Order Code IB10110
CRS Issue Brief for Congress
Received through the CRS Web
Major Tax Issues in the 108th Congress
Updated May 21, 2003
David L. Brumbaugh and Don C. Richards, Coordinators
Government and Finance Division
Congressional Research Service ˜ The Library of Congress

---

CONTENTS
SUMMARY
MOST RECENT DEVELOPMENTS
BACKGROUND AND ANALYSIS
The Economic Context
The State of the Economy
The Federal Budget
The Federal Tax Burden
Major Tax Cut Proposals
The President’s Proposal
House Bill
Senate Bill
Democratic Proposals
Selected Issues
Expiration of the 2001 Tax Act
Tax Cuts for Economic Stimulus
International Taxation
Other Possible Tax Issues
Fundamental Tax Reform
Business Taxation
Small Business Taxation
Family Tax Issues
Estate Tax
Individual Alternative Minimum Tax (AMT)
Expiring Tax Provisions
Energy Taxation
Pension Tax Policy
Tax Policy and Health Insurance
Internet Taxation
Internal Revenue Service (IRS) Oversight
Charitable Contributions

---

IB10110
05-21-03
Major Tax Issues in the 108th Congress
SUMMARY
Tax policy received considerable
opponents objected to the cuts’ size and
attention throughout the 107th Congress, but
composition, and the bills were not passed by
the context of the policy debate changed
the Senate. The stimulus measure that was
substantially over 2001-2002. At the outset of
ultimately enacted in March 2002 (the Job
2001, surpluses were projected. Politically,
Creation and Worker Assistance Act; P.L.
both chambers of Congress had Republican
107-147), was smaller than those initially
majorities. An important part of newly
passed by the House. Its principal elements
elected President Bush’s election campaign
were temporary expensing and depreciation
was a proposed large tax cut. Supporters of
benefits for business, more favorable
the cuts argued that a part of projected budget
treatment of business losses, tax incentives to
surpluses should be returned to taxpayers,
develop areas damaged by terrorism, and
which, they argued, would also help steer the
extension of a set of temporary tax benefits.
slowing economy away from recession. Tax
cut opponents argued that long-run budgetary
In 2003, with Republicans again in the
considerations and the looming retirement of
Senate majority, the debate over a possible tax
the baby-boom generation made a large tax
cut resumed. President Bush’s FY2004
cut imprudent and maintained that the
budget proposed a set of tax cuts amounting to
proposal would favor high-income taxpayers.
an estimated $1.57 trillion over 2003-2013,
including a stimulus plan amounting to $726
In May 2001, Congress passed a sizeable
billion over ten years. Congress approved a
10-year tax cut as the $1.35 trillion Economic
budget resolution (H.Con.Res. 95) calling for
Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act
reconciliation legislation containing up to
(EGTRRA; P.L. 107-16). The Act’s principal
$550 billion in tax cuts over ten years.
provisions reduced individual income tax
Indications are, however, that procedural rules
rates, phased out the estate tax, provided tax
in the Senate may complicate enactment of tax
cuts for married couples, and increased the
cuts exceeding $350 billion.
per-child tax credit. To comply with Senate
budget rules, the tax cuts were scheduled to
On May 9, the House approved H.R. 2,
expire at the end of 2010.
the Jobs and Growth Tax Act, containing an
estimated $550 billion in tax cuts over the
By the fall of 2001, the context of the tax
period 2003-2013. The cuts include an
debate had changed. Politically, Democrats
acceleration of several cuts for individuals
had assumed control of the Senate.
scheduled for phase in by EGTRRA, a
Economically, a recession was recognized as
reduction in tax rates for capital gains and
having begun, and the weakened economy —
dividends, and investment incentives for
along with EGTRRA’s tax cuts — diminished
businesses. On May 8, the Senate Finance
budget surplus projections. The attacks of
Committee approved a tax cut bill containing
September 11 added to uncertainty about the
$422 billion in tax cuts over FY2003-FY2013,
economy. The new atmosphere led some
$20 billion in state fiscal aid, and $90 billion
policymakers to call for new tax cuts that
in revenue-raising offsets, for a net tax
would provide economic stimulus, and the
cut/outlay increase of $350 billion. The full
House passed tax-cut bills in both October and
Senate approved an amended version of the
December. However, the measures’
bill on May 15.
Congressional Research Service ˜ The Library of Congress

