Leaders of the Senate Finance Committee said Thursday they plan to begin developing a proposal for overhauling the nation’s Tax Code.
Senate Finance Committee chairman Max Baucus, D-Mont., and ranking Republican member Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, held a bipartisan meeting with other members of the committee and outlined a series of discussion topics to provide a foundation for comprehensive tax reform.

Max Baucus
Camp and Baucus reportedly have been meeting on a weekly basis since the beginning of the congressional term to discuss tax reform. Their committees have also conducted a number of joint hearings in the past year on different areas of reform. This week, House Republicans and Senate Democrats introduced budget blueprints that call for the elimination of tax loopholes, but without specifying them (see Congressional GOP and Democrats Outline Competing Budget and Tax Plans).
“Improving the Tax Code—updating it for the 21st century—can provide America a real shot in the arm,” Baucus said in a statement. “I hear Montanans saying they want the tax system to be easier to deal with, and they want jobs and the economy back on track. This is an opportunity to do just that. Tax reform can provide families certainty, spark economic growth, create jobs, and make U.S. businesses more competitive. Over the next several months, we will gather as a committee, on a bipartisan basis, to discuss a wide range of options for tax reform. We will collect input and feedback from all members and take on this challenge working together. Tax reform is sure to be a challenge, but one we are ready to take on.”
The Senate Finance Committee has been holding a series of hearings in recent years on reforming the Tax Code and hopes are high that this year could finally be the time before elections further divide the two parties next year. Some of those prior efforts led to permanent changes in areas like the alternative minimum tax and tax rates that were included as part of the last-minute fiscal cliff legislation that Congress passed in January. But lawmakers would like to do a more comprehensive overhaul of the Tax Code similar to the kind during the Reagan administration when Congress approved the Tax Reform Act of 1986.

Orrin Hatch
The discussion papers planned by the committee members will cover an array of issues from across the Tax Code, including examining the tax treatment of small businesses and corporate investment; families and children; education expenditures; different types of income and tax structures; international taxation; charitable giving and tax-exempt organizations; and many others. The first topic to be discussed at the initial meeting on March 21 will focus on simplifying the Tax Code for families.
The end goal, according to Senators Baucus and Hatch, is a comprehensive tax reform plan—crafted through regular order with input from all members of the committee—that will help businesses create jobs, simplify the system for families, and give the nation a long-term economic boost.
Revenue Neutral Tax Reform Budget Amendment
Separately, another member and former chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, Sen. Charles Grassley, R-Iowa, offered an amendment Thursday to the budget plan offered by Senate Democrats, to make it revenue neutral so tax reform efforts would not be used to raise taxes. On Wednesday, Senate Budget Committee chair Patty Murray, D-Wash., introduced a budget that would cut spending by $975 billion over 10 years, to be paid by $975 billion in new revenue raised by closing unspecified tax loopholes and cutting spending in the Tax Code for “those who need it the least, while locking in tax cuts for the middle class and low-income working families.” Murray’s budget proposal would also use the budget reconciliation process to avoid a Senate filibuster.
Grassley’s amendment, on the other hand, would require that the instructions to the Senate Finance Committee for tax reform be made “revenue neutral .”
“I oppose the reconciliation instruction,” he said in a statement. “By calling on the Finance Committee to find $975 billion in revenues as part of reconciliation, the chairwoman is essentially dooming any tax reform effort to a partisan tax raising exercise. This is not how you achieve meaningful tax reform. The chairman and ranking member of the Finance Committee recognize this. That is why they have both expressed opposition to a reconciliation instruction for tax reform. While the budget does not call explicitly for tax reform to be part of the reconciliation process, how else do you suppose we are to find nearly a $1 trillion in new tax revenue? Senator [Mike] Enzi [R-Wyo.) has an amendment to strike the reconciliation instruction. I support his amendment. But, if the reconciliation instruction remains in the mark, it should be revenue neutral. Tax reform should not be used to increase taxes."
"The budget assumes that the nearly $1 trillion in ‘savings’ can be ‘found by eliminating loopholes and cutting unfair and inefficient spending in the Tax Code.’ If such large amounts of low-hanging fruit exist in the Tax Code, you would have thought that either Chairman Baucus or I, when I was Finance Chairman, would have gone after some of this along with the billions of dollars in loopholes we have worked to close," Grassley noted. The truth is the chairwoman’s definition of a loophole is so broad as to be void of any real meaning. And her idea of spending in the tax code is popular deductions widely used by middle-class Americans, such as deductions for mortgage interest, charitable giving, and state taxes. Referring to these tax increases as ‘savings,’ or as eliminating ‘loopholes’ or ‘spending’ in the Tax Code, does not change the fact that to raise nearly $1 trillion the middle class will see a higher tax bill. Yes, there is clutter in the Tax Code. There has been a proliferation of tax preferences that should be re-examined. And tax reform, as I understand it, would eliminate certain preferences in an effort to broaden the base, and lower the tax rates. The goal of tax reform is to simplify the Tax Code and make it more efficient. The ultimate goal is economic growth. But, true tax reform should be revenue neutral. It should not act as a way to increase taxes. Revenue raised by eliminating tax preferences should be used to lower tax rates.”













