[Congressional Record Volume 148, Number 127 (Wednesday, October 2, 2002)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Pages E1722-E1723]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]


      INDIVIDUAL AND SMALL BUSINESS TAX SIMPLIFICATION ACT OF 2002

                                 ______
                                 

                           HON. AMO HOUGHTON

                              of new york

                    in the house of representatives

                        Tuesday, October 1, 2002

  Mr. HOUGHTON. Mr. Speaker, today I am introducing a bill, the 
Individual and Small Business Tax Simplification Act, to address an 
ever-increasing problem. In 1935, there were 34 lines on Form 1040 and 
instructions were two pages. Today, there are well over 13,000 pages of 
forms and instructions. The tax code and regulations have mushroomed to 
over 9 million words. Approximately eighty-percent of the paperwork 
burden of the entire federal government is related to tax compliance, 
and the extent of this burden is staggering. In 2001, individual 
taxpayers spent an estimated 2\1/2\ billion hours on federal tax 
compliance. Businesses spent an additional 2 billion hours. The value 
of this lost time is incalculable, but it does not even include the 
economic cost of decisions based on a faulty understanding of the law. 
Nor does the 4\1/2\ billion hour total include time spent on planning. 
An added cost of complexity is that it undermines voluntary compliance. 
It is a haven for promoters of dubious schemes and it often produces 
unintended consequences.
  There are legitimate reasons for some of this complexity. Defining 
income in a manner that is fair and easy to administer is inherently 
complex, and, it must be acknowledged, any tax measured by 
income—even a flat tax—must reflect the way income is 
earned in a complex economy such as our own. But, for a variety of 
reasons, the tax code has become far more complicated than necessary. 
In many cases, there is a clear answer to the question of whether a 
rational person would design a tax provision the same way from a clean 
slate. The objective of the legislation I am introducing today is to 
roll back this sort of complexity. One or more of the bill's provisions 
would simplify annual filing for every individual taxpayer.
  This legislation builds on a bill that I introduced in the 106th 
Congress, the Tax Simplification and Burden Reduction Act. The Ways and 
Means Subcommittee on Oversight has held numerous hearings on tax 
simplification, and the bill draws on the record built at those 
hearings. Several of the provisions of this legislation appeared first 
as recommendations in the Joint Committee on Taxation's April, 2001 
report, and the staff of the Joint Committee on Taxation has helped to 
refine all of the proposals contained in the bill. Other provisions 
originated with the work of the Tax Section of the American Bar 
Association and the American Institute of Certified Public Accountants. 
I welcome comments from other individuals and organizations on the bill 
and other simplification measures.
  Our future as a nation depends on our ability to raise revenue in a 
manner that is fair and equitable. The Internal Revenue Code must be 
simplified to restore faith by all taxpayers in our tax system.
  The proposal includes the following provisions:


