ATR Signs Letter Urging Treasury Department to Reject Retroactive Conservation Easement Tax Increases
Americans for Tax Reform joined the National Taxpayers Union and the Center for a Free Economy in sending a coalition letter to Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen urging the administration fairly implement the conservation easement tax deduction and reject efforts to retroactively increase taxes on Americans.
The conservation easement deduction was first enacted in 1976 with the goal of incentivizing property owners to conserve land and historic sites through a charitable deduction. In order to claim the deduction, the taxpayer must agree to restrict their right to develop or alter the property. Organizations known as land trusts agree to monitor the restrictions placed on the property.
In recent years, the IRS has pushed burdensome compliance, examination, and enforcement procedures related to the conservation easement tax deduction. These trends will impact taxpayers across the country and could serve as a precedent to how tens of millions of taxpayers are treated in the future.
The IRS began subjecting taxpayers claiming the deduction to burdensome new filing requirements and onerous compliance costs following the release of IRS Notice 2017-10, a notice abruptly released on December 23, 2016 without any prior stakeholder input. As the letter notes, this resulted in actions taken that violate the Taxpayer Bill of Rights, which guarantees a basic set of rights to taxpayers when dealing with the IRS.
This notice has also opened the door for lawmakers to push legislation retroactively increasing taxes on taxpayers claiming the deduction. Under the Charitable Conservation Easement Program Integrity Act, taxpayers could be retroactively disallowed a deduction from donations made as far back as January 2016 – imposing tax increases on taxpayers retroactively for tax years 2016, 2017, 2018, and 2019 and imposing tax increases prospectively.
The tax code must be applied with consistency, certainty, and fairness. Taxpayers cannot reasonably or confidentiality comply with law if they believe the federal government will change these laws after the fact.
Secretary Janet Yellen should fairly implement the conservation easement tax deduction and reject efforts to retroactively raise taxes on taxpayers claiming the deduction.
You can read the full letter here or below:
March 10, 2021
Dear Secretary Yellen:
On behalf of the undersigned organizations, which advocate for millions of taxpayers across America, we write first to offer our congratulations and best wishes to you as the new Secretary of the United States Treasury. It is our hope that in days to come, we will build constructive working relationships on many matters, even as we may respectfully offer differing views on certain tax and fiscal policies.
Among those matters where we may find common ground is our abiding, mutual concern for a well-functioning, balanced system of tax administration. We were therefore encouraged by several of your thoughtful responses during your confirmation process regarding improvements to how tax laws are implemented, beyond what those laws may stipulate. One of your replies to a Question for the Record from Senator Portman on Section 170(h) deductions (pertaining to conservation easements) was particularly encouraging to us:
Question: …Will you commit to working with the IRS to publish sample deed language so that taxpayers can have certainty when making donations, helping to further this important policy goal? Once we have this guidance, I think it is important that we provide an opportunity for taxpayers to come into compliance with the new rules.
Answer: Taxpayer certainty with regard to tax treatment in all issues is an important goal for the system at large. If confirmed, I will strive to meet that goal through the issuance of taxpayer guidance, and I appreciate the importance of creating certainty for taxpayers on this issue.
Secretary Yellen, we could not agree more with your assessment, and we urge you to take timely steps that provide a framework within which the IRS may develop such guidance.
As you may know, our organizations have taken an active, collaborative role with Congress and the Executive Branch in formulating sound tax administration policies – some of us, for more than five decades. We therefore write from deep experience in cautioning that the compliance, examination, and enforcement procedures evolving around Internal Revenue Code Section 170(h) present grave implications for the entire tax system. Ever since the issuance of IRS Notice 2017-10, which declared certain conservation easement arrangements to be listed transactions, we have noted with alarm numerous trends that will affect how tens of millions of taxpayers – not just the thousands claiming Section 170(h) deductions – could be treated in the future. Just a few of those trends are:
- Retroactivity. Although issued in late 2016, Notice 2017-10 has been the basis of a near-100 percent IRS audit rate of partnership-based conservation easement transactions, some dating back many years prior. Audits are, by their nature, backward-looking, yet they are normally confined to establishing whether a taxpayer faithfully complied with laws, rules, and other guidance that were firmly anchored in place during the year for which the examination was launched. Current IRS audits of partnership easements are often based on the Service’s shifting interpretations of laws and rulings, some of them upending decades of established understanding of how Section 170(h) deductions should be structured. Retroactivity, especially of such an egregious nature as this, is counterproductive and ill-advised.
