Order Code IB10013
CRS Issue Brief for Congress
Received through the CRS Web
Major Tax Issues in the 106th Congress:
A Summary
Updated June 9, 2000
Government Finance and Taxation Section
Government and Finance Division
Congressional Research Service ˜ The Library of Congress

---

CONTENTS
SUMMARY
MOST RECENT DEVELOPMENTS
BACKGROUND AND ANALYSIS
The Tax Policy Debate
The Economic Context
Federal Tax Burden
Economic Performance
Tax Proposals in 2000
Tax Benefits for Education (H.R. 7 and S. 1134)
Taxes and Minimum Wage Legislation (H.R. 3081; S. 625 and H.R. 833)
Tax Cuts for Married Couples (H.R. 6 and S. 2346)
Proposals in the President’s FY2001 Budget
Legislation in 1999
The Taxpayer Refund and Relief Act of 1999 (H.R. 2488)
Extension of Expiring Tax Provisions (H.R. 1180, H.R. 2923, and S. 1792)
A Closer Look at Selected Issues
Marriage Tax Penalties and Bonuses
The Estate Tax
The Alternative Minimum Tax for Individuals
Capital Gains
Tax Treatment of Savings
Tobacco Taxes
Fundamental Tax Reform Proposals (Including Flat Tax Plans)

---

IB10013
06-09-00
Major Tax Issues in the 106th Congress: A Summary
SUMMARY
Taxes were a focus of congressional
would phase out the estate and gift tax over 10
policy debate both in 1999 and the first part of
years. The full House began consideration of
2000. In August, 1999, Congress passed a
H.R. 8 on June 8.
broad tax cut bill: the Taxpayer Refund and
Relief Act of 1999 (H.R. 2488; TRRA). The
For its part, the full Senate approved a
bill proposed a set of tax cuts estimated to
minimum wage bill with tax-related items in
total $792 billion over 10 years. However,
November, 1999. The Senate bill was subse-
President Clinton argued that the tax cut was
quently folded into H.R. 833, a broad bank-
too large, would drain funds from expected
ruptcy bill. On March 2, the Senate approved
Social Security surpluses, and would reduce
an education bill similar to H.R. 7, and on
domestic spending. The President vetoed H.R.
March 30, the Senate Finance Committee
2488 on September 23.
approved a bill (S. 2346) cutting taxes for
married couples.
The TRRA’s tax cuts were varied. The
bill would have reduced each individual in-
As part of its Fiscal Year (FY) 2001
come tax rate by one percentage point, re-
budget, the Administration proposed relatively
duced the marriage tax-penalty, lowered tax
modest tax cuts targeted at particular areas.
rates on capital gains, expanded tax prefer-
The President’s budget proposes an estimated
ences for individual retirement accounts
$350 billion of gross tax cuts over 10 years,
(IRAs), repealed the individual alternative
offset by $182 billion of increases in taxes and
minimum tax, repealed the estate and gift tax,
fees for a net tax cut of $168 billion over 10
and permitted U.S.-based multinational firms
years. Prominent parts of the proposal are a
to use “worldwide allocation” of interest
tax benefit for retirement saving, expansion of
expense in calculating foreign tax credits.
the earned income tax credit, marriage tax
penalty relief, child-care tax incentives, a tax
At the outset of 2000, House Speaker
credit for long-term care, tax benefits for
Hastert stated that House Republicans would
education, and reduction of the alternative
revisit a number of the proposals in the vetoed
minimum tax for individuals. The largest
1999 tax cut bill, but with a more incremental
single tax increase is an increase in tobacco
approach. By the end of May, the House had
taxes.
passed a number of separate tax cut bills. On
February 10 the House passed H.R. 6, a bill
On April 13, the House and Senate
reducing taxes for married couples; on March
passed a budget resolution (H.Con.Res. 290)
9 it passed a tax cut bill linked to other
calling for a 5-year tax cut of $175 billion.
legislation that raises the minimum wage. On
April 11 the House passed H.R. 4163, a tax-
payer rights bill, and on May 25 it passed H.R.
3916, which would phase out the federal
excise tax on telecommunications. In addition,
the House Ways and Means Committee has
also approved a bill (H.R. 7) containing tax
benefits for education, and a bill (H.R. 8) that
Congressional Research Service ˜ The Library of Congress

