Selected Recently Expired Individual Tax
Provisions (“Tax Extenders”): In Brief
Jane G. Gravelle
Senior Specialist in Economic Policy
October 17, 2014August 20, 2015
Congressional Research Service
7-5700
www.crs.gov
R43688
Selected Recently Expired Individual Tax Provisions (“Tax Extenders”): In Brief
Summary
The Tax Increase Prevention Act of 2014 (P.L. 113-295), signed into law on December 19, 2014,
made tax provisions that had expired at the end of 2013 available to taxpayers for the 2014 tax
year. The law extended most (but not all) provisions that had expired at the end of 2013. Several
bills have been considered in the 114th Congress to make some provisions permanent, including
the deduction for state and local sales taxes (H.R. 622) and the deduction for teacher’s expenses
(H.R. 2692 and H.R. 2940), both discussed in this report. The Senate Finance Committee has
reported legislation, the Tax Relief Extension Act of 2015 (S. 1946), that would retroactively
extend expired tax provisions for two years, through 2016Extenders”): In Brief
Summary
The Expiring Provisions Improvement Reform and Efficiency (EXPIRE) Act (S. 2260), which
would extend a set of expired tax provisions through the end of 2015, was reported on April 28,
and subsequently became an amendment to H.R. 3474. The bill did not advance in the Senate, as
a motion to end debate on H.R. 3474, the legislative vehicle for the tax extenders package, was
voted down on May 15, 2014.
These and other temporary tax provisions that are regularly extended for one or two years are
often referred to as “tax extenders.” This report briefly summarizes and discusses selected items
categorized as individual tax provisions. It does not include housing and charitable provisions that
are reviewed in other CRS reports. These reports include CRS Report R43517, Recently Expired
Charitable Tax Provisions (“Tax Extenders”): In Brief, by Jane G. Gravelle and Molly F.
Sherlock; CRS Report R43510, Selected Recently Expired Business Tax Provisions (“Tax
Extenders”), by Jane G. Gravelle, Donald J. Marples, and Molly F. Sherlock; CRS Report
R43449, Recently Expired Housing Related Tax Provisions (“Tax Extenders”): In Brief, by Mark
P. Keightley; and CRS Report R43541, Recently Expired Community Assistance -Related Tax
Provisions (“Tax Extenders”): In Brief, by Sean Lowry.
The fivefour provisions discussed, with their revenue costs for a twoone-year extension, are
•
Above-the-Line Deduction for Certain Expenses of Elementary and Secondary
School Teachers,
•
Deduction for State and Local Sales Taxes,
•
Above-the-Line Deduction for Qualified Tuition and Related Expenses,
•
and
Parity for Exclusion for Employer-Provided Mass Transit and Parking Benefits,
and
•
Credit for Health Insurance Costs of Eligible Individuals.
In terms of revenue, the most significant provision is the optional deduction for sales taxes, which
is estimated to cost $6.57 billion if extended for two years. The next largest is the deduction for
tuition expenses at $0.6 billion, followed by the classroom expense deduction at $0.45 billion, the. The
mass transit provision at $0.2 billion, and the health credit at $0.1 billioncosts $0.2 billion.
