[JPRT 107-2-01] [From the U.S. Government Publishing Office] JCS-2-01 [JOINT COMMITTEE PRINT] GENERAL EXPLANATION OF TAX LEGISLATION ENACTED IN THE 106TH CONGRESS ---------- Prepared by the Staff of the JOINT COMMITTEE ON TAXATION [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TONGRESS.#13 APRIL 19, 2001 GENERAL EXPLANATION OF TAX LEGISLATION ENACTED IN THE 106TH CONGRESS JCS-2-01 [JOINT COMMITTEE PRINT] GENERAL EXPLANATION OF TAX LEGISLATION ENACTED IN THE 106TH CONGRESS __________ Prepared by the Staff of the JOINT COMMITTEE ON TAXATION [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TONGRESS.#13 APRIL 19, 2001 JOINT COMMITTEE ON TAXATION 107th Congress, 1st Session ------ -- ---- HOUSE SENATE WILLIAM M. THOMAS, California, CHARLES E. GRASSLEY, Iowa, Chairman Vice Chairman PHILIP M. CRANE, Illinois ORRIN G. HATCH, Utah E. CLAY SHAW, Jr., Florida FRANK H. MURKOWSKI, Alaska CHARLES B. RANGEL, New York MAX BAUCUS, Montana FORTNEY PETE STARK, California JOHN D. ROCKEFELLER IV, West Virginia Lindy L. Paull, Chief of Staff Bernard A. Schmitt, Deputy Chief of Staff Mary M. Schmitt, Deputy Chief of Staff SUMMARY CONTENTS ---------- Page Introduction..................................................... 1 Part One: Availability of Certain Tax Benefits for Services for Part of Operation Allied Force (Public Law 106-21)............. 3 Part Two: Miscellaneous Trade and Technical Corrections Act of 1999 (Public Law 106-36)....................................... 9 Part Three: Tax Relief Extension Act of 1999 (Public Law 106-170) 12 Part Four: Trade and Development Act of 2000 (Public Law 106-200) 75 Part Five: Amending the Internal Revenue Code to Require 527 Organizations to Disclose Their Political Activities (Public Law 106-230)................................................... 79 Part Six: Miscellaneous Trade and Technical Corrections Act of 2000 (Public Law 106-476)...................................... 82 Part Seven: FSC Repeal and Extraterritorial Income Exclusion Act of 2000 (Public Law 106-519)................................... 84 Part Eight: The Community Renewal Tax Relief Act of 2000 (Public Law 106-554; H.R. 5662)........................................ 114 Part Nine: Installment Tax Correction Act of 2000 (Public Law 106-573)....................................................... 176 Appendix: Estimated Budget Effects of Tax Legislation Enacted in the 106th Congress............................................. 179 C O N T E N T S ---------- Page Introduction..................................................... 1 Part One: Availability of Certain Tax Benefits for Services for Part of Operation Allied Force (Public Law 106-21)............. 3 Part Two: Miscellaneous Trade and Technical Corrections Act of 1999 (Public Law 106-36)....................................... 9 A. Property ``Subject to'' a Liability Treated in the Same Manner as an Assumption of Liability (sec. 3001) 9 Part Three: Tax Relief Extension Act of 1999 (Public Law 106-170) 12 I. Extension of Expiring Tax Provisions...................... 12 A. Extend Minimum Tax Relief for Individuals (sec. 501).. 12 B. Extension of Research Tax Credit (sec. 502)........... 13 C. Subpart F Exemption for Active Financing Income (sec. 503)................................................. 16 D. Taxable Income Limit on Percentage Depletion for Marginal Production (sec. 504)....................... 19 E. Extend the Work Opportunity Tax Credit (sec. 505)..... 21 F. Extend the Welfare-to-Work Tax Credit (sec. 505)...... 22 G. Extend Exclusion for Employer-Provided Educational Assistance (sec. 506)................................ 23 H. Extension and Modification of Credit for Producing Electricity From Certain Renewable Resources (sec. 507)................................................. 25 I. Extension of Authority to Issue Qualified Zone Academy Bonds (sec. 509)..................................... 26 J. Extend the Tax Credit for First-Time D.C. Homebuyers (sec. 510)........................................... 27 K. Extend Expensing of Environmental Remediation Expenditures (sec. 511).............................. 28 L. Temporary Increase in Amount of Rum Excise Tax Covered Over to Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands (sec. 512) 29 II. Other Time-Sensitive Provisions.......................... 32 A. Prohibit Disclosure of APAs and APA Background Files (sec. 521)........................................... 32 B. Authority to Postpone Certain Tax-Related Deadlines by Reason of Year 2000 Failures (sec. 522).............. 37 C. Add Certain Vaccines Against Streptococcus Pneumoniae to the List of Taxable Vaccines (sec. 523)........... 39 D. Delay in Effective Date of Requirement for Approved Diesel or Kerosene Terminal (sec. 524)............... 41 E. Production Flexibility Contract Payments (sec. 525)... 42 III. Revenue Offsets......................................... 44 A. General Provisions.................................... 44 1. Modification of individual estimated tax safe harbor (sec. 531)................................ 44 2. Clarify the tax treatment of income and losses on derivatives (sec. 532)........................... 45 3. Expand reporting of cancellation of indebtedness income (sec. 533)................................ 47 4. Limitation on conversion of character of income from constructive ownership transactions (sec. 534)............................................. 49 5. Treatment of excess pension assets used for retiree health benefits (sec. 535)............... 52 6. Modification of installment method and repeal of installment method for accrual method taxpayers (sec. 536)....................................... 55 7. Denial of charitable contribution deduction for transfers associated with split-dollar insurance arrangements (sec. 537).......................... 58 8. Distributions by a partnership to a corporate partner of stock in another corporation (sec. 538)............................................. 63 B. Provisions Relating to Real Estate Investment Trusts (secs. 541-547, 551, 561 and 566).................... 66 1. General provisions................................ 66 2. Modification of estimated tax rules for closely held REITS......................................... 73 Part Four: Trade and Development Act of 2000 (Public Law 106-200) 75 A. Application of Denial of Foreign Tax Credit Regarding Trade and Investment With Respect to Certain Foreign Countries (sec. 601)................................... 75 B. Acceleration of Coverover Payments to Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands (sec. 602).......................... 76 Part Five: Amending the Internal Revenue Code to Require Section 527 Organizations to Disclose Their Political Activities (Public Law 106-230)........................................... 79 Part Six: Miscellaneous Trade and Technical Corrections Act of 2000 (Public Law 106-476)...................................... 82 A. Imported Cigarette Compliance Act of 2000 (secs. 4001- 4003).................................................. 82 Part Seven: FSC Repeal and Extraterritorial Income Exclusion Act of 2000 (Public Law 106-519)................................... 84 Part Eight: The Community Renewal Tax Relief Act of 2000 (Public Law 106-554; H.R. 5662)........................................ 114 Title I. Community Renewal Provisions........................ 114 A. Renewal Community Provisions (secs. 101-102 of H.R. 5662).................................................. 114 B. Empowerment Zone Tax Incentives....................... 118 1. Extension and expansion of empowerment zones (secs. 111-115 of H.R. 5662)....................... 118 2. Rollover of gain from the sale of qualified empowerment zone investments (sec. 116 of H.R. 5662).............................................. 120 3. Increased exclusion of gain from the sale of qualifying empowerment zone stock (sec. 117 of H.R. 5662).............................................. 121 C. New Markets Tax Credit (sec. 121 of H.R. 5662)........ 122 D. Increase the Low-Income Housing Tax Credit Cap and Make Other Modifications (secs. 131-137 of H.R. 5662).. 125 E. Accelerate Scheduled Increase in State Volume Limits on Tax-Exempt Private Activity Bonds (sec. 161 of H.R. 5662).................................................. 128 F. Extension and Modification to Expensing of Environmental Remediation Costs (sec. 162 of H.R. 5662) 129 G. Expansion of District of Columbia Homebuyer Tax Credit (sec. 163 of H.R. 5662)................................ 130 H. Extension of D.C. Enterprise Zone (sec. 164 of H.R. 5662).................................................. 131 I. Extension and Modification of Enhanced Deduction for Corporate Donations of Computer Technology (sec. 165 of H.R. 5662)............................................. 132 J. Treatment of Indian Tribes as Non-Profit Organizations and State or Local Governments for Purposes of the Federal Unemployment Tax (``FUTA'') (sec. 166 of H.R. 5662).................................................. 134 Title II. Medical Savings Accounts (``MSAs'') (secs. 201-202 of H.R. 5662).............................................. 135 Title III. Administrative and Technical Corrections Provisions................................................. 138 Subtitle A. Administrative Provisions.................... 138 A. Exempt Certain Reports From Elimination Under the Federal Reports Elimination and Sunset Act of 1995 (sec. 301 of H.R. 5662)............................ 138 B. Extension of Deadlines for IRS Compliance with Certain Notice Requirements (sec. 302 of H.R. 5662) 138 C. Extension of Authority for Undercover Operations (sec. 303 of H.R. 5662)............................ 139 D. Competent Authority and Pre-Filing Agreements (sec. 304 of H.R. 5662)............................ 140 E. Increase Joint Committee on Taxation Refund Review Threshold to $2 Million (sec. 305 of H.R. 5662).... 148 F. Clarify the Allowance of Certain Tax Benefits With Respect to Kidnapped Children (sec. 306 of H.R. 5662).............................................. 149 G. Conforming Changes to Accommodate Reduced Issuances of Certain Treasury Securities (sec. 307 of H.R. 5662)...................................... 150 H. Authorization of Agencies to Use Corrected Consumer Price Index (sec. 308 of H.R. 5662)....... 151 I. Prevent Duplication or Acceleration of Loss Through Assumption of Certain Liabilities (sec. 309 of H.R. 5662)...................................... 153 J. Disclosure of Return Information to the Congressional Budget Office (sec. 310 of H.R. 5662) 156 Subtitle B. Tax Technical Corrections (secs. 311-319 of H.R. 5662)............................................. 158 Title IV. Tax Treatment of Securities Futures Contracts (sec. 401 of H.R. 5662).......................................... 169 Part Nine: Installment Tax Correction Act of 2000 (Public Law 106-573)....................................................... 176 Appendix: Estimated Budget Effects of Tax Legislation Enacted 106th Congress................................................. 179 INTRODUCTION This pamphlet,\1\ prepared by the staff of the Joint Committee on Taxation in consultation with the staffs of the House Committee on Ways and Means and Senate Committee on Finance, provides an explanation of tax legislation enacted in the 106th Congress. The explanation follows the chronological order of the tax legislation as signed into law. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \1\ This pamphlet may be cited as follows: Joint Committee on Taxation, General Explanation of Tax Legislation Enacted in the 106th Congress (JCS-2- 01), April 19, 2001. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- A committee report on legislation issued by a Congressional committee sets forth the committee's explanation of the bill as it was reported by that committee. In some instances, a committee report does not serve as an explanation of the final provisions of the legislation as enacted. This is because the version of the bill enacted after action by the Conference Committee may differ significantly from the versions of the bill reported by the House and Senate Committees and passed by the House and Senate. The material contained in this pamphlet is prepared so that Members of Congress, tax practitioners, and other interested parties can have an explanation in one volume of the final tax legislation enacted in 106th Congress. In some instances, provisions included in legislation enacted in the 106th Congress were not reported out of committee before enactment. As a result, the legislative history of such provisions does not include the reasons for change normally included in a committee report. In the case of such provisions, no reasons for change are included with the explanation of the provision in this pamphlet. Part One of the pamphlet is a explanation of the provisions of the Availability of Certain Tax Benefits for Services for Part of Operation Allied Force (P.L. 106-21), relating to tax treatment of certain of military personnel and civilian employees in the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (Bosnia/ Montenegro), Albania, the Adriatic Sea, and the northern Ionian Sea above the 39th parallel. Part Two is an explanation of the revenue provisions of the Miscellaneous Trade and Technical Corrections Act of 1999 (P.L. 106-36), relating to treatment of certain property subject to a liability. Part Three is an explanation of the Tax Relief Extension Act of 1999 (Title V of the Ticket to Work and Work Incentives Improvement Act of 1999, P.L. 106-170), relating to extension of expiring provisions and other time-sensitive provisions, with revenue offset provisions. Part Four is an explanation of the revenue provisions of the Trade and Development Act of 2000 (P.L. 106- 200), relating to foreign tax credit rules and cover over payments to Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands. Part Five is an explanation of provisions Amending the Internal Revenue Code to Require 527 Organizations to Disclose their Political Activities (P.L. 106-230), Part Six is an explanation of the revenue provisions of the Miscellaneous Trade and Technical Corrections Act of 2000 (P.L. 106-476), relating to imported cigarette compliance. Part Seven is an explanation of the FSC Repeal and Extraterritorial Income Exclusion Act of 2000 (P.L. 106-519), relating to repeal of rules for foreign sales corporations. Part Eight is an explanation of the revenue provisions of the Community Renewal Tax Relief Act of 2000 (P.L. 106-554, H.R. 5662), relating to community renewal, medical savings accounts, administrative and technical corrections, and tax treatment of securities futures contracts. Part Nine is an explanation of the Installment Tax Correction Act of 2000 (P.L. 106-573), relating to repeal of the prohibition on the use of the installment method of accounting for certain dispositions. The Appendix provides the estimated budget effects of tax legislation enacted in the 106th Congress. PART ONE: AVAILABILITY OF CERTAIN TAX BENEFITS FOR SERVICES FOR PART OF OPERATION ALLIED FORCE (PUBLIC LAW 106-21) \2\ --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \2\ H.R. 1376. The bill was ordered reported by the House Committee on Ways and Means on April 13, 1999 (H. Rep. 106-90). The House and the Senate both passed the bill on April 15, 1999. The bill was signed by the President on April 19, 1999. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Present and Prior Law General time limits for filing tax returns Individuals generally must file their Federal income tax returns by April 15 of the year following the close of a taxable year (sec. 6072). The Secretary may grant reasonable extensions of time for filing such returns (sec. 6081). Treasury regulations provide an additional automatic two-month extension (until June 15 for calendar-year individuals) for United States citizens and residents in military or naval service on duty on April 15 of the following year (the otherwise applicable due date of the return) outside the United States (Treas. Reg. sec. 1.6081-5(a)(6)). No action is necessary to apply for this extension, but taxpayers must indicate on their returns (when filed) that they are claiming this extension. Unlike most extensions of time to file, this extension applies to both filing returns and paying the tax due. Treasury regulations also provide, upon application on the proper form, an automatic four-month extension (until August 15 for calendar-year individuals) for any individual timely filing that form and paying the amount of tax estimated to be due (Treas. Reg. sec. 1.6081-4). In general, individuals must make quarterly estimated tax payments by April 15, June 15, September 15, and January 15 of the following taxable year. Wage withholding is considered to be a payment of estimated taxes. Suspension of time periods In general, the period of time for performing various acts under the Internal Revenue Code, such as filing tax returns, paying taxes, or filing a claim for credit or refund of tax, is suspended for any individual serving in the Armed Forces of the United States in an area designated as a ``combat zone'' during the period of combatant activities (sec. 7508). An individual who becomes a prisoner of war is considered to continue in active service and is therefore also eligible for these suspension of time provisions. The suspension of time also applies to an individual serving in support of such Armed Forces in the combat zone, such as Red Cross personnel, accredited correspondents, and civilian personnel acting under the direction of the Armed Forces in support of those Forces. The designation of a combat zone must be made by the President in an Executive Order. The President must also designate the period of combatant activities in the combat zone (the starting date and the termination date of combat). The suspension of time encompasses the period of service in the combat zone during the period of combatant activities in the zone, as well as (1) any time of continuous qualified hospitalization resulting from injury received in the combat zone \3\ or (2) time in missing in action status, plus the next 180 days. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \3\ Two special rules apply to continuous hospitalization inside the United States. First, the suspension of time provisions based on continuous hospitalization inside the United States are applicable only to the hospitalized individual; they are not applicable to the spouse of such individual. Second, in no event do the suspension of time provisions based on continuous hospitalization inside the United States extend beyond five years from the date the individual returns to the United States. These two special rules do not apply to continuous hospitalization outside the United States. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- The suspension of time applies to the following acts: (1) Filing any return of income, estate, or gift tax (except employment and withholding taxes); (2) Payment of any income, estate, or gift tax (except employment and withholding taxes); (3) Filing a petition with the Tax Court for redetermination of a deficiency, or for review of a decision rendered by the Tax Court; (4) Allowance of a credit or refund of any tax; (5) Filing a claim for credit or refund of any tax; (6) Bringing suit upon any such claim for credit or refund; (7) Assessment of any tax; (8) Giving or making any notice or demand for the payment of any tax, or with respect to any liability to the United States in respect of any tax; (9) Collection of the amount of any liability in respect of any tax; (10) Bringing suit by the United States in respect of any liability in respect of any tax; and (11) Any other act required or permitted under the internal revenue laws specified in regulations prescribed under section 7508 by the Secretary of the Treasury. Individuals may, if they choose, perform any of these acts during the period of suspension. Spouses of qualifying individuals are entitled to the same suspension of time, except that the spouse is ineligible for this suspension for any taxable year beginning more than two years after the date of termination of combatant activities in the combat zone. Exclusion for combat zone compensation Gross income does not include certain combat zone compensation of members of the Armed Forces (sec. 112). If enlisted personnel serve in a combat zone during any part of any month, military pay for that month is excluded from gross income. In addition, if enlisted personnel are hospitalized as a result of injuries, wounds, or disease incurred in a combat zone, military pay for that month is also excluded from gross income; this exclusion is limited, however, to hospitalization during any part of any month beginning not more than two years after the end of combat in the zone. In the case of commissioned officers, these exclusions from income are limited to the maximum enlisted amount \4\ of military pay. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \4\ This is defined as the higher rate of basic pay at the highest pay grade applicable for that month to any enlisted member of the Armed Forces of the United States, plus, in the case of an officer entitled to combat pay, the amount of combat pay payable to that officer for that month. (sec. 112(c)(5)). --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Income tax withholding does not apply to military pay to the extent that an employee (whether enlisted personnel or commissioned officer) is entitled to the exclusion from income for combat pay (sec. 3401(a)(1)). Exemption from tax upon death in a combat zone An individual in active service as a member of the Armed Forces who dies while serving in a combat zone (or as a result of wounds, disease, or injury received while serving in a combat zone) is not subject to income tax for the year of death (as well as for any prior taxable year ending on or after the first day the individual served in the combat zone) (sec. 692). Special computational rules apply in the case of joint returns. A reduction in estate taxes is also provided with respect to individuals dying under these circumstances (sec. 2201). Special rules permit the filing of a joint return where a spouse is in missing status as a result of service in a combat zone (sec. 6013(f)(1)). Special rules for determining surviving spouse status apply where the deceased spouse was in missing status as a result of service in a combat zone (sec. 2(a)(3)). Exemption from telephone excise tax The telephone excise tax is not imposed on ``any toll telephone service'' that originates in a combat zone (sec. 4253(d)). Operation Desert Storm: Executive Order designating Persian Gulf Area as a combat zone On January 21, 1991, President Bush signed Executive Order 12744, designating the Persian Gulf Area as a combat zone. This designation was retroactive to January 17, 1991, the date combat commenced in that area, and continues in effect until terminated by another Executive Order. An Executive Order terminating this combat zone designation has not been issued. Thus, individuals serving in the Persian Gulf Area are eligible for the suspension of time provisions and military pay exclusions (among other provisions) described above, beginning on January 17, 1991. The Executive Order specifies that the Persian Gulf Area is the Persian Gulf, the Red Sea, the Gulf of Oman, part of the Arabian Sea, the Gulf of Aden, and the entire land areas of Iraq, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, Oman, Bahrain, Qatar, and the United Arab Emirates. Operation Desert Shield: Legislative extension of time On January 30, 1991, President Bush signed Public Law 102- 2. This Act amended section 7508 by providing that any individual who performs Desert Shield services (and the spouse of such an individual) is entitled to the benefits of the suspension of time provisions of section 7508. Desert Shield services are defined as services in the Armed Forces of the United States (or in support of those Armed Forces) if such services are performed in the area designated by the President as the ``Persian Gulf Desert Shield area'' and such services are performed during the period beginning August 2, 1990, and ending on the date on which any portion of the area was designated by the President as a combat zone pursuant to section 112 (which was January 17, 1991). Operation Joint Endeavor: Administrative extension of time On December 12, 1995, the Internal Revenue Service announced \5\ that it was administratively extending the time to file tax returns until December 15, 1996, for members of the Armed Forces ``departing 'Operation Joint Endeavor''' on or after March 1, 1996. In addition, the IRS stated that the penalties for failure to file tax returns and failure to pay taxes would not be assessed with respect to these individuals. Also, the IRS stated that it would administratively place any balance due accounts into suspense status and suspend examinations while the member is serving in ``Operation Joint Endeavor.'' --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \5\ Letter dated December 12, 1995, from John T. Lyons, Assistant Commissioner (International), Internal Revenue Service, to Lt. Col. David M. Pronchick, Armed Forces Tax Counsel, Department of Defense. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Operation Joint Endeavor and Operation Able Sentry: Legislative treatment as if a combat zone Pursuant to Public Law 104-117,\6\ a qualified hazardous duty area is treated in the same manner as if it were a combat zone for purposes of the following provisions of the Code: --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \6\ 110 Stat. 827 (March 20, 1996). --------------------------------------------------------------------------- (1) the special rule for determining surviving spouse status where the deceased spouse was in missing status as a result of service in a combat zone (sec. 2(a)(3)); (2) the exclusions from income for combat pay (sec. 112); (3) forgiveness of income taxes of members of the Armed Forces dying in the combat zone or by reason of combat-zone incurred wounds (sec. 692); (4) the reduction in estate taxes for members of the Armed Forces dying in the combat zone or by reason of combat-zone incurred wounds (sec. 2201); (5) the exemption from income tax withholding for military pay for any month in which an employee is entitled to the exclusion from income (sec. 3401(a)(1)); (6) the exemption from the telephone excise tax for toll telephone service that originates in a combat zone (sec. 4253(d)); (7) the special rule permitting filing of a joint return where a spouse is in missing status as a result of service in a combat zone (sec. 6013(f)(1)); and (8) the suspension of time provisions (sec. 7508). A qualified hazardous duty area means Bosnia and Herzegovina, Croatia, or Macedonia, if, as of the date of enactment, any member of the Armed Forces is entitled to hostile fire/imminent danger pay for services performed in such country. Members of the Armed Forces are in Bosnia and Herzegovina and Croatia as part of ``Operation Joint Endeavor'' (the NATO operation).\7\ Members of the Armed Forces are in Macedonia as part of ``Operation Able Sentry'' (the United Nations operation). In addition, persons other than Members of the Armed Forces who are serving in support of these operations of the Armed Forces are eligible for the suspension of time provisions in section 7508 of the Code.\8\ This provision was effective on November 21, 1995 (the date the Dayton Accord was initialed). --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \7\ Operation Joint Endeavor has been replaced by Operation Joint Forge. The IRS has stated that personnel serving under Operation Joint Forge will be treated the same as personnel under Operation Joint Endeavor because Joint Forge is ``the substantive continuation'' of Joint Endeavor. Letter dated July 17, 1998, from Tommy G. DeWeese, District Director for the International District, Internal Revenue Service, to LTC Thomas K. Emswiler, Armed Forces Tax Council, Department of Defense. \8\ In addition, persons other than Members of the Armed Forces are eligible for some of the other seven provisions listed above, under specified circumstances. For example, civilian employees of the United States are eligible for the forgiveness of income tax provisions of section 692 if they die as a result of injuries sustained overseas in specified terroristic or military actions. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Suspension of time provisions for other Operation Joint Endeavor personnel An individual who is performing services as part of Operation Joint Endeavor outside the United States while deployed away from the individual's permanent duty station will qualify for the suspension of time provisions in section 7508 of the Code during the period that hostile fire/imminent danger pay is paid in Bosnia and Herzegovina, Croatia, or Macedonia. Announcement of intention to issue Executive Order designating Kosovo area of operations as a combat zone On April 12, 1999, President Clinton announced his intention to issue an Executive Order designating the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (Serbia/Montenegro), Albania, the Adriatic Sea, and the northern Ionian Sea (including all of their air spaces) as a combat zone for purposes of the Internal Revenue Code. Reasons for Change The Congress believed that it was appropriate to apply the special tax rules applicable to combat zones to service in the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (Serbia/Montenegro), Albania, the Adriatic Sea, and the Northern Ionian Sea in the same manner as if those areas were a combat zone. In addition, the Congress believed that it was appropriate to provide that military personnel performing services outside of those areas but still a part of Operation Allied Force qualify for the suspension of time provisions in section 7508 of the Code during the period that hostile fire/imminent danger pay is paid with respect to those areas, provided that those services are performed both outside the United States and while deployed away from that individual's duty station. Explanation of Provision The Act contains two elements. First, the Act treats the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (Serbia/Montenegro), Albania, the Adriatic Sea, and the northern Ionian Sea above the 39th parallel (including all of their air spaces) as a qualified hazardous duty area. Consequently, military personnel serving in those areas are entitled to relief under all eight of the hazardous duty area provisions listed above. Several special rules apply to civilian personnel. Civilian personnel serving in those areas in support of the Armed Forces are entitled to the suspension of time provisions in section 7508 of the Code. In addition, civilian employees of the United States serving in those areas are entitled to (a) the special rule for determining surviving spouse status where the deceased spouse was in missing status as a result of service in a combat zone (sec. 2(a)(3)); (b) forgiveness of income taxes of employees dying in the combat zone or by reason of combat-zone incurred wounds (sec. 692); and (c) the special rule permitting filing of a joint return where a spouse is in missing status as a result of service in a combat zone (sec. 6013(f)(1)). Second, the Act also provides that military personnel performing services outside of those areas but still a part of Operation Allied Force qualify for the suspension of time provisions in section 7508 of the Code during the period that hostile fire/imminent danger pay is paid with respect to those areas, provided that those services are performed both outside the United States and while deployed away from that individual's duty station. Accordingly, the Act provides the same treatment for those serving in (or in support of) Operation Allied Force as is provided under present law to those serving in (or in support of) Operation Joint Endeavor. Effective Date The provision is effective on March 24, 1999 (the date on which Operation Allied Force commenced). Revenue Effect The provision is estimated to have a negligible effect on Federal fiscal year budget receipts. PART TWO: MISCELLANEOUS TRADE AND TECHNICAL CORRECTIONS ACT OF 1999 (PUBLIC LAW 106-36) \9\ --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \9\ H.R. 435 was referred to the House Committee on Ways and Means on February 2, 1999 and was passed by the House under suspension of the rules on February 9, 1999. No separate House Report was filed. S. 262 was reported by the Senate Committee on Finance on February 3, 1999 (S. Rep. 106-2). On May 27, 1999, the Senate passed H.R. 435, with an amendment by Senator Snowe for Senator Roth in the nature of a substitute (Amendment No. 481). The amendment contained provisions similar to those of S. 262 as reported by the Senate Committee on Finance. Under suspension of the rules, the House concurred with the Senate amendments to H.R. 435 on June 7, 1999. H.R. 435 was signed by the President on June 25, 1999. A provision substantially identical to the tax provision contained in sec. 3001 of H.R. 435 was introduced in the House of Representatives by Mr. Archer on October 19, 1998 (H.R. 4852) and was contained in the Miscellaneous Trade and Technical Corrections Act of 1998 (H.R. 4856) as passed by the House of Representatives on October 20, 1998. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- A. Property ``Subject to'' a Liability Treated in the Same Manner as an Assumption of Liability (sec. 3001 of the Miscellaneous Trade and Technical Corrections Act and secs. 357 and 362 of the Code) Present and Prior Law A transferor of property does not recognize gain or loss if the property is exchanged solely for qualified stock in a controlled corporation (sec. 351). The assumption by the controlled corporation of a liability of the transferor (or the acquisition of property ``subject to'' a liability) generally does not cause the transferor to recognize gain. However, under section 357(c), the transferor does recognize gain to the extent that the sum of the assumed liabilities, together with the liabilities to which the transferred property is subject, exceeds the transferor's basis in the transferred property. If the transferred property is ``subject to'' a liability, Treasury regulations indicate that the amount of the liability is included in the calculation regardless of whether the underlying liability is assumed by the controlled corporation. Similar rules apply to reorganizations described in section 368(a)(1)(D). The gain recognition rule of section 357(c) is applied separately to each transferor in a section 351 exchange. The basis of the property in the hands of the controlled corporation equals the transferor's basis in such property, increased by the amount of gain recognized by the transferor, including section 357(c) gain. Reasons for Change The tax treatment under prior law was unclear in situations involving the transfer of certain liabilities. As a result, the Congress was concerned that some taxpayers may be structuring transactions to take advantage of the uncertainty. For example, where more than one asset secures a single liability, some taxpayers might take the position that, on a transfer of the assets to different subsidiaries, each subsidiary counts the entire liability in determining the basis of the asset. This interpretation arguably might result in the duplication of tax basis or in assets having a tax basis in excess of their value, resulting in excessive depreciation deductions and mismeasurement of income. The provision is intended to eliminate the uncertainty, and to better reflect the underlying economics of these corporate transfers. Explanation of Provision Under the provision, the distinction between the assumption of a liability and the acquisition of an asset subject to a liability generally is eliminated. First, except as provided in Treasury regulations, a recourse liability (or any portion thereof) is treated as having been assumed if, as determined on the basis of all facts and circumstances, the transferee has agreed to, and is expected to satisfy the liability or portion thereof (whether or not the transferor has been relieved of the liability). Thus, where more than one person agrees to satisfy a liability or portion thereof, only one would be expected to satisfy such liability or portion thereof. Second, except as provided in Treasury regulations, a nonrecourse liability (or any portion thereof) is treated as having been assumed by the transferee of any asset that is subject to the liability. However, this amount is reduced in cases where an owner of other assets subject to the same nonrecourse liability agrees with the transferee to, and is expected to, satisfy the liability (up to the fair market value of the other assets, determined without regard to section 7701(g)). In determining whether any person has agreed to and is expected to satisfy a liability, all facts and circumstances are to be considered. In any case where the transferee does agree to satisfy a liability, the transferee also will be expected to satisfy the liability in the absence of facts indicating the contrary. In determining any increase to the basis of property transferred to the transferee as a result of gain recognized because of the assumption of liabilities under section 357, in no event will the increase cause the basis to exceed the fair market value of the property (determined without regard to sec. 7701(g)). If gain is recognized to the transferor as the result of an assumption by a corporation of a nonrecourse liability that also is secured by any assets not transferred to the corporation, and if no person is subject to Federal income tax on such gain, then for purposes of determining the basis of assets transferred, the amount of gain treated as recognized as the result of such assumption of liability shall be determined as if the liability assumed by the transferee equaled such transferee's ratable portion of the liability, based on the relative fair market values (determined without regard to sec. 7701(g)) of all assets subject to such nonrecourse liability. In no event will the gain cause the resulting basis to exceed the fair market value of the property (determined without regard to sec. 7701(g)). The Treasury Department has authority to prescribe such regulations as may be necessary to carry out the purposes of the provision. This authority includes the authority to specify adjustments in the treatment of any subsequent transactions involving the liability, including the treatment of payments actually made with respect to any liability as well as appropriate basis and other adjustments with respect to such payments. Where appropriate, the Treasury Department also may prescribe regulations that provide that the manner in which a liability is treated as assumed under the provision is applied elsewhere in the Code. Effective Date The provision is effective for transfers on or after October 19, 1998. No inference regarding the tax treatment under prior law is intended. Revenue Effect The provision is estimated to increase Federal fiscal year budget receipts by $7 million in 1999, $12 million in 2000, $14 million in 2001, $16 million in 2002, $18 million in 2003, $20 million in 2004, $22 million in 2005, $24 million in 2006, $26 million in 2007, $28 million in 2008, $30 million in 2009, and $32 million in 2010. PART THREE: TAX RELIEF EXTENSION ACT OF 1999 (PUBLIC LAW 106-170) \10\ --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \10\ The Tax Relief Extension Act was enacted as Title V of the Ticket to Work and Work Incentives Improvement Act of 1999 (H.R. 1180). For legislative background, see H.R. 2923, as reported by the House Ways and Means Committee, H. Rep. 106-344 (September 28, 1999); S. 1792, as reported by the Senate Finance Committee, S. Rep. 106-201 (October 26, 1999); and Title V of H.R. 1180, H. Rep. 106-478 (Joint Explanatory Statement of the Committee on Conference) (November 17, 1999). Reasons for change appearing in this document for the provisions in this Act are taken from H. Rep. 106-344 or S. Rep. 106-201 unless otherwise indicated. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- I. EXTENSION OF EXPIRING TAX PROVISIONS A. Extend Minimum Tax Relief for Individuals (sec. 501 of the Tax Relief Extension Act and secs. 24 and 26 of the Code) Present and Prior Law Present and prior law provides for certain nonrefundable personal tax credits (i.e., the dependent care credit, the credit for the elderly and disabled, the adoption credit, the child tax credit, the credit for interest on certain home mortgages, the HOPE Scholarship and Lifetime Learning credits, and the D.C. homebuyer's credit). Under prior law, except for taxable years beginning during 1998, these credits were allowed only to the extent that the individual's regular income tax liability exceeds the individual's tentative minimum tax, determined without regard to the minimum tax foreign tax credit; for taxable years beginning during 1998, these credits were allowed to the extent of the full amount of the individual's regular tax (without regard to the tentative minimum tax). An individual's tentative minimum tax is an amount equal to (1) 26 percent of the first $175,000 ($87,500 in the case of a married individual filing a separate return) of alternative minimum taxable income (``AMTI'') in excess of a phased-out exemption amount and (2) 28 percent of the remaining AMTI. The maximum tax rates on net capital gain used in computing the tentative minimum tax are the same as under the regular tax. AMTI is the individual's taxable income adjusted to take account of specified preferences and adjustments. The exemption amounts are: (1) $45,000 in the case of married individuals filing a joint return and surviving spouses; (2) $33,750 in the case of other unmarried individuals; and (3) $22,500 in the case of married individuals filing a separate return, estates and trusts. The exemption amounts are phased out by an amount equal to 25 percent of the amount by which the individual's AMTI exceeds (1) $150,000 in the case of married individuals filing a joint return and surviving spouses, (2) $112,500 in the case of other unmarried individuals, and (3) $75,000 in the case of married individuals filing separate returns or an estate or a trust. These amounts are not indexed for inflation. For families with three or more qualifying children, a refundable child credit is provided, up to the amount by which the liability for social security taxes exceeds the amount of the earned income credit (sec. 24(d)). Under prior law, for taxable years beginning after 1998, the refundable child credit was reduced by the amount of the individual's minimum tax liability (i.e., the amount by which the tentative minimum tax exceeds the regular tax liability). Reasons for Change The Congress believed that middle-income families should be able to use the nonrefundable credits without limitation by reason of the minimum tax. This provision will result in significant simplification by reducing the number of individuals required to make AMT computations for purposes of determining their personal credits. Explanation of Provision The Tax Relief Extension Act extends the provision that allows the nonrefundable credits to offset the individual's regular tax liability in full (as opposed to only the amount by which the regular tax exceeds the tentative minimum tax) to taxable years beginning in 1999. For taxable years beginning in 2000 and 2001 the personal nonrefundable credits may offset both the regular tax and the minimum tax.\11\ --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \11\ The foreign tax credit will be allowed before the personal credits in computing the regular tax for these years. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Under the Tax Relief Extension Act, the refundable child credit will not be reduced by the amount of an individual's minimum tax in taxable years beginning in 1999, 2000, and 2001. Effective Date The provisions apply to taxable years beginning in 1999, 2000, and 2001. Revenue Effect The provisions are estimated to reduce Federal fiscal year budget receipts by $972 million in 2000, $977 million in 2001, and $943 million in 2002. B. Extension of Research Tax Credit (sec. 502 of the Tax Relief Extension Act and sec. 41 of the Code) Present and Prior Law Section 41 provides for a research tax credit equal to 20 percent of the amount by which a taxpayer's qualified research expenditures for a taxable year exceeded its base amount for that year. The research tax credit expired and generally does not apply to amounts paid or incurred after June 30, 1999. Except for certain university basic research payments made by corporations, the research tax credit applies only to the extent that the taxpayer's qualified research expenditures for the current taxable year exceed its base amount. The base amount for the current year generally is computed by multiplying the taxpayer's ``fixed-base percentage'' by the average amount of the taxpayer's gross receipts for the four preceding years. If a taxpayer both incurred qualified research expenditures and had gross receipts during each of at least three years from 1984 through 1988, then its ``fixed-base percentage'' is the ratio that its total qualified research expenditures for the 1984-1988 period bears to its total gross receipts for that period (subject to a maximum ratio of .16). All other taxpayers (so-called ``start- up firms'') are assigned a fixed-base percentage of 3.0 percent. Expenditures attributable to research that is conducted outside the United States do not enter into the credit computation. Taxpayers are allowed to elect an alternative incremental research credit regime. If a taxpayer elects to be subject to this alternative regime, the taxpayer is assigned a three- tiered fixed-base percentage (that is lower than the fixed-base percentage otherwise applicable under present law) and the credit rate likewise is reduced. Under the alternative credit regime, a credit rate of 1.65 percent applies to the extent that a taxpayer's current-year research expenses exceed a base amount computed by using a fixed-base percentage of 1 percent (i.e., the base amount equals 1 percent of the taxpayer's average gross receipts for the four preceding years) but do not exceed a base amount computed by using a fixed-base percentage of 1.5 percent. A credit rate of 2.2 percent applies to the extent that a taxpayer's current-year research expenses exceed a base amount computed by using a fixed-base percentage of 1.5 percent but do not exceed a base amount computed by using a fixed-base percentage of 2 percent. A credit rate of 2.75 percent applies to the extent that a taxpayer's current-year research expenses exceed a base amount computed by using a fixed-base percentage of 2 percent. An election to be subject to this alternative incremental credit regime may be made for any taxable year beginning after June 30, 1996, and such an election applies to that taxable year and all subsequent years (in the event that the credit subsequently is extended by Congress) unless revoked with the consent of the Secretary of the Treasury. Reasons for Change The Congress believed that increasing technological knowledge ultimately will lead to new and better products produced at lower costs. New and better products and lower production costs are the genesis of economic growth. For this reason, the Congress believed it was important to extend the research and experimentation tax credit. In addition, the Congress believed the alternative incremental credit enacted in 1996 should be strengthened. The alternative incremental research credit was enacted to respond to the changing economic circumstances of many taxpayers, which invest heavily in research. However, the Congress believed that, under current law, the alternative incremental research credit provides less of a research incentive than does the regular research and experimentation tax credit. Therefore, the Congress believed it was appropriate to increase the rate of the alternative incremental research credit. Lastly, the Congress believed that qualified research expenditures incurred in Puerto Rico and other possessions should qualify for purposes of determination of the research credit, so long as such expenses are not otherwise related to credits allowable under sec. 30A (``Puerto Rico economic activity credit'') or under sec. 936 (``Puerto Rico and possession tax credit''). Explanation of Provision The provision extends the research credit through June 30, 2004. In addition, the provision increases the credit rate applicable under the alternative incremental research credit by one percentage point per step. The provision also expands the definition of qualified research to include research undertaken in Puerto Rico and possessions of the United States. Research tax credits that are attributable to the period beginning on July 1, 1999, and ending on September 30, 2000, may not be taken into account in determining any amount required to be paid for any purpose under the Internal Revenue Code prior to October 1, 2000. On or after October 1, 2000, such credits may be taken into account through the filing of an amended return, an application for expedited refund, an adjustment of estimated taxes, or other means that are allowed by the Code. The prohibition on taking credits attributable to the period beginning on July 1, 1999, and ending on September 30, 2000, into account as payments prior to October 1, 2000, extends to the determination of any penalty or interest under the Code. For example, the amount of tax required to be shown on a return that is due prior to October 1, 2000 (excluding extensions) may not be reduced by any such credits. In addition, the Congress clarified that deductions under section 174 are reduced by credits allowable under section 41 as under present law, not withstanding the delay in taking the credit into account created by this provision. Similarly, research tax credits that are attributable to the period beginning October 1, 2000, and ending on September 30, 2001, may not be taken into account in determining any amount required to be paid for any purpose under the Internal Revenue Code prior to October 1, 2001. On or after October 1, 2001, such credits may be taken into account through the filing of an amended return, an application for expedited refund, an adjustment of estimated taxes, or other means that are allowed by the Code. Likewise, the prohibition on taking credits attributable to the period beginning on October 1, 2000, and ending on September 30, 2001, into account as payments prior to October 1, 2001, extends to the determination of any penalty or interest under the Code. In extending the research credit, the Congress expressed concern that the definition of qualified research be administered in a manner that is consistent with the intent Congress has expressed in enacting and extending the research credit. The Congress urged the Secretary to consider carefully the comments he had and may receive regarding the proposed regulations relating to the computation of the credit under section 41(c) and the definition of qualified research under section 41(d), particularly regarding the ``common knowledge'' standard. The Congress further noted the rapid pace of technological advance, especially in service-related industries, and urged the Secretary to consider carefully the comments he had and may receive in promulgating regulations in connection with what constitutes ``internal use'' with regard to software expenditures. The Congress also observed that software research, that otherwise satisfies the requirements of section 41, which is undertaken to support the provision of a service, should not be deemed ``internal use'' solely because the business component involves the provision of a service. The Congress reaffirmed that qualified research is research undertaken for the purpose of discovering new information, which is technological in nature. For purposes of applying this definition, new information is information that is new to the taxpayer, is not freely available to the general public, and otherwise satisfies the requirements of section 41. Employing existing technologies in a particular field or relying on existing principles of engineering or science is qualified research, if such activities are otherwise undertaken for purposes of discovering information and satisfy the other requirements under section 41. The Congress also was concerned about unnecessary and costly taxpayer record keeping burdens and reaffirm that eligibility for the credit is not intended to be contingent on meeting unreasonable record keeping requirements. Effective Date The extension of the research credit is effective for qualified research expenditures paid or incurred during the period July 1, 1999, through June 30, 2004. The increase in the credit rate under the alternative incremental research credit is effective for taxable years beginning after June 30, 1999. Revenue Effect The provision is estimated to reduce Federal fiscal year receipts by $1,661 million in 2001, $4,082 million in 2002, $2,541 million in 2003, $2,242 million in 2004, $1,343 million in 2005, $708 million in 2006, $386 million in 2007, $150 million in 2008, and $26 million in 2009. C. Subpart F Exemption for Active Financing Income (sec. 503 of the Tax Relief Extension Act and secs. 953 and 954 of the Code) Present and Prior Law Under the subpart F rules, 10-percent U.S. shareholders of a controlled foreign corporation (``CFC'') are subject to U.S. tax currently on certain income earned by the CFC, whether or not such income is distributed to the shareholders. The income subject to current inclusion under the subpart F rules includes, among other things, foreign personal holding company income and insurance income. In addition, 10-percent U.S. shareholders of a CFC are subject to current inclusion with respect to their shares of the CFC's foreign base company services income (i.e., income derived from services performed for a related person outside the country in which the CFC is organized). Foreign personal holding company income generally consists of the following: (1) dividends, interest, royalties, rents, and annuities; (2) net gains from the sale or exchange of (a) property that gives rise to the preceding types of income, (b) property that does not give rise to income, and (c) interests in trusts, partnerships, and REMICs; (3) net gains from commodities transactions; (4) net gains from foreign currency transactions; (5) income that is equivalent to interest; (6) income from notional principal contracts; and (7) payments in lieu of dividends. Insurance income subject to current inclusion under the subpart F rules includes any income of a CFC attributable to the issuing or reinsuring of any insurance or annuity contract in connection with risks located in a country other than the CFC's country of organization. Subpart F insurance income also includes income attributable to an insurance contract in connection with risks located within the CFC's country of organization, as the result of an arrangement under which another corporation receives a substantially equal amount of consideration for insurance of other-country risks. Investment income of a CFC that is allocable to any insurance or annuity contract related to risks located outside the CFC's country of organization is taxable as subpart F insurance income (Prop. Treas. Reg. sec. 1.953-1(a)). Temporary exceptions from foreign personal holding company income, foreign base company services income, and insurance income apply for subpart F purposes for certain income that is derived in the active conduct of a banking, financing, or similar business, or in the conduct of an insurance business (so-called ``active financing income''). These exceptions are applicable only for taxable years beginning in 1999.\12\ --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \12\ Temporary exceptions from the subpart F provisions for certain active financing income applied only for taxable years beginning in 1998. Those exceptions were extended and modified as part of the present-law provision. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- With respect to income derived in the active conduct of a banking, financing, or similar business, a CFC is required to be predominantly engaged in such business and to conduct substantial activity with respect to such business in order to qualify for the exceptions. In addition, certain nexus requirements apply, which provide that income derived by a CFC or a qualified business unit (``QBU'') of a CFC from transactions with customers is eligible for the exceptions if, among other things, substantially all of the activities in connection with such transactions are conducted directly by the CFC or QBU in its home country, and such income is treated as earned by the CFC or QBU in its home country for purposes of such country's tax laws. Moreover, the exceptions apply to income derived from certain cross border transactions, provided that certain requirements are met. Additional exceptions from foreign personal holding company income apply for certain income derived by a securities dealer within the meaning of section 475 and for gain from the sale of active financing assets. In the case of insurance, in addition to a temporary exception from foreign personal holding company income for certain income of a qualifying insurance company with respect to risks located within the CFC's country of creation or organization, certain temporary exceptions from insurance income and from foreign personal holding company income apply for certain income of a qualifying branch of a qualifying insurance company with respect to risks located within the home country of the branch, provided certain requirements are met under each of the exceptions. Further, additional temporary exceptions from insurance income and from foreign personal holding company income apply for certain income of certain CFCs or branches with respect to risks located in a country other than the United States, provided that the requirements for these exceptions are met. Reasons for Change In the Taxpayer Relief Act of 1997, one-year temporary exceptions from foreign personal holding company income were enacted \13\ for income from the active conduct of an insurance, banking, financing, or similar business. In the Tax and Trade Relief Extension Act of 1998 (the ``1998 Act''),\14\ the Congress extended the temporary exceptions for an additional year, with certain modifications designed to treat various types of businesses with active financing income more similarly to each other than did the 1997 provision. The Congress believed that it was appropriate to extend the temporary exceptions, as modified in the 1998 Act, for another two years. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \13\ The President canceled this provision in 1997 pursuant to the Line Item Veto Act. On June 25, 1998, the U.S. Supreme Court held that the cancellation procedures set forth in the Line Item Veto Act are unconstitutional. Clinton v. City of New York, 118 S. Ct. 2091 (June 25, 1998). \14\ The Tax and Trade Relief Extension Act of 1998, Division J, Making Omnibus Consolidated and Emergency Supplemental Appropriations for Fiscal Year 1999, P.L. 105-277, sec. 1005, 112 Stat. 2681 (1998). --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Explanation of Provision The provision extends for two years the present-law temporary exceptions from subpart F foreign personal holding company income, foreign base company services income, and insurance income for certain income that is derived in the active conduct of a banking, financing, or similar business, or in the conduct of an insurance business. The Congress clarified that if the temporary exception from subpart F insurance income does not apply for a taxable year beginning after December 31, 2001, section 953(a) is to be applied to such taxable year in the same manner as it would for a taxable year beginning in 1998 (i.e., under the law in effect before amendments to section 953(a) were made in 1998).\15\ Thus, for future periods in which the temporary exception relating to insurance income is not in effect, the same-country exception from subpart F insurance income applies as under prior law. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \15\ Id. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Effective Date The provision is effective for taxable years of foreign corporations beginning after December 31, 1999, and before January 1, 2002, and for taxable years of U.S. shareholders with or within which such taxable years of such foreign corporations end. Revenue Effect The provision is estimated to reduce Federal fiscal year budget receipts by $187 million in 2000, $785 million in 2001, and $744 million in 2002. D. Taxable Income Limit on Percentage Depletion for Marginal Production (sec. 504 of the Tax Relief Extension Act and sec. 613A of the Code) Present Law In general Depletion, like depreciation, is a form of capital cost recovery. In both cases, the taxpayer is allowed a deduction in recognition of the fact that an asset--in the case of depletion for oil or gas interests, the mineral reserve itself--is being expended in order to produce income. Certain costs incurred prior to drilling an oil or gas property are recovered through the depletion deduction. These include costs of acquiring the lease or other interest in the property and geological and geophysical costs (in advance of actual drilling). Depletion is available to any person having an economic interest in a producing property. Two methods of depletion are allowable under the Code: (1) the cost depletion method, and (2) the percentage depletion method (secs. 611-613). Under the cost depletion method, the taxpayer deducts that portion of the adjusted basis of the depletable property which is equal to the ratio of units sold from that property during the taxable year to the number of units remaining as of the end of taxable year plus the number of units sold during the taxable year. Thus, the amount recovered under cost depletion may never exceed the taxpayer's basis in the property. Under the percentage depletion method, generally, 15 percent of the taxpayer's gross income from an oil- or gas- producing property is allowed as a deduction in each taxable year (sec. 613A(c)). The amount deducted generally may not exceed 100 percent of the net income from that property in any year (the ``net-income limitation'') (sec. 613(a)). The Taxpayer Relief Act of 1997 suspended the 100-percent-of-net- income limitation for production from marginal wells for taxable years beginning after December 31, 1997, and before January 1, 2000. Additionally, the percentage depletion deduction for all oil and gas properties may not exceed 65 percent of the taxpayer's overall taxable income (determined before such deduction and adjusted for certain loss carrybacks and trust distributions) (sec. 613A(d)(1)).\16\ Because percentage depletion, unlike cost depletion, is computed without regard to the taxpayer's basis in the depletable property, cumulative depletion deductions may be greater than the amount expended by the taxpayer to acquire or develop the property. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \16\ Amounts disallowed as a result of this rule may be carried forward and deducted in subsequent taxable years, subject to the 65- percent taxable income limitation for those years. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- A taxpayer is required to determine the depletion deduction for each oil or gas property under both the percentage depletion method (if the taxpayer is entitled to use this method) and the cost depletion method. If the cost depletion deduction is larger, the taxpayer must utilize that method for the taxable year in question (sec. 613(a)). Limitation of oil and gas percentage depletion to independent producers and royalty owners Generally, only independent producers and royalty owners (as contrasted to integrated oil companies) are allowed to claim percentage depletion. Percentage depletion for eligible taxpayers is allowed only with respect to up to 1,000 barrels of average daily production of domestic crude oil or an equivalent amount of domestic natural gas (sec. 613A(c)). For producers of both oil and natural gas, this limitation applies on a combined basis. In addition to the independent producer and royalty owner exception, certain sales of natural gas under a fixed contract in effect on February 1, 1975, and certain natural gas from geopressured brine, are eligible for percentage depletion, at rates of 22 percent and 10 percent, respectively. These exceptions apply without regard to the 1,000-barrel-per-day limitation and regardless of whether the producer is an independent producer or an integrated oil company. Reasons for Change The Congress noted that oil is, and will continue to be, vital to the American economy. The Congress observed that low oil prices had created substantial economic hardship in the oil industry and particularly in those communities where the majority of jobs are related to providing this vital commodity to the nation. Skilled workers and industry know-how will be critical to the exploration for and production of oil and gas in the future. The Congress, therefore, was concerned that economic hardship in the industry could lead to business failures and job losses. Explanation of Provision The provision extends the period when the 100-percent net- income limit is suspended to include taxable years beginning after December 31, 1999 and before January 1, 2002. Effective Date The provision became effective on the date of enactment (December 17, 1999). Revenue Effect The provision is estimated to reduce Federal fiscal year revenues by $23 million in 2000, by $35 million in 2001, and by $12 million in 2002. E. Extend the Work Opportunity Tax Credit (sec. 505 of the Tax Relief Extension Act and sec. 51 of the Code) Present and Prior Law In general The work opportunity tax credit (``WOTC''), which expired on June 30, 1999, was available on an elective basis for employers hiring individuals from one or more of eight targeted groups. The credit equals 40 percent (25 percent for employment of 400 hours or less) of qualified wages. Generally, qualified wages are wages attributable to service rendered by a member of a targeted group during the one-year period beginning with the day the individual began work for the employer. The maximum credit per employee is $2,400 (40% of the first $6,000 of qualified first-year wages). With respect to qualified summer youth employees, the maximum credit is $1,200 (40 percent of the first $3,000 of qualified first-year wages). The employer's deduction for wages is reduced by the amount of the credit. Targeted groups eligible for the credit The eight targeted groups are: (1) families eligible to receive benefits under the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) Program; (2) high-risk youth; (3) qualified ex- felons; (4) vocational rehabilitation referrals; (5) qualified summer youth employees; (6) qualified veterans; (7) families receiving food stamps; and (8) persons receiving certain Supplemental Security Income (SSI) benefits. Minimum employment period No credit is allowed for wages paid to employees who work less than 120 hours in the first year of employment. Expiration date The credit was effective for wages paid or incurred to a qualified individual who began work for an employer before July 1, 1999. Reasons for Change The Congress believed the preliminary experience of the WOTC is promising as an incentive for employers to hire individuals who are under-skilled, undereducated, or who generally may be less desirable (e.g., lacking in work experience) to employers. A temporary extension of this credit will allow the Congress and the Treasury and Labor Departments to continue to monitor the effectiveness of the credit. The Congress also believed that the electronic filing of the request for certification (the ``Form 8850'') will reduce the administrative burden involved in claiming the credit and encourage more employers to participate in the program. Explanation of Provision The Tax Relief Extension Act provides for a 30-month extension of the work opportunity tax credit (through December 31, 2001) and includes a clarification of the definition of first year of employment for purposes of the WOTC. Also, the Tax Relief Extension Act directed the Secretary of the Treasury to expedite the use of electronic filing of requests for certification under the credit. Effective Date The provision is effective for wages paid or incurred to qualified individuals who begin work for the employer on or after July 1, 1999, and before January 1, 2002. Revenue Effect The provision is estimated to reduce Federal fiscal year budget receipts by $229 million in 2000, $321 million in 2001, $293 million in 2002, $151 million in 2003, $58 million in 2004, $19 million in 2005, and $3 million in 2006. F. Extend the Welfare-To-Work Tax Credit (sec. 505 of the Tax Relief Extension Act and sec. 51A of the Code) Present and Prior Law The Code provided to employers a tax credit on the first $20,000 of eligible wages paid to qualified long-term family assistance (AFDC or its successor program) recipients during the first two years of employment. The credit is 35 percent of the first $10,000 of eligible wages in the first year of employment and 50 percent of the first $10,000 of eligible wages in the second year of employment. The maximum credit is $8,500 per qualified employee. Qualified long-term family assistance recipients are: (1) members of a family that has received family assistance for at least 18 consecutive months ending on the hiring date; (2) members of a family that has received family assistance for a total of at least 18 months (whether or not consecutive) after the date of enactment of this credit if they are hired within 2 years after the date that the 18-month total is reached; and (3) members of a family who are no longer eligible for family assistance because of either Federal or State time limits, if they are hired within 2 years after the Federal or State time limits made the family ineligible for family assistance. Eligible wages include cash wages paid to an employee plus amounts paid by the employer for the following: (1) educational assistance excludable under a section 127 program (or that would be excludable but for the expiration of sec. 127); (2) health plan coverage for the employee, but not more than the applicable premium defined under section 4980B(f)(4); and (3) dependent care assistance excludable under section 129. The welfare to work credit was effective for wages paid or incurred to a qualified individual who begins work for an employer on or after January 1, 1998, and before July 1, 1999. Reasons for Change When enacted in the Taxpayer Relief Act of 1997, the goals of the welfare-to-work credit were: (1) to provide an incentive to hire long-term welfare recipients; (2) to promote the transition from welfare to work by increasing access to employment; and (3) to encourage employers to provide these individuals with training, health coverage, dependent care and ultimately better job attachment. The Congress believed that the credit should be temporarily extended to provide the Congress and the Treasury and Labor Departments a better opportunity to assess the operation and effectiveness of the credit in meeting its goals. Explanation of Provision The Tax Relief Extension Act provides for a 30-month extension of the welfare-to-work tax credit (through December 31, 2001). Effective Date The provision is effective for wages paid or incurred to a qualified individual who begins work for an employer on or after July 1, 1999, and before January 1, 2002. Revenue Effect The provision is estimated to reduce Federal fiscal year budget receipts by $49 million in 2000, $77 million in 2001, $79 million in 2002, $47 million in 2003, $19 million in 2004, $7 million in 2005, and $2 million in 2006. G. Extend Exclusion for Employer-Provided Educational Assistance (sec. 506 of the Tax Relief Extension Act and sec. 127 of the Code) Present and Prior Law Educational expenses paid by an employer for the employer's employees are generally deductible to the employer. Employer-paid educational expenses are excludable from the gross income and wages of an employee if provided under a section 127 educational assistance plan or if the expenses qualify as a working condition fringe benefit under section 132. Section 127 provides an exclusion of $5,250 annually for employer-provided educational assistance. Under prior law, the exclusion expired with respect to graduate-level courses beginning after June 30, 1996. With respect to undergraduate- level courses, the exclusion for employer-provided educational assistance expired under prior law with respect to courses beginning on or after June 1, 2000. In order for the exclusion to apply, certain requirements must be satisfied. The educational assistance must be provided pursuant to a separate written plan of the employer. The educational assistance program must not discriminate in favor of highly compensated employees. In addition, not more than 5 percent of the amounts paid or incurred by the employer during the year for educational assistance under a qualified educational assistance plan can be provided for the class of individuals consisting of more than 5-percent owners of the employer (and their spouses and dependents). Educational expenses that do not qualify for the section 127 exclusion may be excludable from income as a working condition fringe benefit.\17\ In general, education qualifies as a working condition fringe benefit if the employee could have deducted the education expenses under section 162 if the employee paid for the education. In general, education expenses are deductible by an individual under section 162 if the education (1) maintains or improves a skill required in a trade or business currently engaged in by the taxpayer, or (2) meets the express requirements of the taxpayer's employer, applicable law or regulations imposed as a condition of continued employment. However, education expenses are generally not deductible if they relate to certain minimum educational requirements or to education or training that enables a taxpayer to begin working in a new trade or business.\18\ --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \17\ These rules also apply in the event that section 127 expires and is not reinstated. \18\ In the case of an employee, education expenses (if not reimbursed by the employer) may be claimed as an itemized deduction only if such expenses, along with other miscellaneous deductions, exceed 2 percent of the taxpayer's AGI. The 2-percent floor limitation is disregarded in determining whether an item is excludable as a working condition fringe benefit. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Reasons for Change The Congress believed that the exclusion for employer- provided educational assistance has enabled millions of workers to advance their education and improve their job skills without incurring additional taxes and a reduction in take-home pay. In addition, the exclusion lessens the complexity of the tax laws. Without the special exclusion, a worker receiving educational assistance from his or her employer is subject to tax on the assistance, unless the education is related to the worker's current job. Because the determination of whether particular educational assistance is job-related is based on the facts and circumstances, it may be difficult to determine with certainty whether the educational assistance is excludable from income. This uncertainty may lead to disputes between taxpayers and the Internal Revenue Service. The past experience of allowing the exclusion to expire and subsequently retroactively extending it has created burdens for employers and employees. Employees may have difficulty planning for their educational goals if they do not know whether their tax bills will increase. For employers, the fits and starts of the legislative history of the provision have caused severe administrative problems. The Congress believed that uncertainty about the exclusion's future may discourage some employers from providing educational benefits. Thus, the Congress believed it appropriate to extend the provisions so that employers and employees can plan for some time into the future. Explanation of Provision The Tax Relief Extension Act extends the exclusion for employer-provided educational assistance through December 31, 2001. The exclusion does not apply with respect to graduate- level courses. Effective Date The provision is effective with respect to courses beginning after May 31, 2000, and before January 1, 2002. Revenue Effect The provision is estimated to reduce Federal fiscal year budget receipts by $134 million in 2000, $318 million in 2001, and $132 million in 2002. H. Extension and Modification of Credit for Producing Electricity From Certain Renewable Resources (sec. 507 of the Tax Relief Extension Act and sec. 45 of the Code) Present and Prior Law An income tax credit is allowed for the production of electricity from either qualified wind energy or qualified ``closed-loop'' biomass facilities (sec. 45). The credit applies to electricity produced by a qualified wind energy facility placed in service after December 31, 1993, and before July 1, 1999, and to electricity produced by a qualified closed-loop biomass facility placed in service after December 31, 1992, and before July 1, 1999. The credit is allowable for production during the 10-year period after a facility is originally placed in service. Closed-loop biomass is the use of plant matter, where the plants are grown for the sole purpose of being used to generate electricity. It does not include the use of waste materials (including, but not limited to, scrap wood, manure, and municipal or agricultural waste). The credit also is not available to taxpayers who use standing timber to produce electricity. In order to claim the credit, a taxpayer must own the facility and sell the electricity produced by the facility to an unrelated party. The credit for electricity produced from wind or closed- loop biomass is a component of the general business credit (sec. 28(b)(1)). This credit, when combined with all other components of the general business credit, generally may not exceed for any taxable year the excess of the taxpayer's net income tax over the greater of (1) 25 percent of net regular tax liability above $25,000 or (2) the tentative minimum tax. An unused general business credit generally may be carried back one taxable year and carried forward 20 taxable years (sec. 39). Reasons for Change The Congress believed that the credit provided under section 45 has been important to the development of environmentally friendly, renewable wind power and that extending the placed in service date will increase the further development of wind resources. The Congress observed, however, that there is organic waste that is disposed of in an uncontrolled manner. Such organic waste can be a fuel source that, if utilized, can promote a cleaner environment. The Congress believed that providing a credit to utilize these organic fuel sources can help produce needed electricity while providing environmental benefits for communities and the nation. Explanation of Provision The provision extends the present-law tax credit for electricity produced by wind and closed-loop biomass for facilities placed in service after June 30, 1999, and before January 1, 2002. The provision also modifies the tax credit to include electricity produced from poultry litter, for facilities placed in service after December 31, 1999, and before January 1, 2002. In addition, the provision clarifies which wind facilities are eligible for the credit. Effective Date The provision is effective on the date of enactment (December 17, 1999). Revenue Effect The provision is estimated to reduce Federal fiscal year receipts by $9 million in 2000, $25 million in 2001, $33 million in 2002, $33 million in 2003, $34 million in 2004, $35 million in 2005, $36 million in 2006, $37 million in 2007, $38 million in 2008, $38 million in 2009, and $39 million in 2010. I. Extension of Authority to Issue Qualified Zone Academy Bonds (sec. 509 of the Tax Relief Extension Act and sec. 1397E of the Code) Present and Prior Law Tax-exempt bonds Interest on State and local governmental bonds generally is excluded from gross income for Federal income tax purposes if the proceeds of the bonds are used to finance direct activities of these governmental units or if the bonds are repaid with revenues of the governmental units, including the financing of public schools (sec. 103). Qualified zone academy bonds As an alternative to traditional tax-exempt bonds, States and local governments are given the authority to issue ``qualified zone academy bonds'' (``QZABs'') (sec. 1397E). A total of $400 million of qualified zone academy bonds could be issued in each of 1998 and 1999. The $400 million aggregate bond cap is allocated each year to the States according to their respective populations of individuals below the poverty line. Each State, in turn, allocates the credit authority to qualified zone academies within such State. Under prior law, a State could carry over any unused allocation indefinitely into subsequent years. Certain financial institutions that hold qualified zone academy bonds are entitled to a nonrefundable tax credit in an amount equal to a credit rate multiplied by the face amount of the bond. A taxpayer holding a qualified zone academy bond on the credit allowance date is entitled to a credit. The credit is includable in gross income (as if it were a taxable interest payment on the bond), and may be claimed against regular income tax and AMT liability. The Treasury Department sets the credit rate at a rate estimated to allow issuance of qualified zone academy bonds without discount and without interest cost to the issuer. The maximum term of the bond is determined by the Treasury Department, so that the present value of the obligation to repay the bond is 50 percent of the face value of the bond. ``Qualified zone academy bonds'' are defined as any bond issued by a State or local government, provided that (1) at least 95 percent of the proceeds are used for the purpose of renovating, providing equipment to, developing course materials for use at, or training teachers and other school personnel in a ``qualified zone academy'' and (2) private entities have promised to contribute to the qualified zone academy certain equipment, technical assistance or training, employee services, or other property or services with a value equal to at least 10 percent of the bond proceeds. A school is a ``qualified zone academy'' if (1) the school is a public school that provides education and training below the college level, (2) the school operates a special academic program in cooperation with businesses to enhance the academic curriculum and increase graduation and employment rates, and (3) either (a) the school is located in an empowerment zones enterprise community designated under the Code, or (b) it is reasonably expected that at least 35 percent of the students at the school will be eligible for free or reduced-cost lunches under the school lunch program established under the National School Lunch Act. Explanation of Provision The provision authorized up to $400 million of qualified zone academy bonds to be issued in each of calendar years 2000 and 2001. Unused QZAB authority arising in 1998 and 1999 may be carried forward by the State or local government entity to which it is (or was) allocated for up to three years after the year in which the authority originally arose. Unused QZAB authority arising in 2000 and 2001 may be carried forward for two years after the year in which it arises. Each issuer is deemed to use the oldest QZAB authority that has been allocated to it first when new bonds are issued. Effective Date The provision became effective on the date of enactment (December 17, 1999). Revenue Effect The provision is estimated to reduce Federal fiscal year revenues by $3 million in 2000, $11 million in 2001, $20 million in 2002, $28 million in 2003, $30 million annually in 2004 through 2010. J. Extend the Tax Credit for First-Time D.C. Homebuyers (sec. 510 of the Tax Relief Extension Act and sec. 1400C of the Code) Present and Prior Law First-time homebuyers of a principal residence in the District of Columbia are eligible for a nonrefundable tax credit of up to $5,000 of the amount of the purchase price. The $5,000 maximum credit applies both to individuals and married couples. Married individuals filing separately can claim a maximum credit of $2,500 each. The credit phases out for individual taxpayers with adjusted gross income between $70,000 and $90,000 ($110,000-$130,000 for joint filers). For purposes of eligibility, a ``first-time homebuyer'' means any individual if such individual did not have a present ownership interest in a principal residence in the District of Columbia in the one- year period ending on the date of the purchase of the residence to which the credit applies. Under prior law, the credit was scheduled to expire for residences purchased after December 31, 2000. Explanation of Provision The provision extends the tax credit for first-time D.C. homebuyers for one year (so that it applies to residences purchased on or before December 31, 2001).\19\ --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \19\ A subsequent provision described below in Part Eight (sec. 164 of H.R. 5662, The Community Renewal Tax Relief Act of 2000) extends the D.C. homebuyer credit for an additional two years (through December 31, 2003). --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Effective Date The provision is effective for residences purchased after December 31, 2000 and before January 1, 2002. Revenue Effect The provision is estimated to reduce Federal fiscal year budget receipts by $5 million in 2001, $15 million in 2002, and less than $500,000 in each of the years 2003 through 2010. K. Extend Expensing of Environmental Remediation Expenditures (sec. 511 of the Tax Relief Extension Act and sec. 198 of the Code) Present and Prior Law Taxpayers can elect to treat certain environmental remediation expenditures that would otherwise be chargeable to capital account as deductible in the year paid or incurred (sec. 198). The deduction applies for both regular and alternative minimum tax purposes. The expenditure must be incurred in connection with the abatement or control of hazardous substances at a qualified contaminated site. A ``qualified contaminated site'' generally is any property that (1) is held for use in a trade or business, for the production of income, or as inventory; (2) is certified by the appropriate State environmental agency to be located within a targeted area; and (3) contains (or potentially contains) a hazardous substance (so-called ``brownfields''). Targeted areas are defined as: (1) empowerment zones and enterprise communities as designated under present law; (2) sites announced before February, 1997, as being subject to one of the 76 Environmental Protection Agency (``EPA'') Brownfields Pilots; (3) any population census tract with a poverty rate of 20 percent or more; and (4) certain industrial and commercial areas that are adjacent to tracts described in (3) above. However, sites that are identified on the national priorities list under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980 cannot qualify as targeted areas. Eligible expenditures are those paid or incurred before January 1, 2001. Reasons for Change Report of Senate Committee on Finance \20\ --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \20\ H.R. 1180 as passed by the House and amended by the Senate did not contain any provision relating to sec. 198. However, S. 1792, as passed by the Senate, would have eliminated the targeted area requirement, thereby, expanding eligible sites to include any site containing (or potentially containing) a hazardous substance that is certified by the appropriate State environmental agency, but not those sites that are identified on the national priorities list under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980. The conference agreement did not adopt the provision of S. 1792, but, as explained below, extended the date by which qualifying expenditures are to be incurred. The reasons for change reported here reprint the reasons for change reported in the committee report accompanying S. 1792 (S. Rep. 106-201, 17). --------------------------------------------------------------------------- The Committee would like to see more so-called ``brownfield'' sites brought back into productive use in the economy. Cleaning up such sites mitigates potential harms to public health and can help revitalize affected communities. The Committee seeks to encourage the clean up of contaminated sites. To achieve this goal, the Committee believes it is necessary to expand the set of brownfield sites that may claim the tax benefits of expending beyond the relatively narrow class of sites identified in the Taxpayer Relief Act of 1997. Explanation of Provision The provision extends the present-law expiration date for sec. 198 to include those expenditures paid or incurred before January 1, 2002. Effective Date The provision to extend the expiration date is effective upon the date of enactment (December 17, 1999). Revenue Effect The provision is estimated to increase Federal fiscal year budget receipts by $11 million in 2000, to reduce Federal fiscal year budget receipts by $43 million in 2001, $59 million in 2002, $20 million in 2003, $2 million in 2004, $1 million in 2005, and to increase Federal fiscal year budget receipts by $2 million in 2006, $5 million in 2007, $6 million in 2008, $8 million in 2009, and $10 million in 2010. L. Temporary Increase in Amount of Rum Excise Tax Covered Over to Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands (sec. 512 of the Tax Relief Extension Act and sec. 7652 of the Code) Present and Prior Law A $13.50 per proof gallon \21\ excise tax is imposed on distilled spirits produced in, or imported or brought into, the United States (sec. 5001). The excise tax does not apply to distilled spirits that are exported from the United States or to distilled spirits that are consumed in U.S. possessions (e.g., Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands). --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \21\ A proof gallon is a liquid gallon consisting of 50 percent alcohol. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Under present and prior law the Code provides for payment (``coverover'') of $10.50 per proof gallon of the excise tax imposed on rum imported (or brought) into the United States (without regard to the country of origin) to Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands (sec. 7652). During the five-year period ending on September 30, 1998, the amount covered over was $11.30 per proof gallon. This temporary increase was enacted in 1993 as transitional relief accompanying a reduction in certain tax benefits for corporations operating in Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands (sec. 936). Amounts covered over to Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands are deposited in the treasuries of the two possessions for use as those possessions determine. Reasons for Change The Congress found that the fiscal needs of Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands remained substantial and, therefore, found it appropriate to increase and extend the coverover of excise tax receipts to Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands. Explanation of Provision The provision increases the rum excise tax coverover to a rate of $13.25 per proof gallon during the period from July 1, 1999, through December 31, 2001. The provision also includes a special rule for payment of the $2.75 per proof gallon increase in the coverover rate for Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands. The rule applies to payments that otherwise would have been made in Fiscal Year 2000. Under this rule, amounts attributable to the increase in the coverover rate that would have been transferred to Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands after June 30, 1999 and before the date of the provision's enactment, were to be paid on the date which was 15 days after the date of enactment. However, the total amount of this initial payment (aggregated for both possessions) could not exceed $20 million.\22\ --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \22\ This limitation subsequently was repealed by the Trade and Development Act of 2000. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- The next payment to Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands with respect to the $2.75 increase in the coverover rate was to be made on October 1, 2000. This payment was to equal the total amount attributable to the increase that otherwise would have be transferred to Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands before October 1, 2000 (less the payment of up to $20 million made 15 days after the date of enactment). Payments for the remainder of the period through December 31, 2001, are to be paid as provided under the present- and prior-law rules for the $10.50 per proof gallon coverover rate. The special payment rule does not affect payments to Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands with respect to the permanent $10.50 per proof gallon coverover rate. Effective Date The provision became effective on the date of enactment (December 17, 1999). Revenue Effect The provision is estimated to increase Federal fiscal year budget outlays by $21 million in 2000, $115 million in 2002, and $15 million in 2003. II. OTHER TIME-SENSITIVE PROVISIONS A. Prohibit Disclosure of APAs and APA Background Files (sec. 521 of the Tax Relief Extension Act and secs. 6103 and 6110 of the Code) Present and Prior Law Section 6103 Under present and prior law, returns and return information are confidential and cannot be disclosed unless authorized by the Internal Revenue Code. The Code defines ``return information'' broadly. Under present and prior law, return information includes: (1) a taxpayer's identity, the nature, source or amount of income, payments, receipts, deductions, exemptions, credits, assets, liabilities, net worth, tax liability, tax withheld, deficiencies, overassessments, or tax payments; (2) whether the taxpayer's return was, is being, or will be examined or subject to other investigation or processing; or (3) any other data, received by, recorded by, prepared by, furnished to, or collected by the Secretary with respect to a return or with respect to the determination of the existence, or possible existence, of liability (or the amount thereof) of any person under this title for any tax, penalty, interest, fine, forfeiture, or other imposition, or offense,\23\ and --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \23\ Sec. 6103(b)(2)(A). --------------------------------------------------------------------------- (4) any part of any written determination or any background file document relating to such written determination which is not open to public inspection under section 6110.\24\ --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \24\ Sec. 6103(b)(2)(B). --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Section 6110 and the Freedom of Information Act With certain exceptions, present and prior law makes the text of any written determination the Internal Revenue Service (``IRS'') issues available for public inspection. Once the IRS makes the written determination publicly available, the background file documents associated with such written determination are available for public inspection upon written request. The Code defines ``background file documents'' as any written material submitted in support of the request. Background file documents also include any communications between the IRS and persons outside the IRS concerning such written determination that occur before the IRS issues the determination. Before making them available for public inspection, section 6110 requires the IRS to delete specific categories of sensitive information from the written determination and background file documents.\25\ It also provides judicial and administrative procedures to resolve disputes over the scope of the information the IRS will disclose. In addition, Congress has also wholly exempted certain matters from section 6110's public disclosure requirements.\26\ Any part of a written determination or background file that is not disclosed under section 6110 constitutes ``return information.'' \27\ --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \25\ Sec. 6110(c) provides for the deletion of identifying information, trade secrets, confidential commercial and financial information and other material. \26\ Sec. 6110(l). \27\ Sec. 6103(b)(2)(B) (``The term `return information' means . . . any part of any written determination or any background file document relating to such written determination (as such terms are defined in section 6110(b)) which is not open to public inspection under section 6110''). --------------------------------------------------------------------------- The Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lists categories of information that a federal agency must make available for public inspection.\28\ It establishes a presumption that agency records are accessible to the public. The FOIA, however, also provides nine exemptions from public disclosure. One of those exemptions is for matters specifically exempted from disclosure by a statute other than the FOIA if the exempting statute meets certain requirements.\29\ Section 6103 qualifies as an exempting statute under this FOIA provision. Thus, returns and return information that section 6103 deems confidential are exempt from disclosure under the FOIA. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \28\ Unless published promptly and offered for sale, an agency must provide for public inspection and copying: (1) final opinions as well as orders made in the adjudication of cases; (2) statements of policy and interpretations not published in the Federal Register; (3) administrative staff manuals and instructions to staff that affect a member of the public; and (4) agency records which have been or the agency expects to be, the subject of repetitive FOIA requests. 5 U.S.C. sec. 552(a)(2). An agency must also publish in the Federal Register: the organizational structure of the agency and procedures for obtaining information under the FOIA; statements describing the functions of the agency and all formal and informal procedures; rules of procedure, descriptions of forms and statements describing all papers, reports and examinations; rules of general applicability and statements of general policy; and amendments, revisions and repeals of the foregoing. 5 U.S.C. sec. 552(a)(1). All other agency records can be sought by FOIA request; however, some records may be exempt from disclosure. \29\ Exemption 3 of the FOIA provides that an agency is not required to disclose matters that are: (3) specifically exempted from disclosure by statute (other than section 552b of this title) provided that such statute (A) requires that the matters be withheld from the public in such a manner as to leave no discretion on the issue, or (B) establishes particular criteria for withholding or refers to particular types of matters to be withheld; . . . 5 U.S.C. 552(b)(3). --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Section 6110 is the exclusive means for the public to view IRS written determinations.\30\ If section 6110 covers the written determination, then the public cannot use the FOIA to obtain that determination. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \30\ Sec. 6110(m). --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Advance Pricing Agreements The Advanced Pricing Agreement (``APA'') program is an alternative dispute resolution program conducted by the IRS, which resolves international transfer pricing issues prior to the filing of the corporate tax return. Specifically, an APA is an advance agreement establishing an approved transfer pricing methodology entered into among the taxpayer, the IRS, and a foreign tax authority. The IRS and the foreign tax authority generally agree to accept the results of such approved methodology. Alternatively, an APA also may be negotiated between just the taxpayer and the IRS; such an APA establishes an approved transfer pricing methodology for U.S. tax purposes. The APA program focuses on identifying the appropriate transfer pricing methodology; it does not determine a taxpayer's tax liability. Taxpayers voluntarily participate in the program. To resolve the transfer pricing issues, the taxpayer submits detailed and confidential financial information, business plans and projections to the IRS for consideration. Resolution involves an extensive analysis of the taxpayer's functions and risks. Pending in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia were three consolidated lawsuits asserting that, under prior law, APAs were subject to public disclosure under either section 6110 or the FOIA.\31\ Prior to this litigation and since the inception of the APA program, the IRS held the position that APAs were confidential return information protected from disclosure by section 6103.\32\ On January 11, 1999, the IRS conceded that APAs are ``rulings'' and therefore are ``written determinations'' for purposes of section 6110.\33\ Although the court had not issued a ruling in the case, the IRS announced its plan to publicly release both existing and future APAs. The IRS then transmitted existing APAs to the respective taxpayers with proposed deletions. It received comments from some of the affected taxpayers. Where appropriate, foreign tax authorities also received copies of the relevant APAs for comment on the proposed deletions. No APAs were released to the public. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \31\ BNA v. IRS, Nos. 96-376, 96-2820, and 96-1473 (D.D.C.). The Bureau of National Affairs, Inc. (BNA) publishes matters of interest for use by its subscribers. BNA contended that APAs were not return information as they are prospective in application. Thus, at the time they are entered into, they do not relate to ``the determination of the existence, or possible existence, of liability or amount thereof . . .'' \32\ The IRS contended that information received or generated as part of the APA process pertains to a taxpayer's liability and therefore was return information as defined in sec. 6103(b)(2)(A). Thus, the information was subject to section 6103's restrictions on the dissemination of returns and return information. Rev. Proc. 91-22, sec. 11, 1991-1 C.B. 526, 534 and Rev. Proc. 96-53, sec. 12, 1996-2 C.B. 375, 386. \33\ IR 1999-05. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Some taxpayers asserted that the IRS erred in adopting the position under prior law that APAs are subject to section 6110 public disclosure. Several had sought to participate as amici in the lawsuit to block the release of APAs. They were concerned that release under section 6110 could expose them to expensive litigation to defend the deletion of the confidential information from their APAs. They were also concerned that the section 6110 procedures are insufficient to protect the confidentiality of their trade secrets and other financial and commercial information. Reasons for Change The APA program has been a successful mechanism for resolving transfer pricing issues, not only for future years, but, in some instances, for prior open years as well (rollbacks). It reduces protracted disputes and costly litigation between taxpayers and the government. The program involves not only taxpayers and the IRS, but also foreign taxing authorities. As part of the program, the taxpayer voluntarily provides substantial, sensitive information to the IRS. The proprietary information necessary to support a claim of comparability may be among a company's most closely guarded trade secrets. Similarly, information regarding production costs and customer pricing may also be extremely sensitive information. From the program's inception, the IRS had assured taxpayers and foreign governments that the information received or generated in the APA process would be protected as confidential return information. Such assurances were based on published IRS materials. The APA process is based on taxpayers' cooperation and voluntary disclosure to the IRS of sensitive information. The Congress believed that the continued confidentiality of this information was vital to the APA program. Otherwise, the Congress believed that some taxpayers may refuse to participate in this successful program, causing a decline in its usefulness. The Congress must balance the need for confidentiality with the general public's need for practical tax guidance. Some members of the public have expressed concern that the APA program has led to the development of a body of ``secret law,'' known only to a few members of the tax profession. In addition, some members of the public contend that taxpayers have received APAs permitting the use of transfer pricing methodologies not contemplated in the section 482 regulations. They also contend that APAs have provided interpretations of law not available to taxpayers that do not participate in the APA process. Such concerns could undermine the public's confidence in the IRS's ability to enforce fairly the transfer pricing rules. Thus, the provision requires the Department of the Treasury to prepare and publish an annual report regarding APAs, which will provide extensive information regarding the program, while clarifying that existing and future APAs and related background information continue to be confidential return information. Explanation of Provision The provision amends section 6103 to provide that APAs and related background information are confidential return information under section 6103. Related background information includes: the request for an APA, any material submitted in support of the request, and any communication (written or otherwise) prepared or received by the Secretary in connection with an APA, regardless of when such communication is prepared or received. Protection is not limited to agreements actually executed; it includes material received and generated in the APA process that does not result in an executed agreement. Further, APAs and related background information are not ``written determinations'' as that term is defined in section 6110. Therefore, the public inspection requirements of section 6110 do not apply to APAs and related background information. A document's incorporation in a background file, however, is not intended to be grounds for not disclosing an otherwise disclosable document from a source other than a background file. The provision statutorily requires that the Treasury Department prepare and publish an annual report on the status of APAs. The annual report is to contain the following information: (1) Information about the structure, composition and, operation of the APA program office; (2) A copy of each current model APA; (3) Statistics regarding the amount of time to complete new and renewal APAs; (4) The number of APA applications filed during such year; (5) The number of APAs executed to date and for the year; (6) The number of APA renewals issued to date and for the year; (7) The number of pending APA requests; (8) The number of pending APA renewals; (9) The number of APAs executed and pending (including renewals and renewal requests) that are unilateral, bilateral and multilateral, respectively; (10) The number of APAs revoked or canceled, and the number of withdrawals from the APA program, to date and for the year; (11) The number of finalized new APAs and renewals by industry.\34\ --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \34\ This information was previously released in IRS Publication 3218, ``IRS Report on Application and Administration of I.R.C. Section 482.'' --------------------------------------------------------------------------- In addition, the annual report is to contain general descriptions of: (1) the nature of the relationships between the related organizations, trades, or businesses covered by APAs; (2) the related organizations, trades, or businesses whose prices or results are tested to determine compliance with the transfer pricing methodology prescribed in the APA; (3) the covered transactions and the functions performed and risks assumed by the related organizations, trades or businesses involved; (4) methodologies used to evaluate tested parties and transactions and the circumstances leading to the use of those methodologies; (5) critical assumptions; (6) sources of comparables; (7) comparable selection criteria and the rationale used in determining such criteria; (8) the nature of adjustments to comparables and/or tested parties; (9) the nature of any range agreed to, including information such as whether no range was used and why, whether an inter-quartile range was used, or whether there was a statistical narrowing of the comparables; (10) adjustment mechanisms provided to rectify results that fall outside of the agreed upon APA range; (11) the various term lengths for APAs, including rollback years, and the number of APAs with each such term length; (12) the nature of documentation required; and (13) approaches for sharing of currency or other risks. In addition, the provision requires the Treasury Department to describe, in each annual report, its efforts to ensure compliance with existing APA agreements. The first report is to cover the period January 1, 1991, through the calendar year including the date of enactment. The Treasury Department cannot include any information in the report which would have been deleted under section 6110(c) if the report were a written determination as defined in section 6110. Additionally, the report cannot include any information which can be associated with or otherwise identify, directly or indirectly, a particular taxpayer. The Secretary is expected to obtain input from taxpayers to ensure proper protection of taxpayer information and, if necessary, utilize its regulatory authority to implement appropriate processes for obtaining this input. For purposes of section 6103, the report requirement is treated as part of Title 26. While the provision statutorily requires an annual report, it is not intended to discourage the Treasury Department from issuing other forms of guidance, such as regulations or revenue rulings, consistent with the confidentiality provisions of the Code. Effective Date The provision is effective on the date of enactment; accordingly, no APAs, regardless of whether executed before or after enactment, or related background file documents, can be released to the public after the date of enactment (December 17, 1999). It required the Treasury Department to publish the first annual report no later than March 30, 2000.\35\ --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \35\ The first APA report was released on March 30, 2000. Internal Revenue Service, Announcement and Report Concerning Advance Pricing Agreements, 2000-16 IRB 1. A second APA report was released on March 30, 2001. Internal Revenue Service, Announcement 2001-32, Announcement and Report Concerning Advance Pricing Agreements, 2001-17 IRB 1. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Revenue Effect The provision is estimated to have no effect on Federal fiscal year budget receipts. B. Authority to Postpone Certain Tax-Related Deadlines by Reason of Year 2000 Failures (sec. 522 of the Tax Relief Extension Act) Present and Prior Law There were no specific provisions in prior law that permitted the Secretary of the Treasury to postpone tax-related deadlines by reason of Year 2000 (also known as ``Y2K'') failures. The Secretary is, however, permitted (under present and prior law) to postpone tax-related deadlines for other reasons. For example, the Secretary may specify that certain deadlines are postponed for a period of up to 90 days in the case of a taxpayer determined to be affected by a Presidentially declared disaster. The deadlines that may be postponed are the same as are postponed by reason of service in a combat zone. The provision does not apply for purposes of determining interest on any overpayment or underpayment. The suspension of time applies to the following acts: (1) filing any return of income, estate, or gift tax (except employment and withholding taxes); (2) payment of any income, estate, or gift tax (except employment and withholding taxes); (3) filing a petition with the Tax Court for a redetermination of deficiency, or for review of a decision rendered by the Tax Court; (4) allowance of a credit or refund of any tax; (5) filing a claim for credit or refund of any tax; (6) bringing suit upon any such claim for credit or refund; (7) assessment of any tax; (8) giving or making any notice or demand for payment of any tax, or with respect to any liability to the United States in respect of any tax; (9) collection of the amount of any liability in respect of any tax; (10) bringing suit by the United States in respect of any liability in respect of any tax; and (11) any other act required or permitted under the internal revenue laws specified in regulations prescribed under section 7508 by the Secretary. Reasons for Change Although the Congress anticipated that Y2K compliance would be high and that widespread failures would be unlikely, the Congress believed that it was appropriate to provide the Secretary with discretion to provide relief to affected taxpayers. The Congress believed that delegating this authority to the Secretary was appropriate, because any Y2K failures likely would have occurred while the Congress was not in session. Therefore, the Congress believed that it was appropriate to give the Secretary the authority to provide relief by postponing tax-related deadlines for those taxpayers who, despite have made good faith and reasonable efforts to avoid any such failures, were affected by an actual Y2K failure. Explanation of Provision The provision permits the Secretary to postpone, on a taxpayer-by-taxpayer basis, certain tax-related deadlines for a period of up to 90 days in the case of a taxpayer that the Secretary determines to have been affected by an actual Y2K related failure. In order to be eligible for relief, taxpayers must have made good faith, reasonable efforts to avoid any Y2K related failures. The relief is similar to that granted under the Presidentially declared disaster and combat zone provisions, except that employment and withholding taxes also are eligible for relief. The relief permits the abatement of both penalties and interest. The relief may apply to the following acts: (1) filing of any return of income, estate, or gift tax, including employment and withholding taxes; (2) payment of any income, estate, or gift tax, including employment and withholding taxes; (3) filing a petition with the Tax Court; (4) allowance of a credit or refund of any tax; (5) filing a claim for credit or refund of any tax; (6) bringing suit upon any such claim for credit or refund; (7) assessment of any tax; (8) giving or making any notice or demand for payment of any tax, or with respect to any liability to the United States in respect of any tax; (9) collection of the amount of any liability in respect of any tax; (10) bringing suit by the United States in respect of any liability in respect of any tax; and (11) any other act required or permitted under the internal revenue laws specified or prescribed by the Secretary. Effective Date The provision is effective on the date of enactment (December 17, 1999). Revenue Effect The provision is estimated to have a negligible effect on Federal fiscal year budget receipts. C. Add Certain Vaccines Against Streptococcus Pneumoniae to the List of Taxable Vaccines (sec. 523 of the Tax Relief Extension Act and secs. 4131 and 4132 of the Code) Prior Law A manufacturer's excise tax is imposed at the rate of 75 cents per dose (sec. 4131) on the following vaccines recommended for routine administration to children: diphtheria, pertussis, tetanus, measles, mumps, rubella, polio, HIB (haemophilus influenza type B), hepatitis B, varicella (chicken pox), and rotavirus gastroenteritis. The tax applied to any vaccine that is a combination of vaccine components equals 75 cents times the number of components in the combined vaccine. Amounts equal to net revenues from this excise tax are deposited in the Vaccine Injury Compensation Trust Fund (``Vaccine Trust Fund'') to finance compensation awards under the Federal Vaccine Injury Compensation Program for individuals who suffer certain injuries following administration of the taxable vaccines. This program provides a substitute Federal, ``no fault'' insurance system for the State-law tort and private liability insurance systems otherwise applicable to vaccine manufacturers and physicians. All persons immunized after September 30, 1988, with covered vaccines must pursue compensation under this Federal program before bringing civil tort actions under State law. Reasons for Change Streptococcus pneumoniae (often referred to as pneumococcus) is a bacteria that can cause bacterial meningitis, a brain or spinal cord infection, bacteremia, a bloodstream infection, and otitis media (ear infection). The Congress understood that each year in the United States, pneumococcal disease accounts for an estimated 3,000 cases of bacterial meningitis, 50,000 cases of bacteremia, 500,000 cases of pneumonia, and 7 million cases of otitis media among all age groups. The Congress understood that, while there currently was a vaccine effective in preventing pneumococcal diseases in adults, that vaccine, a polysaccaride vaccine, did not induce an adequate immune response in young children and therefore did not protect children against these diseases. The Congress further understood that the Food and Drug Administration's (the ``FDA'') was expected to approve a new, sugar protein conjugate vaccine against the disease and the Centers for Disease Control were expected to recommend this conjugate vaccine for routine inoculation of children. The Congress believed American children would benefit from wide use of this new vaccine. The Congress believed that, by including the new vaccine with those presently covered by the Vaccine Trust Fund, greater application of the vaccine will be promoted. The Congress, therefore, believed it is appropriate to add the conjugate vaccine against streptococcus pneumoniae to the list of taxable vaccines. The Congress was aware that the Vaccine Trust Fund had a current cash-flow surplus in excess of $1.3 billion dollars.