U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

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

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

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

71–957 2012

PRO-GROWTH TAX POLICY: WHY SMALL 

BUSINESSES NEED INDIVIDUAL TAX REFORM 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON ECONOMIC GROWTH, TAX AND 

CAPITAL ACCESS 

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON SMALL BUSINESS 

UNITED STATES 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED TWELFTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

HEARING HELD 

NOVEMBER 3, 2011 

Small Business Committee Document Number 112–043 

Available via the GPO Website: http://www.fdsys.gov 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGE:\Seals\Congress.#13
(II) 

HOUSE COMMITTEE ON SMALL BUSINESS 

SAM GRAVES, Missouri, Chairman 

ROSCOE BARTLETT, Maryland 

STEVE CHABOT, Ohio 

STEVE KING, Iowa 

MIKE COFFMAN, Colorado 

MICK MULVANEY, South Carolina 

SCOTT TIPTON, Colorado 

JEFF LANDRY, Louisiana 

JAIME HERRERA BEUTLER, Washington 

ALLEN WEST, Florida 

RENEE ELLMERS, North Carolina 

JOE WALSH, Illinois 

LOU BARLETTA, Pennsylvania 

RICHARD HANNA, New York 

ROBERT SCHILLING, Illinois 

NYDIA VELA ́ ZQUEZ, New York, Ranking Member 

KURT SCHRADER, Oregon 

MARK CRITZ, Pennsylvania 

JASON ALTMIRE, Pennsylvania 

YVETTE CLARKE, New York 

JUDY CHU, California 

DAVID CICILLINE, Rhode Island 

CEDRIC RICHMOND, Louisiana 

JANICE HAHN, California 

GARY PETERS, Michigan 

BILL OWENS, New York 

BILL KEATING, Massachusetts 

LORI SALLEY, Staff Director 

PAUL SASS, Deputy Staff Director 

BARRY PINELES, Chief Counsel 

MICHAEL DAY, Minority Staff Director 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

OPENING STATEMENTS 

Page 

Walsh, Hon. Joe ....................................................................................................... 1 

Schrader, Hon. Kurt ................................................................................................ 2 

WITNESSES 

Robert J. Carroll, Principal, Qualitative Economics and Statistics Group, 

Ernst and Young LLP, Washington, DC ............................................................ 4 

Gary Marowske, President, Flame Furnace, Warren, Michigan ......................... 6 

William R. Smith, Chief Executive Officer, Termax Corporation, Lake Zurich, 

IL ........................................................................................................................... 8

Stephen Capp, President and CEO, Laserage Technology Corporation, Waukegan, IL ............................................................................................................... 10 

APPENDIX 

Prepared Statements: 

Robert J. Carroll, Principal, Qualitative Economics and Statistics Group, 

Ernst and Young LLP, Washington, DC ..................................................... 23 

Gary Marowske, President, Flame Furnace, Warren, Michigan, ................. 35 

William R. Smith, Chief Executive Officer, Termax Corporation, Lake 

Zurich, IL ....................................................................................................... 41 

Stephen Capp, President and CEO, Laserage Technology Corporation, 

Waukegan, IL ................................................................................................ 47 

Additional Materials for the Record: 

NRA Statement for the Record ........................................................................ 54 

Open Mic Statements for the Record .............................................................. 63 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING

pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
(1) 

PRO-GROWTH TAX POLICY: WHY SMALL 

BUSINESSES NEED INDIVIDUAL TAX REFORM 

THURSDAY, NOVEMBER 3, 2011 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, COMMITTEE ON SMALL BUSINESS, SUBCOMMITTEE ON ECONOMIC GROWTH, TAX AND CAPITAL ACCESS, Washington, DC. 

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

2360, Rayburn House Office Building. Hon. Joe Walsh [chairman 

of the subcommittee] presiding. 

Present: Representatives Walsh, Chabot, Mulvaney, Hanna, 

Schilling, Schrader, and Chu. 

Chairman WALSH. Welcome. Good morning, everyone. I call this 

hearing to order. 

I want to thank the witnesses for testifying today. We appreciate 

your participation. I will begin with a brief opening statement. But 

again, welcome and thanks for coming to this Subcommittee on 

Economic Growth, Tax and Capital Access hearing on Pro-Growth 

Tax Policy. 

The news today for small business owners is not good. The economic recovery is weak. Small businesses are still struggling. Credit remains tight and forecasts indicate weak hiring will continue. 

Washington, which should be making job creation easier, is instead 

creating more hurdles with the constant threats of higher taxes, excessive regulations, and our unsustainable debt. It seems that no 

one has a bigger target on his back than the small business owner. 

As Congress turns its attention to tax reform, the budget deficit, 

and pro-growth policies, today this Subcommittee will focus on the 

importance of tax reform to small businesses. Specifically, we will 

examine the need for individual tax reform for pass-through organizations—those that pass through their income and tax liability 

and pay taxes on their owner’s individual tax returns rather than 

on a corporate return. 

According to a recent study by Ernst & Young, about 95 percent 

of businesses, and over 80 percent of small businesses, are organized as pass-throughs. These companies, such as LLCs, partnerships, S corps, and sole proprietorships, represent 54 percent of all 

business activity and employ 54 percent of the private sector workforce. Our local small business, not the government, will create the 

jobs and pull us out of this recession. The Internal Revenue Service’s national taxpayer advocate has said that the most serious 

problem facing taxpayers is the complexity of the tax code and the 

need for reform. Studies have shown that the cost of tax compliVerDate Mar 15 2010 02:54 Jan 12, 2012 Jkt 071957 PO 00000 Frm 00005 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 E:\HR\OC\A957.XXX A957

pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
2 

ance for small business is 67 percent higher than for larger entities. 

Pass-throughs are becoming more prevalent. Between 1986 and 

2005 their number more than doubled, while the number of C corporations declined. Enacting policies that will keep pass-through 

entities taxes low will help small businesses to spur our economy. 

It is especially important that we consider revamping the tax code 

in a way that generates jobs and economic growth. Common sense 

tax and regulatory reform for small businesses will help us do just 

that. 

I recently introduced legislation, H.R. 2945, to index the capital 

gains tax to inflation. Americans should not have to pay capital 

gains tax on an asset purchased 20 years ago and sold today but 

increased in value only due to inflation. Making this simple change 

would allow small business owners to create jobs and grow the 

economy. 

Today we will hear from an economist and small business owners 

about why individual tax reform for these pass-through entities, 

and not just corporate tax reform, must be a fundamental part of 

tax reform. 

Finally, I must say a word about President Obama’s Jobs Plan. 

In August 2009, the president said the last thing you want to do 

is to raise taxes in the middle of a recession. But yet that is what 

he has proposed. Small business owners know that you cannot 

raise taxes and expect employers to create jobs especially in a recession. But let us listen to our nation’s best job creators and consider policies that will truly jumpstart hiring and lead to long-term 

economic growth. 

Again, thank you to our witnesses for participating today. I look 

forward to hearing input on how we can reform the tax code so our 

small businesses are able to expand, create jobs, and help our economy grow. 

I now yield happily to our Ranking Member Schrader for his 

opening statement. 

Mr. SCHRADER. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Thank you 

all for being here today. Some of you have come quite a long way 

and I appreciate it. 

I agree with the chair. Entrepreneurs today face many, many 

challenges when they are starting a business. I, myself, am a veterinarian, 35 years, small business, private enterprise. Labor, access to capital, just a myriad of different problems, marketing, the 

whole nine yards. But one of the most important decisions you all 

make at any point in time is how you organize yourself regarding 

your tax structure. How you want to operate as a business. 

