Lawmakers remove ‘revenge' tax provision from Trump's big bill after Treasury requests its removal
WASHINGTON (AP) — Congressional Republicans agreed to remove the so-called revenge tax provision from President Donald Trump's big bill Thursday after Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent asked members of Congress to do so earlier in the day.
The Section 899 provision would allow the federal government to impose taxes on companies with foreign owners, as well as investors from countries judged as charging 'unfair foreign taxes' on U.S. companies.
The measure was expected to lead many companies to avoid investing in the U.S. out of concern that they could face steep taxes.
Bessent said in an X post that he made the request to lawmakers after reaching an agreement with other countries on the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development Global Tax Deal. He said that after 'months of productive dialogue,' they would 'announce a joint understanding among G7 countries that defends American interests.'
After he made the request, Senate Finance Committee Chairman Mike Crapo, R-Idaho, and House Ways and Means Committee Chairman Jason Smith, R-Missouri, said 'we will remove proposed tax code Section 899' from the bill and 'Congressional Republicans stand ready to take immediate action if the other parties walk away from this deal or slow walk its implementation.'
The removal of the provision will provide 'greater certainty and stability for the global economy and will enhance growth and investment in the United States and beyond,' Bessent said in his post.
An analysis by the Global Business Alliance, a trade group representing international companies such as Toyota and Nestlé, estimates that the provision would cost the U.S. 360,000 jobs and $55 billion annually over 10 years in lost gross domestic product.
The Global Business Alliance was among several groups that signed a letter addressed to Senate Majority Leader John Thune of South Dakota and Senate Finance Committee Chairman Mike Crapo of Idaho, warning of the consequences of Section 899.
The removal of the provision adds a wrinkle to Republicans' plans to try to offset the cost of the massive package. The non-partisan Congressional Budget Office estimates that the bill would spike deficits by at least $2.4 trillion over the next decade.
Republicans are rushing to finish the package this week to meet the president's Fourth of July deadline for passage.
Earlier Thursday, the Senate parliamentarian advised that a Medicaid provider tax overhaul central to the spending bill does not adhere to the chamber's procedural rules, delivering a crucial blow to Republicans, who are counting on big cuts to Medicaid and other programs to offset trillions of dollars in Trump tax breaks.
___
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Axios
29 minutes ago
- Axios
Exclusive poll: Most voters back Iran strikes, but worry about attacks on U.S.
The U.S. attacks on Iran's nuclear facilities Saturday have left American voters with contradictory feelings, a new poll finds: A majority favored limited strikes, but nearly as many said they were worried about a widening war and Iran retaliating on U.S. soil. Meanwhile, most viewed the U.S. attacks as a success — and are likely to back similar military action as a result. Why it matters: The survey sheds light on Americans' nuanced views of war and rapidly evolving foreign policy. Republicans overwhelmingly approved of bombing Iran; sizable majorities of Democrats and independents did not. But once they were told the bombings only targeted Iran's uranium enrichment for its nuclear program, support increased in each group. The big picture:"When voters understand the strategic rationale behind the strikes, support increases," said pollster Ryan Tyson, head of the Tyson Group, which conducted the survey. It recently worked for Elon Musk's political committee when it supported President Trump's re-election. The broad support for military action that the survey found among Republicans and self-identified MAGA voters suggested that the divisions within Trump's base over Iran were more talk than reality. The poll also measured Trump's job performance, finding that 46% of Americans approve and 51% disapprove. Voters are deadlocked on his handling of foreign policy, but he's underwater by double digits when it comes to handling inflation. More concerns for Trump: There's persistent worry in the U.S. electorate about blowback from the bombings and the contagion of war. 75% of voters think that despite the Israel-Iran ceasefire, the conflict could escalate into a wider war. 46% think some sort of Iranian attack on U.S. soil is now likely. And 45% believe the strikes didn't make the U.S. safer, while just 36% said they did. The good news for Trump: By 50-33, voters would support airstrikes similar to those launched Saturday, a sign they see it as a success and a manageable risk. Two-thirds believe more U.S. attacks like last Saturday's are likely. 56% agree with the sentiment that military force is justified to stop a nuclear Iran. 55% believe that Iran's nuclear program was either "obliterated," to use Trump's words, or dealt a major setback. Just 25% thought it was barely affected or was unscathed. 62% said the strikes will have been worth it if Iran stops enriching uranium. The intrigue: The poll also reflected how Israel's war against Hamas in Gaza has been a drag on how U.S. voters view America's ally. By 2 percentage points, U.S. voters oppose the war in Gaza, the poll found. By 54-27%, they believe Israel has too much influence on American foreign policy. Voters are more inclined to arm Ukraine than Israel, the survey found. Ukraine's president, Volodymyr Zelensky, has solid favorability numbers as well, but Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's ratings are negative. Methodology: The Tyson Group's national survey of 1,027 U.S. voters was conducted online June 25-26. The survey has a margin of error of ±3.1 percentage points at the 95% confidence level. To analyze only the responses of those identifying as Republicans, an oversample was used to ensure the margin of error remained consistent. That did not affect the top-line results of the survey.
USA Today
37 minutes ago
- USA Today
Got a big inheritance coming your way? You may want to just say no. Here's why.
