November 18, 2021

Analysis of the House of Representatives’ Build Back Better Legislation

report

Download National and State-by-State Estimates

Summary

The House Build Back Better bill that was made public in the first week of November would raise significant revenue and make our tax code more progressive, but its impacts are complicated by the fact that different provisions would be in effect in different years and by uncertainty about whether temporary provisions would eventually be extended. The bill’s contribution to the progressivity of our tax code is also somewhat limited by its provision to increase the cap on deductions for state and local taxes (SALT) in a way that is not targeted to middle-income taxpayers.

If the bill becomes law, in 2022 federal taxes would go up for the average taxpayer among the richest one percent and down for the average taxpayer in other income groups. In the first few years after 2022 the effects would be similar except that the overall tax increase for the richest one percent would be larger (because corporate tax increases go into effect in 2023 and mainly affect the rich) and tax cuts for low- and middle-income groups would be smaller because most of the provisions related to refundable tax credits would expire at the end of 2022. Many Democrats in Congress want to make all the refundable tax credit provisions permanent, but even if they do not, the tax provisions in the bill would make the tax system significantly more progressive than it is today.

Effects of the House Build Back Better Bill in 2022

In 2022, the bill would raise taxes overall for the richest one percent while cutting them overall for other income groups, as illustrated in Graph 1a. This does not mean that everyone among the richest one percent would receive a tax hike or that everyone in other income groups would receive a tax cut. Rather, it means that in 2022 the average tax change for the those in the top one percent would be a net tax hike while the average tax change for those in other income groups would be a net tax cut for that year. The bill’s effects on specific individuals would depend on their unique circumstances, as explained further on.

Graph 1a:

The bill’s tax changes can be separated into four categories, which are summarized below and explained in more detail further on.

The first is the bill’s corporate tax changes, which in the year 2022 would reduce corporate tax revenue overall because the legislation allows more generous treatment of research expenditures and because the bill’s main corporate tax increase, a 15 percent minimum tax on corporations’ book profits, does not go into effect until 2023. Corporate tax changes indirectly affect the individuals who own stock in American corporations. These changes have an indirect effect on people in all income groups but mainly on the richest one percent of Americans and foreign investors because those two groups own most of this stock.

The second type of tax change consists of several increases in income taxes paid directly by well-off individuals. One provision in this category would close a large loophole in the net investment income tax that high-income people pay to help fund health care. Another is a new surtax that would apply to income exceeding $10 million. One more provision would limit high-income people from writing off losses that often exist only on paper, but this provision would have a minimal effect for the first several years.

The third category of tax changes in the bill is relief from the cap on federal deductions for state and local taxes (SALT). This provision cuts personal income taxes. Nearly all the benefits go to the richest 20 percent and three-fourths of the benefits would go to the richest 5 percent.

The fourth category of tax changes consists of provisions that extend the recent expansions of the Child Tax Credit (CTC) and Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC) for one year, through 2022. (One part of the CTC expansion, the provision making the CTC fully refundable, would be extended beyond 2022 but others would expire at the end of 2022.) These provisions are significant tax cuts for the bottom 80 percent of taxpayers.

While Graph 1a above illustrates the combined effects of these four types of tax changes in 2022, Graph 1b below illustrates the effects of each type of tax change separately for 2022.

Graph 1b:

Table 1a below illustrates the average effects of each type of tax change for taxpayers in different income groups. Table 1b shows the average effects as a share of income for taxpayers in different income groups.

Table 1a:

Table 1b:

In some ways, the bill’s effects on taxes in 2022 is not representative of how it would change our tax code. In 2022 the bill cuts corporate taxes, but in years after that the bill raises corporate taxes, which indirectly raises taxes mainly on the richest one percent and foreign investors.

At the same time, the biggest tax cuts for next year are the bills’ provisions related to the Child Tax Credit (CTC) and Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC). The legislation would extend the CTC and EITC expansions for just one year, through 2022 (except for the provision making the CTC refundable, which the bill would make permanent). But Democratic lawmakers intend to eventually enact subsequent legislation to extend these temporary provisions beyond 2022.