Today we are going to listen to the experts in the field, if you 

will, by boots on the ground, about how to—what is the best way 

to operate non-corporate business entities which most small business fall under? A lot of the discussion we have had to date has 

been about corporate tax reform, which I strongly support but corporate tax reform in and of itself would leave most small businesses behind. And a lot of us have operated as sole proprietors. 

I have been a sole proprietor, I have been a partnership, and I 

have been an LLC. And a lot of the discussions that I am hearing 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
3 

now would not really help me, or you, or most Americans out there 

that are the real job creators at the small business level. 

So I really appreciate that you are having this hearing on passthrough entities so we can raise America’s consciousness about 

what really goes on. And I have had many a tax statements at the 

end of the year that showed I was making $200– to $300,000 and 

all I know is I was taking $60,000 home in cash at the end of the 

day. And a lot of my stuff was going back into the business and 

the statement did not mirror what was actually going on. So I really am looking forward to your comments about, you know, what 

really is going on here. 

The majority of small businesses use the pass-through structure. 

It offers the best opportunity for reinvesting savings back in the 

business and hiring employees. That is how you hire people. You 

make that investment. Small business non-corporate entities actually employ over 50 percent of the total work force and report over 

a third of the business receipts that are out there. So we are an 

important force, I think, in America’s economic recovery and economic development at the end of the day. 

So we have to really look at these unique challenges. I am very 

concerned on the super committee that there has been a lot of talk 

about tax reform. Some of my colleagues on the other side of the 

aisle have embraced the corporate without embracing the actual 

pass-through entities. Comprehensive tax reform is the way I think 

to bridge the differences between democrats and republicans. And 

so I am real pleased that my chair has held this hearing today because this is an area where we can actually have agreement. And 

frankly, by having this hearing and listening to you we can push 

the super committee to do the right thing and consider comprehensive tax reform that could lower all our rates, get rid of all these 

tax deductions, many of which do not benefit us compared to some 

of our bigger corporate entities, and actually get more money on 

the table at the end of the day to buy down our debt. That is I 

think the confidence that America has in not just Congress but our 

corporate and non-corporate business community to actually be 

competitive in the global environment hinges on, I think, to comprehensive tax reform. 

People are looking for guidance. People are looking for someone 

to step up to the plate and make the big decisions that make us 

think that jeez, we actually have an opportunity to compete in this 

global economy. We can kick China’s and India’s butt instead of the 

opposite happening at this point in time. And a lot of American 

small businesses are the ones that are going to be doing that. 

So with that I want to thank you all for being here and I yield 

back, Mr. Chair. 

Chairman WALSH. Thank you, Ranking Member Schrader. This 

is so nice. We probably could have written each other’s opening 

statements. 

If Subcommittee members have an opening statement prepared, 

I ask that it be submitted for the record. To our witnesses, you will 

each have five minutes to deliver your testimony. The light will 

start out as green. When you have one minute remaining the light 

will turn yellow. Finally, it will turn red at the end of your five 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
4 

minutes. And depending on what I think about your testimony— 

just kidding. 

STATEMENTS OF ROBERT J. CARROLL, PRINCIPAL, ERNST & 

YOUNG, LLP; GARY MAROWSKE, PRESIDENT, FLAME FURNACE, TESTIFYING ON BEHALF OF AIR CONDITIONING CONTRACTORS OF AMERICA; WILLIAM R. SMITH, PRESIDENT 

AND CEO, TERMAX CORPORATION, TESTIFYING ON BEHALF 

OF PRECISION METAL FORMING ASSOCIATION; STEPHEN 

CAPP, PRESIDENT AND CEO, LASERAGE TECHNOLOGY CORPORATION, TESTIFYING ON BEHALF OF THE NATIONAL FEDERATION OF INDEPENDENT BUSINESS 

Chairman WALSH. Our first witness is Robert Carroll. Mr. Carroll is a principal with Ernst & Young, LLP’s qualitative economics 

and statistics group. He is an advisor to public and private tax clients on federal tax policy, including revenue and economic effects. 

He received his B.S. from the State University of New York at Albany and his Ph.D. in Economics from Syracuse University. 

Welcome, Mr. Carroll. You have five minutes to present your testimony. 

STATEMENT OF ROBERT J. CARROLL 

Mr. CARROLL. Well, thank you very much, Chairman Walsh, 

Ranking Member Schrader, distinguished members of the Subcommittee. I thank you for the opportunity to testify today regarding the taxation of flow-through businesses and tax reform. 

I have had the opportunity to consider the taxation of flowthrough businesses from a number of different perspectives inside 

and outside of government in the context of broad reform of the 

code and more narrow reform of the business tax system. Earlier 

this year I analyzed the economic footprint of the flow-through sector on behalf of the S corporation Association, and I have been 

working with various private sector clients to evaluate and understand various aspects of tax reform. 

Today, I would like to share my perspectives and provide some 

results from the study on the flow-through sector we prepared earlier this year. Flow-through businesses, S corporations, partnerships, limited liability companies, and sole proprietorships play an 

important role in the U.S. economy. The vast majority of businesses in the United States have chosen to organize as flowthrough businesses. 

Today, flow-through businesses comprise more than 90 percent of 

all business entities, employ 54 percent of the private sector workforce, and report 36 percent of all business receipts. Individual 

owners of flow-through businesses report 54 percent of all business 

net income. These individual owners also pay 44 percent of business taxes when filing their individual tax returns. The flowthrough business form provides firms with flexibility in how they 

organize and structure operations. Businesses can choose between 

several different organizational forms which may better match 

their management needs and capital requirements. With the increasing prominence of flow-through businesses, it is important to 

carefully consider how the flow-through form fits into the U.S. tax 

system and how any particular tax reform might affect this sector. 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
5 

Flow-through businesses are subject to a single level of tax on 

the income earned and allocated to their owners. Thus, it is the tax 

rates faced by individual owners of flow-through businesses that affect decision-making and the economic health of these businesses. 

In contrast, the income of C corporations is subject to two levels of 

tax. First, when income is earned at the corporate level and again 

when the income is paid out to shareholders in the form of dividends or retained and later realized by shareholders as capital 

gains. Hence the phrase the double tax on corporate profits. 

The double tax affects a number of important economic decisions. 

First, by increasing the cost of capital it discourages investment 

and thus, economic growth and job creation. Second, it leads to a 

bias in firms’ financing decisions between the use of debt and equity. Third, it distorts the allocation of capital within the economy. 

The flow-through form provides an important benefit to the economy by reducing these economically harmful effects of the double 

tax. 

There is a growing consensus for the need to lower the corporate 

income tax rate. The United States has the second highest statutory corporate income tax rate, second only to Japan. The U.S. corporate income tax rate is also high relative to several other measures. In today’s global economy, the high U.S. corporate tax rate, 

combined with other features of the corporate income tax, make it 

more difficult for the U.S. to attract investment and also may be 

adversely affecting workers’ wages. 

With the substantial evidence that the U.S. corporate rate and 

tax system is out of step internationally, corporate tax reform is an 

important component of an overall approach to improving the current tax system. But the focus on corporate tax reform has also 

drawn attention to how flow-through businesses might be affected 

by such a reform. As with any such endeavor, it is important to 

keep in mind the potential for undesirable side effects. Corporate 

reform that eliminates business tax expenditures would have the 

unintended impact of raising the taxes of businesses organized 

using the flow-through form without offering the benefit of the 

lower corporate tax rate. Flow-through businesses would lose the 

benefit of widely used and longstanding provisions such as accelerated depreciation, the production activities or manufacturing deduction, and the charitable giving deduction. 

In total, flow-through businesses use about 23 percent of the 

roughly 120 billion in annual business tax expenditures. Flowthrough businesses are a large part of the U.S. business sector and 

important contributors to the economic vitality of the United 

States. As tax reform progresses, it is important to understand and 

consider all of these issues with an eye towards bringing about the 

tax reform that is most conclusive to increased growth and job creation. The path towards tax reform will need to take into account 

many features of our tax system and strike a balance between a 

number of sometimes conflicting and competing objectives. 

