Tax Reform ATR believes that all consumed income should be taxed one time, at one low and flat rate. Link
The Post Mortem on Maryland’s Special Tax Hike Session http://t.co/6nFjgjfF
taxreformer
What Tax Hikes Does Beth Anne Rankin (@BethAnneRankin) Support? http://t.co/dBs5DuV2 #AR04
taxreformer
What Tax Hikes Does Beth Anne Rankin Support? http://t.co/92cfRfYF
taxreformer
CoGC: Nanny State Update: Smoke Free Smoking Lounges, Ducking the Truth, Bag Bans and Soda Taxes http://t.co/Nqj3G8c7
taxreformer
Taxing Facebook to Pay for MySpace http://t.co/SSzTOJvd
taxreformer
My quick piece in @NRO: Illinois Republicans for Obamacare? http://t.co/5p9KnSi8 ^
joshuaculling
RT @amoylan: @taxreformer No wonder Jeff Fortenberry doesn't stand by tax pledge. http://t.co/55cW7B7B Lifetime @NTU Rating: 61.8%. http ...
amoylan
RT @RATECoalition: Check out @taxreformer ‘s take on Robert Rizzi & Jon Sallet’s study on corp #taxes & innovation http://t.co/z ...
RATECoalition
RT @GarciaCD16: Proud to announce that I have signed the @taxreformer "No New Taxes" Pledge! Taxpayers of #CD16 know I'm on their side! ...
GarciaCD16
ATR Rejects Gov. Quinn's Reckless Medicaid "Reform" Proposal http://t.co/554Cxwcp
taxreformer
THE TAX TRUTH BEHIND REPEALING ETHANOL CREDITS
In an effort to create an “all of the above” approach to energy solutions, some organizations (in an earnest attempt to try to be helpful) have recently proposed legislation that centers on repealing Internal Revenue Code (IRC) Section 40(h), the Reduced Credit for Ethanol Blenders, for U.S. energy manufacturers.
Unfortunately, this corporate tax credit has been labeled as a “subsidy”, which confuses an income tax credit with spending. The “tax subsidy” concept is an invention of the Left. It is meant to distort an otherwise clear distinction between taxes and spending. Regardless of its effects on energy policy, this remains a corporate income tax credit.
Current law provides an income tax credit for the production of blended ethanol fuel. This credit is scheduled to expire at the end of 2010. All ethanol reform proposals include reducing or eliminating this income tax credit. This may have implications for the Taxpayer Protection Pledge.
34 Senators and 172 Congressmen have signed the Taxpayer Protection Pledge. In so doing, they promised to their constituents and the American people that they would “oppose any net reduction or elimination of deductions or credits…”
Repealing the ethanol credit IS A CORPORATE INCOME TAX INCREASE and is therefore a PLEDGE VIOLATION unless the increase is offset completely with other income tax cuts.
ATR continues to oppose the current federally mandated use of expensive, inefficient domestic corn ethanol while taxing more efficient, imported ethanol made from sugar cane. This harms both the consumer seeking to purchase ethanol and consequently increases the price of food. However, any attempt to remove this income tax credit must be addressed while remaining tax revenue neutral.
Note: Budget neutrality (which is concerned with deficits) has no role in determining applicability of the Pledge. Rather, tax revenue neutrality (as scored by the JCT) is the only relevant metric for the purposes of the Pledge.
For more information, contact tax policy director Ryan Ellis at rellis@atr.org or federal energy analyst Brian Johnson at bjohnson@atr.org