---

IB10013
06-09-00
MOST RECENT DEVELOPMENTS
The House Republican leadership has stated that in early 2000 the House will revisit
a number of the tax cut measures contained in the Taxpayer Refund and Relief Act of 1999
(H.R. 2488), which Congress approved in August 1999, but which President Clinton vetoed.
The tax cuts, however, will be proposed in a more incremental way. By the end of May, the
full House had approved a number of separate tax cut bills. Most recently, on May 25 the
House approved a phase-out of the federal excise tax on telecommunications. On the same
day, the House Ways and Means Committee approved a phase-out of the estate and gift tax
The full House began consideration of H.R. 8 on June 8.
BACKGROUND AND ANALYSIS
The Tax Policy Debate
Taxes were an important part of the public policy debate in Congress during 1999.
Much of the debate centered on surpluses in the federal budget and on whether or not to use
at least part of the surpluses to finance tax cuts. In 1999, the budget situation was this: there
was an overall surplus in the federal budget for FY1999, but the surplus consisted exclusively
of surpluses in the off-budget accounts – primarily the surplus in the Social Security accounts.
The on-budget accounts remained in deficit in FY1999 but were projected to move into
surplus in FY2000. With its FY2000 budget proposal in February, 1999, the Clinton
Administration proposed to save the surpluses in the Social Security accounts by using them
to pay down the federal debt. At the same time, the President proposed to use the on-budget
surpluses to finance a modest tax cut – $327 billion over 10 years – and to provide added
funding for Medicare, defense spending, and a number of other programs.
Congressional Republicans likewise proposed to use the off-budget surpluses to pay
down the federal debt, but proposed using most of the projected on-budget surpluses to
finance a larger tax cut. The Congressional budget resolution for FY2000 called for a tax cut
of $792 billion over 10 years. In August, Congress passed the Taxpayer Refund and Relief
Act of 1999 (TARA; H.R. 2488), which contained the tax cut proposed in the budget
resolution. President Clinton vetoed the bill, stating that the tax cut was too large and
because of its estimated distributional effects.
Congress faced several additional tax issues before 1999 ended. One of these was the
fate of a set of temporary tax benefits, a number of which had expired at the end of June. The
TARA would have extended the measures, but the bill’s veto left the issue open. In mid-
November, Congress and the Administration agreed on a compromise approach to the
expiring tax provisions, and Congress approved H.R. 1180, which extended the temporary
research and experimentation tax credit for 5 years and a number of other expiring provisions
through the end of 2001. The President signed the measure (PL. 106-170) on December 17.
In the final months of 1999, tax also surfaced in connection with several proposals to
increase the minimum wage. Several proposals contained tax provisions designed to reduce
the business tax burden while other parts of the legislation imposed a $1 per hour increase
in the minimum wage on firms. Minimum wage proposals that include tax cuts were passed
by the full Senate and by the House Ways and Means Committee on November 9. However,
CRS-1

---

IB10013
06-09-00
President Clinton stated he would veto the legislation when it reached him because neither
the Senate nor Ways and Means proposal contained revenue-raising measures sufficient to
offset the tax cuts and because the minimum wage would increase over 3 years rather than
2 years. The House adjourned for the year without considering the minimum wage bill, but
addressed the issue early in 2000. On March 9, the House passed H.R. 3832, containing tax
cuts linked with minimum wage legislation.
As noted above, the House Republican leadership has stated it intends to continue to
pursue tax cuts, but in an incremental way, and in early February, the House began the
process by approving a tax cut for married couples (H.R. 6), and as noted above the House
passed on March 9 passed H.R. 3832, a tax cut linked with minimum wage legislation. The
tax cut was then combined with the minimum wage legislation as part of H.R. 3081.
Indications are, however, that the Administration wishes to continue the principal thrust of
the 1999 debate: Treasury Secretary Lawrence Summers has stated he will recommend the
President not sign H.R. 6 “until a proper framework for paying down debt, strengthening
Social Security and Medicare, and funding critical initiatives has been established.” The
President has also threatened to veto H.R. 3832.
The Economic Context
Many tax issues may concern an interest in reducing the federal tax burden and the desire
to enact tax incentives to promote increased economic growth and savings.
Federal Tax Burden
As a percent of Gross Domestic Product (GDP), federal taxes are at their highest level
since the end of World War II: 20.5%, in fiscal year 1998. This is not a dramatic departure
from past levels; since the mid 1950s, federal taxes as a percentage of GDP have remained
within a range of between 17% and just below 20% of GDP. Growth in the economy
combined with federal legislation to reduce the budget deficit (tax increases in 1990 and
1993) have produced a slight increase in federal revenues as a percentage of GDP over the
last several years. In FY1990, federal taxes accounted for only 18.1% of GDP. Over the
same period, however, the federal budget has improved from a deficit of 3.9% of GDP in
FY1990 to a surplus of 0.8% of GDP in FY1998.
While there have been some fluctuations in the distribution of the federal tax burden over
the last 20 years, the fluctuations have been concentrated at the ends of the income spectrum.
During the 1980s the federal tax burden increased for lower-income families and decreased
for upper income families. This trend was reversed in the 1990s with tax reductions at the
lower end of the income spectrum and tax increases at the upper end of the income spectrum.
Families in the middle income brackets, however, experienced very little change in their
federal tax burdens over this period. The benefits of some of the tax changes contained in the
1997 Act will not necessarily accrue to middle-income families. The $500 child tax credit will
tend to reduce federal taxes for middle income families, but only those families with qualifying
children. The benefits of reductions in the tax on capital gains, expanded IRAs, and other
savings and investment incentives will tend to accrue to families at the upper-end of the
income spectrum.
CRS-2

---

IB10013
06-09-00
For further information, see CRS Report RS20059, The Federal Tax Burden, and CRS
Report RS20087, The Level of Taxes in the United States, 1941-1998.
Economic Performance
Many of the tax proposals that may be considered in the 106th Congress may be
intended to boost long-term growth by increasing private saving and investment, thereby
expanding the nation’s capital stock. It is the impact of these various proposals on saving that
is perhaps the most prominent economic performance issue the proposals present. First, can
tax incentives for saving or tax benefits for investment actually boost the nation’s rate of
private saving and investment? Second, total national saving consists of private saving minus
government borrowing. Thus, is any expansion the proposals may cause in private saving
larger than any increase they also cause in the federal budget deficit (or decrease in the federal
budget surplus)? If provisions actually cause an increase in total national saving, the nation’s
capital stock expands, resulting in higher economic growth. Yet economic analysis is not
clear on whether and by how much private savings responds to tax incentives.
A number of the tax provisions that may be considered may provide favorable tax
treatment to particular types of economic activity, extending special tax credits, deductions,
or exclusions to certain activities. In these cases, economic theory suggests that favorable
treatment for the specified activities can distort the economy’s ordinary decision making and
channel more resources into the favored activity than would otherwise occur. Since the
economy’s resources are limited, this also means that resources are simultaneously drawn
away from activities that are not tax-favored. The question that economic analysis pursues
is whether a specific intervention in resource allocation actually improves overall economic
performance.
An important aspect of any tax proposal is its effect on federal revenues and the federal
budget deficit or surplus. Deficit reduction has been a primary focus of budget debates over
the past several years. The effects on federal revenue of several elements of the various tax
proposals have been questioned. For instance, as noted earlier, economic analysis does not
provide clear-cut answers about the extent to which economic activity might increase in
response to tax incentives. As a result, the ultimate revenue effects of broad-based tax cuts
or tax incentives for saving are unclear. In addition, several changes — notably, those
involving IRAs, depreciation, and capital gains — would likely register a much larger revenue
impact a number of years in the future rather than in the near term. Thus, revenue estimates
confined to these proposals’ first few years do not show the potential long-run magnitude of
their revenue loss.
Tax Proposals in 2000
Tax Benefits for Education (H.R. 7 and S. 1134)
On March 2, the Senate approved S. 1134, a bill containing a number of tax benefits for
education. On March 22, the House Committee on Ways and Means approved H.R. 7, a
similar, but not identical bill. The full House is expected to consider the Ways and Means
Committee bill the week of March 27.
CRS-3