Effects of the House Build Back Better Bill in 2023

The effects of bill’s tax provisions in 2023 are different from their effects in 2022 in two ways. The first difference concerns the corporate tax provisions. Whereas the bill would cut corporate taxes in 2022, by 2023 it would start to raise corporate taxes, most significantly through a 15 percent minimum tax based on corporate book profits. The corporate tax increases would indirectly affect individuals who own corporate stocks and other business assets and most of the effect is concentrated among the richest one percent of Americans and on foreign investors because they own a significant portion of shares in American corporations. The corporate tax increases indirectly affect people in all income groups, but for the bottom 80 percent of Americans, those effects would be very small.

The other difference in the bill’s effects in 2023 compared to 2022 concerns the Child Tax Credit (CTC) and Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC). As written, the Build Back Better legislation extends these expansions only through 2022. One part of the CTC expansion, the provision making the CTC fully refundable so that low-income families can claim the entire credit, would be made permanent, but the rest of the CTC expansion (increasing the credit amount and other improvements) would expire at the end of 2022.

As a result, in 2023 the bill would provide smaller tax cuts overall to the bottom 40 percent of taxpayers while the next 40 percent of taxpayers would roughly break even overall. Again, these are overall changes in tax liability for each income group. For example, not everyone among the bottom 40 percent of taxpayers would receive a tax break because only those with children would benefit from the provision permanently making the CTC fully refundable.

Graph 2a below illustrates how the House Build Back Better bill would change federal taxes for different income groups in 2023.

 

Graph 2a:

As illustrated in Graph 2a, the richest one percent would receive a larger overall tax increase in 2023 (compared to 2022). In 2023 the richest one percent would be affected by the bill’s hikes in income taxes paid directly by individuals (just as in 2022) and also by the corporate tax increases taking effect in 2023. The corporate tax increases would also affect foreign investors in American corporations.

In 2023 the benefits of the bill’s adjustment to the SALT cap would continue to go almost entirely to the richest 20 percent of taxpayers. For those in the richest 20 percent but not in the top one percent, the tax cut received as a result of the SALT cap adjustment would, overall, exceed the corporate tax increases that heavily affect this group. This is why Graph 2a shows the “next 4 percent” and the “next 15 percent” receiving a net tax cut overall from the bill in 2023.

Again, these are overall changes for each income group. Taxpayers among the richest 20 percent may receive a net tax cut or net tax hike from the bill, depending on their specific circumstances. For example, well-off taxpayers living in states like California, New Jersey and New York that are most affected by the SALT cap would usually benefit the most from the adjustment to the SALT cap and are consequently more likely to receive a net tax cut from the bill.

The bill would not extend the expansions of the Child Tax Credit (CTC) and Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC) past 2022, except that it would permanently extend the provision making the CTC fully refundable.[1] The tax break received from the CTC refundability provision would, overall, exceed the corporate tax increase for the bottom three quintiles in 2023, as shown in Graph 2a. Again, these are overall figures, and many taxpayers among the bottom three quintiles would not receive a net tax cut from the bill because they do not have children and therefore do not qualify for the CTC.

Graph 2b below illustrates the effects of these different types of tax changes in 2023.

Graph 2b:

Tables 2a and 2b below illustrate the average effects of the bill’s tax changes in 2023 on each income group. Table 2a shows the average tax changes in dollars and Table 2b shows them as a share of income. For example, Table 2a illustrates that in 2023 the bill would give the middle 20 percent of taxpayers an average corporate tax increase of $60, an average individual income tax increase of $0, an average tax break on SALT deductions of $10, and an average tax cut from CTC refundability of $70. The net effect (the sum of those average tax changes) would be an average tax cut of $20 for the middle 20 percent of taxpayers in 2023.

Table 2a:

Table 2b:

Graphs 2a and 2b and Tables 2a and 2b above all illustrate the tax changes that would occur under the bill in 2023 assuming that Congress enacts no further changes. But many Democratic lawmakers want to eventually make all of the provisions related to the CTC and EITC permanent. Graphs 3a and 3b and Tables 3a and 3b below all illustrate what would happen in 2023 if Congress enacts the Build Back Better Act and then extends all the temporary CTC and EITC provisions at least through 2023. Similar to the bill’s effects in 2022, this would provide all income groups with a tax cut overall except for the richest one percent and foreign investors who are affected by the corporate tax increases.