An inheritance often is seen as a financial windfall, but there are times when people may want to consider saying thanks, but no thanks. Receiving a sizable gift, if not structured properly, can have unintended consequences that may upend your financial situation or cause friction between family members. If either of those is the case, consider refusing it, experts said. It may not be worth your time, money or emotions. 'It's very important what type of asset you're inheriting -- what it can do for you and if it fits into your universe, and are you the best custodial of those assets,' said Miklos Ringbauer, certified public accountant in Southern California. Why should people think about inheritance now? The so-called great wealth transfer has begun. Nearly $124 trillion in assets will change hands through 2048, according to estimates by the consulting firm Cerulli Associates. Recipients are expected to inherit some $106 trillion of that amount, mainly from baby boomers, with the rest going to charity. Assets passed down will include cash and other liquid assets, stocks and bonds, real estate, business interests, retirement accounts, other investments, and personal property. When might you want to say no? Saying no to an inheritance isn't typical, and experts suggest you consult with a financial planner and an accountant to help you determine if it's right for you. However, some instances in which you might want to consider refusing an inheritance include if: Beware, tricky government benefits Claiming an inheritance can push you above income and asset limits to qualify for government programs like Medicaid or Supplemental Security Income (SSI). However, it isn't as simple as disclaiming an inheritance to stay within the limits because refusing an inheritance is seen as gifting, which also isn't allowed. Because disclaiming an inheritance can still hurt you, some experts suggest you take the inheritance and spend it down immediately to requalify for benefits. Medicaid recipients can use their inheritance to pay off debt, pay for long-term care, make home modifications for safety and accessibility, prepay funeral and burial expenses via an Irrevocable Funeral Trust, or buy assets that are exempt from Medicaid's asset limit such as furniture and appliances for one's home, clothing, or upgrading a vehicle, according to the American Council on Aging. The best way to avoid this is to ensure the 'parent doesn't leave the person money,' Simasko said. 'Use a special trust instead and the person can draw from it.' For example, assets to a beneficiary of an irrevocable trust don't affect the beneficiary's assets and wouldn't count against their qualification for government benefits, Ringbauer said. Yet, the beneficiary would be able to tap those assets. How to decline an inheritance The legal process is 'disclaiming' an inheritance, which means you're refusing to accept the rights to the assets you were supposed to inherit. Here's generally how it would work: What happens to the disclaimed inheritance? Disclaimed inheritances will go to the next person, or beneficiary, in line. You can't choose the person to receive the asset. If there isn't another person named as a next beneficiary, the asset would go through the probate process to be left to someone related to the deceased. Medora Lee is a money, markets, and personal finance reporter at USA TODAY. You can reach her at mjlee@ and subscribe to our free Daily Money newsletter for personal finance tips and business news every Monday through Friday.
New York Times
38 minutes ago
- New York Times
Republicans Prepare to Open ‘Pandora's Box' of Budget Gimmicks
Over decades of intense disputes about the federal budget, Republicans and Democrats have shared a set of expectations for what government spending and taxes would look like in the future. The baseline, as it is called, assumed that Congress would operate on a form of autopilot. Spending would climb every year, in part to keep up with inflation, and tax rates would go up or down based on laws already on the books. The cost of policy changes would then be assessed against this rough sketch of the country's fiscal trajectory. Senate Republicans are preparing to upend that standard with the broad tax and health care bill they are trying to muscle into law. They want to create a new baseline of their own and wipe away much of the stated cost of the bill. The accounting gambit has angered Democrats and depressed independent budget experts. It could also soon force a reckoning between Republicans' ambitions for cutting taxes and the Senate's longtime parliamentary rules. 'We do worry about the precedent that this sets for both parties to say that this thing, whether it's a spending increase or a tax cut, doesn't cost what traditional scoring conventions, the conventions we've been using for decades, say it costs,' said Andrew Lautz, an analyst at the Bipartisan Policy Center, a think tank. 'You worry about opening Pandora's box when it comes to scoring.' The Republican effort focuses on changing how scorekeepers represent the cost of tax cuts. Under traditional standards, extending tax cuts beyond their scheduled expiration is treated as passing a new tax cut — and therefore a new cost to the budget. In wonky budget-speak in Washington, this is called the 'current law baseline.' Because much of their legislation is dedicated to extending temporary tax cuts from 2017, Senate Republicans have become preoccupied with this accounting practice. Just maintaining the 2017 tax cuts after this year would cost roughly $3.8 trillion over a decade under the current law baseline. How Much the Tax Portion of the Senate Bill Would Add to Deficits G.O.P. alternative baseline Traditional baseline If the cost of tax cut extensions is not counted, $441 billion would be added to deficits over 10 years. If the cost of tax cut extensions is counted, $4.2 trillion would be added. $500 bil. increase $500 bil. increase $400 $400 $300 $300 $200 $200 $100 $100 2025 2034 2025 2034 G.O.P. alternative baseline Traditional baseline If the cost of tax cut extensions is not counted, $441 billion would be added to deficits over 10 years. If the cost of tax cut extensions is counted, $4.2 trillion would be added. $500 bil. increase $500 bil. increase $400 $400 $300 $300 $200 $200 $100 $100 2025 2029 2025 2029 2034 2034 The alternative baseline refers to the current policy baseline, and the traditional baseline refers to current law. Source: Joint Committee on Taxation The New York Times Want all of The Times? Subscribe.