---

IB10013
06-09-00
Prominent provisions of both bills are an expansion of education savings account
contribution limits to $2,000 from current law’s $500, along with extension of qualified
withdrawals to include primary and secondary school expenses in addition to current-laws
college costs. Both bills would also expand current laws qualified tax-favored tuition
programs to include private as well as State institutions and would exclude distributions from
gross income. Both the Ways and Means and Senate bills would repeal the 60-month limit
on student interest deductions; the Ways and Means bill would increase the related income
thresholds for the provision’s phase-out. Both bills would provide a new 4-year expenditure
schedule for school construction bonds under the tax code’s arbitrage rebate rules.
The major difference between the two bills is the presence in the Senate bill of a
permanent exclusion from gross income for employer provided undergraduate and graduate
education assistance.
According to Joint Tax Committee estimates, the Senate bill would reduce revenues by
$7.7 billion over 5 years and $21.3 billion over 10 years; the Ways and Means bill would
reduce revenue by an estimated $3.8 billion over 5 years and $11.6 billion over 10 years.
Taxes and Minimum Wage Legislation (H.R. 3081; S. 625 and H.R. 833)
The full Senate and the House Ways and Means Committee each passed bills on
November 9, 1999, that would increase the minimum wage by $1 over 3 years. Both bills also
contain tax provisions designed to reduce business taxes along with the increase in the
minimum wage. On February 2, 2000, the Senate folded the minimum wage and associated
tax provisions of S. 625 into a broad bill relating to bankruptcy, H.R. 833. The Senate
subsequently approved the measure.
On March 9, full House passed a tax cut bill linked with other legislation increasing the
minimum wage. The bill is patterned after tax cuts approved in November 1999 by the Ways
and Means Committee and that were contained in an earlier version of the minimum wage bill.
The tax cuts were initially passed as part of H.R. 3832, but were then combined with House-
passed minimum wage legislation as part of H.R. 3081. According to Joint Tax Committee
estimates, the tax cuts would reduce revenues by $45.7 billion over 5 years; it contains no
revenue raising offsets. Prominent provisions of the bill include:

! a reduction in estate and gift tax rates (the largest tax cut in the bill);
! an increase in the expensing tax benefit for small business investment to
$30,000;
! rescission of the repeal of the installment method of accounting that was
enacted in 1999 as part of the “extenders” bill (H.R. 1180);
! acceleration of the scheduled phase-in of a 100% deduction for the health
insurance costs of self-employed individuals;
! an increase in the portion of business meals that can be deducted; to 60%
from current law’s 50%; and
! an increase in contribution limits for qualified pension plans, and other
pension changes;
! tax benefits directed at economically distressed areas.

The provisions are similar to measures included in the “small business” and “pension”
portions of the vetoed Taxpayer Refund and Relief Act of 1999 (H.R. 2488).
CRS-4

---

IB10013
06-09-00
The Senate-passed tax provisions associated with its minimum wage bill are quite similar
to those of the Ways and Means bill, but with a few differences. The Senate bill contains the
same acceleration of the full deductibility of health insurance for the self employed. However,
it also provides for a phased-in, above-the-line deduction for health and long-term-care
insurance for individuals not covered by employment related plans. The Senate bill would
also increase the investment expanding allowance to $30,000 compared to $25,000 under the
Ways and Means Committee bill and would allow 80% of business meals and entertainment
expenses of small businesses to be deductible. It would make the Work Opportunity Tax
Credit permanent. The Senate measure does not contain the estate tax provisions contained
in H.R. 3081. When it was initially passed, the Senate bill contained several items that would
increase revenues. These items – an increase related to installment sales and one for Real
Estate Investment Trusts (REITs) – were later enacted with H.R. 1180. According to recent
estimates by the Joint Committee on Taxation, the Senate-passed tax provisions of H.R. 833
would reduce revenue by $25.7 billion over 5 years.
Tax Cuts for Married Couples (H.R. 6 and S. 2346)
As noted above, House Republican leaders have stated their intention of beginning 2000
by introducing several “stand alone” tax bills that propose specific, discrete tax cuts rather a
variety of cuts as was proposed in the vetoed Taxpayer Refund and Relief Act of 1999 (H.R.
2488). The first measure that began making its way through the House is the Marriage Tax
Penalty Relief Act (H.R. 6), a bill whose scope is principally confined to a tax cut for married
couples. H.R. 6 was approved by the full House on February 10.
The bill takes the same approach to taxes paid by married couples as did H.R. 2488. The
proposal makes 3 changes: it provides a standard deduction for married couples that is twice
that of singles; it increases the beginning and end-points of the earned income tax credit’s
phaseout range; and it phases in over 6 years a doubling for married couples of the width of
the lowest (15%) tax bracket. According to Joint Tax Committee estimates, the proposal
would result in a revenue loss of $182.3 billion over 10 years. (By comparison, the total net
revenue loss estimated for H.R. 2488 was $792 billion over 10 years; President Clinton’s
proposal for married couples would reduce revenues by $45 billion.)
Treasury Secretary Lawrence Summers has stated that because of the size of the tax cut
in H.R. 6, he will recommend that the President not sign the proposal, should Congress
approve it. A White House spokesman, further, has voiced opposition to the idea of
considering tax cuts incrementally. For his part, the President has indicated that his FY2001
budget plan will include a tax cut for married couples smaller than that in H.R. 6. The plan
will propose broadening the standard deduction for couples to twice that of singles.
On March 30, the Senate Finance Committee approved a bill reducing the marriage
penalty that is estimated to reduce revenues by $247.8 billion over 10 years. The bill contains
the same basic provisions as H.R. 6, but with two additions. The bill would double the width
of the 28% tax bracket for couples, not just the 15% bracket. The bill also would make
permanent the full creditability of nonrefundable credits against the Alternative Minimum Tax
(AMT) and provides that refundable credits would not be reduced by the AMT.
CRS-5