This Subcommittee should be commended for holding this hearing to better understand the role the flow-through sector plays in 

the U.S. economy. Thank you, and I would be pleased to address 

any questions the Subcommittee may have. 

[The statement of Mr. Carroll follows on page 23.] 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
6 

Chairman WALSH. Thank you, Mr. Carroll. 

I now yield to Ranking Member Schrader for the purpose of introducing our next witness. 

Mr. SCHRADER. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman. It is my pleasure 

to introduce Gary Marowske, president of Flame Furnace in Warren, Michigan. You have come a long way. 

His company was founded in 1949. Still in business. That is a 

great thing. Currently has 70 employees. Hopefully more in the 

near future. And Flame Furnace is one of the leading HVAC residential services in the Detroit Metro area. So welcome to our Committee. 

STATEMENT OF GARY MAROWSKE 

Mr. MAROWSKE. Thank you. And thank you, Chairman Walsh. 

And again, Ranking Member Schrader. 

I will flip through my comments. I appreciate the opportunity to 

testify before you here this morning. 

Again, my name is Gary Marowske and I am the president of 

Flame Heating and Cooling, Plumbing, Electrical in Warren, Michigan. We supply services in heating, cooling, plumbing, and indoor 

air quality equipment throughout southeastern Michigan. Like a 

lot of small businesses in the HVAC industry, Flame is a familyowned company started in 1949 by my father, Bob Marowske, from 

a humble beginning. We have been blessed and grown steadily and 

today we employ—it is actually about 75 now. We screwed up on 

what we gave you—workers. We have a fleet of more than 60 vehicles and have installed over 75,000 comfort systems over the last 

60 years. 

I am a proud member of the Air Conditioning Contractors of 

America of where I am the chairman of the Government Relations 

Committee. The ACCA’s member companies epitomize the spirit 

and entrepreneurship of America’s small businesses. Nearly threefourths of ACCA member companies have fewer than 25 employees 

and 92 percent have fewer than 100 employees. Most start out with 

technical skills, a truck, and the American dream as they are going 

to create their own business. 

It is my honor and privilege to give voice to the small business 

contractors of the heating, ventilating, air conditioning, refrigeration industry on the ongoing and much needed debate about tax reform. The contribution of small businesses to our economy is often 

overlooked, but companies like mine employ 70 percent of the 

American workforce and are the chief source of new jobs in an economic recovery. I wholeheartedly agree that tax reform must address the individual rates because of their impact on small businesses. Not everyone understands that sole proprietors, partnerships, and S corps shareholders pay taxes on business income 

through individual tax rates. 

Flame Furnace is organized as an S corp, as are most of the 

small businesses in the specialty construction trades, in part because it protects the owners and shareholders from business liabilities and debts. And on the debt part, 95 percent of all small businesses owners must also personally guarantee all bank debt, vehicle leases, office equipment, et cetera. And it also facilitates as a 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
7 

sub-S and easy transfer of ownership through stock, through family 

members, or whomever you would like to pass it on. 

Changes to the individual tax rates have a direct impact on passthrough entities, so Congress should be very careful before enacting 

any tax reform proposals that tinker with the individual tax rates. 

In 2009, only 7 percent of federal tax revenue came from the income taxes paid directly by C corps, what most people assume a 

corporation to be. Individual income tax revenue, including net 

from all the pass-through businesses was 44 percent of the federal 

tax revenue in 2009. Unfortunately, it is impossible to say exactly 

how much came from income tax on the pass-through companies. 

As you contemplate changes to individual rates and the corporate 

and international tax codes, I want to take this opportunity to 

point out that America’s small businesses are looking for a simple, 

rational, permanent tax code that will encourage prosperity and 

foster job creation. The tax code is a powerful tool that can affect 

individual corporate behaviors in a way that advanced beneficial 

public policies, like allowing homeowners to take a deduction on 

their mortgage interest, permitting small businesses, such as my 

company to use enhanced Section 179 expensing limits and bonus 

depreciation. These incentives work, and my company and thousands of ACCA companies have used them to buy new trucks, office 

equipment, other investments. 

An example is the Homeowner’s 25C Residential Energy Efficiency Tax Credit for installing qualified high-efficiency furnaces, 

boilers, air conditioners, et cetera. The 25C tax credits are easy to 

take advantage of and they do not favor the wealthy according to 

IRS statistics. Fully, 93 percent of tax credit claims under 25C and 

25D for solar, geo, wind, and photovoltaic properties were made by 

taxpayers who have an adjusted gross income of no more than 

$200,000, which is indicative of a middle class tax. 

The 25C tax credits highlight how a simple tax incentive can 

help individuals and small businesses create an economic benefit. 

Americans spent more than $25 billion on energy improvements to 

their homes that qualified for the tax credits. Now, consider the 

National Association of Homebuilders that estimates every 

$100,000 in remodeling expenditures generates 1.11 new jobs. Congress needs to extend the 25C tax credits beyond their expiration 

at the end of this year, restore the tax value to 1,500 as my associations. My personal opinion is if we want to drive individual behavior, save energy, create economic activity, we ought to raise the 

credit to 5,000 and you will see more than a payback on that. 

Another important change to the tax code would be to bring the 

depreciation schedules for HVACR equipment and other building 

components more in line with reality. According to the tax code, 

commercial HVACR equipment must be depreciated over 39 years. 

And if any of you own a building, you know that the air conditioner 

does not last 39 years. This would include doctors’ offices, home 

small businesses, car dealerships. That type of building this would 

apply to. 

Let me close by saying the small business community needs certainty. We have all applauded the repeal of the Form 1099 filing 

provision in April. We are hopeful that the Senate can pass and repeal the 3 percent withholding tax on government contracts, but 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
8 

the effort to pass these two small business priorities highlights the 

piecemeal and short-term approach Congress has taken with regard to the tax code. 

Last year extended more than 60 tax incentives that benefitted 

individuals and small businesses just two weeks before they were 

set to expire and that makes it tough for planning for a small business for advertising, marketing. Included in the bill were a temporary extension of the Bush tax cuts, short-term estate tax reduction, and short-term extension of bonus depreciation and modification to Section 179 expensing rules, a one-year extension of the alternative minimum tax patch, and a temporary extension of the 

residential energy tax credits described above. 

While extension of these tax incentives is greatly appreciated, 

the timing and nature of their extension make it very difficult for 

businesses to make business decisions. America’s small business 

owners are crippled and worried about what may or may not happen next year. By sending the right signals to America’s small 

businesses, Congress can eliminate the fear of the unknown and I 

can assure you American small businesses will rise up and create 

new jobs. 

With that I conclude my comments, and I will be happy to answer any questions. Thank you again for the opportunity to testify. 

I hope I did not put you to sleep. 

[The statement of Mr. Marowske follows on page 35.] 

Chairman WALSH. Not even close. Thank you, Mr. Marowske. 

Let us keep our Midwest vent going here. Mr. Carroll, you are 

from Ohio, right? 

Mr. CARROLL. I am actually originally from New York. 

Chairman WALSH. Oh, okay. All right. Close enough. 

Let us turn to Illinois. Our next witness is William R. Smith. Mr. 

Smith is president and CEO of Termax Corporation in Lake Zurich, 

Illinois, which I have the honor to represent. Termax is a small 

family manufacturing and engineering company specializing in 

metal and plastic fasteners. Mr. Smith is testifying on behalf, as 

well, of the Precision Metal Forming Association. 

Welcome, sir. You have five minutes. Thanks. 