---

IB10110
05-21-03
MOST RECENT DEVELOPMENTS
The tax policy debate in the first part of 2003 has focused on possible tax cuts. In
February, the Administration included a set of tax cut proposals with its budget plan; the
proposals would reduce taxes by an estimated $1.57 trillion from FY2003 through FY2013.
The proposals include a stimulus package, some additional tax cuts, and permanent extension
of the 2001 tax cut. In April, Congress approved a budget resolution (H.Con.Res. 95) calling
for reconciliation legislation containing up to $550 billion in tax cuts over ten years.
Indications are, however, that procedural rules in the Senate may complicate enactment of
tax cut legislation exceeding $350 billion. On May 6, the House Ways and Means
Committee approved H.R. 2, the Jobs and Growth Tax Act, containing an estimated $550
billion in tax cuts over the period 2003-2013. The full House approved the bill on May 9.
On May 8, the Senate Finance Committee approved S. 2 (later replaced by S. 1054), a
package of tax cuts and revenue-raising measures that would reduce taxes (and increase
outlays) by a net amount of $350 billion over 2003-2013. The full Senate approved a
modified version of the bill (now H.R. 2, amended) on May 15.
For primers on subject specific tax legislation in the 108th Congress, see CRS Electronic
Briefing Book, Taxation, at [http://www.congress.gov/brbk/html/ebtxr1.shtml]. For details
on the legislative developments of current tax-related legislation, see CRS Report RS21386,
Fact Sheet on Congressional Tax Proposals in the 108th Congress, by Don C. Richards.
BACKGROUND AND ANALYSIS
The Economic Context
Tax policy is frequently considered by policymakers as a tool for boosting economic
performance in various ways, and the likely economic effects of tax policy are often hotly
debated. A brief overview of the current economic context is thus a good starting point for
looking at tax issues facing the current Congress. The overview of major tax issues begins
by describing three aspects of the economic context in which the tax policy debate during the
108th Congress is likely to occur: the general state of the U.S. economy; the position of the
federal budget; and the level of taxes in the United States.

The State of the Economy
At the outset of 2001, the U.S. economy had recorded nine consecutive years of
continuous expansion. Thus, consideration of tax policy as a counter-cyclical device to
stimulate the economy out of recession had not occurred in recent years. However, in late
2000 the economy began to show signs of weakness, and fiscal stimulus was one of the
arguments the Bush Administration advanced in support of the large tax cut that was enacted
in June 2001.1 As 2001 progressed, there were increasing signs of economic weakness, and
1 Mark Felsthenthal, “Bush Cites Economic Concerns As Justification for Tax Cut Plans,” BNA
Daily Tax Report, Dec. 18, 2000, p. G-4.
CRS-1

---

IB10110
05-21-03
in November, the National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER; the organization that
tracks business cycles) determined that a recession had begun in March of that year.
Economic data now show that the economy contracted during the first three quarters
of 2001 before registering positive growth again in the fourth quarter of that year and in all
four quarters of 2002. (See NBER’s January 13 press release, available on the NBER Web
site at [http://nber.org/cycles/recessions.html].) However, employment continues to decline
and the NBER has not yet announced an ending date for the recession. If the recession that
began in 2001 has indeed ended, it will have been of about average severity and duration for
economic recessions of the post-World War II era.2
The economy registered positive growth in all four quarters of 2002. In November
congressional testimony Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan termed the U.S.
economy “remarkably resilient” and characterized U.S. economic growth over the first part
of the year as “well maintained” and “respectable.” Nonetheless, he observed several forces
placing a drag on the economy: a long adjustment in capital spending; the “fallout” from
revelations of corporate malfeasance; declines in the stock market; and increased
“geopolitical risks.” Mr. Greenspan further stated that evidence suggested the economy had
hit what he termed a “soft patch” as a likely result of these factors. In February 2003
testimony before the Senate Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs, Chairman
Greenspan observed that economic growth slowed markedly in the last quarter of 2002 and
termed the pattern “choppy.” (Testimony available on the Federal Reserve Web site at
[http://www.federalreserve.gov/boarddocs/testimony/2002/20021113/default.htm].) For his
part, President Bush, in November 2002, stated that he was not satisfied with the economy’s
performance and characterized it as merely “bumping along.”3
For further reading, see CRS Report RL31237, The Current Economic Recession: How
Long, How Deep, and How Different from the Past, by Marc Labonte and Gail Makinen.
The Federal Budget
After decades of continuous deficits, the federal budget moved into a state of surplus
in fiscal years 1998 through 2001 — a development that was the result of both deliberate
deficit-reducing policies and a long period of economic growth that helped boost tax receipts.
At the outset of the 107th Congress in January 2001, the budget outlook was bright despite
mounting evidence of an economic slowdown. The Congressional Budget Office (CBO)
predicted large and growing budget surpluses for the next 10 years.4
As the 107th Congress progressed, however, the budget picture changed markedly.
Indeed, the budget situation worsened with almost each successive budget report. In August,
2001, CBO reduced its surplus projections as a result of the tax cut enacted in June of that
2 CRS Report RL31237, The Current Economic Recession: How Long, How Deep, and How
Different from the Past, by Marc Labonte and Gail Makinen, p. 29.
3 Nancy Ognanovich and Brett Ferguson, “Bush Reiterates Interest in Stimulus To Address Sluggish
U.S. Economy,” BNA Daily Tax Report, Nov. 14, 2002, p. G-9.
4 U.S. Congressional Budget Office, The Budget and Economic Outlook: Fiscal Years 2002-2011
(Washington: GPO, 2001), p. 51.
CRS-2