---

IB10013
06-09-00
Proposals in the President’s FY2001 Budget
On February 7, 2000, the Clinton Administration published details of the tax and other
budget proposals the President had previously outlined in his state of the Union message. In
broad terms, the President proposes gross tax cuts totaling an estimated $350 billion over 10
years, partly offset by revenue-raising measures of $182 billion; the proposed net tax cut is
thus an estimated $168 billion over 10 years. To put the net tax cut in perspective, it would
reduce the cumulative unified budget surpluses anticipated by the Administration (on-budget
surpluses plus the social security accounts)by about 6%, would reduce expected on-budget
surpluses by 22.5%, would reduce cumulative revenue by 0.7%, and would amount to 0.1%
of projected Gross Domestic Product. In substance, the tax proposals are selective, for the
most part applying to a variety of narrow areas rather than in an across-the-board fashion.
In general, the tax cuts are aimed at particular goals and activities favored by the
Administration. Prominent areas proposed for tax relief include: married couples, retirement
saving, child care, education, long-term care, and persons covered by the minimum tax. The
largest revenue-raising measure is an increase in tobacco taxes. Other revenue-raising items
are small, narrow, and varied, and include a variety of measures aimed at what the
Administration identifies as “unwarranted” tax benefits and corporate tax shelters.
Legislation in 1999
The Taxpayer Refund and Relief Act of 1999 (H.R. 2488)
The FY2000 budget resolution Congress passed in April called for a tax cut of $792
billion over 10 years. On July 22 the House approved a plan (H.R. 2488) to cut taxes by the
$792 billion specified in the budget; the full Senate approved a tax cut bill on July 30. Like
the House bill, the Senate plan proposed to cut taxes by $792 billion, but differed in its
details. On August 4, a conference committee version of the bill was completed, and both the
House and the Senate approved the measure on August 5. However, President Clinton
vetoed the bill on September 23.
Like the House and Senate bills before it, the conference version of H.R. 2488 contained
a tax cut estimated at $792 billion over its first 10 years. A prominent feature of the
conference bill is that a number of its largest provisions -- for example, the rate reductions and
marriage penalty relief -- expire (“sunset”) after 2008. Also, in a provision taken from the
House bill, the conference bill’s rate reductions are contingent on federal debt reduction.
The centerpiece of H.R. 2488's tax cuts was an across-the-board reduction in individual
tax rates. It provided for each individual income tax rate to be reduced by one percentage
point on a phased-in basis. Thus, for example, the 15% rate was reduced to 14% in 2003 and
thereafter; the remaining rates were scheduled to be reduced in 2005 and thereafter.
Other prominent provisions of H.R. 2488 included:
! Addressing the marriage tax penalty by making the standard deduction for
couples twice that of singles and by increasing the new 14% bracket for
couples to twice that of the singles’ bracket. The bill also addressed the
CRS-6

---

IB10013
06-09-00
effect of marriage on the earned income credit by increasing the income
range over which the credit is phased out for joint returns.
! An increase in the rate of the dependent care tax credit.
! A phased-in above-the-line deduction for health insurance expenditures and
long-term care insurance.
! Expansion of tax-favored education savings accounts, including an increase
in the contribution limit and their extension to primary and secondary
education expenses.
! Reductions in capital gains tax rates: the bill cut the current 20% and 10%
rates to 18% and 8%, respectively. Assets were to be indexed for inflation
occurring after 1999.
! Along with other IRA expansions, an increase in allowable annual IRA
contribution limits to $5,000 from current law’s $2,000.