- Arbitrary Litigation Strategies. Going with the Service’s extremely aggressive assertion of retroactive application of its shifting positions in audits has been its similarly fluid stance in court. The first wave of IRS lawsuits challenging Section 170(h) deductions tended to center on the appraised value of the conservation easements underlying the taxpayers’ claims. Yet, after a string of court losses where the government fatuously argued zero or minimal value to all the easements under scrutiny, further waves of IRS litigation made far more exotic arguments against “foot faults” involving highly technical details of easement agreements themselves – details which the entire conservation and historic preservation communities had long regarded as settled features. 1 See Questions for the Record, U.S. Senate Committee on Finance, Hearing on the Nomination of Dr. Janet Yellen, Responses by Dr. Yellen, January 21, 2021, p. 61.
- Capricious Enforcement Tactics. Even prior to Notice 2017-10, taxpayers claiming the Section 170(h) deduction were experiencing harsh treatment at the hands of the tax agency. As Senators Blumenthal and Murphy reported in a 2016 communication to then-Commissioner Koskinen, “constituents describe audits focused on their donation of a conservation easement as antagonistic, aggressively adversarial, lengthy, and expensive.” Such reports, some of which have been communicated directly to us, have accelerated since partnership easements became a listed transaction. These accounts bear the hallmarks of troubling Service behavior that we witnessed in the late 1980s, early 1990s, and early 2010s – all of which necessitated sweeping corrective legislation as well as managerial overhauls at the tax agency. Such disruption should be avoided if at all possible, and can be now with modest effort.
- Collateral Damage to Taxpayer Rights Laws. Inevitably, the tactics mentioned above are leading to another pattern we have observed in the past – a corrosive attitude within the IRS toward laws for we which we strongly advocated, such as the Taxpayer Bill of Rights of 1988 and the IRS Restructuring and Reform Act of 1998 (RRA ’98). One of our organizations has already deemed it necessary to file amicus briefs in court cases involving two such problems: the Service’s indifference to RRA 98’s supervisor approval requirement for penalty determinations, as well as its apparent disregard for even the barest formalities of the Administrative Procedure Act in crafting guidance.2 Other problems include the IRS’s quiet disposal of longstanding due process procedures for appraiser diligence matters.3 These cases, and several more we are scrutinizing, originally pertained to conservation easements, but are allowing the IRS to steadily build an arsenal of legal precedents that can be wielded against taxpayers in all types of financial situations.
- Conflict with Other Policy Goals. The Biden Administration has committed to the objective of conserving 30 percent of lands and oceans by the year 2030. Regardless of whether one supports this particular policy, as a practical matter its execution will entail reliance on a variety of tools, including private sector-driven conservation. Given that easements have so far protected well over 30 million acres in the U.S. – a rapidly rising figure – from an environmental standpoint it would be a tremendous mistake to allow private land conservation to be undercut because of careless, opaque tax administration.
The IRS National Taxpayer Advocate (NTA) has recommended (and in January reiterated) that “because litigation in this area may very well continue for years,” the Service ought to “[d]evelop and publish additional guidance that contains sample easement provisions to assist taxpayers in drafting deeds that satisfy the statutory requirements for qualified conservation contributions.”4 This sensible approach could, under your leadership, be quickly facilitated by forming a working group of expert stakeholders inside and outside of government under a 90-day deadline to formulate the guidance. This in turn could be subject to public notice and comment so that, by late summer of this year, a great measure of consistency and transparency could finally be brought to an area of tax administration that has proven burdensome both to the Service and to taxpayers. As IRSAC’s recommendations some 15 years ago with historic preservation easements, and the creation of a panel to settle valuations of donated art both demonstrate, reaching agreement on complex issues in the Section 170 space is feasible if all parties come to the table in good faith.
