[Congressional Bills 106th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. Res. 71 Introduced in Senate (IS)]







106th CONGRESS
  1st Session
S. RES. 71

    Expressing the sense of the Senate rejecting a tax increase on 
               investment income of certain associations.


_______________________________________________________________________


                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             March 22, 1999

 Mr. Abraham (for himself, Mr. Crapo, Mr. Santorum, Mr. Gramm, and Mr. 
 Inhofe) submitted the following resolution; which was referred to the 
                          Committee on Finance

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION


 
    Expressing the sense of the Senate rejecting a tax increase on 
               investment income of certain associations.

Whereas the President's fiscal year 2000 Federal budget proposal to impose a tax 
        on the interest, dividends, capital gains, rents, and royalties in 
        excess of $10,000 of trade associations and professional societies 
        exempt under section 501(c)(6) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 
        represents an unjust and unnecessary penalty on legitimate association 
        activities;
Whereas at a time when the Government is projecting on-budget surpluses of more 
        than $800,000,000,000 over the next 10 years, the President proposes to 
        increase the tax burden on trade and professional associations by 
        $1,440,000,000 over the next 5 years;
Whereas the President's association tax increase proposal will impose a 
        tremendous burden on thousands of small and mid-sized trade associations 
        and professional societies;
Whereas under the President's association tax increase proposal, most 
        associations with annual operating budgets of as low as $200,000 or more 
        will be taxed on investment income and as many as 70,000 associations 
        nationwide could be affected by this proposal;
Whereas associations rely on this targeted investment income to carry out 
        exempt-status-related activities, such as training individuals to adapt 
        to the changing workplace, improving industry safety, providing 
        statistical data, and providing community services;
Whereas keeping investment income free from tax encourages associations to 
        maintain modest surplus funds that cushion against economic and fiscal 
        downturns; and
Whereas corporations can increase prices to cover increased costs, while small 
        and medium-sized local, regional, and State-based associations do not 
        have such an option, and thus increased costs imposed by the President's 
        association tax increase would reduce resources available for the 
        important standard-setting, educational training, and professionalism 
        training performed by associations: Now, therefore, be it
    Resolved, That it is the sense of the Senate that Congress should 
reject the President's proposed tax increase on investment income of 
associations as defined under section 501(c)(6) of the Internal Revenue 
Code of 1986.
                                 <all>