! Gradual repeal of the individual alternative minimum tax.
! Reduction of the corporate alternative minimum tax by repeal of the 90%
limit on foreign tax credits and net operating losses.
! Gradual repeal of the estate and gift tax.
! The bill permitted U.S.-based multinationals to use so-called “worldwide
allocation” of interest expense in calculating their foreign tax credits.
! The bill extended a number of expiring tax benefits for varying periods of
time.
In addition to its tax cuts, the bill contained a small number of revenue-raising
provisions. The revenue raisers were generally narrow in scope and small in size. While they
were scattered throughout the tax code, they generally would have applied to business and
investment income.
Extension of Expiring Tax Provisions (H.R. 1180, H.R. 2923, and S. 1792)
The tax code contains a number of temporary tax provisions — primarily tax benefits
that expire on specific dates. Such items have expired (or were scheduled to expire) on
numerous occasions in the past, but Congress has renewed them. Most recently, the 1998
omnibus spending bill (PL. 105-277; H.R. 4328) extended a number of the most prominent
temporary benefits. In most cases, however, the extension was for only 1 year, and several
of the provisions expired at the end of June, 1999. As noted above, H.R. 2488 would have
extended the temporary provisions, but was vetoed.
On September 24, the House Ways and Means Committee approved H.R. 2923, a bill
devoted to extending the temporary tax provisions. The Senate Finance Committee approved
an extenders bill (S. 1792) on October 20; the bill was approved by the full Senate on October
CRS-7

---

IB10013
06-09-00
29. There were differences between the Senate and Ways and Means Committee bills and the
Administration was concerned by the lack of loss-offsets. The Administration and
congressional negotiators compromise in mid-November was included as part of the
conference committee version of H.R. 1180, a bill whose other provisions related to health
benefits of the disabled. The compromise bill included $2.6 billion of revenue-increasing
provisions over 5 years, and $2.9 billion of revenue-raising provisions over 10 years but is
nonetheless expected to result in a net loss of tax revenue. The net revenue loss from the bill
as a whole is estimated by the Joint Committee on Taxation to be $15.8 billion over 5 years
and $18.4 billion over 10 years.
In general, the bill extends the research and experimentation tax credit for 5 years and
increases the credit in certain ways. It extends a number of other provisions through the end
of 2001, including applicability of nonrefundable personal tax credits to the alternative
minimum tax; the exemption of multinationals’ active financing income from Subpart F;
suspension of the 100% net income limitation for marginal oil and gas wells; the work
opportunity tax credit; the welfare to work tax credit; the exclusion of employer provided
education assistance for undergraduate courses; the tax credit for electricity produced from
closed-loop biomass (and its extension to poultry waste); the qualified zone academy bond
program; the generalized system of preferences; the tax credit for first-time homebuyers in
the District of Columbia; the special treatment of “brownfields” environmental remediation
costs; the temporary increase in rum excise tax rebated to Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin
Islands.
The House passed the bill on November 18; the Senate passed it on November 19. The
President signed the measure into law on December 17 (PL. 106-170).
For further information, see CRS Issue Brief IB95064, Expiring Tax Provisions.
A Closer Look at Selected Issues
Marriage Tax Penalties and Bonuses
Defining the married couple as a single tax unit under the federal individual income tax
conflicts with the principle of marriage neutrality. Marriage neutrality means that the tax
system should not influence the choice of individuals with regard to their marital status.
However, under the current federal income tax system, some married couples pay more
income tax than they would as two unmarried singles (a marriage tax penalty) while other
married couples pay less income tax than they would as two unmarried singles (a marriage
tax bonus). A marriage-neutral income tax is an elusive goal. Marriage neutrality conflicts
with two other concepts of equity: progressivity and equal taxation of couples with equal
incomes. Regardless of how these three concepts of equity are juggled, an income tax can
achieve any two of these goals but cannot simultaneously achieve all three.
A number of bills were introduced in the 106th Congress that tried to mitigate marriage
tax penalties. For instance, H.R. 2488, the Taxpayer Refund and Relief Act of 1999,
contained a provision that would have increased the standard deduction for a married couple
filing a joint return to twice the amount of the standard deduction for a single return, doubled
the width of the lowest income tax bracket for married couples, and raised the phase-out
CRS-8

---

IB10013
06-09-00
range of the Earned Income Tax Credit for married persons. The President vetoed H.R.
2488, but on February 10, 2000, the House approved H.R. 6, which contained the same basic
marriage provisions as H.R. 2488. Unlike the vetoed bill, however, the scope of H.R. 6 is
confined to a tax cut for married couples. On March 30, the Senate Finance Committee
approved S. 2346, a tax reduction for married couples that is somewhat broader than that in
H.R. 6.
For further information, see CRS Report RL30419, The Marriage Tax Penalty: An
Overview of the Issues; CRS Report RL30420, Marriage Tax Penalties: Legislative
Proposals in the 106th Congress; and, CRS Report RL30485, The Individual Alternative
Minimum Tax: Interaction with Marriage Penalty Relief and Other Tax Cuts.
The Estate Tax
The estate tax was enacted in 1916 as a revenue source for World War I. As with
wealth taxes before it, and like most other taxes, revenue was the primary rationale for the
tax. Why the estate tax rather than other possible sources of revenue? There were essentially
two reasons: first, the estate tax is viewed as a type of fee for the services by the government
in protecting property during lifetime, as well as a fee to cover part of the cost of probating
the estate at death. More importantly, the estate tax was chosen over other taxes for reasons
of equity and to reduce the concentration of wealth. In 1995, when the exemption was
$600,000, only 3.0% of the wealthiest decedents (69,772 of 2.3 million decedents in 1995)
left estates large enough to file a tax return. Further, due primarily to the marital deduction,
less than half of those required to file a return (31,564, or 1.4% of all estates) owed tax.
The federal estate tax is a tax on wealth and as such, it raises some of the same economic
issues as annual wealth taxes, which are economically equivalent to annual capital income
taxes. The accumulation of wealth is, in large part, the result of an individual’s decision to
postpone consumption, to save and accumulate capital during one’s life of work and
investment, and to take risks. As such the estate tax is a tax on accumulated savings imposed
at the end of one’s life. And the tax is paid out of the economy’s total supply of private
savings — reducing private sector savings and increasing government savings (i.e, tax
revenue). But an important economic question is what is the effect, if any, on the lifetime
savings behavior of individuals? Does the estate tax reduce savings rates? Does the tax
reduce the incentives to accumulate capital? Or do individuals compensate for the tax by
increasing their accumulation of pre-tax wealth such that enough after-tax wealth is
accumulated to bequeath to their heirs? Such might be the case if individuals derive utility
either from the wealth itself, or from their heirs’ (children) welfare, or both.
The estate tax is part of the overall cost of bequeathing wealth to one’s heirs. The
existence of the estate tax is believed to reduce the level of planned bequests. If so, reducing
the estate tax is likely to increase planned bequests, but according to economic theory, the
effect on savings is uncertain. The estate tax does create incentives for lifetime gift giving,
for estate planning, for substantial charitable donations, and for the establishment of trusts.
With federal marginal estate tax rates above 55%, significant resources and time may be
expended at minimizing the estate tax burden. And a relatively large estate planning industry
— accountants, lawyers, and financial advisors — is available to wealth holders to minimize
any potential estate tax burden.
CRS-9