Graph 3a:

Graph 3b:

Table 3a:

Table 3b:

Effects of the House Bill in Years After 2025

Most of the personal income tax changes enacted under the 2017 tax law expire at the end of 2025, and some provisions of the Build Back Better Act would as a consequence have a different effect in years after 2025 compared to current law.

The most significant example of this involves the SALT cap. The current $10,000 cap on federal deductions for SALT will be in effect through the end of 2025 under current law, at which point it expires like many other provisions of the 2017 tax law. The House Build Back Better bill raises the cap to $80,000 and then extends the $80,000 cap for several years beyond 2025. The $80,000 SALT cap is a tax cut each year until 2026, at which point it is a tax increase compared to current law. Proponents of the bill’s adjustment to the SALT cap would likely argue that it really is not a tax break for the rich because the relief from the SALT cap provided through 2025 is offset by the revenue raised by enacting the cap in years after that, which also mainly affects the rich.

A more realistic approach is to consider that many lawmakers (rightly or wrongly) will eventually want to extend many provisions of the 2017 tax law beyond 2025 and the question is what the resulting tax system should look like in the long-term. It could have strict rules for deductions claimed mostly by the rich or it could have loose rules for deductions claimed mostly by the rich. The SALT provision in the House Build Back Better bill moves towards looser rules for those deductions.

Another example of how the expiration of the 2017 tax provisions affects the impacts of the Build Back Better bill involves the provision making the CTC fully refundable. The 2017 law increased the CTC from $1,000 per child to $2,000 per child. After 2025, the increase in the CTC expires along with most of the other personal income tax provisions in the 2017 law. The Build Back Better bill’s provision making the CTC fully refundable therefore costs less (and provides smaller tax cuts) in years after 2025 because it makes the $1,000 credit, rather than the $2,000 credit, refundable in those latter years.

This analysis does not include estimates of the effects of the bill’s provisions in later years partly because those effects are somewhat speculative. How Congress will deal with the expiration of the 2017 provisions is unknown at this point.

More Details on the Tax Changes in the House Build Back Better Bill

The analysis of the House Build Back Better Act from Congress’s official revenue-estimator, the Joint Committee on Taxation (JCT), finds that the bill’s tax-cutting provisions would have the greatest cost in the first year, 2022. This is largely because of the EITC and CTC provisions that would be in effect only for 2022. Based on the JCT estimate, the tax cut provisions included in our analysis account for 93 percent of the costs of the bill’s total tax cuts. (Our analysis excludes tax cuts in the bill for infrastructure financing and renewable energy.)

The bill’s provisions that raise taxes have effects that are more spread out over the coming ten years. The revenue-raising provisions included in our analysis account for 99 percent of the gross revenue raised by the bill over ten years.

The bill’s tax changes fall into four different categories that have already been summarized and are explained in more detail below.

Corporate Tax Changes

The corporate income tax is paid directly by corporations, but economists generally believe that individuals bear the tax in the long run, even if there is some debate over exactly who bears how much of it.

Most analysts believe that the bulk of the corporate tax is borne by the owners of corporate stocks and other business assets, which are mostly (but not entirely) owned by well-off individuals. The Joint Committee on Taxation (JCT) assumes that working people eventually bear a quarter of the impact of a corporate tax hike (in the form of a wage reduction), but also assumes that it takes several years for this to happen. Like JCT, ITEP assumes that labor bears none of it in the first year that a corporate income tax increase goes into effect, and that the burden falls entirely on the owners of corporate stocks and business assets. We use capital income (income from these assets) as a proxy for ownership of these assets.

This leads us to find that low- and middle-income people indirectly bear a small fraction of the corporate tax increase in the bill. They own a small fraction of U.S. corporate stocks and other business assets, receive a small fraction of the income that these assets generate, and therefore would be little affected by the tax increase.

