|
Big tax plans dissolve into big
backlog,
but they'll be back in 2000
By Kay
Bell Bankrate.com
Congress began 1999 with big plans, ran into
big budget battles, then ended the session with a big backlog of
tax legislation.
Although Congress worked into late November,
a month longer than scheduled, just a handful of tax laws were passed.
Lost in the late-session legislative shuffle were most of the tax
measures from a comprehensive tax reduction package, championed
by the Republican-controlled Congress.
President Clinton vetoed that bill, but expect
to see many of its most popular provisions -- a reduction of income
tax rates, elimination of the so-called marriage penalty, trimming
of capital gains taxes -- resurface when Congress meets again in
January.
Other tax measures made it partially through
the legislative process, but final action was postponed until 2000.
These include health-care tax provisions, tax breaks for small businesses,
new estate tax laws and changes in tax-deferred retirement accounts.
Financial
Freedom fight to resume
The Financial Freedom Act of 1999 was an ambitious $792 billion, 10-year
tax bill that had a break for almost everyone. Its key provisions
appeal to both taxpayers and politicians, and are likely to be debated
next year, either as part of another comprehensive tax bill or as
separate pieces of legislation.
Congress may make changes to these tax provisions,
but here is what the legislation as passed would have done if the
president had not vetoed it.
- Reduction of all tax rates: Currently,
there are five tax rates of 15, 28, 31, 36 and 39.6 percent. The
Financial Freedom Act called for a phased-in reduction for all
of them. The lowest level would have dropped to 14 percent in
2003, and the other four rates would each be reduced by one point
in 2005.
- Marriage would become less taxing:
When married couples earn roughly the same salaries, the tax rates
tend to cause them to pay more in taxes that they would if they
were single filers. The vetoed tax act would have begun phasing
in an increase in the standard married filers' deduction in 2001
so that it would be double the single deduction amount by 2006.
- Capital gains more appealing: Capital
gains already receive preferential tax treatment, but Congress
proposed reducing tax rates in this area even more. The Financial
Freedom Act would have reduced the two capital gains rates from
20 percent and 10 percent to 18 percent and 8 percent, respectively.
- Increased IRA savings: There were
several tax breaks to encourage more retirement savings.
Roth IRAs allow a taxpayer to save already taxed money and receive
it and its earnings tax-free upon reaching retirement. Taxpayers
can convert traditional IRAs, but only if they earn -- married
or single -- $100,000 a year or less. The Financial Freedom bill
would have doubled that limit to $200,000 for married-filing-jointly
taxpayers.
The earnings limit for opening a new Roth account also would have
increased. Beginning in 2003, it would have gone from $200,000
to $210,000 for joint filers, and from $100,000 to $110,000 for
single taxpayers.
All IRA contributors -- Roth and traditional -- would have been
allowed to sock away more. The bill would have increased the annual
contribution limit from $2,000 to $3,000 from 2001 to 2003; gone
up to $4,000 in 2004 and 2005; and reached $5,000 in 2006 through
2008.
- More education money: Accounts known
as Education IRAs allow taxpayers to save for a child's education.
The contributions are not deductible, but the earnings are not
taxed until they are taken out to pay education costs.
Currently, education savings accounts have a $500 annual contribution
limit, money must be contributed by the end of the year and it
can only be used to pay for higher education expenses.
The vetoed tax bill would have increased that yearly amount to
$2,000 and expanded acceptable education costs to include those
in the kindergarten through high school years. It also would have
allowed savers to make contributions up until April 15 of the
following year, just like other IRA contributions.
- Estate enhancements: The act would
have reduced taxes paid by large estates substantially through
the next seven years, culminating in complete repeal of the estate
tax in 2008.
- Eating out on the company: Currently,
deductions for business meals are allowed at only half of the
actual expenses. The Financial Freedom Act would have increased
the deductible amount gradually each year until 60 percent of
the expenses were allowed in 2007.
Health
care taxes partially done
Health care legislation and its associated tax breaks received a
lot of attention during the first session of Congress. However,
disagreement between the House and Senate about how to resolve a
controversial provision that would allow patients to sue managed
care plans prompted legislators to delay resolution of the issue
until 2000.
The key tax components in the health care bill
are:
- Expanded access to Medical Savings Accounts,
which would allow you to set aside money tax-free for medical
care while purchasing special, high-deductible insurance policies
that cover only catastrophic illness expenses. This option would
be available beginning in 2001.
- A shortened timetable for increased deductions
of the cost of health insurance purchased by self-employed and
uninsured individuals. All of the premiums paid for health care
coverage would be deductible in 2001. Under current law you have
to wait until 2003 for the full deductibility.
- A deduction for health insurance expenses
and long-term care insurance expenses at the rate of 25 percent
in 2002 through 2004; 35 percent in 2005; 65 percent in 2006;
and 100 percent beginning in 2007.
- An additional personal exemption allowance
for caretakers of elderly family members, beginning in 2001.
- The allowance of self-employed individuals
and small businesses to form groups and buy health insurance under
federal rather than state regulation.
Health care conference committee members were
appointed just before Congress adjourned, so it is likely that health
care will get attention early in the next session.
Tax
breaks tied to minimum wage
Congress tried to increase the minimum wage and give businesses
additional tax breaks at the same time. The strategy didn't work.
The House passed its version of the bill, but the Senate didn't
get around to final consideration of its legislation before adjourning.
Both the House and Senate versions would:
- Increase to 100 percent the deduction for
self-employed health costs.
- Increase to $30,000 the amount a small-business
owner may deduct in a year for equipment, rather than depreciating
the equipment costs during several tax years.
- Provide a full range of pension-related provisions
to increase expand pension coverage, enhance pension fairness
to women and increase pension portability.
The House package also included:
- A reduction in the estate, gift and generation-skipping
transfer taxes beginning in 2001.
- An increase from 50 percent to 60 percent
in the deduction for business meals and entertainment, taken from
the Financial Freedom Act.
- Modifications to the low-income housing tax
credit.
- Tax incentives -- such as a zero capital
gains tax rate on certain investments, a special deduction for
real estate revitalization expenses and special expensing for
certain property -- for 15 designated renewal communities.
- Extension of both the work opportunity and
welfare-to-work tax credits until Dec. 31, 2001.
The Senate-passed minimum wage/bankruptcy/business
tax package would provide:
- A new health insurance deduction for people
who don't have employer-provided coverage.
- An immediate 100 percent deduction for the
self-employed.
- An increase in the business meal deduction
from 50 percent to 80 percent.
- Higher 401(k) contribution limits.
The minimum wage is a popular election year
issue, so expect Congress to take this up early next year. How many
of the tax provisions survive, though, is unclear. And President
Clinton has promised again to veto the Republican proposal.
Throughout the New Year, the tax debate is likely
to be shaped by the president's continuing veto threat, along with
Congressional concerns about the long-term status of Social Security
and Medicare and fears that economic growth might soon slow -- along
with the politics of the race for the White House.
--Posted Dec. 10, 1999
|