---

IB10013
06-09-00
One economic effect — the effect on farms and small businesses — has dominated the
recent debate over the estate tax and played a key role in the estate tax cuts enacted as part
of the Taxpayer Relief Act of 1997. The estate tax is imposed on business capital and wealth
— land, equipment, stock, buildings, etc. — in addition to personal wealth. It is argued that
this takes capital out of farms and small businesses, inhibiting their transfer to heirs and
retention in the family; that the tax can cause the break-up or dissolution of family farms and
small business. A sale of the assets to or merger of the enterprise with a large competitor
could reduce market competition and inhibit economic efficiency. These effects were a
principal reason for the 1981 estate tax reductions, and have been a key impetus for most of
the recent proposals to reduce the estate tax. However, the estate tax is only one of many
possible causes for the sale of farm or business assets outside the family at death, and not
always the principal cause.
For further information, see CRS Report 98-883, The Federal Estate Tax: Economic
Issues.
The Alternative Minimum Tax for Individuals
To make sure that everyone pays at least a minimum of taxes while still preserving the
economic and social incentives in the tax code, Congress created, in 1969, what is now
known as the individual alternative minimum tax (AMT). In essence, the AMT is a tax on the
use of tax incentives and preferences and was primarily targeted at upper-income taxpayers
who were thought to overuse these preferences to reduce or eliminate their regular income
tax liabilities. However, since its inception, the value and effectiveness of the minimum tax
has routinely been the subject of congressional debate. Recently, many analysts have voiced
concern over the expected increase in the number of upper-middle income taxpayers who may
be subject to AMT coverage in the near future. This increase will occur because of the
combined effects of inflation and recent legislative changes to the regular income tax.
The structural components of the regular income tax are indexed for inflation while the
structural components of the AMT are not. Consequently, the gap between tax liabilities
under the regular income tax and the AMT will shrink over time and many taxpayers could
end up subject to the unindexed AMT or experience reductions in their nonrefundable tax
credits under the regular income tax solely as the result of inflation. The potential problems
of an indexed regular tax and an unindexed AMT have long been recognized by tax analysts.
The Joint Committee on Taxation (JCT) released estimates showing that in 1997,
approximately 605,000 taxpayers were subject to the AMT but that the number of taxpayers
subject to the AMT will increase to around 9.2 million by tax year 2007. These estimates,
however, were made prior to the passage of the Taxpayer Relief Act of 1997. When the
effects of both inflation and the 1997 legislative changes are taken into account, preliminary
estimates indicate that by 2007, the number of taxpayers falling under either the AMT or
AMT limits on their tax credits under the regular income tax will grow to almost 12 million.
In general, nonrefundable personal tax credits under the regular income tax are limited to the
amount by which a taxpayer’s regular income tax liability exceeds his tentative minimum tax.
Hence, even if a taxpayer owes no AMT, the AMT could reduce the value of his
nonrefundable personal tax credits under the regular income tax.
The child tax credit and the HOPE tax credit are the two changes contained in the 1997
act that would have the largest impact in increasing the number of taxpayers subject to the
AMT, either directly or indirectly. Many taxpayers in the upper-middle income ranges likely
CRS-10

---

IB10013
06-09-00
will see the value of these two credits reduced or eliminated because of the AMT. The fact
that the AMT is now going to affect many upper-middle income taxpayers who were not
subject to the tax in the past has prompted some calls in Congress for action to remedy the
situation. Congress did take limited action in 1998 by including a provision in the Omnibus
Consolidated and Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act (PL. 105-277) that will
mitigate part of the problems with the AMT for tax year 1998. Under this provision,
nonrefundable personal tax credits are fully allowed against a taxpayer’s regular income tax
liability for 1998 even if the credits are in excess of the amount by which the taxpayer’s
regular income tax exceeds the amount of his tentative minimum tax.
In November, 1999, Congress passed H.R. 1180 which extended (along with other
temporary provisions) the full creditability of nonrefundable credits through 2001. As noted
above, the President vetoed H.R. 1180. However, on March 30, 2000, the Senate Finance
Committee passed a bill (S. 2346) that would make permanent the full creditability of
nonrefundable credits against the AMT. The bill would also not reduce refundable credits by
the amount of a taxpayer’s AMT.
For further information, see CRS Report RL30149, The Alternative Minimum Tax for
Individuals and CRS Report RL30485, The Individual Alternative Minimum Tax: Interaction
with Marriage Penalty Relief and Other Tax Cuts.
Capital Gains
Since the enactment of the individual income tax in 1913, the appropriate taxation of
capital gains income has been a perennial topic of debate in Congress. Capital gains income
is often discussed as if it were somehow different from other forms of income. Yet, for
purposes of income taxation, capital gains income is essentially no different from any other
form of income from capital, such as interest or dividend income. A capital gain or loss is the
result of a sale or exchange of a capital asset. If the asset is sold for a higher price than its
acquisition price, then the transaction produces a capital gain. If an asset is sold for a lower
price than its acquisition price, then the transaction produces a capital loss.
Current law’s treatment of capital gains differs from what would occur under a
theoretically pure income tax. Ideally, a tax consistent with a theoretically correct measure
of income would be assessed on real (inflation-adjusted) income when that income accrues
to the taxpayer. Conversely, real losses should be deducted as they accrue to the taxpayer.
In addition, economic theory indicates that any untaxed real appreciation in the value of
capital assets given as gifts or bequests should be subject to tax at the time of transfer. Under
the current income tax, however, nominal (non-inflation adjusted) capital gains income is
taxed when it is realized (sold or exchanged) by the taxpayer. Capital losses (within certain
limits) are also deducted on a nominal basis when they are realized by the taxpayer.
Currently, the untaxed appreciation in the value of capital assets transferred at death is not
subject to tax.
Under current law, capital assets are separated into four categories. Assets that have
been held for 12 months or less are considered short-term assets. Assets that have been held
longer than 12 months are considered long-term assets. Collectibles (art work, antiques,
coins, stamps, etc.) are the third category of assets and the fourth category of capital gains
assets includes the portion of gain attributable to previously taken depreciation deductions
on section 1250 property (depreciable real estate). Short-term capital gains are taxed at
CRS-11