A large portion of the shares in American corporations are owned by foreign investors, which means they would indirectly pay a large portion of the corporate tax increase. In 2013, JCT explained that it believed that 10.8 percent of shares of American corporations were owned by foreign investors.[2] Others find that the foreign-owned fraction is much higher. Steve Rosenthal and Theo Burke at the Tax Policy Center estimate that in 2019 foreign investors owned 40 percent of the shares in American corporations.[3] We therefore assume that 40 percent of the corporate tax increase is indirectly borne by foreign investors while the other 60 percent is indirectly borne U.S. residents who own corporate stocks and other business assets.

This analysis starts with JCT’s revenue estimates for all the bill’s corporate tax provisions combined. It then converts those estimates from fiscal year figures into calendar year figures and then determines how the corporate tax cut or corporate tax hike each year would be distributed among American taxpayers and foreign investors. The following are the most significant provisions included among these corporate tax changes.

Corporate Minimum Tax

The bill's most significant corporate tax provision would ensure that the roughly 200 biggest corporations pay federal income taxes equal to at least 15 percent of the profits that they report to shareholders. These companies are technically subject to the 21 percent statutory corporate tax rate, but under current tax rules they often pay little or nothing, as the Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy has found time and time again.[4]

The bill’s corporate minimum tax is limited. It would not affect many of the zero-tax corporations identified by ITEP because it would only apply to those with profits exceeding $1 billion annually. (The bill uses each corporation’s average profits over the past three years.) There is no reason corporations reporting hundreds of millions, but not billions, of dollars in profits to their shareholders should be allowed to avoid paying taxes. Nonetheless, the corporate minimum tax would raise significant revenue by targeting the corporations that account for the most dramatic tax avoidance.[5]

The minimum tax of 15 percent would apply to corporations’ “book” income, meaning the profits they report to the public and to investors. Corporations would pay whichever is more, their tax liability under the regular corporate tax rules or 15 percent of their worldwide book profits.

While corporate leaders are happy to lowball profits they report to the IRS for tax purposes, they usually do not want to lowball profits they report to investors they are trying to attract, which could make the minimum tax difficult for corporations to avoid.

Excise Tax on Stock Buybacks

Another provision in the bill would create an excise tax to remove tax advantages for corporations that transfer profits to their shareholders through stock buybacks rather than dividends. Corporations can shift their profits to shareholders either by paying them stock dividends or by buying their own stocks, which increases the value of the stocks held by shareholders. Shareholders pay income tax on stock dividends (though often at lower rates than wages and salary income). Stock buybacks, on the other hand, result in capital gains (because they increase the value of the stocks) that may not be taxed for years and in many cases are never taxed at all.

Under this provision, corporations would be required to pay a tax equal to 1 percent of their stock repurchases, ensuring that profits shifted to shareholders in this way are subject to some federal tax.[6]

Reform of International Corporate Tax Rules

The bill has several provisions that would reduce tax breaks for offshore profits of American corporations and tax breaks for foreign corporations. The current rules that tax offshore profits more lightly than domestic profits encourage American corporations to use accounting gimmicks to make their profits appear to be earned in countries with no corporate tax or a very low corporate tax or, even worse, to move operations and jobs to lower-tax countries.

Under current law, some offshore profits of American corporations are not taxed at all because they fall within an exclusion (equal to a 10 percent return on tangible offshore investments). The House bill would reduce this break but not eliminate it. Offshore profits would still be excluded except to the extent that they exceed 5 percent of a company’s tangible offshore investments. The bill could therefore preserve some of the incentive for companies to invest offshore rather than in the U.S. to shield some of their offshore profits from U.S. taxes.

Under current law, when offshore profits of American corporations are subject to U.S. taxes, they generally are subject to a rate of 10.5 percent, just half the rate that applies to domestic profits, which means offshore profits are more advantageous than profits generated in the U.S. The House bill would ensure that these offshore profits would be taxed at a combined rate (including both U.S. taxes and foreign taxes) of at least 15 percent. This provision would implement part of an international agreement brokered by the Biden administration to ensure that almost all corporate profits worldwide are taxed at a rate of at least 15 percent.

Other provisions would similarly reduce the tax advantages for multinational corporations.