STATEMENT OF WILLIAM R. SMITH 

Mr. SMITH. Thank you, Chairman Walsh, Ranking Member 

Schrader, members of the Committee. Thanks for the opportunity 

to be here today. 

My name is William Smith. I am the president and CEO of 

Termax based on Lake Zurich, Illinois. We are members of the Precision Metal Forming Association that has about 1,000 member 

companies representing $113 billion in precision metal products in 

that industry. About two-thirds of our member companies are 

structured as subchapter S corps or similar pass-throughs, as is 

Termax Corp. The industry average is about 50 employees per 

business, most of which are family-owned like ours. 

My father founded the company in 1971, and in 1998, my brother 

and I took over the operations where we have seen the company 

grow to about 250 employees and we hold over 60 patents. Now, 

while primarily servicing the automotive industry, our company 

manufactures clips and fasteners for many industries, including apVerDate Mar 15 2010 02:54 Jan 12, 2012 Jkt 071957 PO 00000 Frm 00012 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A957.XXX A957

pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
9 

pliances, lighting, toys, construction, automotive, and we are the 

number one exporter of parts in the world for these sorts of things. 

Now, before taking over the family business in ’98, I worked as 

a CPA, certified public accountant, for roughly 20 years, also a 

small business, giving me a unique perspective to understand both 

the production and finance sides of manufacturing in America. In 

my experience as a CPA, the vast majority of manufacturers are 

structured as S corporations, LLCs, and partnerships, or other 

pass-through entities. Everybody has statistics. Our statistics 

showed that 50 percent of all private employers are structured this 

way, and among the PMA member companies we know that 64 percent are also pass-through entities. 

We are structured this way because we are family-owned. We 

have a limited number of shareholders and owners who are often 

our siblings and increasingly our children and grandchildren. It 

just makes sense. Manufacturers like us pay our income taxes at 

the individual rate. We claim deductions and credits at that personal level. This means that the financial and manufacturing success of our employees and businesses are directly tied to that of the 

business owners. The Smith Family. 

The majority of manufacturers leave most of the money in the 

business, directly reinvesting in our employees, facilities, and 

equipment. And this is really the important point there. We are 

getting taxed on monies that we never see. It is just being held 

there. Now, due to our current U.S. tax code, we are taxed on income we do not take out of the company but leave in the business 

to reinvest. This means we have fewer resources to put towards 

hiring, training, and buying new machines. In my experience, 

smaller manufacturers, based on wage and K–1 income, pay 36 

percent in taxes. They distribute 18 percent to owners and reinvest 

46 percent in the business. And that is conservative. We, at 

Termax, we distribute 10 percent to the owners. The rest is either 

used for taxes or reinvestment. So the more money that goes into 

taxes, the less that is reinvested for our employees and machinery. 

These funds are taxed at the current 35 percent individual rate, 

set to increase to 39.6 percent. If statutory rates increase by nearly 

5 percent as scheduled, business owners have to take it out of the 

pie somewhere, either from the owners’ families, or from the reinvestment in the employees and company, usually both. Tax increases result in reduced cash flow in the business, causing a major 

unintended ripple effect, limiting access to capital. 

Banking and other lending requirements have toughened, forcing 

most owners to leave retained earnings in the business for the sole 

purpose of meeting collateral requirements. The current system penalizes and taxes business owners who leave money in the business 

for reinvestment, resulting in reduced ability to secure loans. 

Therefore, increased tax liability means less money in the business, 

which will restrict the ability of a small business to access timely 

and sufficient credit to purchase machines, expand their facilities, 

hire new employees. This is particularly true for a pass-through entity like ours, who is taxed regardless of the actual distribution 

made to the owner. 

This is clearly a politically charged issue. But from the standpoint of the small business owner we must do what we can to reVerDate Mar 15 2010 02:54 Jan 12, 2012 Jkt 071957 PO 00000 Frm 00013 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A957.XXX A957

pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
10 

duce our effective tax rate so we can increase our investment in 

new technologies and people to remain globally competitive. Over 

the last few years Termax has seen our American competitors decrease to just two from approximately eight, while our foreign competitors have increased dramatically, four to five times what they 

were previously. 

This is where tax deduction credits come in as the only tool we 

have to reduce our effective tax rate and give us an incentive to 

take action at that time. All manufacturing companies claim deductions and credits, from the R&D credits to bonus depreciation. Our 

company expects to spend $1.5 million in 2011 on R&D just to develop new technologies for the automotive and construction industries. This is why removing deductions credits such as the Section 

199 deduction for all businesses will increase the effective tax rate 

burden on all S corporations and pass-throughs. 

So some have asked why S corporations simply do not convert to 

becoming your traditional C corporation. First, the costs associated 

with the conversion are astronomical, especially for a small business. Another reason is due to the family-owned structure of the 

business. When an owner passes a company down to the next generation there is a much greater tax liability in a C corp. This is 

akin to the family farm being sold to pay taxes. 

If you ask them, most manufacturers want stability simplification of globally competitive effective rates. A prime example is the 

alternate minimum tax, the forerunner of the current millionaire’s 

tax that is being discussed. As a business owner, the most important questions are what is my total federal, state, and tax liability? 

What is left over for me to invest and grow my business and create 

jobs? 

Thanks for the opportunity. Sorry it took a little long. 

[The statement of Mr. Smith follows on page 41.] 

Chairman WALSH. No, thank you very much. 

Our last witness is Stephen Capp. Mr. Capp is president and 

CEO of Laserage Technology Corporation of Waukegan, Illinois, 

which I am also honored to represent. Laserage specializes in custom laser services for diverse material applications. Mr. Capp is 

testifying on behalf of the National Federation of Independent 

Business. Welcome, sir. You, as well, have five minutes to present 

your testimony. 

STATEMENT OF STEPHEN CAPP 

Mr. CAPP. Thank you. Good morning, Chairman Walsh, Ranking 

Member Schrader, and members of the Subcommittee. 

My name is Steve Capp. I am the president and CEO of Laserage 

Technology Corporation. I am pleased to be here as a small business owner and member of the National Federation of Business 

(NFIB), the nation’s leading small business advocacy organization, 

to discuss the impact of federal income taxation on Laserage. 

My father and I started Laserage in 1979. Now we are based in 

Waukegan, Illinois. When we started Laserage, we were a tiny contract manufacturer with one laser. Over 32 years we have added 

135 employees and 65 lasers. We specialize in laser processing materials for the medical device industry, but we also work with the 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
11 

electronics, LED, aerospace, and other industries. Currently, we export about 50 percent of the product that we manufacture. 

Like many small business owners, taxes are a major concern for 

us. In fact, 4 of the top 10 issues in the latest NFIB Problems and 

Priorities Surveys are tax issues, particularly, tax rates and complexity. Small business owners are encouraged that Congress is 

considering tax reform, but reform must recognize the issues impacting small businesses and pass-throughs. 

First, I want to discuss why a business like mine chose a passthrough entity. An owner chooses a pass-through business structure for a variety of reasons, generally because of liability protection or tax efficiency. Laserage is a pass-through business, an S 

corporation. Not unlike a lot of closely owned businesses, we were 

originally organized as a C corp. Ending the double taxation of our 

profits and gains as a C corp was our primary reason for converting into an S corp. Simply put, double taxation of our shareholders’ profits and gains made their investment in our company 

less attractive. 

Frequently, business sales of closely held businesses are structured as asset sales, unlike sales of public companies which are 

usually stock sales. As a C corp, an asset sale would first be taxed 

at the corporate level and then a second time when the after-tax 

proceeds are distributed to the shareholders. As an S corp and an 

asset sale, the sale only faces one layer of taxation at the shareholder level. Obviously, the single layer of tax makes the investment in our company more attractive. While the conversion adds 

complexity, this was a good decision for our company, and we urge 

that the S corporation pass-through structure continue to be supported by Congress. 