Congressional Research Service
Selected Recently Expired Individual Tax Provisions (“Tax Extenders”): In Brief
Contents
Introduction. ..................................................................................................................................... 1
Above-the-Line Deduction for Certain Expenses of Elementary and Secondary School
Teachers ........................................................................................................................................ 2
Deduction for State and Local Sales Taxes ...................................................................................... 3
Above-the-Line Deduction for Qualified Tuition and Related Expenses ........................................ 5
Parity for Exclusion for Employer-Provided Mass Transit and Parking Benefits ........................... 7
Credit for Health Insurance Costs of Eligible Individuals ............................................................... 76
Tables
Table 1. Distribution by Income Class of the Deduction for Classroom Expenses, 20112012 ............... 3
Table 2. Distribution by Income Class of the Deduction for State and Local Sales Taxes,
20112012 .............................................................................................................................................. 4
Table 3. Distribution by Income Class of the Qualified Tuition Deduction, 20112012 .......................... 6
Contacts
Author Contact Information. ............................................................................................................ 97
Congressional Research Service
Selected Recently Expired Individual Tax Provisions (“Tax Extenders”): In Brief
Introduction
The Tax Increase Prevention Act of 2014 (P.L. 113-295), signed into law on December 19, 2014,
made tax provisions that had expired at the end of 2013 available to taxpayers for the 2014 tax
year. The law extended most (but not all) provisions that had expired at the end of 2013. Several
bills have been considered in the 114th Congress to make some provisions permanent or extend
them. The Senate Finance Committee has reported legislation, the Tax Relief Extension Act of
2015 (S. 1946), that would retroactively extend expired tax provisions for two years, through
2016. Separate legislation has proposed to make permanent the state and local sales tax
deduction. The State and Local Sales Tax Deduction Fairness Act (H.R. 622) was passed by the
House on April 16, 2015. The 10-year cost of a permanent extension was $42 billion.1 Bills have
been introduced to make permanent and/or expand the deduction for the expenses of elementary
and secondary teachers (H.R. 2692, H.R. 2940, and S. 100)Extenders”): In Brief
Introduction
The Expiring Provisions Improvement Reform and Efficiency (EXPIRE) Act (S. 2260), which
would extend a set of expired tax provisions through the end of 2015, was reported on April 28,
and subsequently became an amendment to H.R. 3474. The bill did not advance in the Senate, as
a motion to end debate on H.R. 3474, the legislative vehicle for the tax extenders package, was
voted down on May 15, 2014.
Most of the provisions proposed for extension in the Senate expired at the end of 2013. The
House has proposed making selected provisions permanent, but none of the provisions discussed
in this report are among them.
These and other temporary tax provisions that are regularly extended for one or two years are
often referred to as “tax extenders.”1 This report briefly summarizes and discusses items
categorized as individual tax provisions.2 The report does not include housing and charitable
provisions that are reviewed in other CRS reports.3
The five provisions discussed, with their revenue costs for a two year extension,4 are
•2 The Tax Relief Extension Act of 2015, as reported, would
reduce federal revenues by $96.9 billion (or $86.6 billion after accounting for macroeconomic
effects).3 Of this cost, $8.0 billion is attributable to the four charitable provisions discussed in this
report (not accounting for any potential macroeconomic effects).
This report briefly summarizes and discusses four items categorized as individual tax provisions.4
The report does not include housing and charitable provisions that are reviewed in other CRS
reports.5
The four extender provisions discussed, with their revenue costs for a two-year extension,6 are
Above-the-Line Deduction for Certain Expenses of Elementary and Secondary
School Teachers ($0.4 billions),
•
5 billion),
Deduction for State and Local Sales Taxes ($6.57 billion),
•
Above-the-Line Deduction for Qualified Tuition and Related Expenses ($0.56
billion),
•
and
Parity for Exclusion for Employer-Provided Mass Transit and Parking Benefits
($0.2 billion), and
•
Credit for Health Insurance Costs of Eligible Individuals ($0.1 billion).
1
billion).
1
Joint Committee on Taxation, Estimated Revenue Effects of H.R. 622, JCX-73-15, April 16, 2015,
https://www.jct.gov/publications.html?func=startdown&id=4767.
2
An overview of all extenders can be found at CRS Report R43124, Expired and Expiring Temporary Tax Provisions
(“Tax R43898, Tax Provisions that Expired in 2014 (“Tax
Extenders”), by Molly F. Sherlock.
2
Nine3
Joint Committee on Taxation, A Report to the Congressional Budget Office of the Macroeconomic Effects of the
“Tax Relief Extension Act of 2015,” As Ordered to be Reported by the Senate Committee on Finance, 114th Cong.,
August 4, 2014, JCX-107-15, https://www.jct.gov/publications.html?func=startdown&id=4807.
4
Eight provisions are categorized as individual extenders, which include the fivefour discussed in this report, two housingrelated provisions, and two charitable provisions. See the Joint Committee on Taxation’s revenue estimates for the list, in
JCX-51-14, May 15, 2014, at https://www.jct.gov/publications.html?func=startdown&id=4601https
in JCX -107-14R, Estimated Revenue Effects of H.R. 5771, the “Tax Increase Prevention Act of 2014,” Scheduled for
Consideration by the House of Representatives on December 3, 2014, December 3, 2014, https://www.jct.gov/
publications.html?func=startdown&id=4577.
34677.