---

IB10013
06-09-00
regular income tax rates. Long-term capital gains are taxed at a maximum tax rate of 20%.
The tax rate is 10% for long-term gains that would have been taxed at a 15% regular tax rate.
Collectibles held longer than 12 months are taxed at 28%. The un-recaptured section 1250
gain attributable to depreciation deductions is taxed at a maximum tax rate of 25%.
Effective for taxable years beginning in 2001, assets that have been held for at least 5
years and would have been taxed at a 10% tax rate will be taxed at an 8% tax rate. For assets
which are held more than five years and whose holding period begins after December 31,
2000, the maximum tax rate will be 18% rather than 20%. Net capital losses are deductible
against up to $3,000 of ordinary income, that is, non-capital gain income. Any portion of the
net loss in excess of the $3,000 limit can be carried forward and used to offset gains in
succeeding tax years. Excess net losses can be carried forward indefinitely and without limit
on the amount of losses that can be carried forward.
Under current law, taxpayers are allowed to exclude from taxable income up to
$500,000 ($250,000 in the case of single returns) of the gain from the sale of their principal
residences. To qualify the taxpayer must have owned and occupied the residence for at least
2 of the previous 5 years prior to the date of sale. Under current law, capital gains transferred
at time of death are not subject to tax. On transfer at death, the basis of the asset (original
cost plus changes in the value due to improvements or depreciation) is stepped up to the
market value of the asset on the date of death.
For further information, see CRS Report 98-473, Individual Capital Gains Income:
Legislative History; CRS Report 96-769, Capital Gains Taxes: An Overview; and CRS
Report RL30040, Capital Gains Taxes, Innovation and Growth.
Tax Treatment of Savings
The appropriate tax treatment of saving has been one of the most prominent tax policy
debates in recent decades and will likely be so again in the 106th Congress. It subsumes such
topics as individual retirement accounts (IRAs), capital gains taxes, investment incentives, and
corporate income taxes, to list just a few of its particular incarnations. The issue of savings
has links to both economic performance and equity, which has helped make it controversial.
An increased saving rate generally increases the country’s capital stock, which in turn makes
possible higher economic growth and a higher standard of living in the future. If tax
incentives can boost saving, targeted tax cuts may thus be able to boost economic growth.
On the other hand, income from investments is a higher proportion of income at higher
income levels; tax benefits for saving thus reduce the progressivity of the tax system.
Economics suggests that the efficacy of tax incentives for saving depends heavily on how
responsive individuals’ savings rates are to changes in the rate of return to saving, after taxes.
If individuals respond to tax incentives by increasing their saving, tax benefits may be an
effective tool for increasing economic growth. On the other hand, if saving is unresponsive
to targeted tax cuts, their efficacy is questionable. Unhelpfully, economic theory provides no
clear answer and instead identifies two countervailing effects of tax incentives for saving.
One effect (known as the substitution effect) leads individuals to save more because the
aftertax rate of return has increased; a second effect (the income effect) works in the opposite
direction, because a tax cut enables an individual to reach a given savings target with a lower
savings rate.
CRS-12