---

IB10110
05-21-03
year and as a result of economic weakness.5 In January 2002, CBO reduced its projected 10-
year surpluses further and predicted that the federal budget would move into deficit in
FY2002 and FY2003 before returning to surplus.6 And in August, CBO again revised its
projections downwards, predicting deficits in FY2002 - FY2005 and reducing estimates of
surpluses in the out years.7 The changed projections were the result of enacted legislation,
changed economic conditions, and changes in the make-up of aggregate income. In its
January 2003 report, CBO revised its budget projections slightly downwards again.
The longer-term budget situation is a concern to many policymakers, chiefly because
of demographic pressures posed by an aging population that will begin with the retirement
of the “baby boom” generation and that will continue afterwards. Because of the expected
growing ratio of retirees to wage earners, the gap between Social Security and Medicare
revenues and outlays will increase substantially in future years under current tax and
entitlement laws. The Congressional Budget Office has estimated that beginning in 2010,
outlays under the Social Security and Medicare programs will exceed the programs’ tax
revenues and Medicare premiums. (This estimate excludes trust fund revenues consisting
of transfers from other Treasury Department accounts.) By 2040, outlays under the programs
are projected to reach 12.1% of gross domestic product (GDP) while revenues are expected
to be about 7%.8
The post-war reconstruction in Iraq adds uncertainty to the budgetary outlook: how
much will it cost and how much will it add to the budget deficit. Both the military and post-
military operations will certainly have an impact on outlays by increasing defense
expenditures, although the cost appears uncertain. The Administration requested $74.7
billion to finance the war (and additional homeland security). On April 12, Congress
approved a $78.49 supplemental appropriations, largely to support operations in Iraq. On
April 18, the President signed the legislation (P.L. 108-11).
For additional information, see CRS Report RL31784, The Budget for Fiscal Year 2004,
by Philip D. Winters, CRS Report RL31778, The Size and Scope of Government: Past,
Present, and Projected Government Revenues and Expenditures, by Don C. Richards, and
CRS Report RL31176: Financing Issues and Economic Effects of Past American Wars, by
Mark Labonte.
5 U.S. Congressional Budget Office, The Budget and Economic Outlook: An Update (Washington:
GPO, Aug. 2001), p. ix.
6 U.S. Congressional Budget Office, The Budget and Economic Outlook: Fiscal Years 2003-2012
(Washington: GPO, 2002), p. xiv.
7 U.S. Congressional Budget Office, The Budget and Economic Outlook: An Update (Washington:
GPO, Aug. 2002), p. x.
8 U.S. Congressional Budget Office, The Impact of Social Security and Medicare on the Federal
Budget, (Washington: November 14, 2002). Posted on the Congressional Budget Office’s Web site
at [http://www.cbo.gov/showdoc.cfm?index=3982&sequence=0].
CRS-3

---

IB10110
05-21-03
The Federal Tax Burden9
At the outset of the preceding (107th) Congress, some pointed to the historically high
aggregate level of federal taxes compared to the economy as evidence of the desirability of
a tax cut. As a percentage of GDP, federal taxes were at their highest level since the end of
World War II in FY2000, at 20.8%, before falling to 19.8% in FY2001 and 18.0% in
FY2002. These levels are not a dramatic departure from the past; 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. According to CBO, the increased level of tax revenues prior to FY2002
was due to economic growth, an increase in capital gains realizations (for example, from
sales of appreciated stock) and increases in real incomes. The decline in FY2002 revenues
was due to slower economic growth, declines in capital gains realizations, and slower
growth of very high incomes.
Although 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, despite legislated tax cuts.
While the overall level of federal taxes has been relatively stable, its composition has
shifted. In particular, the share of federal receipts made up by corporate income taxes and
excise taxes has declined, falling from 30% and 18%, respectively, of total receipts in
FY1946 to 10.4% and 3.4% in FY2002. The share comprised of Social Security taxes has
increased over the same years from 7.9% to 36.4%, and is now the second largest source of
federal revenues after individual income taxes.
For further information, see CRS Report RS20087, The Level of Taxes in the United
States, 1940-2002, by David L. Brumbaugh and Don C. Richards.
Major Tax Cut Proposals
The President’s Proposal. On January 7, 2003, President Bush announced the
details of a new tax cut proposal intended to provide a stimulus to the economy. On
February 3 the Administration released FY2004 budget documents containing a more
detailed explanation of the stimulus package, a set of additional tax cut proposals
characterized as “tax incentives,” and a proposal to make the expiring provisions of the 2001
tax cut permanent [http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/fy2004/index.html]. According
to estimates by the Joint Committee on Taxation, the revenue reduction from the “economic
stimulus” elements of the plan would be $726 billion over FY2003-FY2013 and $114 billion
for FY2004, its first full year. The total estimated cost of all the components of the plan
would be an estimated $1.575 trillion. Based on CBO baseline budget projections of
revenues, this amounts to a reduction in revenues of about 5.3% over that period. However,
9 Authored by Gregg A. Esenwein, Specialist in Public Finance, Government and Finance Division.
CRS-4