Second, as a pass-through business, individual tax rates are especially important. As an S corporation, we pay tax on our business 

income at the individual level. Keeping these rates low is important to keeping my company competitive. Over the last few years, 

my company’s operating costs have increased steadily. My company 

has been getting strong pressure from some of our largest customers to begin production in a low cost country. To this point we 

have successfully resisted taking that action by remaining price 

competitive without resulting to leaving the United States, primarily by adopting what is known as lean manufacturing techniques and improving the efficiency of our production methods. 

But there are limits to what productivity enhancements can accomplish. And we anticipate that at some point we will have to establish some offshore production capacity or lose very significant 

customers. If federal tax rates increase, that will simply add to the 

pressure on us to move some of our manufacturing offshore. For 

this reason, mindful that all of the current individual income tax 

rates are set to expire at the end of this year, I encourage Congress 

to keep tax rates low for all small business owners. 

Third, tax reform must recognize the issue impacting passthroughs and small businesses. Much of the debate surrounding 

tax reform is focused on eliminating deductions and closing loopholes to reduce taxes. If that is the path for tax reform, Congress 

should keep some basic principles in mind pertaining to first, the 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
12 

tax rate; second, encouraging capital investment; and third, reducing complexity and compliance costs. 

First, rates must be kept similar to pass-throughs and C corps. 

The current tax rates for pass-throughs are similar to C corps. If 

the rates were to go down for C corps but remain unchanged or go 

up for my S corp, it would put Laserage at a distinct disadvantage. 

Second, tax policies do affect capital investments. Let me explain. 

As a manufacturer, I operate a capital-intensive business. Last 

year we purchased $1.1 million in capital equipment, and this year 

we will purchase another $850,000 of equipment. We were able to 

use accelerated depreciation for these costs, and it absolutely influenced our capital investment program. We simply could not have 

afforded this level of capital investments without these benefits. In 

addition, as a manufacturer we rely on Section 199 domestic production deductions. Losing these deductions and credits without 

corresponding relief will also place our company at a disadvantage. 

Finally, one simple step that Congress can take is to simplify the 

tax code and make permanent expiring provisions. Last year, 

Laserage’s income tax return, technically an information return, 

was 416 pages long. Apart from costing an enormous amount of internal accounting personnel time and efforts, Laserage was forced 

to pay an outside auditing firm $9,100 in professional fees to prepare the tax filing. My own return, which includes my share of 

Laserage’s S corporation taxable income, was 28 pages and cost me 

$2,500 to prepare. We should not have to spend so much time and 

incur so much expense for tax compliance. It is not good for us, it 

is not good for the economy, and it is not good for Uncle Sam. 

In conclusion, tax reform can be an effective tool for economic 

growth but must include small business and pass-throughs. The 

majority of private sector employees, 54 percent, work for passthrough businesses. Small businesses in particular account for a 

vast majority of new jobs. The Congress has the opportunity to reform our complicated tax code but you must make sure to do it 

right. Tax reform must add the concerns of both pass-throughs and 

corporate businesses. 

Thank you for this opportunity to appear before this Committee 

on these important issues, and I look forward to any questions. 

Thank you. 

[The statement of Mr. Capp follows on page 47.] 

Chairman WALSH. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Capp, and thanks 

to all of the witnesses for our testimony. 

Let me begin our questioning with sort of a broad issue that each 

of you touched upon, and I would like it if you could give me sort 

of your broad overview. 

Generally speaking, would a system with lower marginal rates 

and a much broader tax base be preferable to pass-through entities 

than what we have now with a code with its numerous rates and 

deductions? Generally speaking, would that sort of move be preferable? 

Let us start with Mr. Carroll and work our way down. 

Mr. CARROLL. Generally, that approach, a lower rate, a broader 

base follows in the tradition of the 1986 Tax Reform Act. Economists will tell you that the welfare loss or efficiency cost of the tax 

system is related to the square of the tax rate as opposed to just 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
13 

the tax rate, so high marginal rates are particularly harmful from 

an economic perspective. So that is, I think, an important consideration. Lower tax rates are usually beneficial from an economic perspective. 

In the area of flow-throughs, high tax rates, high individual tax 

rates have been found to adversely affect investment decisions, hiring decisions, and the growth of small businesses. So that is clearly 

a consideration. In evaluating a broad tax reform, I think one 

needs to really look at the effects of the broad reform on job creation and economic growth and where low tax rates will, I think, 

be generally conducive to that goal. 

Chairman WALSH. Mr. Marowske, in general, a move toward 

lower marginal rates, a broader base, and in general getting rid of 

a lot of these deductions, is that preferable? 

Mr. MAROWSKE. Oh, I would say most definitely. You know, by 

basically sharing the wealth and spreading it over and reducing 

the rates you are going to put more capital back into the market. 

You are going to have more investment. You are going to have 

much more activity. And you will see a definite growth. I do not 

know all the numbers like Ernst & Young off the top of my head 

but anything you can do to reduce the rate and then spread the tax 

base around is going to be nothing but positive on our whole economy. 

Chairman WALSH. Mr. Smith. 

Mr. SMITH. I think it depends. A company that is highly capital 

intensive, such as our two companies are going to have, if you take 

away the deductions that relate specifically to capital investment— 

machinery, that sort of thing—those are going to have a very negative effect, a bigger effect on a manufacturing company than they 

would on a restaurant or a service industry. So I think it needs 

careful consideration on both sides. 

Chairman WALSH. Mr. Capp. 

Mr. CAPP. I agree with Mr. Smith. You have to be careful what 

you do. Obviously, I think overall it is a good thing. But those tax 

deductions and credits, there is a purpose for giving incentives to, 

especially in capital intensive businesses like ours to invest and reinvest in our company and create more jobs. So you know, within 

reason, I think, as long as they are carefully considered, I think the 

answer to that is yes. 

Chairman WALSH. Last quick question from me and how about 

a brief answer from each of you? Tax reform is being bantered 

about up here as we all know and probably will continue to be. If 

you were in front of the super committee right now and you could 

weigh in, when it comes to this issue, tax reform and specifically 

how it impacts pass-through entities, what is one word of caution 

or one word of advocacy—what would you advocate for if you had 

a moment or two in front of the super committee? Let us start with 

Mr. Capp and then quickly work our way down. 

Mr. CAPP. I would say lower taxes and also certainty. There are 

a lot of things that we are not doing because we are not sure what 

the tax code is going to be. I mean, lower taxes and put some certainty in it so we know what we have to do and where we have 

to go. 

Chairman WALSH. Mr. Smith. 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
14 

Mr. SMITH. Well, as I stated in my testimony, I agree with Mr. 

Capp here. The problem we have is uncertainty. We would like for 

years and years of consistency. We can compete with anybody in 

the world if we know where things are going to be. But because of 

the state of flux that our tax code has been in for years it creates 

very big disincentives for companies like ours. 

Mr. MAROWSKE. As I said in my testimony also is the same 

thing, is the uncertainty, not being able to plan, not knowing what 

is going to happen. You are doing one thing one year, one thing the 

next year. Frankly, I am a national sales tax—my personal opinion 

is, you know, it is fair and it is even and it allows the capital to 

stay within the companies. 

Chairman WALSH. Mr. Carroll, conclude. What is one specific tax 

reform you might advocate for when it comes to these pass-through 

entities? 

Mr. CARROLL. I think I would have some difficulty advocating a 

specific reform. I would think that one would want to take a very 

broad view. In addition to the certainty, also a stable tax system 

that will not change—that is going to provide some certainty over 

a period of time. One of the things that did happen in the ’86 Act 

is the tax system changed fairly quickly several years after the ’86 

Act. It in a sense unraveled with some important risk to the tax 

base—even though the ’86 Tax Reform Act lowered rates and 

broadened the base, the tax base was narrowed and tax rates went 

back up. 