Secretary Yellen, we hope you will take this early opportunity to forge a consensus over a long-troubled area of tax administration that can, with a relatively small investment of time and effort, yield major dividends for taxpayer compliance and confidence.
Should you wish to discuss this or any other tax administration issue further, we would certainly welcome the opportunity. Thank you for your consideration.
Sincerely,
Pete Sepp, President
National Taxpayers Union
Alexander Hendrie, Director of Tax Policy
Americans for Tax Reform
Ryan Ellis, President
Center for a Free Economy
Photo Credit: International Monetary Fund
Republican Budget Puts New Hampshire On The Path To Becoming A True No Income Tax State
Republicans just approved a budget that is a huge win for all New Hampshire taxpayers. It will make New Hampshire a true no income tax state, provide much-needed tax relief for businesses and consumers, and expand access to quality education.
“Governor Sununu, Speaker Packard, and Senate President Morse won a great victory today for all New Hampshire taxpayers,” said Grover Norquist, president of Americans for Tax Reform. “The tax on interest and dividends is now to be phased out in five years. This means the personal income tax is to be finally and completely abolished. Gone. Finished. Completely dead. The meals and rooms tax is reduced to make New Hampshire more competitive with Maine and Vermont.”
The Republican budget will cut taxes for retirees who live off investments while also making New Hampshire an even more attractive place to live, invest, and do business by phasing out the Interest & Dividend tax (I&D tax) over five years.
New Hampshire appears on the list of no income tax states because it does not tax wage income, but with an asterisk by its name due to the 5% tax it imposes on income earned from interest & dividends. While New Hampshire has been able to remain a competitive state thanks to its overall low tax burden, a growing movement of states are working to put their income taxes on the path to zero. Over time, as more states are added to the ‘no income tax’ list, the more the asterisk by New Hampshire’s name will become an issue.
Fortunately, the Republican budget addresses this problem by phasing out the I&D tax over five years. Once fully implemented, New Hampshire will finally be able to say that it is truly a no income tax state, ensuring that it remains competitive over the long term. Even when there are more no income tax states.
The Republican budget also reduces the Business Profits Tax (BPT) and the Business Enterprise Tax (BET), allowing small business across the state to invest more in new jobs and higher wages, and reduces the Meals and Rooms Tax, which will be particularly beneficial to New Hampshire’s tourism industry.
In addition to providing much-needed tax relief, the Republican budget expands access to quality education by establishing Education Freedom Accounts. This will give qualifying families the option use some of the tax dollars that would have been spent educating their children in a public school on private or parochial school tuition and fees instead. These families would also have the option to use that money to cover the costs associated with homeschooling.
Thanks to Governor Chris Sununu, Senate President Chuck Morse, House Speaker Sherman Packard, and Republicans in the legislature, every resident of the Granite State is a winner under this budget.
Education will improve, taxpayers will be able to keep more of their hard-earned money, and the Granite State will be an even more attractive place to open or expand a business and raise a family.
More from Americans for Tax Reform
Ohio Budgets Offer Big Wins on Tax Cuts, Work-from-Home Tax, Stopping Wasteful Govt Broadband
Ohio legislators are hard at work combining the House and Senate versions of the biennial state budget. Both include some great provisions, including income tax cuts that should be prioritized.
The Senate budget features a 5% income tax cut, and the House offers a 2% income tax cut. These reductions offer needed relief for Ohio families and businesses – particularly as they recover from the pandemic.
The state legislature’s continued focus on tax relief for Ohioans is extremely important as the state features some of the highest and most numerous local taxes. These local jurisdictions add complexity on top of the cost of the taxes themselves, making it more difficult for businesses to make ends meet.
