made concerning the effects on the budget of the bill, H.R. 4935, as reported. 

The bill, as reported, is estimated to have the following effect on 

Federal budget receipts for fiscal years 2014–2024 (with no effect 

on such receipts in fiscal year 2014): 


jbell on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
6 

FISCAL YEARS 

[Billions of dollars] 

Item 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2015–19 2015–24 

Revenues 1 .............................................................................. ¥0.7 ¥4.7 ¥7.8 ¥9.4 ¥10.9 ¥12.4 ¥14.6 ¥16.1 ¥18.4 ¥20.0 ¥33.5 ¥114.9 

NOTE: Details do not add to total due to rounding. 

2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2015–19 2015–24 

1 Estimate contains the following outlay effects. . . ........... ............... 2 1.6 1.6 2.0 2.0 2.9 3.0 4.0 4.0 5.2 21.0 2 Gain of less than $50 million. 


jbell on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
7 

B. STATEMENT REGARDING NEW BUDGET AUTHORITY AND TAX

EXPENDITURES BUDGET AUTHORITY

In compliance with clause 3(c)(2) of rule XIII of the Rules of the 

House of Representatives, the Committee states that the bill involves new or increased budget authority. The Committee further 

states that the revenue-reducing tax provisions involve increased 

tax expenditures. (See amounts in table in Part IV.A, above.) 

C. COST ESTIMATE PREPARED BY THE CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET

OFFICE

In compliance with clause 3(c)(3) of rule XIII of the Rules of the 

House of Representatives, requiring a cost estimate prepared by 

the CBO, the following statement by CBO is provided: 

U.S. CONGRESS, 

CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET OFFICE, 

Washington, DC, July 3, 2014. 

Hon. DAVE CAMP, 

Chairman, Committee on Ways and Means, 

House of Representatives, Washington, DC. 

DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: The Congressional Budget Office has prepared the enclosed cost estimate for H.R. 4935, the Child Tax Credit Improvement Act of 2014. 

If you wish further details on this estimate, we will be pleased 

to provide them. The CBO staff contact is Logan Timmerhoff. 

Sincerely, 

DOUGLAS W. ELMENDORF. 

Enclosure. 

H.R. 4935—Child Tax Credit Improvement Act of 2014 

H.R. 4935 would increase the amount of the child tax credit and 

the income thresholds at which the credit begins to phase out for 

taxpayers. Under current law, an individual may claim a tax credit 

of $1,000 for each qualifying child under the age of 17. H.R. 4935 

would index the $1,000 amount for inflation starting in 2015. In 

addition, under current law the aggregate amount of child credits 

that may be claimed is phased out for married individuals filing 

joint tax returns with modified adjusted gross income over 

$110,000 and for unmarried individuals with such income over 

$75,000. H.R. 4935 would increase the beginning of the phaseout 

for joint filers to $150,000, and it would index for inflation the beginning points of the income phaseouts for all taxpayers starting 

in 2015. For married taxpayers filing separately, the beginning of 

the income phaseout would increase from $55,000 under current 

law to $75,000, indexed for inflation. 

The staff of the Joint Committee on Taxation (JCT) estimates 

that enacting H.R. 4935 would reduce revenues over the 2014–2024 

period by about $93.9 billion, and increase direct spending by about 

$21.0 billion over that period. JCT therefore estimates that enacting the legislation would increase federal budget deficits by about 

$114.9 billion over the 2014–2024 period. 

The Statutory Pay-As-You-Go Act of 2010 establishes budget-reporting and enforcement procedures for legislation affecting direct 

spending and revenues. Because enacting H.R.μ4935 would affect 


jbell on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
8 

revenues and direct spending, pay-as-you-go procedures apply. The 

net changes in revenues and outlays that are subject to pay-as-yougo procedures are shown in the following table. 

JCT has determined that the bill contains no intergovernmental 

or private-sector mandates as defined in the Unfunded Mandates 

Reform Act. 

The CBO staff contact for this estimate is Logan Timmerhoff. 