---

IB10110
05-21-03
the revenue losses estimated for last few years in the “estimating window” under the
Administration’s current proposal are substantially larger than for the first few years — a
reflection of the impact of making EGTRRA permanent instead of allowing it to expire after
2010. The tax cut over the last five years of the “estimating window” (i.e., over FY2009-
FY2013) would be an estimated $1.046 trillion, or 6.5% of anticipated revenue.
The principal tax proposals in the President’s budget are as follows:
! Acceleration of several tax cuts for individuals that were enacted by
EGTRRA in 2001 but that were scheduled to be phased in gradually.
Specifically, the proposals would make the reduction in statutory tax rates
for individuals fully effective on January 1, 2003; the rate reductions were
initially scheduled to be phased in over the period 2001-2006. The proposal
would also accelerate a broadening of the 10% rate bracket that is currently
not scheduled to occur until 2008. Another part of the proposal would move
up EGTRRA’s scheduled tax cuts for married couples to 2003; under
current law, the tax cuts are not scheduled to be fully effective until 2009.
The President’s proposal would also increase the per-child tax credit to
$1,000 from $600 in 2003. The full increase is not scheduled to occur until
2010 under EGTRRA’s initial provisions.
! The plan would move towards “integration” of the taxation of corporate-
source income by eliminating individual income taxes on dividends and by
permitting a “step up in basis” for capital gains resulting from retained
earnings.
! The proposal would increase the so-called “expensing” allowance for
business investment in equipment to $75,000 from current law’s $25,000
and would index the amount for inflation.
Each of these proposals were included in the stimulus package the President outlined
in January. Prominent among the additional tax cuts proposed with the February budget —
aside from making EGTRRA’s tax cuts permanent — are the following items:

! two new tax-favored savings vehicles that would replace Individual
Retirement Accounts (IRAs) and that would have less binding restrictions
than current law’s IRAs;

! a set of new tax incentives for charitable giving, including a deduction for
non-itemizers;

! a number of tax benefits related to health care, including a long-term care
insurance deduction for non-itemizers;


! a set of tax benefits related to energy production and conservation; and

! permanent extension of current law’s temporary research
and
experimentation tax credit.
CRS-5

---

IB10110
05-21-03
According to Joint Committee on Taxation estimates, the acceleration of EGTRRA’s
tax cuts would reduce revenue by $263.9 billion over FY2003-FY2013, accounting for 17%
of the total estimated tax cut over that period. The estimated revenue loss from the tax
exclusion for dividends is $395.8 billion, or 25% of the total tax cut. The estimated revenue
loss from rescinding EGTRRA’s expiration is $624.2 billion, or 40% of the total.
For additional information on the President’s tax proposal, see CRS Report RS21420,
President Bush’s 2003 Tax Cut Proposal: A Brief Overview, by David L. Brumbaugh; and
CRS Report RL31907, Tax Cut Bills in 2003: A Comparison, by David L. Brumbaugh and
Don C. Richards.
House Bill. On May 6, the House Committee on Ways and Means approved H.R. 2,
the Jobs and Growth Tax Act of 2003. The full House approved the bill on May 9. The Joint
Committee on Taxation estimates the bill would reduce revenues by $550 billion over the
period FY2003 through FY2013. The bill is similar in many respects to the economic
stimulus proposed by President Bush with his FY2004 budget, including the acceleration of
several of the tax cuts initially included in EGTRRA. Among the principal differences
between the President’s proposal and H.R. 2 are the partial rather than full elimination of
individual taxes on corporate dividends and capital gains and the expiration of several of the
bill’s tax cuts at the end of 2006. Although the total revenue reduction included in H.R. 2
is within the reconciliation instructions provided to the House Committee on Ways and
Means, it is larger than the $350 billion tax cut in reconciliation instructions given to the
Senate Finance Committee by the FY2004 budget resolution (H.Con.Res. 95).
The principal provisions of H.R. 2 are as follows:
! reduction of the tax rate for capital gains and dividends to 15% and 5%,
depending on a taxpayer’s income level;
! an acceleration to 2003 of several tax cuts scheduled to be phased in under
the tax cut enacted in 2001, including the scheduled reduction in marginal
tax rates, the tax cut for married couples, the widening of the 10% tax-rate
bracket, and the increase in the child tax credit;
! a temporary increase to $100,000 from $25,000 of the “expensing” benefit
for small business investment;
! temporary allowance of a 50% depreciation “bonus” for business investment
in machines and equipment;
! extension to losses occurring in 2003, 2004, and 2005 of the five-year loss
carryback provision enacted in 2002; and
! a $7,500 ($15,000 for couples) increase in the alternative minimum tax
(AMT) exemption amount.
For additional information on the House bill, see CRS Report RL31904, The Jobs and
Growth Tax Act of 2003 (H.R. 2): A Brief Overview of the House Tax-Cut Bill, by David L.
CRS-6