5
See CRS Report R43449, Recently Expired Housing Related Tax Provisions (“Tax Extenders”): In Brief, by Mark P.
Keightley, and CRS Report R43517, Recently Expired Charitable Tax Provisions (“Tax Extenders”): In Brief, by Jane
G. Gravelle and Molly F. Sherlock.
46
Revenue estimates from the Joint Committee on Taxation’s JCX-51-14, May 15, 2014, at https://www.jct.gov/
publications.html?func=startdown&id=4601https://www.jct.gov/publications.html?func=startdown&id=4577, A Report to the Congressional Budget Office of the
Macroeconomic Effects of the “Tax Relief Extension Act Of 2015,” As Ordered To Be Reported By The Senate
Committee On Finance, 114th Cong., August 4, 2015, JCX-107-15.
Congressional Research Service
1
Selected Recently Expired Individual Tax Provisions (“Tax Extenders”): In Brief
Above-the-Line Deduction for Certain Expenses of
Elementary and Secondary School Teachers5Teachers7
Teachers and other eligible educators are allowed a deduction for up to $250 of certain classroom
expenses under this provision. The deduction is “above-the-line,” that is, it is not restricted to tax
filers who itemize deductions. Eligible educators include any elementary or secondary school
teacher, instructor, counselor, principal, or aide in a school for a minimum of 900 hours in a
school year. Qualified expenses must be associated with the purchase of books, supplies (other
than nonathletic supplies for health or physical education courses), computer equipment, software
and services, other equipment, and supplementary materials.68
The tax code allows a deduction of expenses for trade or business in general, but that deduction is
an itemized deduction (generally benefitting higher income individuals). Further, the trade and
business deduction is allowed only when miscellaneous itemized deductions are above 2% of
income. These miscellaneous itemized deductions include other employee expenses (such as
union dues), as well as investment costs and tax preparation costs, which might permit a taxpayer
who itemizes to exceed the 2% threshold and make this deduction more attractive. Teachers who
donate to the school (for example, books for the school library) can take a charitable deduction if
they itemize.
According to a study by the National School Supply and Equipment Association, a trade
association for educational product companies, teachers spent $1.6 billion on classroom supplies
during the 2012-2013 school year. On average, unreimbursed spending on classroom supplies is
estimated at $485 per teacher per year.79
The classroom deduction was enacted for two years (2002 and 2003) as part of the Job Creation
and Worker Assistance Act of 2002 (P.L. 107-147). It was extended several times, often
retroactively. In the 113th114th Congress, legislation has been introduced that would extend and expand
the deduction, make the deduction permanent, and allow themake the
deduction permanent (H.R. 2692), make the provision permanent and index it for inflation (H.R.
2940), and allow a deduction for qualified home-school
expenses expenses (S. 100).
A deduction tends to benefit higher-income individuals more than lower-income individuals
because its value depends on the marginal tax rate. For example, at the 15% tax rate, the value of
a $250 deduction is $37.50. At the 10% rate, the value of the same $250 deduction is $25. Tax
statistics indicate that more than 70% of taxpayers pay at the 15% rate or below.810 Even at a 35%
tax rate, the value is less than $100 ($87.50). Also, as shown in Table 1, deductions themselves
are more concentrated in higher-income classes. Almost three-quarters of the total value of
5deductions are taken by tax filing units with adjusted gross incomes over $50,000. These tax units
accounted for about a third of tax filing units. A third of the total value of the deductions is taken
by those with incomes over $100,000, less than 15% of tax filing units.
7
Section 62 of the Internal Revenue Code.
Educators must reduce the total amount they deduct on eligible items by any interest earned or received from an
Education Savings Bond or distribution from a Qualified Tuition (Section 529) Program or Coverdell Education
Savings Account that was excluded from income. In other words, if educators or members of their tax filing units use
earnings from these savings vehicles to pay tuition and other qualified educational expenses, only those classroom
expenses that exceed the value of these income exclusions are deductible.
79
David Nagel, K-12 Teachers Out of Pocket $1.6 Billion on Classroom, The Journal, July 1, 2013,
http://thejournal.com/articles/2013/07/01/k12-teachers-out-of-pocket-1-point-6-billion-on-classroom-tools.aspx.
810
Internal Revenue Service, Statistics of Income, Table 3.4, 2011, http://www.irs.gov/uac/SOI-Tax-Stats-IndividualStatistical-Tables-by-Tax-Rate-and-Income-Percentile.