8 Comments
I was a practicing accountant 28 years ago when the last tax reform was put thru. I believe that this was followed up with a tax simplification act...Ha! As long as there are lobbyists for accountants there is no way any kind of meaningful tax reform or simplification will occur. I happen to like the idea of a Value Added Tax. The more you spend the more you pay. The main problems is how do you change from our archaic income tax system to a VAT without further harming the economy or the government's ability to function. MAybe the senate and house should ask the accountants in this country for ideas to reform the tax code.
Posted by: alanhp44 | March 19, 2013 3:29 PM
Report this Comment
If the tax-credits are ended then those that do pay taxes; will not have to pay the outrageous percentages now imposed.
Posted by: Ed Walton | March 18, 2013 12:47 PM
Report this Comment
I might add, "Fat Chance!"
Posted by: tego@verizon.net | March 15, 2013 9:39 PM
Report this Comment
As has been already noted, "We have the finest Congress that money can buy."
As the "Tax Simplification Act of 1986" (or the "Tax Reform Act of 1986"), under President Reagan, was actually the Tax Complication Act. So I'm not sure there is too much hope for simplification. But the Act did close the tax shelter loopholes but subsequent Acts opened new ones up.
Perhaps we need an Amendment to the Constitution so any future change will be difficult. no more tweaks.
Posted by: tego@verizon.net | March 15, 2013 9:38 PM
Report this Comment
We can't physically hit a reboot button, but we could start by voting out all members of Congress and Senate. These elected positions need limits on term years and limit the number of terms you can serve.
As for tax reform... it would be nice to update the tax code to meet the demands of this century, but once they start talking specifics all talk of bipartisianship ends. I like so many are tired of stale mates and fillabusters. Tired of being in limbo or a constant state of unease.
I guess its time I write my congressman!
Posted by: JoySkurok | March 15, 2013 12:01 PM
Report this Comment
Not only that, gness, but those laws are going to be written by millionaires....in order to just GET elected senator, you'd better be loaded and have a whole bunch of rich contributors.
Now. Just who do you think these supposed new laws are going to be written for? You and me? Nope. All those "loopholes" are going to be deemed necessary for the "job creators", and once again, we're going to get the bill.
A person may be full of ideals and good will when they get elected, but sooner or later, they will sell their soul to stay where they are. It's just a matter of price. yes, I'm cynical.
Posted by: MizLiz | March 15, 2013 11:40 AM
Report this Comment
What do they mean by saying they want to do something bipartisan before the next election divides them? it's been only four months since the previous one and the air is still full of whining and epithets from that one. Makes you wish there was a reboot button for Congress that we could just push and start all over again...
Posted by: pbwmiller | March 15, 2013 8:03 AM
Report this Comment
This would be wonderful if they really meant it. The truth is that it will be another set of tax law written by lobbyists.
Posted by: gness1843 | March 15, 2013 7:15 AM
Report this Comment
Add Your Comments...
Already Registered?
If you have already registered to Accounting Today, please use the form below to login. When completed you will immeditely be directed to post a comment.
Not Registered?
You must be registered to post a comment.