IBJNews

U.S. House votes to revive expired research tax credit

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The U.S. House of Representatives voted Friday to revive the tax credit for corporate research, expand it and make it permanent.

The 274-131 vote follows calls to restore the credit by a coalition of companies including Indianapolis-based Eli Lilly and Co. and Texas Instruments Inc.

The measure faces significant obstacles before it can become law, including a veto threat from President Barack Obama. All except one Republican voted for the bill; Democrats were divided, with 62 in favor of it and 130 opposed.

The research credit was first enacted in 1981. Lawmakers said the lapse-and-revive cycle of the past 33 years has prevented companies from relying on it and thwarted its incentive effect.

“Businesses can’t grow and invest when the tax code is riddled with instability and uncertainty,” Ways and Means Committee Chairman Dave Camp, a Michigan Republican, said on the House floor Thursday. “We’ve fallen far behind. Other countries are moving past the United States.”

The bill heads to the Senate, where lawmakers are taking a different approach. The differences between the House and Senate may take months to resolve.

Instead of separate votes to make individual tax benefits permanent, the Senate Finance Committee last month backed a single measure extending the research credit and dozens of other breaks through the end of 2015.

GE, Citigroup

Other tax benefits in the Senate measure include the production tax credit for wind energy and a rule that lets General Electric Co., Citigroup Inc. and other companies defer U.S. taxation on overseas financing income.

That bill is scheduled to reach the Senate floor next week. There’s a “big question mark” about whether it will pass because of a dispute between Democrats and Republicans over which amendments, if any, should be allowed, said Richard Durbin of Illinois, the second-ranking Senate Democrat.

The House vote involves contradictions for each party.

Republicans, who say Democrats’ proposed extension of unemployment insurance must be offset with spending cuts elsewhere, supported the tax bill though it would add $155.5 billion to the budget deficit over the next decade. The lack of offsets was part of the Obama administration’s rationale for the veto threat.

“When you put it on the credit card, at the end of the day somebody is paying for it,” said Rep. Chris Van Hollen, a Maryland Democrat. The Senate bill contains no provisions to offset its cost.

Democrats, who had supported extending the tax credit in prior years without covering its costs, voted against the bill Friday even though a number of them co-sponsored it.

ADVERTISEMENT

  • So Consistent, these "Conservatives"!
    Tax cuts for business (at any cost, no need to pay for it!) not a nickel for working people to be retrained or given extended UI through the worst jobs-economy ever, even when its paid for.
  • Corporations say "jump"
    And the GOP asks "how high"? Interesting how the GOP is willing to provide tax credits to busineses but not extend unemployment insurance and raise the mimum the wage for workers. Hmm...

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in IBJ editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ on Facebook:
Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ's Tweets on these topics:
 
Subscribe to IBJ
  1. Aaron is my fav!

  2. Let's see... $25M construction cost, they get $7.5M back from federal taxpayers, they're exempt from business property tax and use tax so that's about $2.5M PER YEAR they don't have to pay, permitting fees are cut in half for such projects, IPL will give them $4K under an incentive program, and under IPL's VFIT they'll be selling the power to IPL at 20 cents / kwh, nearly triple what a gas plant gets, about $6M / year for the 150-acre combined farms, and all of which is passed on to IPL customers. No jobs will be created either other than an handful of installers for a few weeks. Now here's the fun part...the panels (from CHINA) only cost about $5M on Alibaba, so where's the rest of the $25M going? Are they marking up the price to drive up the federal rebate? Indy Airport Solar Partners II LLC is owned by local firms Johnson-Melloh Solutions and Telemon Corp. They'll gross $6M / year in triple-rate power revenue, get another $12M next year from taxpayers for this new farm, on top of the $12M they got from taxpayers this year for the first farm, and have only laid out about $10-12M in materials plus installation labor for both farms combined, and $500K / year in annual land lease for both farms (est.). Over 15 years, that's over $70M net profit on a $12M investment, all from our wallets. What a boondoggle. It's time to wise up and give Thorium Energy your serious consideration. See http://energyfromthorium.com to learn more.

  3. Markus, I don't think a $2 Billion dollar surplus qualifies as saying we are out of money. Privatization does work. The government should only do what private industry can't or won't. What is proven is that any time the government tries to do something it costs more, comes in late and usually is lower quality.

  4. Some of the licenses that were added during Daniels' administration, such as requiring waiter/waitresses to be licensed to serve alcohol, are simply a way to generate revenue. At $35/server every 3 years, the state is generating millions of dollars on the backs of people who really need/want to work.

  5. I always giggle when I read comments from people complaining that a market is "too saturated" with one thing or another. What does that even mean? If someone is able to open and sustain a new business, whether you think there is room enough for them or not, more power to them. Personally, I love visiting as many of the new local breweries as possible. You do realize that most of these establishments include a dining component and therefore are pretty similar to restaurants, right? When was the last time I heard someone say "You know, I think we have too many locally owned restaurants"? Um, never...

ADVERTISEMENT