68
Congressional Research Service
2
Selected Recently Expired Individual Tax Provisions (“Tax Extenders”): In Brief
Extenders”): In Brief
deductions are taken by tax filing units with adjusted gross incomes over $50,000. These tax units
accounted for about a third of tax filing units. A third of the total value of the deductions is taken
by those with incomes over $100,000, less than 15% of tax filing units.
Table 1. Distribution by Income Class of the Deduction for
Classroom Expenses,
2011 2012
Income Class
($ in the thousands)
Percentage Distribution of
Returns
Percentage Distribution of
Deduction
Below $10
1516.9
1.20
$10 to $20
17.116.7
3.36
$20 to $30
13.20
4.5
$30 to $40
10.0
7.7
$40 to $50
7.65
9.51
$50 to $75
13.0
20.81
21.0
$75 to $100
8.2
19.14
18.3
$100 to $200
10.28
30.25
$200 and over
3.2
3.76
4.2
Source: Based on Internal Revenue Service, Statistics of Income, 20112012, Table 1.424, http://www.irs.gov/uac/SOITax-Stats—Individual-Statistical-Tables-by-Size-of-Adjusted-Gross-Income.
If intended as an incentive, the classroom expense deduction may encourage educators already
purchasing supplies to increase the amount spent and may encourage other educators to purchase
supplies. However, a deduction that is capped at a small amount may not be very effective,
because many teachers are already spending at least $250. Generally, benefits with caps are
expected to be less effective, per dollar of revenue lost, in increasing the spending objective,
because those whose contributions are above the cap without the deduction have no marginal
incentive to increase it.
Rather than being viewed as an incentive, the provision might, instead, be seen as increasing
equity in the tax system. Teachers are providing a contribution to their students, which reduces
their own income.
The provision adds to complexity, not only by requiring an additional line on the tax form, but
also because a deduction for classroom expenses could potentially provide more benefit by
including it in the itemized deduction for employee expenses, which is subject to a floor and
conditional on the taxpayer itemizing deductions, but does not have a ceiling. Taxpayers might
need to compute taxes twice to determine which deduction results in a lower tax liability.
Deduction for State and Local Sales Taxes9Taxes11
Although taxes have been deductible since the initiation of the income tax in 1913, deductions of
certain taxes (such as excise taxes) have been disallowed over the years. Currently only income
9
Section 164 of the Internal Revenue Code.
Congressional Research Service
3
Selected Recently Expired Individual Tax Provisions (“Extenders”): In Brief
and property taxes are deductible. The deduction for general sales taxes was disallowed by the
Tax Reform Act of 1986 (P.L. 99-514). The deduction for sales taxes was temporarily reinstated
in 2004 with enactment of the American Jobs Creation Act of 2004 (P.L. 108-357). Unlike the
pre-TRA 1986 deduction, the current version allows for a deduction for sales taxes in lieu of
income taxes. It has been extended several times.10
12
11
Section 164 of the Internal Revenue Code.
Permanent extension of the sales tax deduction has been proposed several bills in the 113th Congress. In the 114th
Congress, H.R. 622, which passed the House April 16, 2015, would make the deduction permanent.
12
Congressional Research Service
3
Selected Recently Expired Individual Tax Provisions (“Tax Extenders”): In Brief
Under this tax extender individuals who itemize deductions may take a deduction for sales taxes
in lieu of income taxes. Taxpayers may keep individual receipts or may use an Internal Revenue
Service (IRS) look-up table. The IRS table amounts, however, do not include the sales taxes paid
for cars, motorcycles, boats, aircraft, or a home, or local sales taxes, which are added.1113
The value of a given dollar amount of deduction is higher for taxpayers with higher marginal tax
rates. In addition, as an itemized deduction, the deduction tends to be concentrated in the higherincome classes that itemize deductions. As shown in Table 2, 4446% of the deductions are taken by
those in the $100,000 or more income class, who account for 1314% of returns. Itemizing taxpayers
in the seven states without a general income tax but with a general sales tax typically benefit the
most from the optional sales tax deduction.1214
Table 2. Distribution by Income Class of the Deduction for State and
Local Sales
Taxes, 20112012
Income Class
($ in the thousands)
Percentage Distribution of
Returns
Percentage Distribution of
Deductions
Below $10
1516.9
1.86
$10 to $20
17.1
4.216.7
3.7
$20 to $30
13.20
5.5
$30 to $40
10.0
6.65.9
$40 to $50
7.6
6.95
7.4
$50 to $75
13.0
16.91
15.6
$75 to $100
8.24
14.94
$100 to $200
10.28
26.16
$200 and over
3.2
17.76
19.3
Source: Based on Internal Revenue Service, Statistics of Income, 20112012, Table 2, 1.4 and Table 2.1,
http://www.irs.gov/uac/SOITaxSOI-Tax-Stats—Individual-Statistical-Tables-by-Size-of-Adjusted-Gross-Income.