The other thing I would think that they should carefully consider 

is trying to avoid unintended consequences. There are a lot of interrelationships in the tax system as well as the economy and trying 

to avoid unintended consequences, and I think that would be a very 

useful objective. 

Chairman WALSH. Thank you. Let me now turn to my California 

colleagues, Congresswoman Chu. 

Ms. CHU. Thank you, Mr. Chair. 

Mr. Carroll, I am interested in your opinion as an economist. If 

we do tax reform we want to make sure that we do it right so that 

it is effective, helps the U.S. economy, and will create jobs. And 

there was new data from the U.S. Department of Treasury that 

shows that the ownership of these larger pass-throughs, in particular subchapter S corporations, is highly concentrated amongst 

wealthy taxpayers. If we are trying to help small businesses, is a 

high-end rate tax cut the best strategy? And how can we ensure 

that we are hitting the right set of small business owners that really need the tax relief? 

Mr. CARROLL. I think one needs to take a very broad review on 

tax reform and really consider the interrelationships. One of the 

problems I think that exist in our current tax code is the double 

tax on corporate profits and the idea that the corporate tax is basically a second layer of tax on equity finance investment that distorts a number of very important economic decisions. And it raises 

the cost of capital on investment generally. It leads to the 

misallocation of capital by creating a wedge between investment 

and the corporate and the non-corporate sector. It accentuates or 

increases—it leads to a tax bias for debt finance resulting in greater leverage of firms, which is problematic in periods, particularly 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
15 

problematic in periods of economic distress, economic weaknesses. 

Companies that are more highly leveraged may have more difficulty. 

So I think the double tax is a very, very significant issue. And 

so if one is looking for—I think it is very important to, when one 

is thinking about the pass-through sector and flow-throughs, that 

is a vehicle, a way in which businesses are able to avoid the adverse effects of the double tax and it is very, very helpful to the 

economy. So rather than trying to push more firms into the double 

tax I think one needs to kind of look at it the other way and think 

about how relief from the double tax can be expanded. 

Most other developed nations have explicitly provided relief from 

the double tax by either providing relief at the shareholder level or 

at the company level. In the U.S., it is only recently, since the beginning of the last decade in 2003 through the lower rates and dividends and gains that we provided some relief. But even with that 

relief we are still at the high end of the overall tax on corporate 

dividends and capital gains combined with the corporate level tax. 

Ms. CHU. But I guess my question really is would it be beneficial 

equally to all strata of business owners? 

Mr. CARROLL. Again, I think one needs to—one needs to really 

think about what is going to be most conducive to job creation and 

economic growth. And I think the more equal treatment between 

the two sectors would probably be very helpful. 

Ms. CHU. The report also mentions that some pass-throughs are 

passive holding companies in which there are no entrepreneurial 

activity. These companies do not hire any employees. And many 

are sole proprietors and independent contractors. But on the other 

hand there are pass-throughs like the small businesses that have 

testified here today that are, indeed, doing entrepreneurial work 

and hiring people. So how could we refine the tax strategy so that 

we really emphasize the job creators? 

Mr. CARROLL. Yeah, I guess I would go back again to the double 

tax. I really see the double tax as a significant problem, the high 

corporate tax rate and trying to address that issue. Rather than 

trying to expand the scope of the double tax by perhaps subjecting—a lot of the debate is really focused—this part of the debate is focused on where do you draw the line between the corporate sector and the non-corporate sector? I think because of the 

harmful effects of the double tax, the way in which it raises the 

cost of capital, increases the bias for debt finance, drives a wedge 

between the two sectors, redrawing the line so more economic activity is subject to the double tax I think is problematic. 

Ms. CHU. Let me ask about the Joint Committee on Taxation 

analysis, which showed that the proposal to reduce the corporate 

tax rate to 25 percent could require some pretty hefty repeals of 

the tax expenditures that encourage job creation. How would the 

repeal of some of these job creation tax expenditures impact small 

businesses? 

Mr. CARROLL. Well, I think weighing the benefits of corporate 

rate reduction base broadening, one has to be very careful. I agree 

with the sentiments of Mr. Smith and Mr. Capp in terms of talking 

about some of the capital intensive provisions. I think one has to 

go through each tax expenditure, each special tax provision and 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
16 

really think about and weigh the positive benefits that those provisions provide to the economy, provisions like accelerator deprecation, like the R&D credit, many other provisions. All of these provisions were put into the code by the Congress with good intentions 

with the notion that they were providing some economic benefit to 

the tax code. And there are significant economic benefits from a 

lower corporate tax rate, but I think one has to weigh that very 

carefully. 

Ms. CHU. In fact, Mr. Marowske, you talked about the fact that 

you have, of course, a lot of equipment in your air conditioning 

business. And how important are certain tax cuts to your business? 

Which tax credits would be most critical to your business and other 

small businesses like yours? 

Mr. MAROWSKE. We are not nearly as capital intensive as Mr. 

Capp or Mr. Smith’s company. We do not have large investments 

in machinery. Ours is mostly vehicles. For us, you know, it used 

to be the investment tax credit, which was a great thing for purchasing vehicles and machinery. If I remember there was a 10 percent credit on the purchase of equipment. That was back in the 70s 

and 80s. 

In our industry, incentives on training and human resources 

issues would be a tremendous advantage because we are very labor 

intensive in the service industry. We have basically no minimal 

capital investment. 

Ms. CHU. Thank you. I yield back. 

Chairman WALSH. Thank you. Let me now turn to a fellow Illinois, Congressman Bobby Schilling. 

Mr. SCHILLING. Thank you, Chairman. 

Mr. Capp, I also started out my small company with a C corporation, and for the exact same reasons changed over to an S corp. 

But, you know, coming from Illinois, we just took the largest tax 

increase—individual tax increase, state taxes in the history of the 

state. Corporate tax rates also went up and, you know, I find it 

very interesting that some folks around believe that higher taxes 

are going to actually help unemployment and then also help the 

revenue funds of states or the country per se. But in Illinois, for 

example, since the largest tax increase in the history of the state 

happened, we have already lost over 89,000 jobs in Illinois. 

So, you know, the thing that is nice about being small business 

folks is that we get it. And with us starting up our business, one 

of the fears that I have is that a lot of the small businesses, including myself, had I not been able to put that money back in to my 

business and invest into it, I do not know if I would have made it. 

And my fear is that as we continue to want to tax the job creators, you know, it is going to be a problem for the guy who is sitting in his garage trying to figure out how to get this thing off the 

ground. You know, and what are we doing to our Steve Jobs guys? 

I mean, look at Apple Computer. I mean, it is just amazing the 

process. And one of the things that is very scary to me—I am fresh 

in. I came straight from the restaurant business to Washington, 

D.C. And a lot of times in Washington we tend not to look at the 

unintended consequences. In business we are forced to look at—if 

I am going to, you know, make an investment into my business I 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
17 

look at 10 years as to how this is going to either adversely—how 

it is going to affect our business. 

So I think that that is something that is very, very important. 

And I think when we do any type of tax reforms we do have to be 

careful because we see a difference here between the two businesses. You know, he is buying vehicles and you are buying a lot 

of equipment for inside, so I think that it is one of those where you 

come in with the scalpel. You be very careful on how you do it because the write-off of the equipment is pretty imperative. But at 

the same time I think the key thing that I am hearing here is basically, you know, give us a little leeway here. And I think it is great 

and I give all of you credit for coming here today because I think 

that if we were to listen to the small businesses, or as I call them 

the final 3 feet, the people that are actually putting people to work. 

Sorry for the rant. 

But what I wanted to do is just, Mr. Capp, when you talked 

about the ’01 tax breaks, can you tell me a little bit more specifically how that affected your business? 