---

IB10110
05-21-03
Brumbaugh, and CRS Report RL31907, Tax Cut Bills in 2003: A Comparison, by David L.
Brumbaugh and Don C. Richards.
Senate Bill. On May 15, the Senate incorporated S. 1054, Jobs and Growth Tax
Relief Reconciliation Act of 2003, into H.R. 2 and approved the package as amended.
Similar to the House version of H.R. 2 and the President’s proposal, the Senate’s version
includes an acceleration of many of the 2001 tax cuts (including rates, marriage penalties,
child credits, and expansion of rate brackets) enacted in EGTRRA. One of the major
differences between the Senate’s version, the House bill, and the President’s proposal is the
taxation of dividends. The Senate approved legislation that would reduce the taxation of
dividends for foreign and domestic corporations by 50% in 2003 and provide a 100%
exclusion in 2004, 2005, and 2006. The Senate proposal also establishes a fund of $20
billion for federal aid to state and local governments. In order to comply with the directions
within the budget reconciliation (H.Con.Res. 95), a series of revenue offsets was also
included in the bill and result to keep the total estimated impact from FY2003 through
FY2013 to $350 billion.
The bill’s principal tax cut provisions are as follows:
! acceleration of EGTRRA’s phased-in tax cuts for individuals to 2003. As
with the President’s and the Ways and Means proposal, these include the
reduction in marginal tax rates, increase in the child credit, expansion of the
10% tax bracket, and a temporary expansion in the standard deduction and
15% bracket for married couples. (The acceleration of the increase in the
standard deduction and 15% bracket for married couples is limited to 2003
and 2004.)
! An increase in the expensing benefit for small business investment from
current law’s $25,000 to $100,000 and an increase in the provision’s phase-
out threshold to $400,000 from $200,000. These increases would expire
after 2007.
! An increase in the AMT exemption to $60,500 for couples and $41,500 for
singles. The amounts would apply for 2003 - 2005, then revert to current
law. Under current law, the exemptions are $49,000 and $35,750 but are
scheduled to fall to $45,000 and $33,750 for 2005 and thereafter.
! A 50% reduction in the taxes on dividends from both foreign and domestic
corporations in 2003. In 2004, 2005, and 2006, the proposal would exclude
100% of the tax on dividends. The tax reduction would expire in 2007.
The bill’s principal revenue-raising items include a set of provisions aimed at restricting
tax shelters generally, including a provision clarifying the “economic substance” doctrine
that courts have applied to tax shelters. (This doctrine generally denies tax benefits with
respect to transactions that do not change a taxpayer’s economic position in a substantive
way.) The bill’s largest single revenue-raising item is a proposed repeal of the foreign earned
income exclusion provided by Section 911 of the tax code. Under current law, U.S. citizens
residing abroad are permitted to exclude up to $80,000 of income from foreign employment
along with a certain amount of housing costs. The Senate bill would repeal the exclusion.
CRS-7

---

IB10110
05-21-03
For additional information on the Senate Finance Committee bill, see CRS Report
RL31907, Tax Cut Bills in 2003: A Comparison, by David L. Brumbaugh and Don C.
Richards.
Democratic Proposals. On May 6, Senate Minority Leader Daschle announced a
tax cut proposal as an update to a plan he proposed in January. The anticipated total cost of
the plan is $125 billion in 2003 and $152 billion over 11 years. The proposal includes:
! an immediate $300 tax cut for each adult and up to two children per family,
! expanded standard deduction for married couples and earned income tax
credit,
! an increase in the child tax credit (an additional $100 in 2003, for a total of
$700 and another $100 in 2004, for a total of $800),
! an increase in the equipment depreciation allowance from 30% to 50% in
2003,
! an increase the amount of equipment that can be expensed for small
businesses from $25,000 to $75,000, and
! tax credits for health insurance premiums for small businesses and for
Internet infrastructure.
In addition to these tax-related components, the plan would provide $40 billion in
assistance to state and local governments and extend unemployment benefits.
On May 7, House Democratic leaders outlined a tax cut proposal they stated would
reduce taxes by $58 billion in 2003 and 2004 and by $106 billion over 11 years.10 Some of
the components are similar to the provisions offered by Senator Daschle. Among the plan’s
principal elements are the following:
! an increase in the child tax credit to $800 per child (under current law the
child tax credit is $600 per child for 2001 through 2004);
! acceleration of the expansion of the 10% tax rate bracket and the marriage
penalty relief (expansion of the 15% rate bracket for married couples filing
jointly and an increase in the basic standard deduction amount for joint
returns);
! an increase in the depreciation “bonus” provided by the tax stimulus
package enacted in March 2002 with the Job Creation and Worker
Assistance Act of 2002 (P.L. 107-147). Under the 2002 Act, firms can
claim a first-year depreciation deduction equal to 30% of the cost of new
10 The proposal is described on the Democrat’s side of the House Budget Committee’s Web site:
[http://www.house.gov/budget_democrats/analyses/econ_stimulus/dem_jobs_plan_may03.pdf].
CRS-8

