Signup To Receive CCH Tax News Headlines Via Email

October 30,  2008

Federal Headlines


Lawmakers Mull Second Stimulus Package

 

Lawmakers on the House Ways and Means Committee heard testimony on October 29 from state officials and industry experts on whether a $150-billion stimulus package loaded with spending on shovel-ready infrastructure projects and higher funding for unemployment insurance claims would help Americans during the current economic slowdown. Lawmakers hinted that the House might return to Congress for a lame-duck session in mid-November, possibly during the week of November 17, to try to pass legislation that would head off an economic recession.

 

In October, Congress passed the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008 (P.L. 110-343), a financial stabilization package that fundamentally altered the relationship between the government and the markets (TAXDAY, 2008/10/06, W.1), making even its supporters nervous about the long-term implications, said ranking Ways and Means member Jim McCrery, R-La. "Unfortunately, those efforts have failed to get the economy kick-started, and the calls are growing louder for yet another round of stimulus," he said. McCrery warned that anything that passed the House must also win bipartisan Senate and White House approval.

 

Committee Chairman Charles B. Rangel, D-N.Y., said he favors spending on roads and bridges, increases in unemployment insurance and more help for low-income Americans. In addition, states and towns are facing lower tax revenues from declining property values, and they could use direct financial help from the federal government, other lawmakers said. Among the other ideas floated at the hearing were higher health care and food stamp funding, building more schools and libraries, easing pension funding rules and more child support enforcement assistance for parents.

 

Rangel said he hopes committee lawmakers will encourage both the Democratic and Republican leadership of the House to return to Washington after the election. He said lawmakers should "see what we can do to provide assistance to working families as well as local and state governments as we have done for the banking and financial sectors."

 

In seeking help from Congress, New York Governor David A. Paterson told lawmakers that governors can only cut so much before they begin to jeopardize their fundamental responsibilities to constituents. "Unfortunately, the cruel irony is that, at the time when citizens need their state governments the most, state governments are least equipped to help them because of plummeting revenues," he said.

 

South Carolina Governor Mark Sanford warned lawmakers that any increased spending in an economic stimulus package would be counterproductive because it would result in a higher federal debt that would likely require higher taxes to offset in future years. Instead, Sanford suggested that Congress give states relief from billions of dollars in unfunded mandates, such as Real ID, higher minimum wages, No Child Left Behind, Medicare prescription drug plans, bio-terrorism upgrades and food stamp funding. "Common sense voices from both sides of the aisle are raising red flags about our national deficit, the debt and these unfunded liabilities," he said.

Transportation Committee Hearing

 

House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee Chairman James L. Oberstar, D-Minn., said at a committee hearing on October 29 that the need for real jobs has grown "acute," adding that the House and Senate will consider a new economic recovery and job creation initiative two weeks after the November 4 election.

 

"Infrastructure investment creates family-wage construction jobs, and spin-off benefits that ripple throughout the economy," Oberstar said. He noted that committee staff from both parties would meet again following the hearing and "assemble the elements" for a bill that will be considered when the house reconvenes on November 17.

 

Rep. John Mica, R-Fla., ranking member of the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, added that every billion dollars spent on infrastructure results in 35,000 new jobs. "I think that people out there that I've talked to...would prefer a paycheck, rather than an unemployment check. And we can do it," Mica said.

 

By Sarah Borchersen-Keto and Stephen K. Cooper, CCH News Staff

Ways and Means Release: Ways and Means Hearing Adds to Call for Main Street Economic Recovery Package

 

IRS Provides Guidance for Partnerships Holding Preferred Stock in Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac (Rev. Proc. 2008-64)

 

The IRS has issued guidance to certain partnerships regarding the sale or exchange of preferred stock of the Federal National Mortgage Association (Fannie Mae) and the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation (Freddie Mac) under section 301, Division A, of the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008 (ESSA) (P.L. 110-343). Section 301 allows banks and certain other financial institutions to recognize proceeds from the sale of Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac preferred stock as ordinary gain or loss.

 

Generally, under Code Sec. 582, the sale or exchange of common and preferred stocks by a financial institution is considered a capital transaction. However, section 301 of the EESA provides that sales or exchanges of Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac preferred stock that was held by an applicable financial institution on September 6, 2008, or was sold or exchanged by such an institution between January 1 and September 7, 2008, shall be treated as an ordinary income or loss transaction.

 

The new guidance applies to:

 

--the sale or exchange of qualified preferred stock by a partnership in which an applicable financial institution is a partner;

 

--the sale or exchange by an applicable financial institution of an interest in certain partnerships;

 

--the distribution of qualified preferred stock by certain partnerships to a partner that is an applicable financial institution;

 

--the sale or exchange of qualified preferred stock by certain subsidiaries of applicable financial institutions; and,

 

--the sale or exchange by a taxpayer of a qualified preferred stock the basis of which in the taxpayer's hands is determined by reference to the basis of that stock in the hands of the person that had transferred it to the taxpayer.

 

The procedure is effective for transactions and acquisitions that occur after October 29, 2008. In addition, a taxpayer may apply the procedure to transactions that occur on or after January 1, 2008, and on or before October 29, 2008, and to acquisitions that occur after September 6, 2008, and on or before October 29, 2008, but only if the taxpayer applies this procedure consistently to all transactions and acquisitions described in Sec. 8.02 of the procedure.

 

The IRS has requested comments regarding this guidance. Such comments should be submitted by December 15, 2008.

Treasury Department News Release, TDNR HP-1242, 2008FED ¶46,639

Rev. Proc. 2008-64, 2008FED ¶46,640

Other References:

 

Code Sec. 582

 

CCH Reference - 2008FED ¶23,611.15

 

CCH Reference - 2008FED ¶23,611.30

 

Code Sec. 702

 

CCH Reference - 2008FED ¶25,083.390

 

Tax Research Consultant

 

CCH Reference - TRC BUSEXP 48,154

 

CCH Reference - TRC SALES 15,100

 

CCH Reference - TRC SALES 15,200


State Headlines


Florida --Property Tax: Save Our Homes Amendment Constitutional

 

The Leon County Circuit Court granted motions to dismiss a lawsuit that challenged the property tax relief measure known as Florida's Save Our Homes Amendment (SOHA) because the protections contained in the SOHA had a rational and legitimate basis that was unrelated to residency. The homeowners challenged the constitutionality of the SOHA under Section 2, Article I of the Florida Constitution, the Privileges and Immunities Clause of U.S. Constitution, specifically the right to travel, and the Equal Protection Clause of the U.S. Constitution. They claimed the SOHA created a durationally weighted property tax system, which was tilted unfairly to confer grossly disproportionate economic disparity in benefits for long term homestead property owners solely based on their term of residency.

 

However, the state Legislature's interest in neighborhood preservation, continuity, and stability provided a rational basis for treating new and older residents differently in their tax assessments. The protections contained in the SOHA applied to all citizens regardless of the length of time the homeowner resided in Florida and did not depend on whether the resident was acquiring the homestead after recently migrating from another state, or was a resident born and raised in Florida acquiring a homestead for the first time.

 

Additionally, the court lacked subject matter jurisdiction to entertain claims pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §1983. The claims were moot after the court determined that the SOHA was not violative of the Florida Constitution or the U.S. Constitution.

 

Subscribers to CCH Tax NetWork can view the judgment.

Bruner v. Hartsfield, Florida Circuit Court, Second Circuit, Leon County, No. 2007-CA-003247, October 27, 2008.

 

Illinois --Personal Income Tax: Double-Taxed Income Includes Only Income Taxed by Both States

 

For purposes of the Illinois personal income tax credit for taxes paid to another state, computation of an Illinois resident's income that was double-taxed by Minnesota and Illinois started with federal adjusted gross income for the taxable year. That was the starting point for Illinois, while Minnesota's starting point was federal taxable income, and only items of income taxed by both states would be included in double-taxed income.

 

Both states necessarily included in their tax base every item of income (and only those items of income) included in federal adjusted gross income and allowed every deduction (and only those deductions) taken in computing federal adjusted gross income, unless a specific adjustment was made somewhere on the form of one of the states. Exemptions and itemized or standard deductions taken from adjusted gross income in computing federal taxable income were ignored because Illinois did not allow those deductions. Illinois did not tax retirement income and neither state taxed interest income from U.S. savings bonds, so those amounts had to be subtracted from federal adjusted gross income for purposes of determining the correct amount of double-taxed income for Illinois purposes. The resulting amount had to be multiplied by the percentage of income from Minnesota sources that was multiplied against the Minnesota income tax computed as if the taxpayer were a Minnesota resident in order to determine the taxpayer's nonresident liability.

General Information Letter IT 08-0027-GIL, Illinois Department of Revenue, September 17, 2008, ¶401-917

 

Other References:

 

Explanations at ¶15-205


Copyright © 2008, CCH INCORPORATED. All rights reserved.