One reason to retain the sales tax option is to provide equity across the states. Equity across states
is an elusive concept in general, however. Benefits to states depend on the level as well as type of
tax and on the level and distribution of income. For example, New Hampshire with neither an
10
Permanent extension of the sales tax deduction has been proposed several bills in the 113th Congress. The following
bills would make the deduction permanent: H.R. 2854 (Rep. Hastings), H.R. 4789 (Rep. Fincher), S. 41 (Sen.
Cantwell), and S. 127 (Sen. Heller). H.R. 3942 (Rep. Grayson) would extend the sales tax deduction for one year.
11
income nor a sales tax had a higher than average benefit from federal tax deductions in a 2004
study.15
One reason that the sales tax became a target for elimination in 1986 was that most taxpayers
looked the tax up in a table and the deduction did not reflect their actual sales tax paid. Taxpayers
could also rely on their own receipts but that was a burden on both taxpayers and tax
13
See CRS Report RL32781, Federal Deductibility of State and Local Taxes, by Steven Maguire and Jeffrey M.
Stupak, for a more extensive
discussion of state and local tax deductions.
1214
These states are Florida, Nevada, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Washington and Wyoming. Alaska does not have
a state sales tax but cities can impose sales taxes.
Congressional Research Service
4
Selected Recently Expired Individual Tax Provisions (“Extenders”): In Brief
income nor a sales tax had a higher than average benefit from federal tax deductions in a 2004
study.13
One reason that the sales tax became a target for elimination in 1986 was that most taxpayers
looked the tax up in a table and the deduction did not reflect their actual sales tax paid. Taxpayers
could also rely on their own receipts but that was a burden on both taxpayers and tax
15
States without an income tax have a higher share of taxes deductible, 66%, compared with 53% for states with an
income tax (data provided by Steve Maguire based on Census records for 2010). The tax benefit also depends on the
level and distribution of income and the level of taxes. The average benefit from federal tax deductions in the Metcalf
study of 2004 returns was 0.4% of income, ranging from a low of 0.1% to a high of 0.7%. States with sales taxes and
without income taxes had benefits below the national average in general, but a number of states with income taxes were
at the same level or lower. See Gilbert E. Metcalf, “Assessing the Federal Deduction for State and Local Taxes,”
National Tax Journal, vol. 64, no. 2, part 2, June 2011, p. 574.
Congressional Research Service
4
Selected Recently Expired Individual Tax Provisions (“Tax Extenders”): In Brief
administrators. There were also concerns that other selective sales taxes or taxes imposed at other
than the retail level were not deductible.1416 These concerns also apply to an optional sales tax
deduction.
Above-the-Line Deduction for Qualified Tuition
and Related Expenses15Expenses17
This provision allows taxpayers to deduct qualified tuition and related expenses for postsecondary
education from their adjusted gross income. The deduction is “above-the-line,” that is, it is not
restricted to itemizers. The deduction can be taken for qualified expenses paid for taxpayers and
their spouses and dependents. Individuals who may be claimed as dependents on another
taxpayer’s return, married persons filing separately, and nonresident aliens who do not elect to be
treated as resident aliens cannot take the deduction. The deduction is reduced by any grants,
scholarships, Pell Grants, employer-provided educational assistance, veterans’ educational
assistance, and any other nontaxable income (other than gifts and inheritances). Qualified
expenses being deducted also must be reduced if paid with tax-free interest from Education
Savings Bonds, tax-free distributions from Coverdell Education Savings Accounts, and tax-free
earnings withdrawn from Qualified Tuition Plans.