Mr. CAPP. Specifically, the ’01 tax breaks? 

Mr. SCHILLING. Yeah. Like what was different from prior to ’01? 

How it helped you? 

Mr. CAPP. I think, you know, it allowed us to take a look at 

equipment and other things and really, you know, gave us more incentive to push, you know, equipment or money back into the business to grow the business and buy the equipment that we needed 

to create the jobs was the primary thing. 

Mr. SCHILLING. Okay. You know, I guess this is kind of a pretty 

simple question. I think I already know the answer and I am just 

going to kind of roll right down the line here. Do you believe that 

more regulation from the federal government and higher taxes is 

going to help you create more jobs? 

Mr. CAPP. The answer to that is absolutely not. We have so many 

people in our company now. At least part of their job is dealing 

with regulation and it seems to be getting more and more and 

more. And when I got people that I am paying to deal with regulation, they are not doing productive things, making the business 

grow or focusing on customers, things like that. So the answer to 

that, absolutely. 

Mr. SMITH. Well, obviously. I mean, it is a no-brainer answer. We 

also have—we ended up hiring an OSHA-compliance staff person 

just to make sure that we are in compliance with OSHA. Now, that 

is outside of the scope of this process but obviously it hurts. If you 

think about it, tax accountants are really just—the whole tax code 

is a full employment act for accountants. 

Mr. SCHILLING. That individual that you hired, what is the cost 

to your company on that, sir? 

Mr. SMITH. About $60,000 a year. 

Mr. SCHILLING. Sixty thousand, but we created a job. Is that correct? 

Mr. SMITH. That is right. 

Mr. MAROWSKE. Your question kind of is, hi, I am from the government. I am here to help you? 

Mr. SCHILLING. Yeah. 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
18 

Mr. MAROWSKE. I would definitely—I would not be in favor nor 

anybody in our industry. 

Mr. CARROLL. The only thing I think I would comment on is one 

could think of a lot of the regulations as in effect are imposing in 

some form additional taxes, additional expenses, additional time 

spent by entrepreneurs on complying with those regulations. So 

that is kind of a way of thinking about holistically the regulatory 

and tax environment as there are two sides of a similar coin. 

Mr. SCHILLING. Very good. Thank you for your time, Chairman. 

Chairman WALSH. Thank you, Mr. Schilling. Let me now turn to 

Congressman Hanna from New York. 

Mr. HANNA. Thank you, Chairman. 

Mr. Marowske, do you—you mentioned tax credits to homeowners to help them incentivize them. Do you think to improve the 

insulation of their homes or upgrade their heating systems or air 

conditioning, do you think that drives the decision to its ultimate 

conclusion? 

Mr. MAROWSKE. Most definitely. Most definitely. You will see in 

your state you have some great utility incentives for people to—we 

call it home performance. Insulate windows, duct system, ceiling, 

many different things. And you have got some huge incentives via 

your utilities in New York State. But New York State probably is 

doing the best of any of your 50 states in that. My state of Michigan, it is a mishmash and a mess. 

Mr. HANNA. Do any of you gentlemen, Mr. Capp, Mr. Smith, Mr. 

Marowske know—Mr. Carroll may know in a broader way—what 

is your effective rate? I mean, we all know the actual rate that you 

pay or that is listed in the tax code but does anybody have an idea 

what your effective rate is after all the depreciation, tax credits, accelerated depreciation, et cetera? 

Mr. CAPP. I do not think you can hold me to this but the last 

time I calculated it, it was about 27, 28 percent. 

Mr. SMITH. For us, actually, the PMA, our association has created quite a comprehensive tax template for those things. I do not 

know if you have had a chance to review it or if you have seen this. 

Our particular company, including local and state taxes, is 35 percent right now. So that is what affects me and our company. 

Mr. HANNA. But that is not your—that is not your actual rate 

that you pay after all the—— 

Mr. SMITH. No, but again, that is after our base case, where we 

are right now, is it turns out to be 35 percent of the total dollars 

that are going into that. The actual federal taxes are approximately 

27.7 percent. 

Mr. HANNA. Okay. So, Marowske, do you have any idea? 

Mr. MAROWSKE. Honestly, I do not know. I would be taking a 

stab in the dark. 

Mr. HANNA. Mr. Carroll, what do you think it is for all the people 

you handle? 

Mr. CARROLL. I do not prepare tax returns. I am an economist 

and I tend to work on tax policy issues so I have the virtue, I suppose, of not working on actual tax returns. I guess I would observe 

there are really different ways of thinking about tax rates. One 

could think of an average tax rate. One could think of an effective 

tax rate. One could think of a marginal effective tax rate that 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
19 

would take into account different features of the tax code in different ways. A favorite concept that is often used by economists to 

think about investment decisions, allocation of investment, the 

amount of investment in the economy is the marginal effective tax 

rate that would take into account not only the top line individual 

or corporate tax rate but also take into account the value of accelerated depreciation and investor level taxes on capital gains to indicate the variance of tax rates across different types of economic 

activities. 

Mr. HANNA. Do you think that advantage is given to capital investment for equipment, for example, with Mr. Smith? Do you 

think that they are pitted against someone who is less capital intensive than, say, Mr. Marowske’s business which is mostly labor? 

Mr. CARROLL. Yeah, I think there can be a fair amount of unevenness of tax rates across different economic activities, different 

industries, different sectors, companies that invest in particular assets versus others. There is a fair amount of unevenness and, yeah, 

that is certainly a consideration 

Mr. HANNA. So does that suggest to you that Mr. Marowske may 

be paying a disproportionate share based on the total volume of 

dollars he does compared with— 

Mr. CARROLL. Yeah. I think one has to come back to, again, the 

value of the specific tax preferences. If one, for example, were to 

think that a provision like the R&D credit provided some significant spillover effects to the broader economy or one thought that 

incentives for some of the renewables—alternative fuels, solar, geothermal and so on—were providing spillover effects to the overall 

economy, then one might be able to justify the unevenness. 

You know, I think it was a couple of years ago that Congress had 

considered requiring the Joint Committee on Taxation to do a cost 

benefit analysis of each of the tax expenditures in the Internal Revenue Code with the notion of evaluating on a cost benefit basis 

whether those provisions were providing sufficient value to the 

economy to justify their presence in the code. 

Mr. HANNA. But then—my time is up. Thank you, Chairman. 

You said that, Mr. Capp, you were encouraged to invest in capital equipment because of the accelerated depreciation. Do you 

think, I mean, this is—do you think that you would not have done 

it otherwise? I mean, is that what I can infer from that? 

Mr. CAPP. I think it is more a question of timing, when we would 

have done it. With the uncertainty of what the next year’s tax code 

was going to be, we accelerated purchasing equipment that we 

probably would have pushed out and bought in a more timely manner for us. 

Mr. HANNA. Thank you, Chairman. 

Chairman WALSH. Thank you, Mr. Hanna. Let me now turn to 

Congressman Chabot from Ohio. 

Mr. CHABOT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I apologize for being a 

little bit late. And if my questions have already been asked, I also 

apologize for that. I have got three different hearings going on at 

the same time and I am trying to bounce around and make all of 

them. 

Chairman WALSH. That is no excuse. 

Mr. CHABOT. I know. Sorry, Joe. 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
20 

But in any event, mine are going to be kind of broad. When I 

first came up here back in the revolution, back in ’94, Newt Gingrich’s Contract with America, all that, there was some real serious 

talk about really reforming. We are talking about that now and we 

have got this super committee and are they going too long? You 

know, what is going to happen? But there were two competing philosophies. You basically had the Dick Armey philosophy, which was 

the flat tax and you can basically do your taxes on a postcard and 

send it in, although nowadays, you know, we do not do anything 

through the mail so we would probably e-mail it in or something 

on something even smaller. But that was sort of one philosophy. 

