[Congressional Record Volume 166, Number 26 (Friday, February 7, 2020)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Page E156]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




    CLARIFICATION OF CHANGES TO THE ALTERNATIVE FUEL MIXTURE CREDIT 
                         CONTAINED IN H.R. 1865

                                 ______
                                 

                            HON. KEVIN BRADY

                                of texas

                    in the house of representatives

                        Friday, February 7, 2020

  Mr. BRADY. Madam Speaker, in December Congress addressed a number of 
expired or expiring tax provisions, commonly known as ``tax 
extenders,'' by passing H.R. 1865 as part of year-end, FY'20 spending 
measure.
  For the most part, these tax provisions were simply extended 
seamlessly through 2020, which I viewed as a wasted opportunity to 
create real certainty around these provisions for taxpayers.
  Additionally, one provision extending a fuel excise tax credit known 
as the Alternative Fuel Mixture Credit (AFMC) contained modifications 
prohibiting the blending of certain categories of fuels in order to 
claim the credit. These fuel categories had been part of the AFMC and 
the related Alternative Fuel Credit since both were created in a 
Surface Transportation bill in 2005, and they had also been extended 
multiple times since then in past tax extenders bills. The intended 
purpose of these provisions was to reduce the United States' dependence 
on foreign oil and to encourage cheaper, cleaner burning fuels (whether 
for transportation or other uses).
  One of the longstanding fuel categories eliminated in H.R. 1865 was 
liquified petroleum gas. Since enacted, the AFMC had provided a credit 
to taxpayers for mixtures of liquefied petroleum gas, including 
propane, and taxable fuel. The modification in H.R. 1865 eliminates the 
credit for any mixture that includes any type of liquefied petroleum 
gas.
  Madam Speaker, I have long been an opponent of retroactive tax 
increases, and there are currently several taxpayers in disputes with 
the Internal Revenue Service over whether they can properly claim the 
AFMC on past tax returns.
  I will note that the subsection of H.R. 1865 that eliminated the 
longstanding classes of fuels from the AFMC also contained ``no 
inference'' language stating:
  ``Nothing contained in this subsection or the amendments made by this 
subsection shall be construed to create any inference as to a change in 
law or guidance in effect prior to enactment of this subsection'' 
(enactment occurred when H.R. 1865 was signed into law on December 20, 
2019).
  The Congressional intent of this ``no inference'' language is 
unambiguous--this provision should ensure a fair day in court for 
taxpayers in legitimate disputes with the IRS over the AFMC.

                          ____________________