                I. Individual Income Tax Simplification

  Alternative Minimum Tax—Inflation has caused many middle-income 
taxpayers to be subject to AMT by eroding the value of the AMT 
exemption. Rising state and local taxes have added to the problem, 
because state taxes are not deductible in calculating taxable income 
for AMT purposes. The failure to allow a state and local tax deduction 
for AMT purposes is one of the most unfair aspects of the Internal 
Revenue Code. It results in double taxation of income, and it forces 
taxpayers who live in states with higher income taxes to bear a larger 
percentage of the federal tax burden than those who live in states with 
lower taxes or no tax. If we allow the AMT to remain unaddressed, this 
unfair and inequitable disparity will worsen over time.
  As a result of inflation, the Joint Committee on Taxation predicts 
that more than 35 million will pay AMT within ten years. Currently, AMT 
affects less than 2 million taxpayers. A recent study by the Urban-
Brookings Tax Policy Center confirms this finding and further notes 
that if left unattended the AMT will shift a substantial portion of the 
tax burden of this country to urban and suburban middle-class 
taxpayers. Congress would not design a system with these features 
deliberately, and we should not allow it to happen by default.
  Under the proposal, the AMT exemption would be adjusted for inflation 
since the date it was enacted and indexed for inflation in future 
years. State and local taxes would become fully deductible under the 
new AMT. The effect of these changes will be to restore AMT to its 
intended purpose and stop its growth.
  Replace Head of Household Filing Status with New Exemption—Head 
of Household filing status has long been a leading-source of taxpayer 
confusion and mistakes during the filing season. In 2000, the IRS 
fielded over half a million taxpayer questions on filing status. An 
error on filing status can have consequences throughout the return, and 
it can lead to costly interest and penalty charges later on. To address 
this problem, the bill replaces Head of Household filing status with a 
$3,700 “Single Parent Exemption.” This amount will be 
indexed. The proposal, as a whole, is revenue neutral.
   The bill achieves further simplification by cross referencing the 
new uniform definition of a qualifying child.
  Simplified Taxation of Social Security Benefits—Under present 
law, determining whether and how much social security benefits are 
subject to tax is a highly involved process that requires the 
completion of an 18 line worksheet. Many taxpayers are not eligible to 
use this worksheet, and they must refer to a 27 page publication.
  The bill would simplify the calculation by repealing the 85% 
inclusion rule that was enacted in 1993. This alone would remove 6 
lines from the Form 1040 worksheet. Going further, the proposal would 
index the 50% inclusion rule for future inflation, and greatly simplify 
the calculation of income for purposes of this rule. Tax exempt 
interest will no longer be required to be added in the calculation. 
Indexation will mean that fewer taxpayers will be required to complete 
the calculation and include benefits in income.
  Simplify Capital Gains Tax—Under present law, there are seven 
different capital gains rates that apply to various kinds of 
dispositions of property. There are special rates for taxpayers in 
lower tax brackets, for property held five years or more, and for gain 
on collectibles. Before 1986, there was one rule: 50% of capital gains 
are deductible. For any investor who has struggled to fill out Schedule 
D of Form 1040, it will come as welcome news that the bill proposes a 
return to the system in place prior to 1986.
  No taxpayer will pay a higher capital gains rate under this proposal. 
By definition, the capital gains rate that individuals pay will be no 
more than one-half of their marginal income tax rate. Therefore, this 
proposal preserves the progressivity that is accomplished by a rate 
structure under current law, and the maximum rate will be no more than 
one-half of the highest marginal income tax rate. Thus, the maximum 
effective capital gains rate would be 19.3% in 2003, and an individual 
in the 10% bracket would have a 5% capital gains rate.
  Repeal of 2% Floor on Miscellaneous Itemized Deductions—The 
bill follows the recommendation of the Joint Committee on Taxation that 
the 2% floor on miscellaneous itemized deductions should be repealed. 
This provision was originally enacted in 1986 to ease administrative 
burdens for the IRS and record keeping burdens for taxpayers.
  Instead of easing taxpayers’ burdens, it has caused extensive 
litigation and controversy over such matters as whether an individual 
is properly characterized as an employee or an independent contractor. 
It has also resulted in disparate treatment of similarly situated 
taxpayers. For example, an employee whose job requires him to pay out 
of pocket for travel,

[[Page E1723]]