While commercial lease tax reform remains a white whale in the Buckeye State, further income tax relief would be a big help for taxpayers.
On top of the tax cuts, legislators in both chambers want to address the issue of cities trying to tax people who are working from home outside of the city where their office is based.
During the pandemic, many workers have not set foot in their offices. But the cities that are home these offices, who locked down, still want to collect income tax from these workers. While this issue has resulted in legal challenges, legislators want to allow work-from-home folks to get tax refunds from the city where their office is based.
A Senate proposal would address the wasteful, ineffective practice of local government using taxpayer dollars to try and operate broadband networks. Senators want to bar localities from starting these often ill-fated enterprises.
Legislators also may still vote on sports betting legislation before June 30th. The bill includes very competitive tax (10% tax rate on bets) and regulatory policies that will enable Ohio to compete with their neighbors in Indiana, Pennsylvania, and Kentucky, all of which have legalized sports wagering.
As the House and Senate work out a final budget, they should maximize income tax relief, and protecting Ohio taxpayers from wasteful government broadband.
More from Americans for Tax Reform
Left-Wing Study: Middle-Class Will See Taxes Go Up Under Biden’s Plan
Taxes will go up on middle class Americans if the policies proposed in Joe Biden’s budget go into effect, according to a recent analysis by the left-of-center Tax Policy Center. While these policies will harm working families, the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (TCJA) passed by Republicans in 2017 reduced taxes for American families, as TPC has previously noted.
According to a recent Tax Policy Center analysis, Biden’s budget will raise taxes on 74.1 percent of middle income-quintile households. By 2031, TPC finds that 95 percent of this income group will see a tax increase because President Biden’s budget allows the expiration of middle-class tax cuts.
While President Biden has promised not to raise taxes on anyone making less than $400,000, he still refuses to maintain lower taxes for the middle class. As TPC explains,
“For those looking to see if Biden kept his promise to not raise taxes for those making $400,000 or less, the answer is: Mostly, but not entirely.
Including corporate tax increases, most households would pay more in 2022. About three-quarters of middle-income households would face a tax increase…”
While TPC notes that Biden’s policies will raise taxes on the middle class, previous analyses conducted by the organization found that the TCJA reduced taxes for the majority of American families.
According to a March 2018 analysis, 82 percent of middle income-quintile taxpayers/households saw a tax cut thanks to the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act.
American families and individuals saw strong tax reduction from the TCJA. According to IRS statistics of income data analyzed by Americans for Tax Reform, households earning between $50,000 and $100,000 saw their average tax liability drop by over 13 percent between 2017 and 2018. By comparison, households with income over $1 million saw a far smaller tax cut averaging just 5.8 percent.
Thanks to the TCJA, millions of Americans saw an increased child tax credit, and millions more qualified for this tax cut for the first time. The TCJA expanded the child tax credit from $1,000 to $2,000 and raised the income thresholds so millions of families could take the credit. In 2017, 22 million households earning $200,000 or less took the child tax credit. These households received an average tax credit of $1,213.
By 2018, 36 million households earning $200,000 or less took the child and other dependent tax credit. These households received an average credit of $2,002.
The TCJA repealed the Obamacare individual mandate tax by zeroing out the penalty. Prior to the passage of the bill, the mandate imposed a tax of up to $2,085 on households that failed to purchase government-approved healthcare. Five million people paid this in 2017, and 75 percent of these households earned less than $75,000.
The tax cuts resulted in businesses giving their employees pay bonuses, pay raises, increased 401(k) matches, and new employee benefit programs.
Even left-leaning media outlets have (eventually) acknowledged the tax cuts benefited middle class families. The Washington Post fact-checker gave Biden’s claim that the middle class did not see a tax cut its rating of four Pinocchios. The New York Times characterized the false perception that the middle class saw no benefit from the tax cuts as a “sustained and misleading effort by liberal opponents."
Congressional Republicans delivered savings to the American middle-class when they passed the tax cuts. Despite calling himself a so-called champion for average Americans, Biden's plan would result in middle-class Americans paying more in taxes.