The estimate was approved by David Weiner, Assistant Director for 

Tax Analysis. 


jbell on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
9 

CBO ESTIMATE OF PAY-AS-YOU-GO EFFECTS FOR H.R. 4935, AS ORDERED REPORTED BY THE HOUSE COMMITTEE ON WAYS AND MEANS ON JUNE 25, 2014 

By fiscal year, in millions of dollars— 

2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2014–2019 2014–2024 

NET INCREASE IN THE DEFICIT 

Statutory Pay-As-You-Go Effects ....................... 0 724 4,687 7,799 9,388 10,896 12,362 14,557 16,100 18,352 19,994 33,494 114,860 Memorandum: 

Changes in Outlays .................................. 0 0 33 1,565 1,598 1,962 1,978 2,941 2,964 3,954 3,982 5,158 20,977 Changes in Revenues ............................... 0 ¥724 ¥4,654 ¥6,234 ¥7,790 ¥8,934 ¥10,384 ¥11,616 ¥13,136 ¥14,398 ¥16,012 ¥28,336 ¥93,883 

Source: Staff of the Joint Committee on Taxation. Note: Components may not sum to totals because of rounding. 


jbell on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
10 

D. MACROECONOMIC IMPACT ANALYSIS

In compliance with clause 3(h)(2) of rule XIII of the Rules of the 

House of Representatives, the following statement is made by the 

Joint Committee on Taxation with respect to the provisions of the 

bill amending the Internal Revenue Code of 1986: the effects of the 

bill on economic activity are so small as to be incalculable within 

the context of a model of the aggregate economy. 

V. OTHER MATTERS TO BE DISCUSSED UNDER THE 

RULES OF THE HOUSE 

A. COMMITTEE OVERSIGHT FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

With respect to clause 3(c)(1) of rule XIII of the Rules of the 

House of Representatives (relating to oversight findings), the Committee advises that it was as a result of the Committee’s review of 

the provisions of H.R. 4935 that the Committee concluded that it 

is appropriate to report the bill, as amended, favorably to the 

House of Representatives with the recommendation that the bill do 

pass. 

B. STATEMENT OF GENERAL PERFORMANCE GOALS AND OBJECTIVES

With respect to clause 3(c)(4) of rule XIII of the Rules of the 

House of Representatives, the Committee advises that the bill contains no measure that authorizes funding, so no statement of general performance goals and objectives for which any measure authorizes funding is required. 

C. INFORMATION RELATING TO UNFUNDED MANDATES

This information is provided in accordance with section 423 of 

the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. No. 104–4). 

The Committee has determined that the bill does not contain 

Federal mandates on the private sector. The Committee has determined that the bill does not impose a Federal intergovernmental 

mandate on State, local, or tribal governments. 

D. APPLICABILITY OF HOUSE RULE XXI 5(b) 

Rule XXI 5(b) of the Rules of the House of Representatives provides, in part, that ‘‘A bill or joint resolution, amendment, or conference report carrying a Federal income tax rate increase may not 

be considered as passed or agreed to unless so determined by a 

vote of not less than three-fifths of the Members voting, a quorum 

being present.’’ The Committee has carefully reviewed the bill, and 

states that the bill does not involve any Federal income tax rate 

increases within the meaning of the rule. 

E. TAX COMPLEXITY ANALYSIS

The following statement is made pursuant to clause 3(h)(1) of 

rule XIII of the Rules of the House of Representatives. Section 

4022(b) of the Internal Revenue Service Restructuring and Reform 

Act of 1998 requires the staff of the Joint Committee on Taxation 

(in consultation with the Internal Revenue Service and the Treasury Department) to provide a tax complexity analysis. The complexity analysis is required for all legislation reported by the SenVerDate Mar 15 2010 06:31 Jul 18, 2014 Jkt 039006 PO 00000 Frm 00010 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR527.XXX HR527

jbell on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
11 

ate Committee on Finance, the House Committee on Ways and 

Means, or any committee of conference if the legislation includes a 

provision that directly or indirectly amends the Internal Revenue 

Code and has widespread applicability to individuals or small businesses. For each such provision identified by the staff of the Joint 

Committee on Taxation a summary description of the provision is 

provided along with an estimate of the number and type of affected 

taxpayers, and a discussion regarding the relevant complexity and 

administrative issues. 