---

IB10110
05-21-03
equipment investments made in 2002-2004. The House Democratic
proposal would increase the depreciation bonus to 50% for the next 12
months before returning to 30% for the balance of 2004;
! an increase in the expensing benefit to $75,000, from the current law’s
$25,000, for equipment investment made by small businesses through 2004.
Further, the proposal includes $177 billion in revenue offsets during FY2003 through
FY2013 in order to pay for the proposed tax reductions previously outlined. Offsets
specifically include closing tax shelters and freezing the top-bracket rates, which are
currently scheduled to decline under current law.
Non-tax elements of the proposal include an extension of unemployment benefits for
26 weeks and a $44 billion package of assistance to state and local governments, $18 billion
of which is directed to address areas including Medicaid.
Selected Issues
Although predicting a likely tax agenda is full of uncertainty, the following issues have
been mentioned by policymakers and analysts as likely legislative topics in 2003 tax agenda.
Expiration of the 2001 Tax Act
The Economic Growth and Tax Relief and Reconciliation Act of 2001 (EGTRRA)
provided a substantial tax cut that is scheduled to be phased in over the 10 years following
its enactment. The Act’s most prominent provisions are a reduction in individual income tax
rates, tax cuts for married couples, phase-out of the estate tax, a larger per-child tax credit,
education tax benefits, and tax cuts for Individual Retirement Accounts and pensions. The
estimated size of the scheduled tax cut is $1.35 trillion over fiscal years 2001 - 2011.
However, a Senate procedural rule, the “Byrd rule,” provides that a point of order can
be raised against any provision of budget reconciliation bill that is “extraneous” to the budget
reconciliation legislation. Included among the several types of provisions the Byrd rule
defines as extraneous are those that would increase the budget deficit (or reduce the budget
surplus) for a fiscal year beyond that covered by the reconciliation measure being
considered. To avoid application of the Byrd rule, EGTRRA contains language providing
for the expiration of its provisions at the end of calendar year 2010.
During 2002, the House passed a number of bills that would have made some or all of
EGTRRA’s tax cuts permanent. H.R. 586, approved by the House in April, would have
repealed all of EGTRRA’s sunset provisions. H.R. 2143, H.R. 4019, and H.R. 4931 were
passed in June and would have (respectively) made EGTRRA’s estate tax repeal, marriage
penalty benefits, and retirement and pension tax cuts permanent. The Senate did not adopt
the bills.
CRS-9

---

IB10110
05-21-03
Tax Cuts for Economic Stimulus
Consideration of a tax cut designed to stimulate the economy has occupied the attention
of policymakers in Congress and elsewhere for more than a year. Following the terrorist
attacks of September 11 and amid signs of continued economic weakness, the House passed
a tax cut bill (H.R. 3090) in October 2001, whose stated goal was economic stimulus. The
bill would have reduced revenue by an estimated $99.5 trillion in FY2002 and consisted of
a mix of business tax cuts and tax reductions for individuals. The Senate, however, did not
approve the tax cut, and the House in December passed a scaled-back version of the proposal
as H.R. 3529. The Senate again did not approve the House-passed tax cut, and in early
March 2002, both chambers adopted a stimulus tax-cut (the Job Creation and Worker
Assistance Act; P.L. 107-147) as a substantially pared-down version of H.R. 3090. The bill
was estimated to reduce tax revenue by $51 billion in FY2002 and by $94 billion over its
first 5 years. Its principal elements are an “expensing” benefit for business investment that
expires after 3 years; more favorable treatment of business losses (as measured by the tax
code; so called “net operating losses”); a package of tax incentives designed to stimulate
development in areas subject to terrorist attacks; extension of a set of temporary tax benefits;
and a 13-week extension of unemployment benefits.
A tax cut for economic stimulus appears likely to be high on the congressional tax
agenda in 2003. As described more fully below, President Bush proposed a stimulus package
in January 2003, while some Democratic members of Congress have proposed smaller,
temporary cuts. Some policymakers, however, remain skeptical of the need for a stimulative
tax cut. Federal Reserve Board chairman Alan Greenspan, in February 2003 congressional
testimony, suggested that a stimulus fiscal-policy package is not needed (BNA Daily Tax
Report, February 12, 2003, p. G-8). In addition, many economists question the efficacy of
stimulative tax cuts in general, believing that time lags and adjustments in the international
economy dilute much of their impact. Opponents of tax cuts also emphasize the risk such
cuts pose to the federal budget, which (as described above) already faces severe long-term
pressures.11
Proponents of the need for additional stimulus have generally focused on the economy’s
sluggish employment performance. The Administration’s “fact sheet” on the President’s
January 2003 stimulus proposal states that “this economy is not creating enough jobs”
[http://www.whitehouse.gov/infocus/economy/index.html]. Proponents of a stimulus
package have also minimized the deleterious impact of larger budget deficits on the economy
arguing, for example, that integrated world capital market reduces the impact of the budget
deficit on interest rates.12
For further reading see CRS Report RS21126, Tax Cuts and Economic Stimulus: How
Effective Are the Alternatives?, by Jane G. Gravelle and CRS Report RL30839, Tax Cuts,
the Business Cycle, and Economic Growth: A Macroeconomic Analysis, by Marc Labonte
and Gail Makinen.
11 Patti Mohr, “Policy Wonks Form Basis for Tax Cut vs. Deficit Debate,” Tax Notes, Dec. 23, 2002,
p. 1505.
12 Mohr, “Policy Wonks Form Basis for Tax Cut vs. Deficit Debate,” p. 1505.
CRS-10