professional publications, or education is disadvantaged compared to a 
taxpayer in a similar job whose employer reimburses such items.
  Simplify Taxation of Minor Children—This provision would 
eliminate the current restrictions on adding a minor child's income to 
the parent's return. A parent could freely elect to include the income 
of a child under 14 on his or her own tax return, regardless of the 
character and amount of the child's income. Parents and children would 
retain the ability to file separate returns, but the unearned income of 
a minor child would be subject to tax at the rates applicable to 
trusts. The single filing rate structure would continue to apply to the 
child's earned income.
  Simplify Dependent Care Tax Benefits—The bill would conform 
differences between the Dependent Care Tax Credit and the Exclusion for 
Employer-Provided Dependent Care Assistance. The two programs serve 
identical purposes, but their rules are different. Under this proposal, 
the dollar limit on the amount creditable or excludable would be 
increased to $5,500, and the percentage creditable would be increased 
to 35%. These provisions would be further simplified by a cross-
reference to the new uniform definition of a qualifying child.
  Accelerate Repeal of PEP and PEASE—The bill would accelerate 
and make permanent the repeal of the overall limitation on itemized 
deductions (PEASE) and the personal exemption phaseout (PEP). These 
provisions add complexity and complicate planning for millions of 
taxpayers. The Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 
2001 (EGTRRA) repeals these provisions over a period of years from 2006 
to 2009, but, because of EGTRRA's sunset provisions, PEP and PEASE 
spring back to life in 2011.
  Uniform Definition of a Child—One of the most challenging and 
difficult problems that taxpayers face each year is to navigate the 
multiple definitions of a qualifying child for the dependent exemption, 
the child tax credit, the dependent care credit, the earned income tax 
credit, and for purposes of determining head of household filing 
status. The bill would establish a uniform definition of a child based 
on the residence, relationship, and age of the child. The Proposal 
would replace the rule that requires taxpayers to prove that they 
provide more than one-half of a child's support with a preference for 
the parent who provides housing for the child for more than one-half of 
the year. In addition, the bill would establish that means-tested 
government benefits are generally disregarded in determining 
eligibility for tax benefits.
  Combine HOPE and Lifetime Learning Credits—Like the dependent 
care credit and the exclusion for employer provided dependent care 
assistance, the HOPE and Lifetime Learning Credits (LTL) serve nearly 
identical purposes, but they have different rules. The LTL credit is a 
per-taxpayer credit, and it applies on up to $10,000 of qualifying, 
education expenses. The HOPE credit is a per-child credit, and it 
applies with respect to the first $2,000 of qualifying education 
expenses incurred during the first two years of post-secondary 
education. Both credits are for higher education, but taxpayers face a 
challenge to determine which credit is best for their circumstances. 
The bill would merge the two credits, providing a credit for one-half 
of the first $3,000 of post-secondary education expenses. This credit 
would apply on a per-child basis, and it would not be limited to the 
first two years of post-secondary education.
  Uniform Definition of Qualifying Higher Education Expense—The 
bill adopts the recommendation of the Joint Committee on Taxation that 
there should be a uniform definition of higher education expense for 
purposes of the various education tax benefit programs. The varying 
definitions that exist in current law greatly complicate the task of 
determining which education benefit is best for the taxpayer.