The maximum deduction per return is $4,000 for taxpayers with modified adjusted gross income
that does not exceed $65,000 ($130,000 on joint returns). The deduction is phased out at higher
income levels. Taxpayers with incomes above $65,000 ($130,000 for joint returns) but not above
$80,000 ($160,000 for joint returns) can deduct some fraction of $2,000 in qualified expenses.
Taxpayers with incomes above $80,000 ($160,000 for joint returns) cannot claim a deduction.
These income limits are not adjusted for inflation.
One criticism of education tax benefits is that the taxpayer is faced with a confusing choice of
deductions and credits and tax favored education savings plans, and that these benefits should be
consolidated. Tax reform proposals have consolidated these benefits into a single education credit
in some cases.16
13
States without an income tax have a higher share of taxes deductible, 66%, compared with 53% for states with an
income tax (data provided by Steve Maguire based on Census records for 2010). The tax benefit also depends on the
level and distribution of income and the level of taxes. The average benefit from federal tax deductions in the Metcalf
study of 2004 returns was 0.4% of income, ranging from a low of 0.1% to a high of 0.7%. States with sales taxes and
without income taxes had benefits below the national average in general, but a number of states with income taxes were
at the same level or lower. See Gilbert E. Metcalf, “Assessing the Federal Deduction for State and Local Taxes,”
National Tax Journal, Vol. 64, No. 2, Part2, June 2011, p. 574.
14
18
Taxpayers may use this deduction instead of education tax credits for the same student. These
credits include permanent tax credits: the Hope Credit and Lifetime Learning Credit. The Hope
Credit has been expanded into the American Opportunity Tax credit, a temporary provision that is
scheduled to expire after 2017. The American Opportunity Tax Credit (and the Hope Credit) are
directed at undergraduate education and have a limited number of years of coverage (two for the
Hope Credit and four for the American Opportunity Tax Credit).19 The Lifetime Learning Credit
(20% of up to $10,000) is not limited in years of coverage. These credits are generally more
16
See Joint Committee on Taxation, General Explanation of the Tax Reform Act of 1986, May 4, 1987, pp. 47-48.
Posted at https://www.jct.gov/publications.html?func=startdown&id=3367.
1517
Section 222 of the Internal Revenue Code.
1618
See, for example, President George W. Bush’s Advisory Panel’s proposal, Simple, Fair, and Pro-Growth: Proposals
(continued...)
Congressional Research Service
5
Selected Recently Expired Individual Tax Provisions (“Extenders”): In Brief
Taxpayers may use this deduction instead of education tax credits for the same student. These
credits include permanent tax credits: the Hope Credit and Lifetime Learning Credit. The Hope
Credit has been expanded into the American Opportunity Tax credit, a temporary provision that is
scheduled to expire after 2017. The American Opportunity Tax Credit (and the Hope Credit) are
directed at undergraduate education and have a limited number of years of coverage (two for the
Hope Credit and four for the American Opportunity Tax Credit).17 The Lifetime Learning Credit
(20% of up to $10,000) is not limited in years of coverage. These credits are generally more
to Fix America’s Tax System, November 2005, which can be found at http://www.taxreformpanel.gov/ and the
proposal by Chairman Camp of the Ways and Means Committee (The Tax Reform Act of 2014). An explanation of the
education provision in this draft legislation can be found at the Joint Committee on Taxation’s technical discussion of
the individual provisions, JCX-12-14, February 26, 2014, https://www.jct.gov/publications.html?func=startdown&id=
4554.
19
See CRS Report R41967, Higher Education Tax Benefits: Brief Overview and Budgetary Effects, by Margot L.
Crandall-Hollick.
Congressional Research Service
5
Selected Recently Expired Individual Tax Provisions (“Tax Extenders”): In Brief
advantageous than the deduction, except for higher-income taxpayers, in part because the credits
are phased out at lower levels of income than the deduction. For example, for single taxpayers,
the Lifetime Learning Credit begins phasing out at $5355,000 for 20132015.
The deduction benefits taxpayers according to their marginal tax rate. Students usually have
relatively low incomes, but they may be part of families in higher tax brackets. The maximum
amount of deductible expenses limits the tax benefit’s impact on individuals attending schools
with comparatively high tuition and fees. Because the income limits are not adjusted for inflation,
the deduction might be available to fewer taxpayers over time if extended in its current form.