\36\ However, the Congress thought was it prudent to gather more detailed information on the operation of the Vaccine Injury Compensation Program and likely future claims to assess the adequacy of the Vaccine Trust Fund. Therefore, the Congress found it appropriate to direct the Comptroller General of the United States to report on the operation and management of expenditures from the Vaccine Trust Fund and to advise the Congress on the adequacy of the Vaccine Trust Fund to meet future claims under the Federal Vaccine Injury Compensation Program. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \36\ Joint Committee on Taxation, Schedule of Present Federal Excise Taxes (as of January 1, 1999) (JCS-2-99), March 29, 1999, p. 48. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Explanation of Provision The provision adds any conjugate vaccine against streptococcus pneumoniae to the list of taxable vaccines. The provision also changes the effective date enacted in Public Law 105-277 and certain other conforming amendments to expenditure purposes to enable certain payments to be made from the Trust Fund. In addition, the provision directs the General Accounting Office (``GAO'') to report to the House Committee on Ways and Means and the Senate Committee on Finance on the operation and management of expenditures from the Vaccine Trust Fund and to advise the Committees on the adequacy of the Vaccine Trust Fund to meet future claims under the Federal Vaccine Injury Compensation Program. Within its report, to the greatest extent possible, the Congress requested a thorough statistical report of the number of claims submitted annually, the number of claims settled annually, and the value of settlements. The Congress requested analysis of the statistical distribution of settlements, including the mean and median values of settlements, and the extent to which the value of settlements varies with an injury attributed to an identifiable vaccine. The Congress also requested analysis of the settlement process, including a statistical distribution of the amount of time required from the initial filing of a claim to a final resolution. The Code provides that certain administrative expenses may be charged to the Vaccine Trust Fund. The Congress intended that the GAO report include an analysis of the overhead and administrative expenses charged to the Vaccine Trust Fund. The GAO is directed to report its findings to the House Committee on Ways and Means and the Senate Committee on Finance by January 31, 2000.\37\ --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \37\ The GAO delivered its report on March 31, 2000. See, United States General Accounting Office, Vaccine Injury Trust Fund Revenue Exceeds Current Need for Paying Claims, GAO/HEHS-00-67, March 2000. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Effective Date The provision is effective for vaccine sales beginning on the day after the date of enactment (December 17, 1999). No floor stocks tax is to be collected for amounts held for sale on that date. For sales on or before that date for which delivery is made after such date, the delivery date is deemed to be the sale date. The addition of conjugate streptococcus pneumoniae vaccines to the list of taxable vaccines is contingent upon the inclusion in this legislation of the modifications to Public Law 105-277. Revenue Effect The provision is estimated to increase Federal fiscal year budget receipts by $4 million in 2000, $7 million in 2001, $9 million in 2002, $10 million in 2003, $10 million in 2004, $10 million in 2005, $10 million in 2006, $10 million in 2007, $10 million in 2008, $11 million in 2009, and $11 million in 2010. D. Delay in Effective Date of Requirement for Approved Diesel or Kerosene Terminal (sec. 524 of the Tax Relief Extension Act and sec. 4101 of the Code) Present and Prior Law Excise taxes are imposed on highway motor fuels, including gasoline, diesel fuel, and kerosene, to finance the Highway Trust Fund programs. Subject to limited exceptions, these taxes are imposed on all such fuels when they are removed from registered pipeline or barge terminal facilities, with any tax- exemptions being accomplished by means of refunds to consumers of the fuel.\38\ One such exception allows removal of diesel fuel without payment of tax if the fuel is destined for a nontaxable use (e.g., use as heating oil) and is indelibly dyed. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \38\ Tax is imposed before that point if the motor fuel is transferred (other than in bulk) from a refinery or if the fuel is sold to an unregistered party while still held in the refinery or bulk distribution system (e.g., in a pipeline or terminal facility). --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Terminal facilities are not permitted to receive and store non-tax-paid motor fuels unless they are registered with the Internal Revenue Service. Under present law, a prerequisite to registration is that if the terminal offers for sale diesel fuel, it must offer both dyed and undyed diesel fuel. Similarly, if the terminal offers for sale kerosene, it must offer both dyed and undyed kerosene. This ``dyed-fuel mandate'' was enacted in 1997, to be effective on July 1, 1998. Subsequently, the effective date was delayed until July 1, 2000. Reasons for Change When the rules governing taxation of kerosene used as a highway motor fuel were enacted in 1997, the Congress was concerned that dyed kerosene (destined for nontaxable use) might not be available in markets where that fuel was commonly used (e.g., as heating oil). To ensure availability of untaxed kerosene for these uses, the Congress included a requirement that terminals offer both dyed and undyed kerosene and diesel fuel (if they offered the fuels for sale at all) as a condition of receiving untaxed fuels. Since that time, markets have provided dyed kerosene and diesel fuel for nontaxable uses in markets where there is a demand for such fuel even in the absence of a statutory mandate for such fuels. The Congress found that a further delay in this registration requirement was appropriate to allow a more complete evaluation before a decision is made on whether to repeal or retain the mandate. Explanation of Provision The provision delayed the effective date of the diesel fuel and kerosene-dyeing mandate through December 31, 2001. No other changes were made to the highway motor fuels excise tax rules. Effective Date The provision became effective on the date of enactment (December 17, 1999). Revenue Effect The provision is estimated to have a negligible effect on Federal fiscal year budget receipts. E. Production Flexibility Contract Payments (sec. 525 of the Tax Relief Extension Act) Present and Prior Law A taxpayer generally is required to include an item in income no later than the time of its actual or constructive receipt, unless such amount properly is accounted for in a different period under the taxpayer's method of accounting. If a taxpayer has an unrestricted right to demand the payment of an amount, the taxpayer is in constructive receipt of that amount whether or not the taxpayer makes the demand and actually receives the payment. The Federal Agriculture Improvement and Reform Act of 1996 (the ``FAIR Act'') provides for production flexibility contracts between certain eligible owners and producers and the Secretary of Agriculture. These contracts generally cover crop years from 1996 through 2002. Annual payments are made under such contracts at specific times during the Federal government's fiscal year. Section 112(d)(2) of the FAIR Act provides that one-half of each annual payment is to be made on either December 15 or January 15 of the fiscal year, at the option of the recipient.\39\ The remaining one-half of the annual payment must be made no later than September 30 of the fiscal year. The Emergency Farm Financial Relief Act of 1998 added section 112(d)(3) to the FAIR Act which provides that all payments for fiscal year 1999 are to be paid at such time or times during fiscal year 1999 as the recipient may specify. Thus, the one-half of the annual amount that would otherwise be required to be paid no later than September 30, 1999 can be specified for payment in calendar year 1998. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \39\ This rule applies to fiscal years after 1996. For fiscal year 1996, this payment was to be made not later than 30 days after the production flexibility contract was entered into. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- These options potentially would have resulted in the constructive receipt (and thus inclusion in income) of the payments to which they relate at the time they could have been exercised, whether or not they were in fact exercised. However, section 2012 of the Tax and Trade Relief Extension Act of 1998 provided that the time a production flexibility contract payment under the FAIR Act properly is includible in income is to be determined without regard to either option, effective for production flexibility contract payments made under the FAIR Act in taxable years ending after December 31, 1995. Reasons for Change \40\ The Congress did not believe that farmers should be required to accelerate the recognition of income on production flexibility contract payments solely because Congress creates an option for the accelerated receipt of such payments. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \40\ The conference report to H.R. 1180 indicates that there was neither a House bill provision nor a Senate amendment provision. However, it refers to a provision included as section 711 of the conference agreement to H.R. 2488, the ``Taxpayer Refund and Relief Act of 1999'' (H. Rep. 106-289, Aug. 4, 1999), which was vetoed by President Clinton. The provision was reported by the House Ways and Means Committee as section 711 of H.R. 2488, the ``Financial Freedom Act of 1999'' (H. Rep. 106-238, July 16, 1999), from which these reasons for change are reproduced. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Explanation of Provision The provision provides that any option to accelerate the receipt of any payment under a production flexibility contract which is payable under the FAIR Act, as in effect on the date of enactment of the provision, is to be disregarded in determining the taxable year in which such payment is properly included in gross income. Options to accelerate payments that are enacted in the future are covered by this rule, providing the payment to which they relate is mandated by the FAIR Act as in effect on the date of enactment of this Act. The provision does not delay the inclusion of any amount in gross income beyond the taxable period in which the amount is received. Effective Date The provision is effective on the date of enactment (December 17, 1999). Revenue Effect The provision is estimated to have a negligible effect on Federal fiscal year budget receipts. III. REVENUE OFFSETS A. General Provisions 1. Modification of individual estimated tax safe harbor (sec. 531 of the Tax Relief Extension Act and sec. 6654 of the Code) Present and Prior Law An individual taxpayer generally is subject to an addition to tax for any underpayment of estimated tax. An individual generally does not have an underpayment of estimated tax if he or she makes timely estimated tax payments at least equal to: (1) 90 percent of the tax shown on the current year's return or (2) 100 percent of the prior year's tax. For taxpayers with a prior year's AGI above $150,000,\41\ however, the rule that allows payment of 100 percent of prior year's tax is modified. Those taxpayers with AGI above $150,000 generally must make estimated payments based on either (1) 90 percent of the tax shown on the current year's return or (2) 110 percent of the prior year's tax. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \41\ $75,000 for married taxpayers filing separately. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- For taxpayers with a prior year's AGI above $150,000, the prior year's tax safe harbor is modified for estimated tax payments made for taxable years through 2002. Under prior law, for such taxpayers making estimated tax payments based on prior year's tax, payments must be made based on 105 percent of prior year's tax for taxable years beginning in 1999, 106 percent of prior year's tax for taxable years beginning in 2000 and 2001, and 112 percent of prior year's tax for taxable years beginning in 2002. Reasons for Change The Congress believed that is appropriate to modify the applicability of the estimated tax safe harbor. Explanation of Provision The provision provides that taxpayers with prior year's AGI above $150,000 who make estimated tax payments based on prior year's tax must do so based on 108.6 percent of prior year's tax for estimated tax payments made for taxable year 2000. Taxpayers with prior year's AGI above $150,000 who make estimated tax payments based on prior year's tax must do so based on 110 percent of prior year's tax for estimated tax payments made for taxable year 2001. The Act does not change the modified safe harbor percentage for estimated tax payments made for any taxable years other than 2000 and 2001. Effective Date The provision is effective for estimated tax payments made for taxable years beginning after December 31, 1999, and before January 1, 2002. Revenue Effect The provision is estimated to increase Federal fiscal year budget receipts by $1,560 million in 2000 and $840 million in 2001, and to reduce Federal fiscal year budget receipts by $2,400 million in 2002. 2. Clarify the tax treatment of income and losses on derivatives (sec. 532 of the Tax Relief Extension Act and sec. 1221 of the Code) Present and Prior Law Capital gain treatment applies to gain on the sale or exchange of a capital asset. Capital assets include property other than (1) stock in trade or other types of assets includible in inventory, (2) property used in a trade or business that is real property or property subject to depreciation, (3) accounts or notes receivable acquired in the ordinary course of a trade or business, (4) certain copyrights (or similar property), and (5) U.S. government publications. Gain or loss on such assets generally is treated as ordinary, rather than capital, gain or loss. Certain other Code sections also treat gains or losses as ordinary. For example, the gains or losses of securities dealers or certain electing commodities dealers or electing traders in securities or commodities that are subject to ``mark-to-market'' accounting are treated as ordinary (sec. 475). Under case law in a number of Federal courts prior to 1988, business hedges generally were treated as giving rise to ordinary, rather than capital, gain or loss. In 1988, the U.S. Supreme Court rejected this interpretation in Arkansas Best v. Commissioner which, relying on the statutory definition of a capital asset described above, held that a loss realized on a sale of stock was capital even though the stock was purchased for a business, rather than an investment, purpose.\42\ --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \42\ 485 U.S. 212 (1988). --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Treasury regulations (which were finalized in 1994) under prior law require ordinary character treatment for most business hedges and provide timing rules requiring that gains or losses on hedging transactions be taken into account in a manner that matches the income or loss from the hedged item or items. The regulations apply to hedges that meet a standard of ``risk reduction'' with respect to ordinary property held (or to be held) or certain liabilities incurred (or to be incurred) by the taxpayer and that meet certain identification and other requirements (Treas. Reg. sec. 1.1221-2). Reasons for Change Absent an election by a commodities derivatives dealer to be treated the same as a dealer in securities under section 475, the character of the gains and losses with respect to commodities derivative financial instruments entered into by such a dealer may have been unclear under prior law. The Congress was concerned that this uncertainty (i.e., the potential for capital treatment of the commodities derivatives financial instruments) could inhibit commodities derivatives dealers from entering into transactions with respect to commodities derivative financial instruments that qualify as ``hedging transactions'' within the meaning of the Treasury regulations under section 1221. The Congress believes that commodities derivatives financial instruments are integrally related to the ordinary course of the trade or business of commodities derivatives dealers and, therefore, such assets should be treated as ordinary assets. The Congress further believes that ordinary character treatment is proper for business hedges with respect to ordinary property. The Congress believes that the approach taken in the Treasury regulations under prior law with respect to the character of hedging transactions generally should be codified as an appropriate interpretation of prior law. Those Treasury regulations, however, modeled the definition of a hedging transaction after the prior-law definition contained in section 1256, which generally required that a hedging transaction ``reduces'' a taxpayer's risk. The Congress believes that a ``risk management'' standard better describes modern business hedging practices that should be accorded ordinary character treatment.\43\ --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \43\ The Congress believed that the Treasury regulations under prior law appropriately interpret ``risk reduction'' flexibly within the constraints of prior law. For example, the regulations recognize that certain transactions that economically convert an interest rate or price from a fixed rate or price to a floating rate or price may qualify as hedging transactions (Treas. Reg. sec. 1.1221- 2(c)(1)(ii)(B)). Similarly, the regulations provide hedging treatment for certain written call options, hedges of aggregate risk, ``dynamic hedges'' (under which a taxpayer can more frequently manage or adjust its exposure to identified risk), partial hedges, ``recycled'' hedges (using a position entered into to hedge one asset or liability to hedge another asset or liability), and hedges of aggregate risk (Treas. Reg. sec. 1.1221-2(c)). The Congress believed that (depending on the facts) treatment of such transactions as hedging transactions was appropriate and that it also was appropriate to modernize the definition of a hedging transaction by providing risk management as the standard. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- In adopting a risk management standard, however, the Congress did not intend that speculative transactions or other transactions not entered into in the normal course of a taxpayer's trade or business should qualify for ordinary character treatment, and risk management should not be interpreted so broadly as to cover such transactions. In addition, to minimize whipsaw potential, the Congress believes that it is essential for hedging transactions to be properly identified by the taxpayer when the hedging transaction is entered into. Finally, because hedging status under prior law and present law is dependent upon the ordinary character of the property being hedged, an issue arises with respect to hedges of certain supplies, sales of which could give rise to capital gain, but which are generally consumed in the ordinary course of a taxpayer's trade or business and that would give rise to ordinary deductions. For purposes of defining a hedging transaction, Treasury regulations treat such supplies as ordinary property.\44\ The Congress believes that it was appropriate to confirm this treatment by specifying that such supplies are ordinary assets. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \44\ Treas. Reg. sec. 1.1221-2(c)(5)(ii). --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Explanation of Provision The provision adds three categories to the list of assets the gain or loss on which is treated as ordinary (sec. 1221). The new categories are: (1) commodities derivative financial instruments entered into by commodities derivatives dealers; (2) hedging transactions; and (3) supplies of a type regularly consumed by the taxpayer in the ordinary course of a taxpayer's trade or business. For this purpose, a commodities derivatives dealer is any person that regularly offers to enter into, assume, offset, assign or terminate positions in commodities derivative financial instruments with customers in the ordinary course of a trade or business. A commodities derivative financial instrument means a contract or financial instrument with respect to commodities, the value or settlement price of which is calculated by reference to any combination of a fixed rate, price, or amount, or a variable rate, price, or amount, which is based on current, objectively determinable financial or economic information. This includes swaps, caps, floors, options, futures contracts, forward contracts, and similar financial instruments with respect to commodities. It does not include shares of stock in a corporation; a beneficial interest in a partnership or trust; a note, bond, debenture, or other evidence of indebtedness; or a contract to which section 1256 applies. In defining a hedging transaction, the provision generally codifies the approach taken by the Treasury regulations under prior law, but modifies the rules. The ``risk reduction'' standard of the regulations is broadened to ``risk management'' with respect to ordinary property held (or to be held) or certain liabilities incurred (or to be incurred). In addition, the Treasury Secretary is granted authority to treat transactions that manage other risks as hedging transactions. As under the prior-law Treasury regulations, the transaction must be identified as a hedge of specified property. It is intended that this be the exclusive means through which the gains or losses with respect to a hedging transaction are treated as ordinary. Authority is provided for Treasury regulations that would address improperly identified or non- identified hedging transactions. The Treasury Secretary is also given authority to apply these rules to related parties. Effective Date The provision is effective for any instrument held, acquired or entered into, any transaction entered into, and supplies held or acquired on or after the date of enactment (December 17, 1999). Revenue Effect The provision is estimated to increase Federal fiscal year budget receipts by less than $500,000 for 2000, and $1 million in each of the years 2001 through 2010. 3. Expand reporting of cancellation of indebtedness income (sec. 533 of the Tax Relief Extension Act and sec. 6050P of the Code) Present and Prior Law Under section 61(a)(12), a taxpayer's gross income includes income from the discharge of indebtedness. Section 6050P requires ``applicable entities'' to file information returns with the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) regarding any discharge of indebtedness of $600 or more. The information return must set forth the name, address, and taxpayer identification number of the person whose debt was discharged, the amount of debt discharged, the date on which the debt was discharged, and any other information that the IRS requires to be provided. The information return must be filed in the manner and at the time specified by the IRS. The same information also must be provided to the person whose debt is discharged by January 31 of the year following the discharge. Under prior law, ``applicable entities'' included only: (1) the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC), the Resolution Trust Corporation (RTC), the National Credit Union Administration, and any successor or subunit of any of them; (2) any financial institution (as described in sec. 581 (relating to banks) or sec. 591(a) (relating to savings institutions)); (3) any credit union; (4) any corporation that is a direct or indirect subsidiary of an entity described in (2) or (3) which, by virtue of being affiliated with such entity, is subject to supervision and examination by a Federal or State agency regulating such entities; and (5) an executive, judicial, or legislative agency (as defined in 31 U.S.C. sec. 3701(a)(4)). Failures to file correct information returns with the IRS or to furnish statements to taxpayers with respect to these discharges of indebtedness are subject to the same general penalty that is imposed with respect to failures to provide other types of information returns. Accordingly, the penalty for failure to furnish statements to taxpayers is generally $50 per failure, subject to a maximum of $100,000 for any calendar year. These penalties are not applicable if the failure is due to reasonable cause and not to willful neglect. Reasons for Change The Congress believed that it was appropriate to treat discharges of indebtedness that are made by similar entities in a similar manner. Accordingly, the Congress believed that it was appropriate to extend the scope of this information reporting provision to include indebtedness discharged by any organization a significant trade or business of which is the lending of money (such as finance companies and credit card companies whether or not affiliated with financial institutions). Explanation of Provision The provision requires information reporting on indebtedness discharged by any organization a significant trade or business of which is the lending of money (such as finance companies and credit card companies whether or not affiliated with financial institutions). Effective Date The provision is effective with respect to discharges of indebtedness after December 31, 1999. Revenue Effect The provision is estimated to increase Federal fiscal year budget receipts by $7 million in each of the years 2001 through 2010. 4. Limitation on conversion of character of income from constructive ownership transactions (sec. 534 of the Tax Relief Extension Act and new sec. 1260 of the Code) Present and Prior Law The maximum individual income tax rate on ordinary income and short-term capital gain is 39.6 percent, while the maximum individual income tax rate on long-term capital gain generally is 20 percent. Long-term capital gain means gain from the sale or exchange of a capital asset held more than one year. For this purpose, gain from the termination of a right with respect to property which would be a capital asset in the hands of the taxpayer is treated as capital gain.\45\ --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \45\ Section 1234A, as amended by the Taxpayer Relief Act of 1997. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- A pass-thru entity (such as a partnership) generally is not subject to Federal income tax. Rather, each owner includes its share of a pass-thru entity's income, gain, loss, deduction or credit in its taxable income. Generally, the character of the item is determined at the entity level and flows through to the owners. Thus, for example, the treatment of an item of income by a partnership as ordinary income, short-term capital gain, or long-term capital gain retains its character when reported by each of the partners. Investors could enter into forward contracts, notional principal contracts, and other similar arrangements with respect to property that provided the investor with the same or similar economic benefits as owning the property directly but with potentially different tax consequences (as to the character and timing of any gain). Reasons for Change The Congress was concerned with the use of derivative contracts by taxpayers in arrangements that are primarily designed to convert what otherwise would be ordinary income and short-term capital gain into long-term capital gain. Of particular concern were derivative contracts with respect to partnerships and other pass-thru entities. The use of such derivative contracts could result in the taxpayer being taxed in a more favorable manner than had the taxpayer actually acquired an ownership interest in the entity. The rules designed to prevent the conversion of ordinary income into capital gain (sec. 1258) only apply to transactions where the taxpayer's expected return is attributable solely to the time value of the taxpayer's net investment. One example of a conversion transaction involving a derivative contract is when a taxpayer enters into an arrangement with a securities dealer \46\ whereby the dealer agrees to pay the taxpayer any appreciation with respect to a notional investment in a hedge fund. In return, the taxpayer agrees to pay the securities dealer any depreciation in the value of the notional investment. The arrangement lasts for more than one year. The taxpayer is substantially in the same economic position as if he or she owned the interest in the hedge fund. However, the taxpayer may treat any appreciation resulting from the contractual arrangement as long-term capital gain. Moreover, any tax attributable to such gain is deferred until the arrangement is terminated. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \46\ Assuming the securities dealer purchases the financial asset, the dealer would mark both the financial asset and the contractual arrangement to market under Code sec. 475, and the economic (and tax) consequences of the two positions would offset each other. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Explanation of Provision The provision limits the amount of long-term capital gain a taxpayer can recognize from certain derivative contracts (''constructive ownership transactions'') with respect to certain financial assets. The amount of long-term capital gain is limited to the amount of such gain the taxpayer would have recognized if the taxpayer held the financial asset directly during the term of the derivative contract. Any gain in excess of this amount is treated as ordinary income. An interest charge is imposed on the amount of gain that is treated as ordinary income. The provision does not alter the tax treatment of the long-term capital gain that is not treated as ordinary income. A taxpayer is treated as having entered into a constructive ownership transaction if the taxpayer (1) holds a long position under a notional principal contract with respect to the financial asset, (2) enters into a forward contract to acquire the financial asset, (3) is the holder of a call option, and the grantor of a put option, with respect to a financial asset, and the options have substantially equal strike prices and substantially contemporaneous maturity dates, or (4) to the extent provided in regulations, enters into one or more transactions, or acquires one or more other positions, that have substantially the same effect as any of the transactions described. Treasury regulations, when issued, are expected to provide specific standards for determining when other types of financial transactions, like those specified in the provision, have substantially the same effect of replicating the economic benefits of direct ownership of a financial asset without a significant change in the risk-reward profile with respect to the underlying transaction.\47\ --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \47\ It is not expected that leverage in a constructive ownership transaction would change the risk-reward profile with respect to the underlying transaction. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- A ``financial asset'' is defined as (1) any equity interest in a pass-thru entity, and (2) to the extent provided in regulations, any debt instrument and any stock in a corporation that is not a pass-thru entity. A ``pass-thru entity'' refers to (1) a regulated investment company, (2) a real estate investment trust, (3) a real estate mortgage investment conduit, (4) an S corporation, (5) a partnership, (6) a trust, (7) a common trust fund, (8) a passive foreign investment company,\48\ (9) a foreign personal holding company, and (10) a foreign investment company. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \48\ For this purpose, a passive foreign investment company includes an investment company that is also a controlled foreign corporation. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- The amount of recharacterized gain is calculated as the excess of the amount of long-term capital gain the taxpayer would have had absent this provision over the ``net underlying long-term capital gain'' attributable to the financial asset. The net underlying long-term capital gain is the amount of net capital gain the taxpayer would have realized if it had acquired the financial asset for its fair market value on the date the constructive ownership transaction was opened and sold the financial asset on the date the transaction was closed (only taking into account gains and losses that would have resulted from a deemed ownership of the financial asset).\49\ The long-term capital gains rate on the net underlying long- term capital gain is determined by reference to the individual capital gains rates in section 1(h). --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \49\ A taxpayer must establish the amount of the net underlying long-term capital gain with clear and convincing evidence; otherwise, the amount is deemed to be zero. To the extent that the economic positions of the taxpayer and the counterparty do not equally offset each other, the amount of the net underlying long-term capital gain may be difficult to establish. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Example 1: On January 1, 2000, Taxpayer enters into a three- year notional principal contract (a constructive ownership transaction) with a securities dealer whereby, on the settlement date, the dealer agrees to pay Taxpayer the amount of any increase in the notional value of an interest in an investment partnership (the financial asset). After three years, the value of the notional principal contract increased by $200,000, of which $150,000 is attributable to ordinary income and net short-term capital gain ($50,000 is attributable to net long-term capital gains). The amount of the net underlying long-term capital gains is $50,000, and the amount of gain that is recharacterized as ordinary income is $150,000 (the excess of $200,000 of long-term gain over the $50,000 of net underlying long-term capital gain). An interest charge is imposed on the underpayment of tax for each year that the constructive ownership transaction was open. The interest charge is the amount of interest that would be imposed under section 6601 had the recharacterized gain been included in the taxpayer's gross income during the term of the constructive ownership transaction. The recharacterized gain is treated as having accrued such that the gain in each successive year is equal to the gain in the prior year increased by a constant growth rate \50\ during the term of the constructive ownership transaction. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \50\ The accrual rate is the applicable Federal rate on the day the transaction closed. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Example 2: Same facts as in example 1, and assume the applicable Federal rate on December 31, 2002, is six percent. For purposes of calculating the interest charge, Taxpayer must allocate the $150,000 of recharacterized ordinary income to the three year-term of the constructive ownership transaction as follows: $47,116.47 is allocated to year 2000, $49,943.46 is allocated to year 2001, and $52,940.07 is allocated to year 2002. A taxpayer is treated as holding a long position under a notional principal contract with respect to a financial asset if the person (1) has the right to be paid (or receive credit for) all or substantially all of the investment yield (including appreciation) on the financial asset for a specified period, and (2) is obligated to reimburse (or provide credit) for all or substantially all of any decline in the value of the financial asset. A forward contract is a contract to acquire in the future (or provide or receive credit for the future value of) any financial asset. If the constructive ownership transaction is closed by reason of taking delivery of the underlying financial asset, the taxpayer is treated as having sold the contract, option, or other position that is part of the transaction for its fair market value on the closing date. However, the amount of gain that is recognized as a result of having taken delivery is limited to the amount of gain that is treated as ordinary income by reason of this provision (with appropriate basis adjustments for such gain). The provision does not apply to any constructive ownership transaction if all of the positions that are part of the transaction are marked to market under the Code or regulations. The Treasury Department is authorized to prescribe regulations as necessary to carry out the purposes of the provision, including to (1) permit taxpayers to mark to market constructive ownership transactions in lieu of the provision, and (2) exclude certain forward contracts that do not convey substantially all of the economic return with respect to a financial asset. No inference is intended as to the proper treatment of a constructive ownership transaction entered into prior to the effective date of this provision. Effective Date The provision applies to transactions entered into on or after July 12, 1999. For this purpose, it is expected that a contract, option or any other arrangement that is entered into or exercised on or after July 12, 1999, which extends or otherwise modifies the terms of a transaction entered into prior to such date will be treated as a transaction entered into on or after July 12, 1999, unless a party to the transaction other than the taxpayer has, as of July 12, 1999, the exclusive right to extend the terms of the transaction, and the length of such extension does not exceed the first business day following a period of five years from the original termination date under the transaction. Revenue Effect The provision is estimated to increase Federal fiscal year budget receipts by $15 million in 2000, $45 million in 2001, $47 million in 2002, $49 million in 2003, $51 million in 2004, $54 million in 2005, $58 million in 2006, $62 million in 2007, $66 million in 2008, $70 million in 2009, and $74 million in 2010. 5. Treatment of excess pension assets used for retiree health benefits (sec. 535 of the Tax Relief Extension Act, sec. 420 of the Code, and secs. 101, 403, and 408 of ERISA) Present and Prior Law Defined benefit pension plan assets generally may not revert to an employer prior to the termination of the plan and the satisfaction of all plan liabilities. A reversion prior to plan termination may constitute a prohibited transaction and may result in disqualification of the plan. Certain limitations and procedural requirements apply to a reversion upon plan termination. Any assets that revert to the employer upon plan termination are includible in the gross income of the employer and subject to an excise tax. The excise tax rate, which may be as high as 50 percent of the reversion, varies depending upon whether or not the employer maintains a replacement plan or makes certain benefit increases. Upon plan termination, the accrued benefits of all plan participants are required to be 100-percent vested. A pension plan may provide medical benefits to retired employees through a section 401(h) account that is a part of such plan. A qualified transfer of excess assets of a defined benefit pension plan (other than a multiemployer plan) into a section 401(h) account that is a part of such plan does not result in plan disqualification and is not treated as a reversion to the employer or a prohibited transaction. Therefore, the transferred assets are not includible in the gross income of the employer and are not subject to the excise tax on reversions. Qualified transfers are subject to amount and frequency limitations, use requirements, deduction limitations, and vesting requirements. Under prior law, qualified transfers were also subject to minimum benefit requirements. Excess assets transferred in a qualified transfer may not exceed the amount reasonably estimated to be the amount that the employer will pay out of such account during the taxable year of the transfer for qualified current retiree health liabilities. No more than one qualified transfer with respect to any plan may occur in any taxable year. The transferred assets (and any income thereon) must be used to pay qualified current retiree health liabilities (either directly or through reimbursement) for the taxable year of the transfer. Transferred amounts generally must benefit all pension plan participants, other than key employees, who are entitled upon retirement to receive retiree medical benefits through the section 401(h) account. Retiree health benefits of key employees may not be paid (directly or indirectly) out of transferred assets. Amounts not used to pay qualified current retiree health liabilities for the taxable year of the transfer are to be returned at the end of the taxable year to the general assets of the plan. These amounts are not includible in the gross income of the employer, but are treated as an employer reversion and are subject to a 20-percent excise tax. No deduction is allowed for (1) a qualified transfer of excess pension assets into a section 401(h) account, (2) the payment of qualified current retiree health liabilities out of transferred assets (and any income thereon) or (3) a return of amounts not used to pay qualified current retiree health liabilities to the general assets of the pension plan. In order for the transfer to be qualified, accrued retirement benefits under the pension plan generally must be 100-percent vested as if the plan terminated immediately before the transfer. Under prior law, the minimum benefit requirement required each group health plan under which applicable health benefits were provided to provide substantially the same level of applicable health benefits for the taxable year of the transfer and the following 4 taxable years. The level of benefits that were required to be maintained was based on benefits provided in the year immediately preceding the taxable year of the transfer. Applicable health benefits are health benefits or coverage that are provided to (1) retirees who, immediately before the transfer, are entitled to receive such benefits upon retirement and who are entitled to pension benefits under the plan and (2) the spouses and dependents of such retirees. Under prior law, the provision permitting a qualified transfer of excess pension assets to pay qualified current retiree health liabilities expired for taxable years beginning after December 31, 2000.\51\ --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \51\ Title I of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, as amended (``ERISA''), provides that plan participants, the Secretaries of Treasury and the Department of Labor, the plan administrator, and each employee organization representing plan participants must be notified 60 days before a qualified transfer of excess assets to a retiree health benefits account occurs (ERISA sec. 103(e)). ERISA also provides that a qualified transfer is not a prohibited transaction under ERISA (ERISA sec. 408(b)(13)) or a prohibited reversion of assets to the employer (ERISA sec. 403(c)(1)). For purposes of these provisions, a qualified transfer was generally defined under prior law as a transfer pursuant to section 420 of the Internal Revenue Code, as in effect on January 1, 1995. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Reasons for Change The Congress believed that it is appropriate to provide a temporary extension of the rule permitting an employer to make a qualified transfer of excess pension assets to a section 401(h) account for retiree health benefits as long as the security of employees' pension benefits is not threatened by the transfer. In light of the increasing cost of retiree health benefits, the Congress also believed that it is appropriate to replace the minimum benefit requirement applicable to qualified transfers under prior law with a minimum cost requirement. Explanation of Provision The Tax Relief Extension Act extends the provision permitting qualified transfers of excess defined benefit pension plan assets to provide retiree health benefits under a section 401(h) account through December 31, 2005.\52\ In addition, the Tax Relief Extension Act replaces the prior-law minimum benefit requirement with the minimum cost requirement that applied to qualified transfers before December 9, 1994, to section 401(h) accounts. Therefore, each group health plan or arrangement under which applicable health benefits are provided is required to provide a minimum dollar level of retiree health expenditures for the taxable year of the transfer and the following 4 taxable years. The minimum dollar level is the higher of the applicable employer costs for each of the 2 taxable years immediately preceding the taxable year of the transfer. The applicable employer cost for a taxable year is determined by dividing the employer's qualified current retiree health liabilities by the number of individuals to whom coverage for applicable health benefits was provided during the taxable year. The modification of the minimum benefit requirement is effective with respect to transfers after the date of enactment. The Secretary of the Treasury is directed to prescribe such regulations as may be necessary to prevent an employer who significantly reduces retiree health coverage during the cost maintenance period from being treated as satisfying the minimum cost requirement. In addition, the Tax Relief Extension Act contains a transition rule regarding the minimum cost requirement. Under this rule, an employer must satisfy the minimum benefit requirement with respect to a qualified transfer that occurs after the date of enactment during the portion of the cost maintenance period of such transfer that overlaps the benefit maintenance period of a qualified transfer that occurs on or before the date of enactment. For example, suppose an employer (with a calendar year taxable year) made a qualified transfer in 1998. The minimum benefit requirement must be satisfied for calendar years 1998, 1999, 2000, 2001, and 2002. Suppose the employer also makes a qualified transfer in 2000. Then, the employer is required to satisfy the minimum benefit requirement in 2000, 2001, and 2002, and is required to satisfy the minimum cost requirement in 2003 and 2004. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \52\ The Tax Relief Extension Act modifies the corresponding provisions of ERISA. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Effective Date The provision is effective with respect to qualified transfers of excess defined benefit pension plan assets to section 401(h) accounts after December 31, 2000, and before January 1, 2006. The modification of the minimum benefit requirement is effective with respect to transfers after the date of enactment. In addition, the provision contains a transition rule regarding the minimum cost requirement. Under this rule, an employer must satisfy the minimum benefit requirement with respect to a qualified transfer that occurs after the date of enactment during the portion of the cost maintenance period of such transfer that overlaps the benefit maintenance period of a qualified transfer that occurs on or before the date of enactment. For example, suppose an employer (with a calendar year taxable year) made a qualified transfer in 1998. The minimum benefit requirement must be satisfied for calendar years 1998, 1999, 2000, 2001, and 2002. Suppose the employer also makes a qualified transfer in 2000. Then, the employer is required to satisfy the minimum benefit requirement in 2000, 2001, and 2002, and is required to satisfy the minimum cost requirement in 2003 and 2004. Revenue Effect The provision is estimated to increase Federal fiscal year budget receipts by $19 million in 2001, $38 million in 2002, $39 million in 2003, $40 million in 2004, $43 million in 2005, and $23 million in 2006. 6. Modification of installment method and repeal of installment method for accrual method taxpayers (sec. 536 of the Tax Relief Extension Act and sections 453 and 453A of the Code) Present and Prior Law An accrual method taxpayer is generally required to recognize income when all the events have occurred that fix the right to the receipt of the income and the amount of the income can be determined with reasonable accuracy. The installment method of accounting provides an exception to this general principle of income recognition by allowing a taxpayer to defer the recognition of income from the disposition of certain property until payment is received. Sales to customers in the ordinary course of business are not eligible for the installment method, except for sales of property that is used or produced in the trade or business of farming and sales of timeshares and residential lots if an election to pay interest under section 453(l)(2)(B) is made. A pledge rule provides that if an installment obligation is pledged as security for any indebtedness, the net proceeds \53\ of such indebtedness are treated as a payment on the obligation, triggering the recognition of income. Actual payments received on the installment obligation subsequent to the receipt of the loan proceeds are not taken into account until such subsequent payments exceed the loan proceeds that were treated as payments. The pledge rule does not apply to sales of property used or produced in the trade or business of farming, to sales of timeshares and residential lots where the taxpayer elects to pay interest under section 453(l)(2)(B), or to dispositions where the sales price does not exceed $150,000. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \53\ The net proceeds equal the gross loan proceeds less the direct expenses of obtaining the loan. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- An additional rule requires the payment of interest on the deferred tax that is attributable to most large installment sales. Reasons for Change The Congress believed that the installment method is inconsistent with the use of an accrual method of accounting and should not be allowed in situations where the disposition of property would otherwise be reported using the accrual method. The Congress was concerned that the continued use of the installment method in such situations would allow a deferral of gain that is inconsistent with the requirement of the accrual method that income be reported in the period it is earned, rather than the period it is received. The Congress also believed that the installment method, where its use is appropriate, should not serve to defer the recognition of gain beyond the time when funds are received. Accordingly, the Congress believed that proceeds of a loan should be treated in the same manner as a payment on an installment obligation if the loan is dependent on the existence of the installment obligation, such as where the loan is secured by the installment obligation or can be satisfied by the delivery of the installment obligation. Explanation of Provision Repeal of the installment method for accrual method taxpayers \54\ The Act generally prohibits the use of the installment method of accounting for dispositions of property that would otherwise be reported for Federal income tax purposes using an accrual method of accounting. The provision does not change present law regarding the availability of the installment method for dispositions of property used or produced in the trade or business of farming. The provision also does not change present law regarding the availability of the installment method for dispositions of timeshares or residential lots if the taxpayer elects to pay interest under section 453(l). --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \54\ The Installment Tax Correction Act of 2000 (P.L. 106-573) subsequently repealed the prohibition of the use of the installment method for accrual method taxpayers as if it had not been enacted. The Installment Tax Correction Act of 2000 left unchanged the modifications made by this provision to the pledge rule. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- The provision does not change the ability of a cash method taxpayer to use the installment method. For example, a cash method individual owns all of the stock of a closely held accrual method corporation. This individual sells his stock for cash, a ten-year note, and a percentage of the gross revenues of the company for next ten years. The provision does not change the ability of this individual to use the installment method in reporting the gain on the sale of the stock. Modifications to the pledge rule The Act modifies the pledge rule to provide that entering into any arrangement that gives the taxpayer the right to satisfy an obligation with an installment note will be treated in the same manner as the direct pledge of the installment note. For example, a taxpayer disposes of property for an installment note. The disposition is properly reported using the installment method. The taxpayer only recognizes gain as it receives the deferred payment. However, were the taxpayer to pledge the installment note as security for a loan, the taxpayer would be required to treat the proceeds of such loan as a payment on the installment note, and recognize the appropriate amount of gain. Under the provision, the taxpayer would also be required to treat the proceeds of a loan as payment on the installment note to the extent the taxpayer had the right to ``put'' or repay the loan by transferring the installment note to the taxpayer's creditor. Other arrangements that have a similar effect would be treated in the same manner. The modification of the pledge rule applies only to installment sales where the pledge rule of present law applies. Accordingly, the provision does not apply to (1) installment method sales made by a dealer in timeshares and residential lots where the taxpayer elects to pay interest under section 453(l)(2)(B), (2) sales of property used or produced in the trade or business of farming, or (3) dispositions where the sales price does not exceed $150,000, since such sales are not subject to the pledge rule under present law. Effective Date The provision is effective for sales or other dispositions entered into on or after the date of enactment (December 17, 1999). Revenue Effect The provision is estimated to increase Federal fiscal year budget receipts by $489 million in 2000, $694 million in 2001, $416 million in 2002, $257 million in 2003, $72 million in 2004, $10 million in 2005, $21 million in 2006, $35 million in 2007, $48 million in 2008, $62 million in 2009, and $78 million in 2010. 7. Denial of charitable contribution deduction for transfers associated with split-dollar insurance arrangements (sec. 537 of the Tax Relief Extension Act and new sec. 501(c)(28) of the Code) Present and Prior Law Under present and prior law, in computing taxable income, a taxpayer who itemizes deductions generally is allowed to deduct charitable contributions paid during the taxable year. The amount of the deduction allowable for a taxable year with respect to any charitable contribution depends on the type of property contributed, the type of organization to which the property is contributed, and the income of the taxpayer (secs. 170(b) and 170(e)). A charitable contribution is defined to mean a contribution or gift to or for the use of a charitable organization or certain other entities (sec. 170(c)). The term ``contribution or gift'' is not defined by statute, but generally is interpreted to mean a voluntary transfer of money or other property without receipt of adequate consideration and with donative intent. If a taxpayer receives or expects to receive a quid pro quo in exchange for a transfer to charity, the taxpayer may be able to deduct the excess of the amount transferred over the fair market value of any benefit received in return, provided the excess payment is made with the intention of making a gift.\55\ --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \55\ United States v. American Bar Endowment, 477 U.S. 105 (1986). Treas. Reg. sec. 1.170A-1(h). --------------------------------------------------------------------------- In general, no charitable contribution deduction is allowed for a transfer to charity of less than the taxpayer's entire interest (i.e., a partial interest) in any property (sec. 170(f)(3)). In addition, no deduction is allowed for any contribution of $250 or more unless the taxpayer obtains a contemporaneous written acknowledgment from the donee organization that includes a description and good faith estimate of the value of any goods or services provided by the donee organization to the taxpayer in consideration, whole or part, for the taxpayer's contribution (sec. 170(f)(8)). Reasons for Change The Congress was concerned about an abusive scheme \56\ referred to as charitable split-dollar life insurance, and the provision is designed to stop the spread of this scheme. Under this scheme, taxpayers typically transfer money to a charity, which the charity then uses to pay premiums for cash value life insurance on the transferor or another person. The beneficiaries under the life insurance contract typically include members of the transferor's family (either directly or through a family trust or family partnership). Having passed the money through a charity, the transferor claims a charitable contribution deduction for money that is actually being used to benefit the transferor and his or her family. If the transferor or the transferor's family paid the premium directly, the payment would not be deductible. Although the charity eventually may get some of the benefit under the life insurance contract, it does not have unfettered use of the transferred funds. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \56\ ``A Popular Tax Shelter for `Angry Affluent' Prompts Ire of Others,'' Wall Street Journal, Jan. 22, 1999, p. A1; ``U.S. Treasury Officials Investigating Charitable Split-Dollar Insurance Plan,'' Wall Street Journal, Jan. 29, 1999, p. B5; ``Brilliant Deduction?,'' The Chronicle of Philanthropy, Aug. 13, 1998, p. 24; ``Charitable Reverse Split-Dollar: Bonanza or Booby Trap,'' Journal of Gift Planning, 2nd quarter 1998. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- The Congress was concerned that this type of transaction represents an abuse of the charitable contribution deduction. The Congress was also concerned that the charity often gets relatively little benefit from this type of scheme, and serves merely as a conduit or accommodation party, which the Congress did not view as appropriate for an organization with tax-exempt status. In substance, the charity receives a transfer of a partial interest in an insurance policy, for which no charitable contribution deduction is allowed. While there was no basis under prior law for allowing a charitable contribution deduction in these circumstances, the Congress intended that the provision stop the marketing of these transactions immediately. Therefore, the provision clarifies prior law by specifically denying a charitable contribution deduction for a transfer to a charity if the charity directly or indirectly pays or paid any premium on a life insurance, annuity or endowment contract in connection with the transfer, and any direct or indirect beneficiary under the contract is the transferor, any member of the transferor's family, or any other noncharitable person chosen by the transferor. In addition, the provision clarifies prior law by specifically denying the deduction for a charitable contribution if, in connection with a transfer to the charity, there is an understanding or expectation that any person will directly or indirectly pay any premium on any such contract. The provision provides that certain persons are not treated as indirect beneficiaries, in certain cases in which a charitable organization purchases an annuity contract to fund an obligation to pay a charitable gift annuity. The provision also provides that a person is not treated as an indirect beneficiary solely by reason of being a noncharitable recipient of an annuity or unitrust amount paid by a charitable remainder trust that holds a life insurance, annuity or endowment contract. The rationale for these rules is that the amount of the charitable contribution deduction is limited under prior and present law to the value of the charitable organization's interest. Congress had previously enacted rules designed to prevent a charitable contribution deduction for the value of any personal benefit to the donor in these circumstances, and the Congress expected that the personal benefit to the donor be appropriately valued. Further, the provision imposes an excise tax on the charity, equal to the amount of the premiums paid by the charity. Finally, the provision requires a charity to report annually to the Internal Revenue Service the amount of premiums subject to this excise tax and information about the beneficiaries under the contract. Explanation of Provision Deduction denial The provision \57\ restates prior law to provide that no charitable contribution deduction is allowed for purposes of Federal tax, for a transfer to or for the use of an organization described in section 170(c) of the Internal Revenue Code, if in connection with the transfer (1) the organization directly or indirectly pays, or has previously paid, any premium on any ``personal benefit contract'' with respect to the transferor, or (2) there is an understanding or expectation that any person will directly or indirectly pay any premium on any ``personal benefit contract'' with respect to the transferor. It is intended that an organization be considered as indirectly paying premiums if, for example, another person pays premiums on its behalf. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \57\ The provision is similar to H.R. 630, introduced by Mr. Archer and Mr. Rangel (106th Cong., 1st Sess.). --------------------------------------------------------------------------- A personal benefit contract with respect to the transferor is any life insurance, annuity, or endowment contract, if any direct or indirect beneficiary under the contract is the transferor, any member of the transferor's family, or any other person (other than a section 170(c) organization) designated by the transferor. For example, such a beneficiary would include a trust having a direct or indirect beneficiary who is the transferor or any member of the transferor's family, and would include an entity that is controlled by the transferor or any member of the transferor's family. It is intended that a beneficiary under the contract include any beneficiary under any side agreement relating to the contract. If a transferor contributes a life insurance contract to a section 170(c) organization and designates one or more section 170(c) organizations as the sole beneficiaries under the contract, generally, it is not intended that the deduction denial rule under the provision apply. If, however, there is an outstanding loan under the contract upon the transfer of the contract, then the transferor is considered as a beneficiary. The fact that a contract also has other direct or indirect beneficiaries (persons who are not the transferor or a family member, or designated by the transferor) does not prevent it from being a personal benefit contract. The provision is not intended to affect situations in which an organization pays premiums under a legitimate fringe benefit plan for employees. It is intended that a person be considered as an indirect beneficiary under a contract if, for example, the person receives or will receive any economic benefit as a result of amounts paid under or with respect to the contract. For this purpose, as described below, an indirect beneficiary is not intended to include a person that benefits exclusively under a bona fide charitable gift annuity (within the meaning of sec. 501(m)). In the case of a charitable gift annuity, if the charitable organization purchases an annuity contract issued by an insurance company to fund its obligation to pay the charitable gift annuity, a person receiving payments under the charitable gift annuity is not treated as an indirect beneficiary, provided certain requirements are met. The requirements are that (1) the charitable organization possess all of the incidents of ownership (within the meaning of Treas. Reg. sec. 20.2042-1(c)) under the annuity contract purchased by the charitable organization; (2) the charitable organization be entitled to all the payments under the contract; and (3) the timing and amount of payments under the contract be substantially the same as the timing and amount of payments to each person under the organization's obligation under the charitable gift annuity (as in effect at the time of the transfer to the charitable organization). Under the provision, an individual's family consists of the individual's grandparents, the grandparents of the individual's spouse, the lineal descendants of such grandparents, and any spouse of such a lineal descendant. In the case of a charitable gift annuity obligation that is issued under the laws of a State that requires, in order for the charitable gift annuity to be exempt from insurance regulation by that State, that each beneficiary under the charitable gift annuity be named as a beneficiary under an annuity contract issued by an insurance company authorized to transact business in that State, then the foregoing requirements (1) and (2) are treated as if they are met, provided that certain additional requirements are met. The additional requirements are that the State law requirement was in effect on February 8, 1999, each beneficiary under the charitable gift annuity is a bona fide resident of the State at the time the charitable gift annuity was issued, the only persons entitled to payments under the annuity contract issued by the insurance company are persons entitled to payments under the charitable gift annuity when it was issued, and (as required by clause (iii) of subparagraph (D) of the provision) the timing and amount of payments under the annuity contract to each person are substantially the same as the timing and amount of payments to the person under the charitable organization's obligation under the charitable gift annuity (as in effect at the time of the transfer to the charitable organization). In the case of a charitable remainder annuity trust or charitable remainder unitrust (as defined in section 664(d)) that holds a life insurance, endowment or annuity contract issued by an insurance company, a person is not treated as an indirect beneficiary under the contract held by the trust, solely by reason of being a recipient of an annuity or unitrust amount paid by the trust, provided that the trust possesses all of the incidents of ownership under the contract and is entitled to all the payments under such contract. No inference is intended as to the applicability of other provisions of the Code with respect to the acquisition by the trust of a life insurance, endowment or annuity contract, or the appropriateness of such an investment by a charitable remainder trust. Nothing in the provision is intended to suggest that a life insurance, endowment, or annuity contract would be a personal benefit contract, solely because an individual who is a recipient of an annuity or unitrust amount paid by a charitable remainder annuity trust or charitable remainder unitrust uses such a payment to purchase a life insurance, endowment or annuity contract, and a beneficiary under the contract is the recipient, a member of his or her family, or another person he or she designates. Excise tax The provision imposes on any organization described in section 170(c) of the Code an excise tax, equal to the amount of the premiums paid by the organization on any life insurance, annuity, or endowment contract, if the premiums are paid in connection with a transfer for which a deduction is not allowable under the deduction denial rule of the provision (without regard to when the transfer to the charitable organization was made). The excise tax does not apply if all of the direct and indirect beneficiaries under the contract (including any related side agreement) are organizations described in section 170(c). Under the provision, payments are treated as made by the organization, if they are made by any other person pursuant to an understanding or expectation of payment. The excise tax is to be applied taking into account rules ordinarily applicable to excise taxes in chapter 41 or 42 of the Code (e.g., statute of limitation rules). Reporting The provision requires that the charitable organization annually report the amount of premiums that is paid during the year and that is subject to the excise tax imposed under the provision, and the name and taxpayer identification number of each beneficiary under the life insurance, annuity or endowment contract to which the premiums relate, as well as other information required by the Secretary of the Treasury. For this purpose, it is intended that a beneficiary include any beneficiary under any side agreement to which the section 170(c) organization is a party (or of which it is otherwise aware). Penalties applicable to returns required under Code section 6033 apply to returns under this reporting requirement. Returns required under this provision are to be furnished at such time and in such manner as the Secretary shall by forms or regulations require. Regulations The provision provides for the promulgation of regulations necessary or appropriate to carry out the purposes of the provisions, including regulations to prevent the avoidance of the purposes of the provision. For example, it is intended that regulations prevent avoidance of the purposes of the provision by inappropriate or improper reliance on the limited exceptions provided for certain beneficiaries under bona fide charitable gift annuities and for certain noncharitable recipients of an annuity or unitrust amount paid by a charitable remainder trust. Effective Date The deduction denial provision applies to transfers after February 8, 1999 (as provided in H.R. 630). The excise tax provision applies to premiums paid after the date of enactment. The reporting provision applies to premiums paid after February 8, 1999 (determined as if the excise tax imposed under the provision applied to premiums paid after that date). No inference is intended that a charitable contribution deduction was allowed under prior law with respect to a charitable split-dollar insurance arrangement. The provision does not change the rules with respect to fraud or criminal or civil penalties under prior or present law; thus, actions constituting fraud or that are subject to penalties under prior or present law would still constitute fraud or be subject to the penalties after enactment of the provision. Revenue Effect The provision is estimated to have a negligible effect on Federal fiscal year budget receipts. 8. Distributions by a partnership to a corporate partner of stock in another corporation (sec. 538 of the Tax Relief Extension Act and new sec. 732(f) of the Code) Present and Prior Law Present and prior law generally provide that no gain or loss is recognized on the receipt by a corporation of property distributed in complete liquidation of another corporation in which it holds 80 percent of the stock (by vote and value) (sec. 332). The basis of property received by a corporate distributee in the distribution in complete liquidation of the 80-percent-owned subsidiary is a carryover basis, i.e., the same as the basis in the hands of the subsidiary (provided no gain or loss is recognized by the liquidating corporation with respect to the distributed property) (sec. 334(b)). Present and prior law provide two different rules for determining a partner's basis in distributed property, depending on whether or not the distribution is in liquidation of the partner's interest in the partnership. Generally, a substituted basis rule applies to property distributed to a partner in liquidation. Thus, the basis of property distributed in liquidation of a partner's interest is equal to the partner's adjusted basis in its partnership interest (reduced by any money distributed in the same transaction) (sec. 732(b)). By contrast, generally, a carryover basis rule applies to property distributed to a partner other than in liquidation of its partnership interest, subject to a cap (sec. 732(a)). Thus, in a non-liquidating distribution, the distributee partner's basis in the property is equal to the partnership's adjusted basis in the property immediately before the distribution, but not to exceed the partner's adjusted basis in its partnership interest (reduced by any money distributed in the same transaction). In a non-liquidating distribution, the partner's basis in its partnership interest is reduced by the amount of the basis to the distributee partner of the property distributed and is reduced by the amount of any money distributed (sec. 733). If corporate stock is distributed by a partnership to a corporate partner with a low basis in its partnership interest, the basis of the stock is reduced in the hands of the partner so that the stock basis equals the distributee partner's adjusted basis in its partnership interest. Under prior law, no comparable reduction was made in the basis of the corporation's assets, however. Under prior law, the effect of reducing the stock basis could be negated by a subsequent liquidation of the corporation under section 332.\58\ --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \58\ In a similar situation involving the purchase of stock of a subsidiary corporation as replacement property following an involuntary conversion, the Code generally requires the basis of the assets held by the subsidiary to be reduced to the extent that the basis of the stock in the replacement corporation itself is reduced (sec. 1033). --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Reasons for Change The Congress was concerned that the downward adjustment to the basis of property distributed by a partnership may be nullified if the distributed property is corporate stock. The distributed corporation could be liquidated by the corporate partner, so that the stock basis adjustment would have no effect. Similarly, if the corporations file a consolidated return, their taxable income may be computed without reference to the downward adjustment to the basis of the stock. These results could occur either if the partnership has contributed property to the distributed corporation, or if the property was held by the corporation before the distribution. Therefore, the provision requires a basis reduction to the property of the distributed corporation. Explanation of Provision In general The provision provides for a basis reduction to assets of a corporation, if stock in that corporation is distributed by a partnership to a corporate partner. The reduction applies if, after the distribution, the corporate partner controls the distributed corporation. Amount of the basis reduction Under the provision, the amount of the reduction in basis of property of the distributed corporation generally equals the amount of the excess of (1) the partnership's adjusted basis in the stock of the distributed corporation immediately before the distribution, over (2) the corporate partner's basis in that stock immediately after the distribution. The provision limits the amount of the basis reduction in two respects. First, the amount of the basis reduction may not exceed the amount by which (1) the sum of the aggregate adjusted bases of the property and the amount of money of the distributed corporation exceeds (2) the corporate partner's adjusted basis in the stock of the distributed corporation. Thus, for example, if the distributed corporation has cash of $300 and other property with a basis of $600 and the corporate partner's basis in the stock of the distributed corporation is $400, then the amount of the basis reduction could not exceed $500 (i.e., ($300 + $600) - $400 = $500). Second, the amount of the basis reduction may not exceed the adjusted basis of the property of the distributed corporation. Thus, the basis of property (other than money) of the distributed corporation could not be reduced below zero under the provision, even though the total amount of the basis reduction would otherwise be greater. The provision provides that the corporate partner recognizes long-term capital gain to the extent the amount of the basis reduction exceeds the basis of the property (other than money) of the distributed corporation. In addition, the corporate partner's adjusted basis in the stock of the distribution is increased in the same amount. For example, if the amount of the basis reduction were $400, and the distributed corporation has money of $200 and other property with an adjusted basis of $300, then the corporate partner would recognize a $100 capital gain under the provision. The corporate partner's basis in the stock of the distributed corporation is also increased by $100 in this example, under the provision. The basis reduction is allocated among assets of the controlled corporation in accordance with the rules provided under section 732(c). Partnership distributions resulting in control The basis reduction generally applies with respect to a partnership distribution of stock if the corporate partner controls the distributed corporation immediately after the distribution or at any time thereafter. For this purpose, the term control means ownership of stock meeting the requirements of section 1504(a)(2) (generally, an 80-percent vote and value requirement).\59\ --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \59\ Note that a technical correction to this provision was enacted in The Community Renewal Tax Relief Act of 2000 (106th Cong., 2d Sess., P.L. 106-554) (described in this volume). Section 311(c) of H.R. 5662 as incorporated in that Act provides that the rule in the consolidated return regulations (Treas. Reg. sec. 1.1502-34) aggregating stock ownership for purposes of section 332 (relating to complete liquidation of a subsidiary that is a controlled corporation) also applies for purposes of section 732(f) (relating to basis adjustments to assets of a controlled corporation received in a partnership distribution). --------------------------------------------------------------------------- The provision applies to reduce the basis of any property held by the distributed corporation immediately after the distribution, or, if the corporate partner does not control the distributed corporation at that time, then at the time the corporate partner first has such control. The provision does not apply to any distribution if the corporate partner does not have control of the distributed corporation immediately after the distribution and establishes that the distribution was not part of a plan or arrangement to acquire control. For purposes of the provision, if a corporation acquires (other than in a distribution from a partnership) stock the basis of which is determined (by reason of being distributed from a partnership) in whole or in part by reference to section 732(a)(2) or (b), then the corporation is treated as receiving a distribution of stock from a partnership. For example, if a partnership distributes property other than stock (such as real estate) to a corporate partner, and that corporate partner contributes the real estate to another corporation in a section 351 transaction, then the stock received in the section 351 transaction is not treated as distributed by a partnership, and the basis reduction under this provision does not apply. As another example, if a partnership distributes stock to two corporate partners, neither of which have control of the distributed corporation, and the two corporate partners merge and the survivor obtains control of the distributed corporation, the stock of the distributed corporation that is acquired as a result of the merger is treated as received in a partnership distribution; the basis reduction rule of the provision applies. In the case of tiered corporations, a special rule provides that if the property held by a distributed corporation is stock in a corporation that the distributed corporation controls, then the provision is applied to reduce the basis of the property of that controlled corporation. The provision is also reapplied to any property of any controlled corporation that is stock in a corporation that it controls. Thus, for example, if stock of a controlled corporation is distributed to a corporate partner, and the controlled corporation has a subsidiary, the amount of the basis reduction allocable to stock of the subsidiary is applied again to reduce the basis of the assets of the subsidiary, under the special rule. The provision also provides for regulations, including regulations to avoid double counting and to prevent the abuse of the purposes of the provision. It is intended that regulations prevent the avoidance of the purposes of the provision through the use of tiered partnerships. Effective Date The provision is effective generally for distributions made after July 14, 1999. However, in the case of a corporation that is a partner in a partnership as of July 14, 1999, the provision is effective for any distribution made (or treated as made) to that partner from that partnership after June 30, 2001. In the case of any such distribution after the date of enactment and before July 1, 2001, the rule of the preceding sentence does not apply unless that partner makes an election to have the rule apply to the distribution on the partner's return of Federal income tax for the taxable year in which the distribution occurs. No inference is intended that distributions that are not subject to the provision achieve a particular tax result under present law, and no inference is intended that enactment of the provision limits the application of tax rules or principles under present or prior law. Revenue Effect The provision is estimated to increase Federal fiscal year budget receipts by $2 million in 2000, $4 million in 2001, $7 million in 2002, and $10 million in each of the years 2003 through 2010. B. Provisions Relating to Real Estate Investment Trusts (sec. 541-547, 551, 556, 561, 566, and 571 of the Tax Relief Extension Act and secs. 852, 856, 857, and 6655 of the Code) 1. General provisions Present and Prior Law A real estate investment trust (``REIT'') is an entity that receives most of its income from passive real-estate related investments and that essentially receives pass-through treatment for income that is distributed to shareholders. If an electing entity meets the requirements for REIT status, the portion of its income that is distributed to the investors each year generally is taxed to the investors without being subjected to a tax at the REIT level. In general, a REIT must derive its income from passive sources and not engage in any active trade or business. A REIT must satisfy a number of tests on an annual basis that relate to the entity's (1) organizational structure; (2) source of income; (3) nature of assets; and (4) distribution of income. Under the source-of-income tests, at least 95 percent of its gross income generally must be derived from rents from real property, dividends, interest, and certain other passive sources (the ``95 percent test''). In addition, at least 75 percent of its gross income generally must be from real estate sources, including rents from real property and interest on mortgages secured by real property. For purposes of the 95 and 75 percent tests, qualified income includes amounts received from certain ``foreclosure property,'' treated as such for 3 years after the property is acquired by the REIT in foreclosure after a default (or imminent default) on a lease of such property or on indebtedness which such property secured. In general, for purposes of the 95 percent and 75 percent tests, rents from real property do not include amounts for services to tenants or for managing or operating real property. However, there are some exceptions. Qualified rents include amounts received for services that are ``customarily furnished or rendered'' in connection with the rental of real property, so long as the services are furnished through an independent contractor from whom the REIT does not derive any income. Amounts received for services that are not ``customarily furnished or rendered'' are not qualified rents. An independent contractor is defined as a person who does not own, directly or indirectly, more than 35 percent of the shares of the REIT. Also, no more than 35 percent of the total shares of stock of an independent contractor (or of the interests in assets or net profits, if not a corporation) can be owned directly or indirectly by persons owning 35 percent or more of the interests in the REIT. In addition, a REIT cannot derive any income from an independent contractor. Rents for certain personal property leased in connection with real property are treated as rents from real property if the adjusted basis of the personal property does not exceed 15 percent of the aggregate adjusted bases of the real and the personal property. In general, rents from real property do not include amounts received from any corporation if the REIT owns 10 percent or more of the voting power or of the total number of shares of all classes of stock of such corporation. Similarly, in the case of other entities, rents are not qualified if the REIT owns 10 percent of more in the assets or net profits of such person. At the close of each quarter of the taxable year, at least 75 percent of the value of total REIT assets must be represented by real estate assets, cash and cash items, and Government securities. Also, a REIT cannot own securities (other than Government securities and certain real estate assets) in an amount greater than 25 percent of the value of REIT assets. In addition, under prior law, a REIT could not own securities of any one issuer representing more than 5 percent of the total value of REIT assets or more than 10 percent of the voting securities of any corporate issuer. Securities for purposes of these rules are defined by reference to the Investment Company Act of 1940.\60\ --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \60\ 15 U.S.C. 80a-1 and following. See Code section 856(c)(5)(F). --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Under an exception to the ownership rule, a REIT is permitted to have a wholly owned subsidiary corporation, but the assets and items of income and deduction of such corporation are treated as those of the REIT, and thus can affect the qualification of the REIT under the income and asset tests. A REIT generally is required to distribute 95 percent of its income before the end of its taxable year, as deductible dividends paid to shareholders. This rule is similar to a rule for regulated investment companies (``RICs'') that requires distribution of 90 percent of income. Both REITS and RICs can make certain ``deficiency dividends'' after the close of the taxable year, and have these treated as made before the end of the year. The regulations applicable to REITS state that a distribution will be treated as a ``deficiency dividend'' (and, thus, as made before the end of the prior taxable year) only to the extent the earnings and profits for that year exceed the amount of distributions actually made during the taxable year.