                 II. Small Business Tax Simplification

  Uniform Passthrough Entity Regime—This provision would combine 
the benefits of Subchapter S (S corporations) and Subchapter K 
(Partnerships) of the Internal Revenue Code in a single, unified 
passthrough entity regime based on Subchapter K. While at one time, 
Subchapter S provided the only avenue for prospective investors to 
avoid the corporate-level tax while retaining a full liability 
protection, the emergence and broad acceptance of limited liability 
companies (LLCs) has provided investors with an alternative. There are 
now two separate, fully-articulated passthrough entity regimes.
  Maintaining two separate passthrough entity regimes is expensive and 
unnecessarily complicated. It increases costs both for taxpayers and 
for the IRS. At a time when the IRS is striving to train its auditors 
to understand passthrough entities, and a new class of investors is 
struggling to understand the pros and cons of the two regimes, the time 
is ripe to rationalize this most complex area of the Internal Revenue 
Code by reconciling Subchapter S and Subchapter K.
  The objective of the proposal is to establish a single passthrough 
entity regime that preserves the major benefits of Subchapter S and 
Subchapter K. Domestic corporations that are not publicly traded would 
have a new election to be treated as a partnership for federal tax 
purposes, and the S election would be repealed. The proposal would 
therefore endorse, and extend, the 1996 Check-the-Box regulations to 
allow state law corporations to elect partnership status. Existing S 
corporations would be permitted to continue as S corporations for ten 
years at which time they would be required to elect partnership or 
corporate status.
  So as not to undermine the corporate tax that will remain applicable 
to publicly traded corporations and other entities that elect to be 
taxed as corporations, a corporation that elects partnership status 
with undistributed earnings and profits will be required to track 
distributions of earnings under rules similar to IRC Section 1368. 
Similarly, electing corporations (including S corporations) with 
appreciated assets will be required to pay a built in gains tax if they 
sell or dispose of such assets within the first ten years after the 
election. However, corporations (including S corporations) that elect 
partnership status will not be required to recognize entity-level gain 
as a result of the election. The 8 proceeds of built in gain 
transactions will be added to historic earnings and profits and not 
currently taxed to the partners.
  Consistent with the overall objective of preserving the benefits of 
Subchapter S, the proposal will establish a means for passthrough 
entities to engage in tax free reorganizations with entities classified 
as corporations. Under the proposal, a partnership engaged in an active 
trade or business may contribute substantially all of its assets to a 
new corporation and immediately thereafter engage in a tax free 
reorganization.
  The bill would also adopt a recommendation of the American Institute 
of Certified Public Accountants and the American Bar Association that 
the definition of earnings from self-employment should not include the 
portion of a partner's distributive share that is attributable to 
capital. This proposal contains reasonable safe harbors and it would 
eliminate the disparate treatment of limited partners, S corporation 
shareholders, and limited liability company members. The current rules 
can only be described as a historical anachronism and a significant 
trap for the unwary. Additionally, the bill would adopt the 
recommendation of the Joint Committee on Taxation that the electing 
large partnership rules should be eliminated.
  Some may argue that by repealing the S election, the proposal forces 
more taxpayers to contend with a more complex tax regime, but this is 
generally not true. If there is a demand, investors can create an 
investment vehicle with all the features of an S corporation by 
contract or they may select a state law business form that restricts 
flexibility, such as a corporation or close corporation. This would 
eliminate nearly all of Subchapter K's feared complexity. The relative 
complexity of Subchapter K stems from its greater flexibility. The 
proposal allows investors to regulate the level of tax complexity by 
voluntary agreement among the investors or through the investors’ 
choice of a state law business entity.
  Increase Section 179 Expensing Limit—The bill would increase 
the limit on expensing to $25,000 in the tax year after enactment and 
to $40,000 after 2012. This measure will greatly reduce complexity for 
many small businesses by minimizing controversy over whether an item 
should be expensed or capitalized.
  Rollover of Property Held for Productive Use or 
Investment—Present law strongly favors sophisticated taxpayers 
over ordinary small business owners in the execution of like-kind 
exchange transactions. Thirty-seven pages of the Code of Federal 
Regulations is devoted to the topic of like-kind exchanges, and a 
library could be filled with the court decisions, revenue rulings, and 
letter rulings that Section 1031 of the IRC has engendered. Attorneys 
and exchange facilitators must execute hundreds of thousands of pages 
of documents each year to comply with the formalistic rule that 
prevents the owners of like-kind property from receiving cash in a 
like-kind exchange transaction.
  There is a simple way to eliminate this paperwork: repeal the 
limitation on sales for cash and allow a like-kind exchange within 180 
days before or after the disposition of relinquished property. The bill 
does this.
  Repeal of Collapsible Corporation Rules—Finally, the bill would 
repeal the collapsible corporation rules that linger in the tax code as 
a trap for the unwary. These rules were enacted to prevent an abuse 
that has not existed since the repeal of the General Utilities 
doctrine. The repeal of these rules is long overdue.
  I urge my colleagues to join me in cosponsoring this legislation.




                          ____________________