Following the analysis of the staff of the Joint Committee on 

Taxation are the comments of the IRS and Treasury regarding each 

of the provisions included in the complexity analysis. 

1. Modifications to child tax credit 

Summary description of the provisions 

The proposal modifies the child tax credit in three ways. First, 

the $1,000 credit amount is indexed for inflation to the nearest 

multiple of $50 in calendar years beginning after 2014. Second, the 

beginning of the child credit phaseout for joint filers is increased 

from $110,000 to $150,000 (for married individuals filing separate 

returns, the amount applicable to an unmarried individual, i.e., 

$75,000, applies). Third, the income phaseout thresholds are indexed for inflation to the nearest $1,000 in calendar years beginning after 2014. 

Number of affected taxpayers 

It is estimated that the provision will affect over ten percent of 

small business tax returns. 

Discussion 

While many taxpayers claim the child tax credit, the modifications to the child tax credit contained in the bill are not likely to 

either increase or reduce the compliance burden on affected taxpayers. 


jbell on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
12 


jbell on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with REPORTSInsert offset folio 16 here HR527.001
13 


jbell on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with REPORTSInsert offset folio 17 here HR527.002
14 

F. CONGRESSIONAL EARMARKS, LIMITED TAX BENEFITS, AND

LIMITED TARIFF BENEFITS

With respect to clause 9 of rule XXI of the Rules of the House 

of Representatives, the Committee has carefully reviewed the provisions of the bill, and states that the provisions of the bill do not 

contain any congressional earmarks, limited tax benefits, or limited 

tariff benefits within the meaning of the rule. 

G. DUPLICATION OF FEDERAL PROGRAMS

In compliance with sec. 3(j)(2) of H. Res. 5 (113th Congress), the 

Committee states that no provision of the bill establishes or reauthorizes: (1) a program of the Federal Government known to be duplicative of another Federal program, (2) a program included in any 

report from the Government Accountability Office to Congress pursuant to section 21 of Public Law 111–139, or (3) a program related 

to a program identified in the most recent Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance, published pursuant to the Federal Program Information Act (Pub. L. No. 95–220, as amended by Pub. L. No. 98– 

169). 

H. DISCLOSURE OF DIRECTED RULE MAKINGS

In compliance with sec. 3(k) of H. Res. 5 (113th Congress), the 

following statement is made concerning directed rule makings: The 

Committee estimates that the bill requires no directed rule makings within the meaning of such section. 

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

REPORTED 

In compliance with clause 3(e) of rule XIII of the Rules of the 

House of Representatives, changes in existing law made by the bill, 

as reported, are shown as follows (existing law proposed to be omitted is enclosed in black brackets, new matter is printed in italic, 

existing law in which no change is proposed is shown in roman): 

SECTION 24 OF THE INTERNAL REVENUE CODE OF 1986 

SEC. 24. CHILD TAX CREDIT. 

(a) * * * 

(b) LIMITATIONS.— 

(1) * * * 

(2) THRESHOLD AMOUNT.—For purposes of paragraph (1), the 

term ‘‘threshold amount’’ ømeans— 

ø(A) $110,000 in the case of a joint return, 

ø(B) $75,000 in the case of an individual who is not married, and 

ø(C) $55,000 in the case of a married individual filing a 

separate return. 

For purposes of this paragraph, marital status shall be determined under section 7703.¿ means $75,000 (twice such amount 

in the case of a joint return). 

* * * * * * * 

(g) INFLATION ADJUSTMENT.— 


jbell on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
15 

(1) IN GENERAL.—In the case of any taxable year beginning after 2014, the $1,000 amount in subsection (a) and the $75,000 

amount in subsection (b)(2) shall each be increased by an 

amount equal to— 

(A) such dollar amount, multiplied by 

(B) the cost-of-living adjustment determined under section 1(f)(3) for the calendar year in which the taxable year 

begins, determined by substituting ‘‘calendar year 2013’’ for 

‘‘calendar year 1992’’ in subparagraph (B) thereof. 