Income Tax Increases on Individuals

The Build Back Better bill includes several tax increases that would be paid directly by individuals (in contrast to the corporate tax changes that would affect individuals only indirectly). The most significant are the following.

Closing a Loophole in the Net Investment Income Tax

Before the Affordable Care Act (ACA) was enacted, the United States had one tax devoted to health care, the Medicare employment tax, but it was not very progressive. It had a flat rate of 2.9 percent (half paid by employers and half paid directly by employees) and it exempted investment income.

The ACA sought to correct this in two ways. First, it increased the Medicare employment tax to 3.8 percent for those with earnings above $200,000 ($250,000 for married earners). Second, it created a comparable 3.8 percent tax on investment income. This tax is called the Net Investment Income Tax (NIIT), and it applies to whatever part of a taxpayer’s adjusted gross income above $200,000 ($250,000 for married couples) is investment income. The general idea was that the rich would pay 3.8 percent on their income (excluding retirement income) regardless of what form it takes.

But a loophole allows certain income from pass-through businesses, particularly S corporations and LLCs, to avoid being subject to either the Medicare employment tax or the NIT. This provision of the bill would close that loophole so that high-income people generally always pay 3.8 percent of their income (whether from work or from passive or active investments) towards health care. However, this change would only apply to those with income exceeding $400,000.[7]

Limitation on Business Losses for High-Income Business Owners

Under rules enacted in 2017, when business owners report losses, they cannot use these losses to offset more than $250,000 of their non-business income (or $500,000 of non-business income in the case of married couples). This prevents high-income taxpayers from deducting losses that exist on paper only to reduce the income they report to the IRS.[8] One of the rare provisions in the Trump tax law that looks good in retrospect, the limit on pass-through losses was set to expire with most of the other personal income tax changes after 2025. The CARES Act controversially suspended it for 2020 and retroactively for 2018 and 2019.[9] The American Rescue Plan Act extended it for one year, through 2026.

The House Build Back Better bill would change the limit in two ways. First, it would make the limit stricter by imposing the $250,000/$500,000 limit on excess losses even after the year when those losses are reported. (Under the current rules, after excess losses are carried into the following tax year they are treated as net operating losses, which are not subject to the same limit.) This results in a tax increase that is relatively small (in terms of revenue raised) starting in 2022.

Second, it would make the limit permanent. This would raise more significant revenue in years after 2026 (the last year the limit will be in effect under current law).

Surtax on Very High Incomes

The bill would impose a surtax of 5 percent on income between $10 million and $25 million and 8 percent on income exceeding $25 million. This provision does not close any special breaks or plug the convoluted loopholes used by high-income people. But it does create a new tax that is relatively simple and that applies to most types of income of the very rich in the same way, in stark contrast with the existing personal income tax, which taxes capital gains and dividends that mostly flow to the rich at lower rates than other types of income.

The revenue impact of this surtax would be heavily affected by behavioral responses of high-income taxpayers as they try to avoid the tax increase. For example, to the extent that the surtax falls on income that is capital gains, affected taxpayers could respond by accelerating any asset sales before the provision takes effect and then, once the provision is in effect, holding onto their assets to avoid reporting capital gains income. This could make the revenue impact particularly unpredictable in the first few years. We follow the usual convention of the U.S. Treasury Department in leaving such behavioral effects out of the distributional analysis provided in this report.

Adjustment to the Cap on SALT Deductions

One provision in the bill would raise the cap on federal deductions for state and local taxes (SALT) from $10,000 to $80,000 and then extend the cap for several years beyond its expiration date under current law, which is the end of 2025. Most people would likely think of this provision as a tax cut because that will be its effect compared to current law each year through 2025. But in years after that it technically raises revenue compared to current law (although many of the 2017 provisions that lose revenue could eventually be extended as well before the end of 2025).

The SALT cap is the only truly significant provision of the 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act that limits tax breaks for the rich. To be sure, Republicans included this revenue-raising provision in their bill because it mainly takes tax breaks from people living in high-tax states, which are mostly “blue” states. This is clearly not a sound way to make tax policy.

But the answer cannot be to simply repeal the SALT cap, as many congressional Democrats proposed since the 2017 law was enacted. Estimates from ITEP show that the majority of benefits from fully repealing the SALT cap would go to the richest 1 percent.[10]

The House Build Back Better bill does not repeal SALT cap entirely but limits it in a way that loses significant revenue. While repealing the SALT cap would cost $101 billion in 2022, increasing the cap to $80,000 would cost $64 billon. If the provision raising the cap to $80,000 is enacted into law three-fourths of the benefits would go to the richest five percent and more than a third of the benefits would go to the richest one percent, as illustrated in the table below.

Other approaches to the SALT cap are possible and could be included in the Senate version of the Build Back Better bill. One approach supported by Sens. Bob Menendez and Bernie Sanders would lift the cap on SALT deductions for those with adjusted gross income (AGI) below $400,000 and phase in the cap for those with AGI between $400,000 and $500,000.

As illustrated in the table below, this would cost only 30 percent as much as fully repealing the SALT cap in 2022 and little of the benefits would go to the richest 1 percent.[11]

Child Tax Credit and EITC Expansions

The bill’s two most significant tax cuts are provisions to extend the recently enacted expansions of two refundable tax credits, the Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC) and Child Tax Credit (CTC). These expansions, which were enacted as part of the American Rescue Plan Act, will expire at the end of this year if Congress does not act.

Extend the expansion of the Child Tax Credit

The CTC expansion (which would be extended under the bill) increases the credit from a maximum of $2,000 per child to $3,600 for each child younger than six and $3,000 for each child age six or older. The additional credit received under this provision begins to phase out at $150,000 of income for married parents and $112,500 of income for single parents. The expansion also increases the age of eligibility by one year, to include 17-year-olds.

The bill would also make two changes permanent. One is the provision making the CTC fully refundable. This removes the earnings requirement that applies only to the refundable portion of the credit and removes the limit that caps the refundable portion of the credit at a lower level than the full credit.

The other permanent change would restore eligibility for undocumented children without a Social Security number. Most provisions in the tax code do not specifically hinge on immigration status, but the Child Tax Credit is now a rare exception because of a new restriction added as part of the 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act. Allowing all children, regardless of their immigration status, to receive the credit as long as their parents meet the income eligibility requirements would bolster the credit’s reach to include an estimated 1 million additional children and their families.[12]

Other ITEP analyses provide more details on the CTC expansion.[13]

Extend the expansion of the Earned Income Tax Credit

Before it was expanded for one year under the American Rescue Plan Act, the maximum EITC for childless workers was very small. The House Build Back Better bill would extend the expansion for one year, increasing the maximum EITC from roughly $540 to $1,525 for childless workers making up to nearly $22,000 in tax year 2022. The EITC expansion also eliminates the age limits that prevented childless working adults who are younger than 25 or older than 64 from receiving the credit.

Another ITEP analysis provides more details about the EITC expansion.[14]

Conclusion

The tax changes in the House Build Back Better bill made public in early November would raise significant revenue and make our tax code more progressive, with different provisions advancing or detracting from those results. It would also make the tax code less tilted to benefit the wealthiest individuals, who are disproportionately white.

The bill would not raise corporate taxes until the second year after enactment but these corporate tax increases would make our tax system more progressive. The bill would also increase taxes paid directly by very high-income people. Raising the cap on SALT deductions to $80,000 would detract from racial equity but it would be an improvement, compared to earlier proposals to repeal the cap entirely, in terms of progressively and racial equity.[15] The temporary extensions of expanded tax credits and the permanent refundability of the Child Tax Credit would make the tax code more economically and racially equitable.[16]

In its entirety, this bill would raise significant revenue from the wealthiest individuals and from corporations, while providing important boosts to income for modest-income families.


[1] Another change in the Child Tax Credit, allowing the credit for children without Social Security numbers, would also be permanent as explained further on. But we are not able to include the effects of that change in the overall estimates provided in this report.

[2] Joint Committee on Taxation, “Modeling the Distribution of Taxes on Business Income,” October 16, 2013, JCX-14-13. https://www.jct.gov/publications/2013/jcx-14-13/

[3] Steve Rosenthal and Theo Burke, “Who’s Left to Tax? US Taxation of Corporations and Their Shareholders,” Tax Policy Center, October 27, 2020.

[4] Matthew Gardner and Steve Wamhoff, “Corporate Tax Avoidance Under the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act,” July 29, 2021, Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy. https://itep.org/corporate-tax-avoidance-under-the-tax-cuts-and-jobs-act/; Matthew Gardner and Steve Wamhoff, “55 Corporations Paid $0 in Federal Taxes on 2020 Profits,” April 2, 2021, Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy. https://itep.org/55-profitable-corporations-zero-corporate-tax/

[5] Matthew Gardner, “Report Illustrates How 70 Corporations Could Be Affected by Minimum Tax Proposal in the Build Back Better Act,” November 18, 2021, Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy. https://itep.org/report-illustrates-how-70-corporations-could-be-affected-by-minimum-tax-proposal-in-the-build-back-better-act/

[6] For more information, see Joe Hughes, “Democrats Seek to Eliminate the Stock Buyback Advantage,” November 4, 2021, Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy. https://itep.org/democrats-seek-to-eliminate-the-stock-buyback-advantage/

[7] For more information, see Joe Hughes, “Key Reform in Build Back Better Act Would Close Loophole Used by the Rich To Avoid Funding Healthcare,” November 18, 2021, Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy. https://itep.org/key-reform-in-build-back-better-act-would-close-loophole-used-by-the-rich-to-avoid-funding-healthcare/

[8] Steve Wamhoff, “The CARES Act Provision for High-Income Business Owners Looks Worse and Worse,” Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy, April 24, 2020. https://itep.org/the-cares-act-provision-for-high-income-business-owners-looks-worse-and-worse/

[9] Steve Wamhoff, “Partying Like It’s 2017: How Congress Went Overboard on Helping Businesses with Losses,” Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy, Updated April 24, 2020. https://itep.org/partying-like-its-2017-how-congress-went-overboard-on-helping-businesses-with-losses/

[10] Steve Wamhoff, Carl Davis, Matthew Gardner, “Options to Reduce the Revenue Loss from Adjusting the SALT Cap,” August 26, 2021. https://itep.org/options-to-reduce-the-revenue-loss-from-adjusting-the-salt-cap/

[11] For more information on different options to adjust the SALT cap, see Steve Wamhoff, Carl Davis, Matthew Gardner, “Options to Reduce the Revenue Loss from Adjusting the SALT Cap,” August 26, 2021. https://itep.org/options-to-reduce-the-revenue-loss-from-adjusting-the-salt-cap/

[12] Marco Guzman, “Inclusive Child Tax Credit Reform Would Restore Benefit to 1 Million Young ‘Dreamers,’” April 27, 2021, Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy. https://itep.org/inclusive-child-tax-credit-reform-would-restore-benefit-to-1-million-young-dreamers/

[13] Aidan Davis, “Tax Credit Reforms in Build Back Better Would Benefit a Diverse Group of Families,” November 18, 2021, Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy. https://itep.org/tax-credit-reforms-in-build-back-better-would-benefit-a-diverse-group-of-families/; Aidan Davis, “Child Tax Credit Is a Critical Component of Biden Administration’s Recovery Package,” June 11, 2021, Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy. https://itep.org/child-tax-credit-is-critical-component-of-biden-administrations-recovery-package/

[14] Aidan Davis, “Nearly 20 Million Will Benefit if Congress Makes the EITC Enhancement Permanent,” May 13, 2021, Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy. https://itep.org/nearly-20-million-will-benefit-if-congress-makes-the-eitc-enhancement-permanent/

[15] Carl Davis, Jessica Schieder, “Not Worth Its SALT: Tax Cut Proposal Overwhelmingly Benefits Wealthy, White Households,” April 20, 2021, Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy. https://itep.org/not-worth-its-salt-tax-cut-proposal-overwhelmingly-benefits-wealthy-white-households/

[16] Aidan Davis, “A Data-Driven Case for the CTC Expansion in the Ways & Means Committee’s Recent Proposal,” September 13, 2021, Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy. https://itep.org/full-refundability-itin-inclusion-key-components-of-ways-and-means-ctc-proposal/