Photo Credit: U.S. Secretary of Defense
29-Hour House Judiciary Markup Shows Democrat Antitrust Bills Are Not Ready for Prime Time
The House Judiciary Committee just concluded a marathon markup of six bills that would weaponize antitrust law and give Biden bureaucrats sweeping new regulatory power.
All six of the bills limped out of the Committee and were sent to the House floor. For the most part, conservatives rejected these bills.
One thing is clear – this half-baked antitrust package is not ready for prime time. Republican members need to continue to hold the line and vote NO on attempts to politicize antitrust law for Democrat political gain.
Instead of holding individual hearings on each of the bills, Judiciary leadership decided to rush through the entire package to a full committee markup just a week and a half after the bills were introduced.
The result? A markup that stretched over two days and more than 29 hours of debate. This is not surprising given the fact that some rank-and-file members first saw the bills through media leaks and had absolutely zero input while the legislation was being drafted.
Members on both sides of the aisle had serious concerns about the package’s sloppy language and how quickly the markup occurred. Ahead of the markup, eight house Democrats called on Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) to slow the package down.
A bipartisan statement from California Members pointed out the serious flaws in the antitrust package spearheaded by Rep. David Cicilline (D-R.I.):
“The marathon markup – that started Wednesday morning, recessed as the sun came up on Thursday morning, and then reconvened for another four hours on Thursday – featured several bills that would radically change America’s leading tech companies and made crystal clear that the bill text as debated is not close to ready for Floor consideration.”
If implemented, these bills would significantly restrict targeted companies from engaging in routine business conduct. One bill bans targeted companies from acquiring smaller companies, choking off a key pathway to success for startups. Another bill would allow the government to structurally separate targeted companies that operate a line of business that an unelected bureaucrat deems to be a “conflict of interest.” Another bill effectively bans targeted companies from promoting private label goods to shoppers, which makes as much sense as banning grocery stores from selling generic cereal.
The drafters seem to be confused about the full scope of the package’s impact. Cicilline himself admitted that he doesn’t even know if Microsoft would be a covered platform, and that the ultimate decision would rest in the hands of Biden bureaucrats to decide which companies to target with antitrust action.
While some Republican Members offered amendments designed to improve the bills, ultimately the root problem is the same. Democrats are attempting to convince conservatives that the best way to address Big Tech censorship is to let Biden bureaucrats “fix” the problem.
In reality, these bills don't do a single thing to address legitimate conservative anger over Big Tech. Giving the Biden administration even more power would increase political abuse of conservatives and screw up the goods and services Americans use every day.
These bills are nowhere close to being ready for prime time. Republicans should continue to reject these half-baked ideas.
See also:
Op-ed: The antitrust package is a Trojan horse conservatives must reject
25+ Conservative Groups and Activists Urge Congress to Reject Democrat Antitrust Power Grab
Republicans Should Reject Cicilline Mega-Regulation Antitrust Package
Photo Credit: Joe Mabel
Republicans Deliver Historic Income Tax Cut for All Arizonans
Republicans just approved a historic budget bill that will provide an income tax cut to all Arizonans. Once fully implemented, this pro-growth tax package will reform the Grand Canyon State’s income tax to a flat rate of 2.5% and leave an additional $1.9 billion a year in the pockets of individual taxpayers, families, and small businesses.
“Today Arizona passed a historic and game changing budget that reduces taxes for all taxpayers and moves Arizona to a flat tax on the road to phasing out the entire state income tax,” said Grover Norquist, president of Americans for Tax Reform. “Already there are eight states with no state income tax. Governor Doug Ducey, bill sponsors Senator J.D. Mesnard and Majority Leader Ben Toma, Senate President Pro Tempore Vince Leach, House Appropriations Chair Regina Cobb, House Ways & Means Chair Shawnna Bolick, and many others worked together to create a brighter future for Arizona.”