---

IB10013
06-09-00
The ambiguity of economic theory in this case passes the burden of proof to empirical
evidence, and there have indeed been a plentitude of statistical studies. But taken as a group,
these studies too produce no clear answer; some find a positive and significant relationship
between tax incentives and saving — that is, they find that targeted tax cuts increase saving.
Other studies find no relationship, and still others find a negative relationship. Thus, the
impact of taxes on saving is unproved. However, even if individuals were to respond
positively to savings incentives, that does not necessarily mean incentives are good economic
policy. First, what matters for economic growth is not simply private saving but national
saving — that is, the private saving rate minus any government dissaving by means of a
budget deficit. Thus, the effect of tax cuts for saving in reducing government tax revenue
may at least partly offset any positive effect they may have on private saving. Second, even
though increased saving produces higher standards of living in the future, a tax-induced
distortion that increases saving may not actually increase economic welfare. Absent market
failures, economic theory suggests a tax is more efficient the less it changes behavior. And
if saving is unresponsive to tax changes, it may be less damaging to economic welfare than
alternative sources of tax revenue. Again, however, evidence on the responsiveness of saving
is conflicting. Indeed, this summarizes what economics has to say about tax incentives for
saving: theory and evidence on the efficacy of savings incentives is ambiguous and conflicting.
Tax benefits for saving in the current tax code are numerous. Among the most
prominent are Individual Retirement Account (IRAs), 401(k) retirement savings plans and
other qualified employer-sponsored retirement plans, life insurance policies and annuities,
qualified state tuition programs, and medical savings accounts (MSAs). In addition, the
favorable tax treatment of owner-occupied housing can be thought of as a saving incentive,
as can the reduced tax rates for capital gains under the individual income tax.
For further information, see CRS Report RL30255. Individual Retirement Accounts
(IRAs): Issues, Proposed Expansion and Universal Savings Accounts (USAs)
Tobacco Taxes
Like the Taxpayer Relief Act, the Balanced Budget Act of 1997 (the BBA; PL. 105-33)
was approved by Congress in late July 1997; and like the Taxpayer Relief Act, it was a budget
reconciliation measure, but contained primarily provisions related to entitlement spending
(e.g., food stamps, Medicare, and Medicaid). An exception was a substantial increase in the
federal excise tax on tobacco products, which was included in the spending act rather than
the tax act. Beginning in 2000, the BBA provides a 10-cent per pack increase in the federal
excise tax on cigarettes, thus raising the tax from prior law’s 24 cents per pack to 34 cents;
the act increases taxes on other tobacco products — for example, cigars, chewing tobacco,
snuff, and pipe tobacco — by the same proportion. Effective in 2002, the BBA increases the
tax by an additional 5 cents per pack, and increases the other tobacco taxes proportionally.
A tentative tobacco settlement plan negotiated between the states and the tobacco
industry, which would provide limits on future lawsuits in exchange for payments and other
restrictions on the industry, led to a number of legislative proposals in the 105th Congress,
including implementation of a tobacco settlement under federal law with a per pack fee similar
to an excise tax. The Administration also proposed to raise $65.5 billion in revenue over 5
years (without specifying the exact collection method), amounting to about 54 cents per pack.
The tobacco bill was not adopted. On November 17, 1998, the tobacco companies reached
an independent agreement with most states for payments that amount to about 35 cents per
CRS-13

---

IB10013
06-09-00
pack. President Clinton proposed a substantial increase in the cigarette tax in both his
FY2000 and FY2001 budgets.
For further information, see CRS Report 98-84, Tax Deductibility and the Proposed
Tobacco Settlement.
Fundamental Tax Reform Proposals
(Including Flat Tax Plans)
The idea of replacing our current income tax system with a “flat-rate tax” is receiving
renewed congressional interest. Although often referred to as “flat-rate taxes,” many of the
current proposals (introduced in the 104th, 105th, or 106th Congresses) go much further than
merely adopting a flat-rate tax structure. Some involve significant income tax base-
broadening while others entail changing the tax base from income to consumption. Most of
the recent tax reform proposals (the Armey, Shelby, Domenici/Nunn, English, Specter,
Lugar, Tauzin, Linder, Souder, Gramm, Faircloth, and Largent/Hutchinson plans) would
change the tax base from income to consumption. Others are not consumption tax proposals.
Representative Gephardt would keep income as the tax base but broaden the base and lower
the tax rates. Representative Crane’s proposal would levy a tax on the earned income of each
individual as a replacement for the current individual income tax, corporate income tax, and
estate and gift taxes. Representative Snowbarger’s proposal would permit each taxpayer to
choose between the current individual income tax return and an alternative individual tax
return with a flat rate. Senator Dorgan’s proposal would allow most taxpayers to choose
between the current individual tax system and his “shortcut” tax plan under which taxes
withheld would equal the employee’s tax liability.
The flat tax controversy has focused on shifting from the present system, which is
predominately an income tax system, to a consumption tax system as a way to raise the
savings rate, improve economic efficiency, and simplify the tax system. There is, however,
no conclusive empirical evidence that a consumption tax will or will not increase the personal
savings rate and consequently the level of national savings. Highly stylized life-cycle models
show that a consumption tax would cause a substantial increase in the savings rate, but these
models are controversial because of their idealized assumptions. To raise the same amount
of tax revenue, a consumption-based tax would require higher marginal tax rates than would
an income tax (since consumption is smaller than income). Distortions caused by these higher
marginal rates could offset (or even exceed) other advantages of the consumption tax. Hence,
whether an income tax system or a consumption tax system is more efficient is unknown.
Proponents of some flat tax proposals argue that integration of the current corporate and
individual income taxes as well as simple returns would result from a consumption tax. The
current income tax system is complex. The federal tax code and the federal tax regulations
are lengthy and continue to expand. However, in tax year 1996, approximately 70% of
individual taxpayers took the standard deduction, which made complexity less relevant. In
comparison to the current income tax, a flat rate would do little to reduce complexity for
most taxpayers who currently just look up their tax liability in a table. Finally, some argue
that it is “unfair” to compare the current income tax system with an uncomplicated, “pure”
consumption tax that could become complicated by the time it is enacted.
It has been argued that some flat tax proposals would reduce the balance-of-trade deficit
since imports would be taxed but the tax would be rebatable on exports. Economic theory,
CRS-14

---

IB10013
06-09-00
however, suggests that border tax adjustments have no effect on the balance-of-trade because
the balance-of-trade is a function of international capital flows; border tax adjustments would
be offset by exchange rate adjustments.
The United States is the only developed country without a broad-based consumption tax
at the national level. Other developed nations have adopted broad-based consumption taxes,
but as adjuncts rather than as replacements for their income based taxes.
For further information, see CRS Issue Brief IB95060, Flat Tax Proposals: An Overview.
CRS-15

---