[Congressional Record Volume 154, Number 107 (Thursday, June 26, 2008)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Page E1388]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




               ALTERNATIVE MINIMUM TAX RELIEF ACT OF 2008

                                 ______
                                 

                               speech of

                            HON. MARK UDALL

                              of colorado

                    in the house of representatives

                        Wednesday, June 25, 2008

  Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Speaker, I will vote for this bill because 
of the need to protect middle-income families from a massive tax 
increase that will hit them if we do not act to adjust the Alternative 
Minimum Tax, or AMT.
  In technical terms, the bill would extend for one year AMT relief for 
nonrefundable personal credits and increases the AMT exemption amount 
to $69,950 for joint filers and $46,200 for individuals. In real-world 
terms, that means it will prevent a tax increase for more than 28,000 
Colorado households that otherwise would be required to pay more in 
Federal income tax when returns are due next year. And so, Mr. Speaker, 
the bill overall is properly focused on tax relief for middle class 
families--a goal I strongly support.
  Some of our colleagues say they will oppose the bill because it 
includes provisions that would close loopholes and make other changes 
in the tax laws in order to offset this tax relief. They evidently are 
not concerned about the fact that the federal budget is deeply into 
deficit spending.
  I do have some reservations about how the bill seeks to provide AMT 
tax relief without making our Federal deficit worse. But I do not take 
a relaxed attitude to our fiscal problems, and think it is better to 
avoid adding to them--and that is the purpose of the offset provisions 
of the bill
  One such provision would revise current law so investment fund 
managers would no longer pay capital gains rates on the income they 
receive for investment management services income that does not reflect 
a reasonable return on their own invested capital. This change was 
approved by the House last year in H.R. 3996, which I supported. In 
addition, the bill would exclude from the domestic production deduction 
the gross receipts derived from the sale, exchange or other disposition 
of oil, natural gas, or any primary product thereof for large 
integrated oil companies. And it would freeze at 6 percent--the rate 
under current law--the domestic production deduction for income of 
other taxpayers with respect to oil, natural gas or any primary product 
thereof. This is also not new--it is a scaledback version of an 
outright repeal of this deduction for all oil, natural gas or any 
primary product thereof that passed the House last year.
  And the bill would prevent foreign multinational corporations 
incorporated in tax haven countries from avoiding tax on income earned 
in the United States by routing their income through structures in 
which a United States subsidiary corporation makes a deductible payment 
to a country with which the United States has a tax treaty before 
ultimately repatriating these earning in the tax haven country. This is 
a scaled-back version of a previously approved by the House of 
Representatives as part of H.R. 2419. Further, the bill includes a 
proposal that was in the president's latest budget request that will 
require institutions that make payments to merchants in settlement of 
payment card transactions to file an information return with the IRS.
  These provisions are not the only or perhaps even the best way to 
offset the revenue costs of providing a temporary fix to the AMT--but 
the bill's opponents have suggested no alternative except to cut 
unspecified amounts of spending in unspecified parts of the budget or 
to further add to the ``debt tax'' that has already been imposed on our 
children (and their children) by the irresponsible policies of the last 
seven years.
  The Senate will have to consider the legislation further, and it is 
possible that these provisions will be revised. But, in the meantime, 
the bottom line is that today we have the opportunity to provide tax 
relief to hundreds of thousands of middle-class families in Colorado. I 
think that is something I think the House should do without delay, and 
that is why I am voting for this bill.

                          ____________________