People and jobs continue to pour out of high-tax states and into states that impose low- and no-income taxes. Arizona’s status quo – with one of the highest income tax rates in not only its region, but the entire country – has it on the wrong side of this equation.
Currently, Arizona has four income tax brackets ranging from 2.59% to 4.5%, and an effective fifth bracket with a rate of 8% a due Proposition 208’s 3.5% surcharge on certain income. Rather than sitting back and allowing Arizona to get crushed under this high top rate – the part of the income tax that is most often used to make decisions about investment – Republicans worked tirelessly this year to make Arizona competitive.
Under the Republican tax package, Arizona’s income tax will be streamlined to two brackets: 2.55% and 2.98%. When state revenue collections hit certain triggers, those two rates will be streamlined to a flat rate of 2.5%, lower than its current bottom rate of 2.59%.
Contrary to some claims, this is not a “tax cut for the rich.” The Republican tax package provides a tax cut and a rate cut for every single income taxpayer.
Building on this great news, the Republican tax package also includes an aggregate cap of 4.5% to mitigate some of the harm inflicted from Proposition 208. Thanks to this cap, Arizona small businesses will be shielded from a 77% tax increase and Arizona’s top rate will be regionally and nationally competitive.
The Republican tax package, which uses revenue triggers as opposed to other tax increases to reduce income tax rates, is both an inspiration and a model for the growing movement of states looking to phase out their income taxes.
Thanks to leadership of Gov. Ducey, bill sponsors Sen. Mesnard and Rep. Toma, Sen. Leach, Rep. Cobb, and Rep. Bolick, every single Arizonan is a winner under this plan.
Individual taxpayers and families will be able to keep more of their hard-earned money. Small businesses will be able to invest more in new jobs and higher wages. And Arizona will be an attractive place to invest and do businesses, bringing new jobs and opportunities to current residents of the Grand Canyon State.
The bill is now headed to Gov. Doug Ducey, who is eager to sign it into law.
Photo Credit: Wars
More from Americans for Tax Reform
The Tragic Consequences of Anti-Vaping Laws
On a recent Saturday evening, law enforcement in Ocean City, Maryland tasered, kneed, and violently restrained teenagers for the crime of vaping in a public area. This disturbing incident is the result of efforts across the country to criminalize vaping, despite calls from Americans for Tax Reform, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), and countless law enforcement agencies, that prohibitions disproportionately impact communities of color and are detrimental to criminal justice efforts because they exacerbate the over policing of minorities.
In an opinion piece for InsideSources, ATR’s Karl Abramson explained how anti-vaping laws, such as flavor bans, bring about unequal criminal justice outcomes, all while harming public health.
“Amidst the ongoing nationwide discussion regarding police brutality and racial equality, the Biden administration is actively taking steps to prohibit menthol cigarettes, a move that would criminalize a product used predominately among Black smokers. The move is opposed by civil rights advocates like Al Sharpton and the ACLU who claim flavor prohibitions “disproportionately impact people and communities of color,” and “instigate unconstitutional policing and other negative interactions with local law enforcement.” The Ocean City incidents perfectly illustrate the validity of these concerns.
When 18-year-old Taizier Griffin was tased by police, he was subject to more harm than vaping could ever cause. Since 2000, more than 1,000 people have died after being tased by police. A study has found the shock from a taser can lead to cardiac arrest and sudden death. There has not been a single recorded case of a vaper dying from nicotine-containing e-cigarette. Tragically, nine in 10 of those who have died from being tased by police were unarmed, just like Griffin.
It should upset anyone who cares about criminal justice reform that the same politicians who claim to care about repairing the relationship between police and minority communities relentlessly push for restrictions on vaping. In doing so, they ignore the advice of countless medical experts, public health organizations, and civil rights advocates.”
Click here to read the full article.
Photo Credit: InsideSources
More from Americans for Tax Reform
Why Democrats Want to Prevent You From Becoming Your Own Boss on this Week's "Leave Us Alone" Podcast
The "Protecting the Right to Organize" (PRO) Act would dramatically increase Big Labor's power at the expense of hard-working Americans. They are so desperate for this legislation to pass they are threatening to pull all campaign cash from Democratic lawmakers that do not vote for the bill. Instead of protecting hard-working Americans, President Biden is choosing Big Labor and aggressively pushing for the PRO Act’s implementation.
