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. John, unfortunately CTRWD wants to put the tank(s) right next to a nature preserve and at the southern entrance to Carmel off of Keystone. Not exactly the kind of message you want to send to residents and visitors (come see our tanks as you enter our city and we build stuff in nature preserves...

  2. 85 feet for an ambitious project? I could shoot ej*culate farther than that.

  3. I tried, can't take it anymore. Untill Katz is replaced I can't listen anymore.

  4. Perhaps, but they've had a very active program to reduce rainwater/sump pump inflows for a number of years. But you are correct that controlling these peak flows will require spending more money - surge tanks, lines or removing storm water inflow at the source.

  5. All sewage goes to the Carmel treatment plant on the White River at 96th St. Rainfall should not affect sewage flows, but somehow it does - and the increased rate is more than the plant can handle a few times each year. One big source is typically homeowners who have their sump pumps connect into the sanitary sewer line rather than to the storm sewer line or yard. So we (Carmel and Clay Twp) need someway to hold the excess flow for a few days until the plant can process this material. Carmel wants the surge tank located at the treatment plant but than means an expensive underground line has to be installed through residential areas while CTRWD wants the surge tank located further 'upstream' from the treatment plant which costs less. Either solution works from an environmental control perspective. The less expensive solution means some people would likely have an unsightly tank near them. Carmel wants the more expensive solution - surprise!

ADVERTISEMENT