---

IB10110
05-21-03
International Taxation
The U.S. economy is increasingly open, in terms of both trade and investment flows;
the openness has helped make international tax issues among the most prominent tax
questions Congress has faced in recent years. Specific international tax issues are numerous
and include whether to reform the U.S. system by moving to a “territorial” system that
exempts foreign-source income from U.S. tax; whether to adopt more incremental tax cuts
for U.S. firms in order to help them compete internationally; how to resolve the export tax
benefit controversy with the European Union (EU) over the U.S. extraterritorial income
(ETI) tax benefit for exports; whether to adopt measures designed to curb corporate
“expatriations” or “inversions” where firms reincorporate abroad to save taxes; whether and
to what extent to cooperate with foreign governments in reducing international tax evasion
and avoidance; and how the Internal Revenue Service should proceed in reducing U.S. tax
evaders that use offshore tax havens.
At least one of these issues, the ETI controversy, is time sensitive. The EU has been
authorized by the World Trade Organization (WTO) to impose retaliatory tariffs on U.S.
products. Thus, ETI will likely be considered during the 108th Congress and may be the
occasion for a broader policy debate on international taxation in general. The origins of the
ETI controversy stretch back more than 30 years to enactment in 1971 of the Domestic
International Sales Corporation (DISC) export tax benefit. European countries complained
that DISC was an export subsidy, and as such, it violated the General Agreement on Tariffs
and Trade (GATT, the WTO’s predecessor). In 1984, the United States attempted to remedy
the situation by replacing DISC with a new export tax benefit, the Foreign Sales Corporation
(FSC) provisions. However, in 1997, the European Union began proceedings against FSC
under the new WTO agreements. Several WTO panel rulings concluded that FSC, like DISC
before it, was a prohibited export subsidy. In 2000, the United States again attempted to
revamp its export tax benefit with a WTO-compatible provision, in this case, ETI. However,
WTO panels again supported the EU position, and in 2002, the WTO ruled that the EU can
impose up to $4 billion in retaliatory tariffs against U.S. products. EU officials have stated
that the tariffs will not be imposed as long as the United States is seen to be making progress
on making its export tax provisions WTO-compatible.
In July 2002, Chairman Thomas of the House Ways and Means Committee introduced
H.R. 5095, a broad international tax bill that addressed the ETI controversy by proposing
repeal of the export benefit. The bill also proposed to promote U.S. competitiveness by
cutting taxes on U.S. multinational firms in a variety of other ways. Congress did not take
action on the measure before it adjourned, in part due to opposition from policymakers who
favor attempting to negotiate with the EU. In 2003, Representative Crane introduced H.R.
1769, which would phase out ETI while phasing in a tax deduction for firms’ domestic
production.
For further information, see CRS Report RS20746, Export Tax Benefits and the WTO:
Foreign Sales Corporations and the Extraterritorial Replacement Provisions, by David L.
Brumbaugh and CRS Report RL31717, U.S. Taxation of Overseas Investment and Income:
Background and Issues in 2003, by David L. Brumbaugh.
CRS-11

---

IB10110
05-21-03
Other Possible Tax Issues
Other particular tax issues that might become prominent in the 108th Congress include
the following items.
Fundamental Tax Reform. Congress actively considered fundamental tax reform
— for example, shifting from an income to a consumption tax — in the mid-1990s, but such
legislation never progressed beyond the committee level. Administration officials have
recently indicated they are considering fundamental tax reform as a proposal for long-run tax
policy, although it would be proposed apart from any stimulus package. In past Congresses,
a number of Members introduced legislation that would adopt fundamental tax reform,
suggesting congressional interest in the topic. For further information, see CRS Issue Brief
IB95060, Flat Tax Proposals and Fundamental Tax Reform: An Overview, by James
Bickley.
Business Taxation. The stimulus tax cut that Congress approved in March 2002
contained several tax cuts for business. However, these were temporary and scaled-back
from the business tax cuts passed by the House (but not the Senate) in earlier versions of the
stimulus package. In addition, participants in President Bush’s August 2002 economic
summit proposed eliminating the double-taxation of corporate dividends as a desirable
reform for business taxation, a type of reform known among tax professionals as tax
integration. Against this background, there are indications that tax cuts for business and
investment will be a part of tax-cut legislation in 2003. Both President Bush’s 2003 tax cut
proposal and the plans taking shape in Congress contain business tax cuts as important
components. For further information, see CRS Report RL31597, The Taxation of Dividend
Income: An Overview and Economic Analysis of the Issues, by Gregg Esenwein and Jane
Gravelle and CRS Report RL31782, The Effect of the President’s Dividend Relief Proposal
on Corporate Tax Subsidies, by Gregg Esenwein and Jane Gravelle.
Small Business Taxation. Taxation of small business is a continuing concern to
Congress, and it is not likely that the 108th Congress will be an exception. Possible topics
for consideration may be tax simplification, reform of the Subchapter S rules for taxing
closely-held businesses, and enactment of investment incentives. Among the investment
incentives that have been considered for inclusion in 2003 tax-cut legislation is an increase
in the “expensing” allowance for small business investment. For further information, see
CRS Report RL31052, Small Business Tax Relief: Selected Economic Policy Issues for the
107th Congress, by Gary Guenther.
Family Tax Issues. Several family tax issues may be debated in the 108th Congress.
For example, the earned income tax credit for low-income families has been suggested as a
focus of simplification efforts and the individual alternative minimum tax’s impact on
families has been a focus of concern. In addition, several prominent family-oriented tax
provisions were part of the EGTRRA’s tax cut, including benefits for married couples and
the child tax credit. Thus, it appears likely that family tax issues will be an important part
of the debate over making EGTRRA’s tax cuts permanent. For further information, see CRS
Report RS20988, The Child Tax Credit After the Economic Growth and Tax Relief
Reconciliation Act of 2001, by Gregg Esenwein.
CRS-12