To further discuss President Biden's war on worker freedom, ATR President Grover Norquist invited Open Competition Center's Tom Hebert on his podcast, Leave Us Alone. Hebert serves as the Executive Director of Open Competition Center and advocates for a consumer-based approach to antitrust enforcement.
On the "Protecting the Right to Organize" (PRO) Act, Hebert explains:
"It's basically Big Labor pumps millions and millions, hundreds of millions of dollars into Democrat campaigns each and every year. They're facing a problem; their union membership is plummeting so … they're looking at their dwindling contributors and they're thinking to themselves well, how can we force more workers into unions by hook or by crook. The politicians they put in office; they created the PRO Act. The PRO Act is a grab bag of every single liberal priority when it comes to labor."
Norquist emphasis how ridiculous the PRO Act truly is:
"[The PRO Act] is the wish list for every crazy idea that could never pass in Congress or even get done by executive order. Remember if you could have done this by executive order Obama would have. So this is the crazy of the crazy of the probably unconstitutional ideas that they put into one package."
On Right to Work, which would be nullified nationwide under the PRO Act, Herbert notes:
"A Right to Work law states that an employer cannot force you to join the union as a condition of employment. You're free to join the union if you want to or not, you just don't have to decide to pay a union boss or put food on the table. We have right to work laws that protect about 166 million Americans in 27 states."
Listen to the full episode below:
Leave Us Alone with Grover Norquist is a weekly video and audio podcast found on all major podcast streaming services:
More from Americans for Tax Reform
Bernie’s Budget Spends More on SALT Cap Than Roads and Bridges
Senate Budget Committee Chairman Bernie Sanders' wants more money for a tax break he has described as "for rich people in blue states" than he does for roads and bridges.
Sanders' $6 trillion budget resolution is billed as the Democrats' more progressive and "economically sweeping version" of an infrastructure package compared to narrower bipartisan negotiations. Yet Sanders' "infrastructure" package would spend $20 billion more on regressive SALT cap relief than it would on roads and bridges.
According to a draft budget outline, Sanders' plan allocates $120 billion for raising the state and local tax (SALT) deduction cap, a tax provision which Sanders himself previously admitted "sends a terrible, terrible message" to "working families." In contrast, the plan would spend only $100 billion on roads and bridges.
Sanders' prioritization of the SALT cap over roads and bridges demonstrates what little interest Democrats have in actual infrastructure and are instead focused on a grab bag of progressive priorities designed to reward Democrat constituencies.
The SALT deduction permits individuals to write-off some of their state and local taxes when filing at the federal level. In 2017, the Republican Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (TCJA) capped the deduction at $10,000 in order to pay for much needed tax relief for working- and middle-class Americans. The change to the SALT cap left most Americans unaffected but did impact wealthy people living in high-tax, blue states like California and New York—aka the Democratic donor class.
Despite its extreme regressively, congressional Democrats have been pushing to repeal the SALT cap from day one. According to the nonpartisan Tax Foundation, prior to the TCJA, 91 percent of the benefit of the SALT deduction went to people making over $100,000 per year. Even the left-leaning Tax Policy Center notes 70 percent of the benefit of SALT cap repeal would go to those making more than $500,000 per year; 96 percent of middle-income households would receive no benefit at all, and the return for those who do would be vanishingly small.
Photo Credit: Gage Skidmore
More from Americans for Tax Reform
Norquist: Democrats Want Tax Hikes, Not Infrastructure
Upon President Biden’s announcement of a “deal” on “infrastructure” Americans for Tax Reform president Grover Norquist issued the following statement:
"IRS agents are not infrastructure. The ‘deal’ shovels $40 billion to the corrupt and incompetent IRS. This framework isn't about roads and bridges: It is about buying votes and clearing the path for Democrats to move their $3 trillion tax hike through reconciliation. Pelosi and Schumer have made it clear they will hold this framework hostage until they get their overspending wishlist."