And then you had Billy Tauzin and Bill Archer, who was the 

chairman of the Ways and Means Committee at the time, who 

wanted to go for a consumption tax or a sales tax and get rid of 

the IRS altogether and get rid of income taxes altogether. 

And then we now have, you know, maybe a hybrid plan that one 

of the Republican presidential candidates has put forward, the infamous or wonderful or whatever you think about it, the 9–9–9 

Plan. And there are various versions. But I would just like to see, 

and perhaps Mr. Carroll, we could make this, you know, you are 

with a very large and prestigious accounting firm and if we went 

to one of those other things it would probably make it less likely 

that folks like those folks over there and a lot of other folks might 

need accountants and attorneys and things to figure all this stuff 

out. Maybe not. But at least in theory. 

So I would just like to throw it open for anybody who wants to 

take this on. And I have got about three minutes, so if you each 

want to take, you know, a little less than a minute and just go 

down the line. Maybe we will start with Mr. Capp down there. 

Mr. CAPP. I am not entirely clear what you are looking for here. 

Mr. CHABOT. Just basically what are the—would you prefer to 

have a flat tax? Would you prefer to have a national consumption 

or sales tax? Would you prefer a hybrid where we have both? Both 

are low right now but could potentially be jacked up down the road 

somewhere. Or do you think we ought to keep the stupid mess we 

have right now? 

Mr. CAPP. I guess I tend to lean more towards a flatter tax. I 

know that there are a lot of other ones out there like sales tax and 

things like that. I think they have to be weighed very carefully 

when it comes to us as small business people, seeing to it that it 

does not disrupt the job creation at the small business level. So it 

could be really any one of those depending on exactly how it is approached and how it is actually executed. 

Mr. CHABOT. Mr. Smith. 

Mr. SMITH. You know, honestly, I do not care. What I care about 

is just consistency. And I do not think it is going to matter on a 

long run basis for a business like ours in any way. Of any approach 

that is taken I would like a 10-year or a 20-year or a more—change 

after—for a period of time. That is really all I care about. 

Mr. CHABOT. Okay. Thank you. Mr. Marowske. 

Mr. MAROWSKE. You know, any one of them, as Mr. Capp mentioned, needs consideration, and whatever you do it needs to be, 

again, consistent and it needs to be fair. My gut reaction, as I mentioned a little earlier, is I like the national sales tax or consumpVerDate Mar 15 2010 02:54 Jan 12, 2012 Jkt 071957 PO 00000 Frm 00024 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A957.XXX A957

pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
21 

tion tax. If you have more money, earn more money, you are going 

to spend more money. And you are going to pay a higher level of 

tax but there are other, you know, drawbacks on that. People that 

are at minimum wage levels, you know, you have got to come up 

with something for that. So it needs some thought and some thinking. But it needs to be consistent, fair, and long term. 

Mr. CHABOT. Thank you. Mr. Carroll, if you want to—— 

Mr. CARROLL. Yeah. A couple of thoughts on the choices—the flat 

tax, the sales tax, a potential hybrid—you know, one thing I would 

say is I would agree with the sentiments that a tax system that 

is predictable, provides some certainty, and that is stable would be 

particularly helpful. We currently have a tax code where 25 percent 

of the income tax will sunset at the end of 2012, so that creates 

a lot of uncertainty for people such as those who are sitting at the 

table with me. That makes it difficult, I think, to make business 

decisions and other decisions. 

Another comment I would make is the flat tax and the sales tax 

are both—are really very related. They are at least first cousins, 

if not second cousins. One of the characteristics both of those taxes 

share is fundamentally they do not tax the return to savings and 

investment. Both the sales tax and the flat tax are types of consumption taxes. And then I would go on to say that our current tax 

system is really a hybrid of some of these. We have features in our 

current tax code that make our tax code a bit more like a consumption tax through accelerated depreciation, through other expensing 

provisions, through 401(k)s, IRAs, defined benefit plans on the 

household side. Those provisions all reduce the tax on the return 

to savings and investment and the idea behind a consumption tax, 

one of the reasons a lot of economists like consumption taxes, is 

that by not taxing or taxing less the return to savings and investment, they are conducive to economic growth. But you do need to 

balance those systems from a distributional perspective. When you 

do not tax the return to savings and investment, where savings 

and investment is received primarily or disproportionately by higher income households, one needs to think about the distributional 

consequences of going in that direction. So those are a few observations I think are worth bringing up. 

Mr. CHABOT. Thank you very much. Mr. Chairman, I have been 

informed I have yet a fourth meeting out in the hallway so I will 

have to take off. Thank you very much. I yield back. 

Chairman WALSH. Thank you. Thank you. Let me turn to Congressman Mulvaney. He is all good. Okay. 

Let me close and just revisit one quick question. I am going to 

ask you each for a yes or no answer. How does that sound? Understand that under the President’s Jobs Plan, taxes on capital gains 

are going to increase. And if we let the ’01 and ’03 tax rates expire, 

that will increase your taxes. Will tax increases like those help you 

purchase more equipment, create jobs, and will it grow the economy? Yes or no. 

Mr. CAPP. No. 

Mr. SMITH. No. 

Chairman WALSH. That was difficult. 

Mr. MAROWSKE. No. 

Chairman WALSH. Mr. Carroll. 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
22 

Mr. CARROLL. I guess I would have to say no. 

Chairman WALSH. Thank you. And thank you all for participating today. The Subcommittee will continue to closely follow 

these issues related to tax reform. 

Following the hearing we will be sending a letter to the Joint Select Committee on Deficit Reduction, which will have a critical role 

in determining this tax policy and reducing the deficit. And we will 

relay the concerns that have been expressed by the witnesses 

today. 

I also ask unanimous consent that the comments of several small 

business owners regarding the importance of individual tax reform, 

which were submitted through the Committee’s website ‘‘Open 

Mike,’’ be admitted to the record. Without objection, so ordered. 

Finally, I ask unanimous consent that members have five legislative days to submit statements and supporting materials for the 

record. Without objection, so ordered. 

Where is my gavel? Let me now bang this. And without objection, 

the hearing is now adjourned. Thank you very much. 

[Whereupon, at 11:10 a.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.] 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
23 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 59 here 71957A.001
24 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 60 here 71957A.002
25 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 61 here 71957A.003
26 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 62 here 71957A.004
27 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 63 here 71957A.005
28 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 64 here 71957A.006
29 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 65 here 71957A.007
30 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 66 here 71957A.008
31 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 67 here 71957A.009
32 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 68 here 71957A.010
33 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 69 here 71957A.011
34 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 70 here 71957A.012
35 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 71 here 71957A.013
36 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 72 here 71957A.014
37 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 73 here 71957A.015
38 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 74 here 71957A.016
39 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 75 here 71957A.017
40 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 76 here 71957A.018
41 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 77 here 71957A.019
42 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 78 here 71957A.020
43 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 79 here 71957A.021
44 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 80 here 71957A.022
45 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 81 here 71957A.023
46 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 82 here 71957A.024
47 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 83 here 71957A.025
48 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 84 here 71957A.026
49 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 85 here 71957A.027
50 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 86 here 71957A.028
51 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 87 here 71957A.029
52 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 88 here 71957A.030
53 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 89 here 71957A.031
54 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 90 here 71957A.032
55 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 91 here 71957A.033
56 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 92 here 71957A.034
57 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 93 here 71957A.035
58 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 94 here 71957A.036
59 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 95 here 71957A.037
60 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 96 here 71957A.038
61 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 97 here 71957A.039
62 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 98 here 71957A.040
63 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 99 here 71957A.041
64 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 100 here 71957A.042
65 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 101 here 71957A.043