The distribution of the deduction in Table 3 indicates that some of the benefit is concentrated in
the income range where the Lifetime Learning Credit has phased out, but also significant
deductions are claimed at lower-income levels. Because the Lifetime Learning Credit is
preferable to the deduction at lower-income levels, it seems likely that the confusion among the
education benefits may have caused taxpayers to fail to choose the optimal education benefit.1820
Table 3. Distribution by Income Class of the Qualified Tuition Deduction, 2011
Income Class
($ in the thousands)
Below $10
$10 to $20
$20 to $30
$30 to $40
$40 to $50
$50 to $75
$75 to $100
$100 to $200
$200 and over
Percentage Distribution of
Returns
15.9
17.1
13.2
10.0
7.6
13.0
8.2
10.2
3.2
Percentage Distribution of
Deduction
31.6
9.6
7.2
3.3
5.2
13.6
5.4
24.0
2012
Income Class
($ in the thousands)
Percentage Distribution of
Returns
Percentage Distribution of
Deduction
Below $10
16.9
29.5
$10 to $20
16.7
10.7
$20 to $30
13.0
8.1
$30 to $40
10.0
6.3
$40 to $50
7.5
4.5
$50 to $75
13.1
12.0
$75 to $100
8.4
5.3
$100 to $200
10.8
23.6
$200 and over
3.6
0.0
Source: Based on Internal Revenue Service, Statistics of Income, 2011, Table3.422012, Table 1.4, http://www.irs.gov/uac/SOITax-Stats—Individual-Statistical-Tables-by-Size-of-Adjusted-Gross-Income.
(...continued)
to Fix America’s Tax System, November 2005, which can be found at http://www.taxreformpanel.gov/ and the
proposal by Chairman Camp of the Ways and Means Committee (The Tax Reform Act of 2014). An explanation of the
education provision in this draft legislation can be found at the Joint Committee on Taxation’s technical discussion of
the individual provisions, JCX-12-14, February 26, 2014, https://www.jct.gov/publications.html?func=startdown&id=
4554.
17
See CRS Report R41967, Higher Education Tax Benefits: Brief Overview and Budgetary Effects, by Margot L.
Crandall-Hollick.
18
Parity for Exclusion for Employer-Provided Mass
Transit and Parking Benefits21
Qualified transportation benefits, such as transit passes, vanpools, and parking, provided by
employers are excluded from income within limits. The dollar limit of the exclusion for
employer-provided parking is $250 a month for 2014. The excludable amounts are adjusted for
inflation. This provision would increase the limit for mass transit, currently $130, to the $250
allowed for parking.
20
The lack of optimal choices with education preferences is also discussed by GAO. See Multiple Higher Education
Tax Incentives Create Opportunities for Taxpayers to Make Costly Mistakes, GAO-08-717T, May 1, 2008,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-08-717T.
21
Section 132(f) of the Internal Revenue Code.
Congressional Research Service
6
Selected Recently Expired Individual Tax Provisions (“Tax Extenders”): In Brief
Extenders”): In Brief
Parity for Exclusion for Employer-Provided Mass
Transit and Parking Benefits19
Qualified transportation benefits, such as transit passes, vanpools, and parking, provided by
employers are excluded from income within limits. The dollar limit of the exclusion for
employer-provided parking is $250 a month for 2014. The excludable amounts are adjusted for
inflation. This provision would increase the limit for mass transit, currently $130, to the $250
allowed for parking.
A statutory exclusion for the value of parking was introduced in 1984, along with exclusions for
several other fringe benefits. Some employers had provided one or more of these fringe benefits
for many years, and employers, employees, and the Internal Revenue Service had not considered
those benefits to be taxable income. The Comprehensive Energy Policy Act of 1992 (P.L. 102486) placed a dollar ceiling on the exclusion from income of parking facilities and introduced the
exclusions for mass transit facilities and van pools to encourage mass commuting. The American
Recovery and Reinvestment Tax Act of 2009 (P.L. 111-5) increased the exclusion limit on
qualified transit benefits to match the level of the parking benefit limit, and the provision was
subsequently extended.