See Also:
Biden Wants the IRS to Snoop on Your Venmo Account | Americans for Tax Reform (atr.org)
Report: IRS Fails to Screen Contractors for Tax Delinquency | Americans for Tax Reform (atr.org)
Democrats bent on creating more Intrusive IRS | Washington Examiner
New Jersey’s New Pork-Filled Budget Makes Old Problems Worse
New Jersey plans to approve a record-setting $46.5 billion state budget this week, clocking in at nearly $6 billion higher than the current fiscal year. The state has a $10 billion surplus this year as a result of heavy borrowing last fall and billions in unspent federal stimulus funds. Democrat legislators are seizing the opportunity to hand out cash to their pals with $500 million in graft.
After three years of tax hikes under Governor Murphy, no tax hikes are planned in this budget, but it still manages to add to New Jersey’s unfolding fiscal disaster, making life more unaffordable for families, and a worse place to do business.
The state, which already has the highest taxpayer debt burden in the country, borrowed roughly $4 billion in bonds in November to supplement its finances during the pandemic. But instead of witnessing a shortfall, revenue projections are up by $1 billion, leaving taxpayers on the hook for billions in unnecessary debt and interest. The top Democrat in the state legislature, Senate President Stephen Sweeney, said he regrets the decision to issue the bonds.
Like most of the state’s debts, New Jersey’s November bond purchases are not “callable” and cannot be paid off early, meaning that the state can’t simply eliminate its debt. Instead, New Jersey will spend $2.5 billion of its surplus on debt-defeasance to pay older debts when they come due. Another $1.2 billion will be reserved as a fund for new projects that would otherwise have contributed to the state’s debt. Those figures, however, pale in comparison to the state’s bond debt that totals nearly $50 billion.
The budget agreement will fully fund New Jersey’s pension plans for the first time since the 1990s at a cost of $6.4 billion. In fact, Democrats plan to add an additional $505 million to the pension program, which could pose significant long-term viability issues for the state.
Meanwhile, Republicans have proposed allocating $2.5 billion toward New Jersey’s unemployment trust fund, which was drained of tens of billions last year in response to the pandemic. The legislature plans to vote on including an additional $135 million in COVID-19 aid for small businesses, on top of the $235 million Governor Murphey signed this week.
Another $319 million will allow the government to send annual checks directly to New Jersey residents. Families making under $150,000 will receive up to $500 this summer in the form of a property tax rebate. Which is a small token gesture given the state’s absurd property tax burden – an average bill of $9,112. A September agreement adding new taxes on the rich will provide the necessary revenue. Known as the Millionaires Tax, the legislation lowers the top tax bracket from $5 million and above to $1 million, while increasing the top rate from 8.97% to 10.75%. That makes New Jersey the state with the third highest top tax rate in the country, behind California and Hawaii.
The state also plans to start allocating $6.5 billion in unused federal funds from the American Rescue Plan to fund new welfare programs and other government services. Major spending items include:
$500 million – payments to renters
$250 million – utility relief
$100 million – expanded childcare services
$600 million – adult special education services (over 3 years)
$180 million – HVAC improvements in schools
$150 million – public health funding for Level One Trauma Centers
$200 million – discretionary fund for Governor Phil Murphy (keep an eye on this one)
Republicans have criticized the budget proposal in recent months, citing its dependency on borrowed and surplus funds to advance an ambitious agenda. Senator Sam Thompson, a Taxpayer Protection Pledge-signer, called it “fundamentally broken and structurally unbalanced,” while the Republican Budget Officer, Senator Steven Oroho, is concerned about “an avoidable payroll tax increase on small businesses” that could result from prioritizing additional spending over tax relief.
Photo Credit: Governor Phil Murphy - Twitter
More from Americans for Tax Reform
State news
Top Stories
.jpg){kind=link}