\61\ --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \61\ Treas. Reg. sec. 1.858-1(b)(2). --------------------------------------------------------------------------- A REIT that has been or has combined with a C corporation \62\ will be disqualified if, as of the end of its taxable year, it has accumulated earnings and profits from a non-REIT year. A similar rule applies to regulated investment companies (``RICs''). In the case of a REIT, any distribution made in order to comply with this requirement is treated as being first from pre-REIT accumulated earnings and profits. RICs do not have a similar ordering rule. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \62\ A ``C corporation'' is a corporation that is subject to taxation under the rules of subchapter C of the Internal Revenue Code, which generally provides for a corporate level tax on corporate income. Thus, a C corporation is not a pass-through entity. Earnings and profits of a C corporation, when distributed to shareholders, are taxed to the shareholders as dividends. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- In the case of a RIC, any distribution made within a specified period after determination that the investment company did not qualify as a RIC for the taxable year will be treated as applying to the RIC for the non-RIC year, ``for purposes of applying [the earnings and profits rule that forbids a RIC to have non-RIC earnings and profits] to subsequent taxable years.'' The REIT rules do not specify any particular separate treatment of distributions made after the end of the taxable year for purposes of the earnings and profits rule. Treasury regulations under the REIT provisions state that ``distribution procedures similar to those . . . for regulated investment companies apply to non-REIT earnings and profits of a real estate investment trust.'' \63\ --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \63\ Treas. Reg. sec. 1.857-11(c). --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Reasons for Change The Congress was concerned that nonqualified income of a REIT might be avoided under prior law through transactions with entities that engaged in activities producing nonqualified income and that were effectively owned by the REIT. For example, a REIT might invest in an entity in which it owned virtually all the value (e.g., through preferred stock) even though it owned only a small amount of the vote. The remainder of the voting power might be held by persons related to the REIT such as its officers, directors, or employees. The REIT might effectively be a beneficiary of virtually all the earnings of the entity, through its preferred stock ownership. Also, the REIT might hold significant debt in the entity, and receive significant interest income that reduced the entity's taxable income (subject to corporate level tax if the entity is a C corporation) while producing permissible income to the REIT. Similarly, if the entity was a partnership engaged in activities that would generate nonqualified income for the REIT if done directly, the REIT might use a significant debt investment in the partnership combined with a small equity interest, to reduce the amount of nonqualified income the REIT would report from the partnership through its partnership interest, while still receiving a significant income stream through the debt. As a result of these concerns, the Congress believed that a 10-percent value, as well as a 10-percent vote test, generally is appropriate to test the permitted relationship of a REIT to the entities in which it invests. The Congress believed however, that certain types of activities that relate to the REIT's real estate investments should be permitted to be performed under the control of the REIT, through the establishment of a ``taxable REIT subsidiary'' where there are rules which limit the amount of the subsidiary's income that can be reduced through transactions with the REIT. A limit on the amount of REIT asset value that can be represented by investment in such subsidiaries was also desirable. In addition, the Congress believed it is desirable to obtain information regarding the extent of use of the new taxable REIT subsidiaries and the amount of corporate Federal income tax that such subsidiaries are paying. One type of activity is the provision of tenant services that the REIT wishes to provide in order to remain competitive that might not be considered customary because they are relatively new or ``cutting-edge''. The Congress believed that provision of tenant services by taxable REIT subsidiaries will simplify such rental operations since uncertainty whether a particular service provided by a subsidiary is ``customary'' will not affect the parent's qualification as a REIT. Another type of activity that the Congress believed appropriate for a subsidiary is management and operation of the real estate in which a REIT has developed expertise with respect to its own properties that it also would like to provide to third parties. The Congress believed that allowing operation of health care facilities directly by a REIT for a limited period of time is appropriate to assure continuous provision of health care services where the facilities are acquired by the REIT upon termination of a lease (as upon foreclosure) where there may not be enough time to obtain a new independent provider of such health care services. Finally, the Congress believed that a number of other simplifying changes are desirable, including simplifying the determination whether a publicly traded entity is an independent contractor and modifying and conforming certain RIC and REIT distribution rules. Explanation of Provision Investment limitations and taxable REIT subsidiaries Investment limitations General rule.--Under the provision, a REIT generally cannot own more than 10 percent of the total value of securities of a single issuer, in addition to the prior law rule that a REIT cannot own more than 10 percent of the outstanding voting securities of a single issuer. In addition, no more than 20 percent of the value of a REIT's assets can be represented by securities (as defined in the Investment Company Act of 1940) of taxable REIT subsidiaries that are permitted under the Act. Exception for safe-harbor debt.--For purposes of the new 10-percent value test, securities generally are defined to exclude safe harbor ``straight debt'' owned by a REIT (as defined in Code sections 1361(c)(5)(B)(i) and (ii)) if the issuer is an individual, or if the REIT (and any taxable REIT subsidiary of such REIT) owns no other securities of the issuer. However, in the case of a REIT that owns securities of a partnership, safe harbor debt is excluded from the definition of securities only if the REIT owns at least 20-percent or more of the profits interest in the partnership. The purpose of the partnership rule requiring a 20 percent profits interest is to assure that if the partnership produces income that would be disqualified income to the REIT, the REIT will be treated as receiving a significant portion of that income directly through its partnership interest, even though it also may derive qualified interest income through its safe harbor debt interest. Exception for taxable REIT subsidiaries In general.--An exception to the limitations on ownership of securities of a single issuer applies in the case of a ``taxable REIT subsidiary'' that meets certain requirements. However, securities (as defined in the Investment Company Act of 1940) of taxable REIT subsidiaries cannot not exceed 20 percent of the total value of a REIT's assets. Joint election requirement.--To qualify as a taxable REIT subsidiary, both the REIT and the subsidiary corporation must join in an election. In addition, any corporation (other than a REIT or a qualified REIT subsidiary under section 856(i) that does not properly elect with the REIT to be a taxable REIT subsidiary) of which a taxable REIT subsidiary owns, directly or indirectly, more than 35 percent of the vote or value is automatically treated as a taxable REIT subsidiary. Permitted activities of a taxable REIT subsidiary.--A taxable REIT subsidiary can engage in certain business activities that under prior law could disqualify the REIT because, but for the provision, the taxable REIT subsidiary's activities and relationship with the REIT would have prevented certain income from qualifying as rents from real property. Specifically, the subsidiary can provide services to tenants of REIT property (even if such services were not considered services customarily furnished in connection with the rental of real property), and can manage or operate properties, generally for third parties, without causing amounts received or accrued directly or indirectly by the REIT for such activities to fail to be treated as rents from real property. However, rents paid to a REIT generally are not qualified rents if the REIT owns more than 10 percent of the value (as well as of the vote) of a corporation paying the rents. The only exceptions are for rents that are paid by taxable REIT subsidiaries and that also meet a limited rental exception (where 90 percent of space is leased to third parties at comparable rents) and an exception for rents from certain lodging facilities (operated by an independent contractor). However, the subsidiary cannot directly or indirectly operate or manage a lodging or healthcare facility. Nevertheless, it can lease a qualified lodging facility (e.g., a hotel) from the REIT (provided no gambling revenues were derived by the hotel or on its premises); and the rents paid are treated as rents from real property so long as the lodging facility was operated by an independent contractor for a fee. The subsidiary can bear all expenses of operating the facility and receive all the net revenues, minus the independent contractor's fee. For purposes of the rule that an independent contractor may operate a qualified lodging facility, an independent contractor will qualify so long as, at the time it enters into the management agreement with the taxable REIT subsidiary, it is actively engaged in the trade or business of operating qualified lodging facilities for any person who is not related to the REIT or the taxable REIT subsidiary. The REIT may receive income from such an independent contractor with respect to certain pre-existing leases. Also, the subsidiary generally cannot provide to any person rights to any brand name under which hotels or healthcare facilities are operated. An exception applies to rights provided to an independent contractor to operate or manage a lodging facility, if the rights are held by the subsidiary as licensee or franchisee, and the lodging facility is owned by the subsidiary or leased to it by the REIT. Special rules to limit income of taxable REIT subsidiary going to REIT.--Interest paid by a taxable REIT subsidiary to the related REIT is subject to the earnings stripping rules of section 163(j). Thus the taxable REIT subsidiary cannot deduct interest in any year that would exceed 50 percent of the subsidiary's adjusted gross income. If any amount of interest, rent, or other deductions of the taxable REIT subsidiary for amounts paid to the REIT is determined to be other than at arm's length (``redetermined'' items), an excise tax of 100 percent is imposed on the portion that was excessive. ``Safe harbors'' are provided for certain rental payments where (1) the amounts are de minimis, (2) there is specified evidence that charges to unrelated parties are substantially comparable, (3) certain charges for services from the taxable REIT subsidiary are separately stated, or (4) the subsidiary's gross income from the service is not less than 150 percent of the subsidiary's direct cost in furnishing the service.\64\ --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \64\ A technical correction described below (sec. 311(b) of H.R. 5662) clarified that redetermined rent does not include any amount received from a taxable REIT subsidiary that would be excluded from unrelated business taxable income (under section 512(b)(3)). --------------------------------------------------------------------------- In determining whether rents are arm's length rents, the fact that such rents do not meet the requirements of the specified safe harbors shall not be taken into account. In addition, rent received by a REIT shall not fail to qualify as rents from real property by reason of the fact that all or any portion of such rent is redetermined for purposes of the excise tax. Treasury study of taxable REIT subsidiaries.--The Treasury Department is to conduct a study to determine how many taxable REIT subsidiaries are in existence and the aggregate amount of taxes paid by such subsidiaries and shall submit a report to the Congress describing the results of such study. Health care REITS The provision permits a REIT to own and operate a health care facility for at least two years, and treat it as permitted ``foreclosure'' property, if the facility is acquired by the termination or expiration of a lease of the property. Extensions of the 2-year period can be granted. Conformity with regulated investment company rules Under the provision, the REIT distribution requirements are modified to conform to the rules for regulated investment companies. Specifically, a REIT is required to distribute only 90 percent, rather than 95 percent, of its income. Definition of independent contractor If any class of stock of the REIT or the person being tested as an independent contractor is regularly traded on an established securities market, only persons who directly or indirectly own 5 percent or more of such class of stock shall be counted in determining whether the 35 percent ownership limitations have been exceeded. Modification of earnings and profits rules for RICs and REITS The rule allowing a RIC to make a distribution after a determination that it had failed RIC status, and thus meet the requirement of no non-RIC earnings and profits in subsequent years, is modified to clarify that, when the sole reason for the determination is that the RIC had non-RIC earnings and profits in the initial year (i.e. because it was determined not to have distributed all C corporation earnings and profits), the procedure would apply to permit RIC qualification in the initial year to which such determination applied, in addition to subsequent years. The provision modifies both the RIC and REIT earnings and profits rules to provide a more specific ordering rule, similar to the present-law REIT rule. The new ordering rule treats a distribution to meet the requirement of no non-RIC or non-REIT earnings and profits as coming, on a first-in, first-out basis, from earnings and profits which, if not distributed, would result in a failure to meet such requirement. Thus, such earnings and profits are deemed distributed first from earnings and profits that would cause such a failure, starting with the earliest RIC or REIT year for which such failure would occur. In addition, the REIT deficiency dividend rules are modified to take account of this ordering rule. Provision regarding rental income from certain personal property The provision modifies the rule permitting certain rents from personal property to be treated as real estate rental income if such personal property did not exceed 15 percent of the aggregate of real and personal property. The provision replaces the prior law comparison of the adjusted bases of properties with a comparison based on fair market values. Effective Date In general.--The provision is effective for taxable years beginning after December 31, 2000. The provision with respect to modification of earnings and profits rules is effective for distributions after December 31, 2000. Transition rules.--The new rules forbidding a REIT to own more than 10 percent of the value of securities of a single issuer do not apply to a REIT with respect to securities held directly or indirectly by such REIT on July 12, 1999, or acquired pursuant to the terms of a written binding contract in effect on that date and at all times thereafter until the acquisition. Securities received in a tax-free exchange or reorganization, with respect to or in exchange for such grandfathered securities, are also grandfathered. The grandfathering of securities ceases to apply if the REIT acquires additional securities of that issuer after July 12,1999, other than pursuant to a binding contract in effect on that date and at all times thereafter, or in a reorganization with another corporation the securities of which are grandfathered. This transition also ceases to apply to securities of a corporation as of the first day after July 12, 1999, on which such corporation engages in a substantial new line of business, or acquires any substantial asset, other than pursuant to a binding contract in effect on such date and at all times thereafter, or in a reorganization or transaction in which gain or loss is not recognized by reason of section 1031 or 1033 of the Code. If a corporation makes an election to become a taxable REIT subsidiary, effective before January 1, 2004, and at a time when the REIT's ownership is grandfathered under these rules, the election is treated as a reorganization under section 368(a)(1)(A) of the Code. Qualified rents.--The new 10 percent of value limitation for purposes of defining qualified rents is effective for taxable years beginning after December 31, 2000. There is an exception for rents paid under a lease or pursuant to a binding contract in effect on July 12, 1999, and at all times thereafter. Revenue Effect The provision is estimated to increase Federal fiscal year budget receipts by $46 million in 2001, $136 million in 2002, $49 million in 2003, and $24 million in 2004, and is estimated to reduce Federal fiscal year budget receipts by $4 million in 2005, $34 million in 2006, $67 million in 2007, $101 million in 2008, $140 million in 2009, and $182 million in 2010. 2. Modification of estimated tax rules for closely held REITs Present and Prior Law If a person has a direct interest or a partnership interest in assets that produce income throughout the year (including mortgages or other securities), that person's estimated tax payments must reflect the quarterly amounts expected from the asset. However, under prior law, a dividend distribution of earnings from a real estate investment trust (``REIT'') was considered for estimated tax purposes to produce income when the dividend is paid. Reasons for Change The Congress was concerned that REITs might be used to defer estimated taxes. Income producing property might be acquired in or transferred to a REIT, and a dividend paid from the REIT only at the end of the year. So long as the dividend was paid by year end (or within a certain period after year end), the REIT pays no tax on the dividend, while the shareholder of the REIT did not include the payment in income until the dividend is paid. Thus, the income from the assets was not counted in the earlier quarters of the year, for purposes of the shareholder's estimated tax. The Congress was concerned that this type of situation was most likely to occur in cases where a REIT is relatively closely held and might be used to structure payments for the benefit of significant shareholders. In such situations, the Congress believed that persons who are significant shareholders in the REIT should be able to obtain sufficient information regarding the quarterly income of the REIT to determine their share of that income for estimated tax purposes. Explanation of Provision Under the provision, in the case of a REIT that is closely held, any person owning at least 10 percent of the vote or value of the REIT is required to accelerate the recognition of year-end dividends attributable to the closely held REIT, for purposes of such person's estimated tax payments. A closely held REIT is defined as one in which at least 50 percent of the vote or value is owed by five or fewer persons. Attribution rules apply to determine ownership. No inference is intended regarding the treatment of any transaction prior to the effective date. Effective Date The provision is effective for estimated tax payments due on or after December 15, 1999. Revenue Effect The provision is estimated to increase Federal fiscal year budget receipts by $40 million in 2000, and $1 million for each of the years 2001 through 2010. PART FOUR: TRADE AND DEVELOPMENT ACT OF 2000 (PUBLIC LAW 106-200) \65\ --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \65\ H.R. 434 (``Trade and Development Act of 2000''); P.L. 106- 200. On November 3, 1999, the Senate passed a version of H.R. 434 (''Trade and Development Act of 1999'') which included provisions relating to the waiver of denial of foreign tax credits under section 901(j) and the acceleration of rum cover over payments to Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands. The Senate amendment to H.R. 434 relating to the waiver of denial of foreign tax credits under section 901(j) is similar to a provision included in the conference agreement to H.R. 2488 (``Taxpayer Refund and Relief Act of 1999'') (H. Rep. 106-289). The Senate amendment to H.R. 434 relating to the rum cover over payments to Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands is the same as a provision included in H.R. 984 (``Caribbean and Central America Relief and Economic Stabilization Act'') as reported by the House Committee on Ways and Means on March 13, 2000 (H. Rep. 106-519, Part 1). The conference agreement to H.R. 434 was reported on May 4, 2000 (H. Rep. 106-606). The conference agreement to H.R. 434 was passed by the House on May 4, 2000 and by the Senate on May 11, 2000. H.R. 434 was signed by the President on May 18, 2000. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- A. Application of Denial of Foreign Tax Credit Regarding Trade and Investment With Respect to Certain Foreign Countries (sec. 601 of the Trade and Development Act and sec. 901(j) of the Code) Present and Prior Law In general, U.S. persons may credit foreign taxes against U.S. tax on foreign-source income. The amount of foreign tax credits that can be claimed in a year is subject to a limitation that prevents taxpayers from using foreign tax credits to offset U.S. tax on U.S.-source income. Separate limitations are applied to specific categories of income. Pursuant to special rules applicable to taxes paid to certain foreign countries, no foreign tax credit is allowed for income, war profits, or excess profits taxed paid, accrued, or deemed paid to a country which satisfies specified criteria, to the extent that the taxes are with respect to income attributable to a period during which such criteria were satisfied (sec. 901(j)). Section 901(j) applies with respect to any foreign country: (1) the government of which the United States does not recognize, unless such government is otherwise eligible to purchase defense articles or services under the Arms Export Control Act, (2) with respect to which the United States has severed diplomatic relations, (3) with respect to which the United States has not severed diplomatic relations but does not conduct such relations, or (4) which the Secretary of State has, pursuant to section 6(j) of the Export Administration Act of 1979, as amended, designated as a foreign country which repeatedly provides support for acts of international terrorisms (a ``section 901(j) foreign country''). The denial of credits applies to any foreign country during the period beginning on the later of January 1, 1987, or six months after such country becomes a section 901(j) country, and ending on the date the Secretary of State certifies to the Secretary of the Treasury that such country is no longer a section 901(j) country. Taxes treated as noncreditable under section 901(j) generally are permitted to be deducted notwithstanding the fact that the taxpayer elects use of the foreign tax credit for the taxable year with respect to other taxes. In addition, income for which foreign tax credits are denied generally cannot be sheltered from U.S. tax by other creditable foreign taxes. Under the rules of subpart F, U.S. 10-percent shareholders of a controlled foreign corporation (``CFC'') are required to include in income currently certain types of income of the CFC, whether or not such income is actually distributed currently to the shareholders (referred to as ``subpart F income''). Subpart F income includes income derived from any foreign country during a period in which the taxes imposed by that country are denied eligibility for the foreign tax credit under section 901(j) (sec. 952(a)(5)). Reasons for Change \66\ --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \66\ The legislative history of this provision did not include a reasons for change section. The reasons for change reported here are drawn from the reasons for change reported in a House Committee on Ways and Means report to H.R. 2488 (``Financial Freedom Act of 1999'') with respect to a similar provision concerning the waiver of denial of foreign tax credits under section 901(j). See H. Rep. 106-238 at 255- 256 (1999). --------------------------------------------------------------------------- The Congress has observed that the automatic denial of foreign tax credits under section 901(j) with respect to a foreign country may in certain cases conflict with other policy interests of the United States. The Congress believed that it is appropriate to provide a mechanism for the waiver of the denial of foreign tax credits in certain cases. Explanation of Provision The provision provides that section 901(j) no longer applies with respect to a foreign country if: (1) the President determines that a waiver of the application of section 901(j) to such foreign country is in the national interest of the United States and will expand trade and investment opportunities for U.S. companies in such foreign country, and (2) the President reports to Congress, not less than 30 days before the waiver is granted, the intention to grant such a waiver and the reason for such waiver. Effective Date The provision is effective on or after February 1, 2001. Revenue Effect The provision is estimated to have no effect on Federal fiscal year budget receipts. B. Acceleration of Coverover Payments to Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands (sec. 602 of the Trade and Development Act and sec. 7652 of the Code) Present and Prior Law A $13.50 per proof gallon \67\ excise tax is imposed on distilled spirits produced in, or imported or brought into, the United States. The excise tax does not apply to distilled spirits that are exported from the United States or to distilled spirits that are consumed in U.S. possessions (e.g., Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands). --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \67\ A proof gallon is a liquid gallon consisting of 50 percent alcohol. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- The Code provides for coverover (payment) of $13.25 per proof gallon of the excise tax imposed on rum imported (or brought) into the United States (without regard to the country of origin) to Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands during the period July 1, 1999 through December 31, 2001. Effective on January 1, 2002, the coverover rate is scheduled to return to its permanent level of $10.50 per proof gallon. Under prior law, the maximum amount attributable to the increased coverover rate over the permanent rate of $10.50 per proof gallon that could be paid to Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands before October 1, 2000 was $20 million. Payment of this amount was made on January 3, 2000.\68\ Any remaining amounts attributable to the increased coverover rate were to be paid on October 1, 2000. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \68\ The Department of the Interior, which administers the coverover for rum imported into the United States from the U.S. Virgin Islands, erroneously authorized full payment to the Virgin Islands of the increased coverover rate on that rum notwithstanding the statutory limit on these transfers for periods before October 1, 2000. The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms, which administers the coverover payments for the Virgin Islands' portion of tax collected on rum imported from other countries, complied with the statutory limit. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Amounts covered over to Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands are deposited into the treasuries of the two possessions for use as those possessions determine. Explanation of Provision The provision provides that unpaid amounts attributable to the increase in the coverover rate to $13.25 per proof gallon for the period from July 1, 1999 through the last day of the month prior to the date of enactment would be paid on the first monthly payment date following the date of enactment.\69\ With respect to amounts attributable to the period beginning with the month of the provision's enactment, payments are based on the full $13.25 per proof gallon rate. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \69\ Thus, this provision applies only to payments to Puerto Rico and to payments of the Virgin Islands' portion of tax on rum imported from other countries because the Interior Department erroneously has already paid in full amounts attributable to rum imported from the Virgin Islands. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- The provision further includes two clarifications to the rules governing coverover payments. First, clarification is provided that payments to the Virgin Islands with respect to rum imported from that possession are to be made annually in advance (base