To the extent that this exemption induces employees to use mass transportation and to the extent
that mass transportation reduces traffic congestion, this exemption lowers commuting costs to all
commuters in urban areas. Higher-income individuals are more likely to benefit from the parking
exclusion than the mass transit and vanpool subsidies to the extent that the propensity to drive to
work is correlated with income. The effective value of the transit benefits rises with the marginal
tax rate of a recipient. The value of the exclusion for transit benefits also depends on the location
of the employer: the provision is targeted towards the taxpayers working in the highly urbanized
areas or other places where transit is available or parking space is limited.
Credit for Health Insurance Costs of
Eligible Individuals20
The credit is commonly known as the health coverage tax credit (HCTC). Under this provision,
eligible taxpayers are allowed a refundable tax credit for 72.5% of the premiums they pay for
qualified health insurance for themselves and family members. Eligibility is limited to three
groups: (1) individuals who are receiving a Trade Readjustment Assistance (TRA) allowance, or
who would be except that their state unemployment benefits are not yet exhausted; (2) individuals
who are receiving an Alternative Trade Adjustment Assistance (ATAA) allowance for people age
50 and older; and (3) individuals who are receiving a pension paid in part by the Pension Benefit
Guaranty Corporation (PBGC), or who received a lump-sum PBGC payment, and are aged 55
and older. For TRA recipients, eligibility for the HCTC generally does not extend beyond two
years, the maximum length of time most can receive TRA allowances or benefits.
19
20
Section 132(f) of the Internal Revenue Code.
Section 35 of the Internal Revenue Code.
Congressional Research Service
7
Selected Recently Expired Individual Tax Provisions (“Extenders”): In Brief
The HCTC is not available to individuals who are covered under insurance for which an
employer or former employer pays 50% or more of the cost; entitled to benefits under Medicare
Part A or an armed services health plan; or enrolled in Medicare Part B, Medicaid, the State
Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP), or the federal employees health plan. The Treasury
Department makes advance payments of the credit to insurers for eligible taxpayers who choose
this option.
The HCTC can be claimed for only 11 types of insurance specified in the statute. Seven require
state action to become effective, including coverage through a state high risk pool, coverage
under a plan offered to state employees, and, in some limited circumstances, coverage under
individual market insurance. As of December 2010, 24 states and the District of Columbia made
at least 1 of the 7 types of coverage available; in the remaining 6 states, only 3 automatically
qualified types not requiring state action were available, though not necessarily to all individuals
eligible for the credit. For example, COBRA continuation coverage is available in all states, but it
applies only if the taxpayer had employment-based insurance before losing his job and the
employer continues to provide the insurance to the remaining employed workers.
The HCTC was authorized by the Trade Act of 2002 (P.L. 107-210). One impetus for the
legislation was to assist workers who had lost their jobs, and consequently their health insurance
coverage, because of economic dislocations in the wake of the September 11, 2001 terrorist
attacks. Difficulties in reaching consensus on who should be included in this group contributed to
the decision to restrict eligibility for the credit primarily to workers adversely affected by
international trade (e.g., imported goods contributed importantly to their unemployment, or their
companies shifted production to other countries). Extension to taxpayers receiving pensions paid
by the PBGC occurred late in the legislative process. The credit was expanded in 2009. The 112th
Congress passed and the President signed into law the Trade Adjustment Assistance Extension
Act of 2011 (P.L. 112-40), which retroactively changed the subsidy rate to 72.5% (from 65%) for
coverage months beginning after February 12, 2011, and terminated the HCTC as of January 1,
2014.
The credit substantially reduces the after tax cost of health insurance. Assessments of the
provision have concluded that it is under-utilized with only a fraction of those eligible signing up,
possibly because of the requirement to make up-front premium payments or for premium shares
that are too large, or because of complexity. The administrative costs have been estimated to be
significant per dollar of subsidy delivered.21
There is some question about the need for this program now that the Affordable Care Act has
provided access to insurance and subsidies.
21
See CRS Report RL32620, Health Coverage Tax Credit, by Bernadette Fernandez.
Congressional Research Service
8
Selected Recently Expired Individual Tax Provisions (“Extenders”): In Brief
Author Contact Information
Jane G. Gravelle
Senior Specialist in Economic Policy
jgravelle@crs.loc.gov, 7-7829
Congressional Research Service
9Author Contact Information
Jane G. Gravelle
Senior Specialist in Economic Policy
jgravelle@crs.loc.gov, 7-7829
Congressional Research Service
7