---

IB10110
05-21-03
Estate Tax. One of the largest and most debated aspects of EGTRRA was its phase-
out and repeal of the estate tax. Given the liveliness of the estate tax debate, and in view of
its place as a fundamental part of the tax structure (albeit a small one), the estate tax may
become a prominent part of the tax policy debate, apart from its place in the debate over
making EGTRRA permanent. For further information, see CRS Report RL30600, Estate
and Gift Taxes: Economic Issues, by Jane Gravelle.
Individual Alternative Minimum Tax (AMT). Under current law, an individual
pays either the regular tax or AMT, whichever is larger. (The two will ordinarily differ
because the AMT has lower rates but fewer and smaller tax benefits than the regular tax.)
The individual alternative minimum tax presents a looming tax issue because key provisions
of the AMT are not indexed for inflation, and an increasing number of individuals will find
themselves subject to the AMT. In addition, tax benefits enacted by EGTRRA and other acts
have placed an increased number of persons at or near AMT status. The March 2002
stimulus package included a provision allowing personal credits to offset a person’s AMT,
but that provision is scheduled to expire at the end of 2003, adding to the time-sensitive
nature of the AMT issue and increasing the possibility that Congress will address it as an
issue in the coming year.
Expiring Tax Provisions. The 2002 stimulus package extended a number of
temporary tax provisions but extended many of the most prominent and popular of these
“extenders” only through 2003. Some examples are the AMT treatment of personal tax
credits (see the above issue), the work incentive tax credit, the welfare to work credit, and
suspension of a limit on percentage depletion for oil wells. Given the time-sensitive nature
of these provisions, Congress may address them in 2003, although it has allowed them to
expire for brief periods in the past before retroactively extending the provisions.
Energy Taxation. In 2002, both the House and Senate passed legislation (H.R. 4)
containing tax benefits related to energy, primarily tax benefits for particular categories of
energy producers and consumers. Although a conference committee convened, the 107th
Congress adjourned without acting on the bill. Both the House and Senate are likely to
return to energy tax issues in 2003. On April 11, the House passed H.R. 6, which includes
tax-related provisions that may affect energy supply, conservation, and efficiency. For
further information, see CRS Issue Brief IB10054, Energy Tax Policy, by Salvatore Lazzari.
Pension Tax Policy. Both the House and Senate passed pension bills in 2002, but
legislation was not enacted. In the 108th Congress, the House has approved H.R. 1000, the
Pension Security Act of 2003, which — in the wake of the Enron controversy — proposes
to mandate employee diversification rights in 401(k) plans. Additional pension issues that
could be considered include a revision of tax rules to protect employee pensions from abuse
and relaxation of rules relating to taxation of IRA withdrawals after retirement. For further
information, see CRS Report RS20629, Pension Reform: The Economic Growth and Tax
Relief Reconciliation Act of 2001, by Patrick Purcell.
Tax Policy and Health Insurance. The 107th Congress evinced interest in enacting
additional tax benefits related to health insurance. For example, the House passed a patients’
protection bill (H.R. 2563) that included provisions making tax-favored Medical Savings
Accounts a permanent rather than temporary part of the tax code, a tax credit for small
employers, and expansion of tax benefits for the self-employed. The 108th Congress may
CRS-13

---

IB10110
05-21-03
take up health tax policy again. For further information, see CRS Issue Brief IB98037, Tax
Benefits for Health Insurance: Current Legislation, by Bob Lyke and Christopher Sroka.
Internet Taxation. The growth of the Internet has placed pressure on the states’ sales
and use tax systems, raising questions such as: How should use of the Internet be taxed? and
How should commerce conducted via the Internet be taxed? The federal government has a
role in regulating Internet taxation by virtue of the Constitution’s Commerce Clause, and in
2001 a moratorium was enacted prohibiting new taxes on Internet access and multiple or
discriminatory taxes on Internet commerce. The moratorium, however, expires on November
1, 2003, suggesting that Congress may take up the issue of Internet taxation again in 2003.
For further information, see CRS Report RL31177, Extending the Internet Tax Moratorium
and Related Issues, by Nonna Noto.
Internal Revenue Service (IRS) Oversight. Oversight of the IRS may be an issue
Congress addresses in 2003. The IRS Restructuring and Reform Act of 1998 mandated
significant changes in the way the IRS operates along with a change in its “culture”;
Congress may examine the extent to which the IRS has accomplished the Act’s goals. In
addition, the apparent growth of tax shelters has been of increasing concern to some
policymakers; an issue before Congress may be the effectiveness of IRS efforts to restrain
abusive tax shelters.
Charitable Contributions. As a component of President Bush’s faith based
initiative, the House passed H.R. 7 in the 107th Congress. This legislation would have
expanded benefits for charitable giving and charities. In the 108th Congress, similar
legislation has already been revisited. Key tax-related issues are likely to include providing
charitable deductions for nonitemizers, allowing tax-free distributions from individual
retirement accounts for charitable purposes, and extending the deduction for food inventory
to all businesses. For further information, see the CRS Electronic Briefing Book, Taxation,
“Charitable Contributions” by Jane G. Gravelle, available online only from the CRS Web site
at [http://www.congress.gov/brbk/html/ebtxr80.html].
CRS-14

---