(2) ROUNDING.—Any increase determined under paragraph 

(1) shall be rounded— 

(A) in the case of the $1,000 amount in subsection (a), to the nearest multiple of $50, and (B) in the case of the $75,000 amount in subsection (b)(2), to the nearest multiple of $1,000. 


jbell on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
(16) 

VII. DISSENTING VIEWS 

Notwithstanding that there is strong support for making improvements to the Child Tax Credit, we opposed this bill because 

it leaves behind the expansions to the refundable portion of the 

Child Tax Credit that will expire in 2017. 

The bill does nothing to provide certainty to, and address the 

child-rearing costs of, low-income working families in the future, 

because it does not make permanent the expansions to the refundable portion of the Child Tax Credit. The expansions ensure that 

low-income families are able to benefit from this credit. One of 

these expansions reduces the threshold level of income that must 

be earned to qualify for the refundable portion of the Child Tax 

Credit. The reduction in the threshold is vitally important for lowincome families. 

While failing to make permanent the expansions that benefit 

low-income families, the bill expands and makes permanent the 

availability of the Child Tax Credit to many new, upper middle-income families whose incomes are too high to qualify for the credit 

under current law. Under the bill, families making between 

$150,000 and $205,000 who have children would be newly eligible 

for the Child Tax Credit, and will continue to be eligible for the 

Child Tax Credit in 2018 and beyond. However, because the bill 

does not make permanent the expansions that benefit low-income 

families, a family making minimum wage would lose a portion of 

their credit in 2018 and going forward due to the increased threshold for the refundable portion of the credit. We oppose this disparity in the treatment of these families. 

In addition to our substantive concerns with the bill, we also believe that it should not be made permanent by adding to the deficit 

without any revenue offset. In three short months, Republicans on 

the Committee have approved 14 tax bills that would add a stunning $825 billion to the deficit and there does not appear to be an 

end in sight. Chairman Camp’s Tax Reform Act of 2014 discussion 

draft (the ‘‘Republican tax reform plan’’) was revenue neutral and 

did not add to the deficit. These bills are going in the opposite direction. We should be considering these bills in the context of a revenue-neutral, bipartisan tax reform plan. To put the combined $825 billion cost into context, it is 1.7 times the entire projected federal deficit for this year and $241 billion 

more than what the total non-defense discretionary spending (e.g., 

medical research, education, veterans’ pensions and health care, 

transportation, etc.) will be in 2014. It is more than nine times 

what we spend annually on education, job training, and social services. It is almost 14 times what we appropriate for veterans’ health 

care and benefits in a year, and it is 27 times more than we spend 

on medical research. It is more than we spend to pay earned Social 

Security benefits to 58 million Americans—one in four American 


jbell on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
17 

families—for a year. Unoffset tax cuts amounting to $825 billion is 

$2,600 in debt for every man, woman, and child in the United 

States. 

Make no mistake, this is part of the Republicans’ bigger plan to 

force cuts in spending in response to the increased deficit from 

their reckless tax cuts. Republicans already have cut non-defense 

appropriations below the level needed to keep up with inflation 

every year since 2011, putting us on a path to the lowest level of 

domestic investment (as a percent of GDP) since we began tracking 

it in 1962. By 2018, real non-defense discretionary spending is projected to be 18 percent lower than it was in 2010. Americans feel 

those cuts every day. They result in overcrowded classrooms for our 

children, fewer food safety inspections, slower progress on medical 

research to fight deadly diseases, delays in highway repairs, waiting lists for child care, early national park closings, reduced investment in small businesses, and delays in awarding earned Medicare 

and Social Security benefits. 

We found it hypocritical that, six months ago, Republicans let 

emergency unemployment insurance expire for more than 1.3 million Americans, a number that has now grown to 3 million, by arguing that an adequate offset had yet to be proposed. In early 

April, the Senate came to a bipartisan agreement on an offset after 

months of painstaking negotiations. Yet House Republicans still 

refuse to act. 

Sincerely, 

SANDER M. LEVIN, Ranking Member. 

Æ 


jbell on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS