The provision, included in section 3101 of Camp's draft bill, would repeal code section 118, under which contributions to capital are not included in gross income, and create a new section 76 to revise the treatment of contributions to capital. Contributions to capital include transfers of money or property to a company by a non-shareholder, which may be a government.
Under the proposal, "a contribution to capital, other than a contribution of money or property made in exchange for stock of a corporation or any interest in an entity, is included in gross income of a taxpayer," the Joint Committee on Taxation explained in its description (JCX-14-14) of the bill.
For example, the JCT explained, if a municipality contributed land to a corporation and did not receive stock in exchange, it would be considered a contribution to capital and therefore would be included in the corporation's gross income.
"It's potentially a big deal for states that use things like cheap or free land to encourage economic development," said Howard Gleckman of the Urban Institute. "This is a very common practice to get a business to move to your state."
Gleckman said that the move on Camp's part to discourage that type of activity "levels the playing field" for all businesses, because under proposal, they would have to "pay tax on the deal no matter where it comes from." He also maintained that the proposal "wouldn't disadvantage one jurisdiction over another."
Several tax law experts said that repeal of the subsidy could have a significant impact on states and ultimately force them to restructure their incentives packages.
"While at first it seems to be an obscure tax provision, it has applicability across a large sector of the economy," said Andrea Macintosh Whiteway of McDermott Will & Emery. "Repealing section 118 would have a significant, adverse impact at least on the real estate sector."
Whiteway, Gleckman, and Madison J. Barnett of Sutherland Asbill & Brennan LLP all said that repeal of section 118 could affect the way states structure their incentives programs.
"It could shift the types of incentives away from those that would be taxable toward those that would not," said Barnett. "There would be pressure from states to increase the gross dollars or incentives on what they are giving out. If one state does one thing, there is pressure for others to follow."
One example of an alternative incentive from a state or local government to a corporation would be a loan, but that isn't as attractive as a nontaxable contribution, Whiteway said.
Whiteway also noted that there appears to be a movement afoot in Congress for the federal government to limit the amount of subsidies for state and local operations, corresponding to Camp's proposal to repeal the deduction for state and local income taxes.
"They are looking at it from the mindset that when we [Congress] provide a subsidy that can be implemented unevenly among the states, it is somehow problematic," Whiteway said.
A spokesperson from Camp's office could not be reached for comment.
About Tax Analysts
Tax Analysts is an influential provider of tax news and analysis for the global community. Over 150,000 tax professionals in law and accounting firms, corporations, and government agencies rely on Tax Analysts' federal, state, and international content daily. Key products include Tax Notes, Tax Notes Today, State Tax Notes, State Tax Today, Tax Notes International, and Worldwide Tax Daily. Founded in 1970 as a nonprofit organization, Tax Analysts has the industry's largest tax-dedicated correspondent staff, with more than 250 domestic and international correspondents. For more information, visit our home page.
For reprint permission or other information, contact firstname.lastname@example.org