2014 May Be the Last Year for Valuable "Tax Extenders"

03 December 2014 Manufacturing Industry Advisor Blog

Last week, President Obama threatened to veto an agreement between Senate Democrats and House Republicans on a collection of tax breaks known as “tax extenders.” The deal would have been a huge win for manufacturing, because it would have extended or made permanent a number of tax breaks that directly benefit manufacturers. Now, the likely result is a one-year extension for incentives that lapsed in 2013. As a result of this breakdown in negotiations, 2014 may be manufacturers’ last chance to qualify for these valuable tax benefits.

Among the provisions at stake are the research and development tax credit, of which the manufacturing sector is a major beneficiary, and Section 179, which allows a certain amount of capital assets to be expensed rather than depreciated. The research and development credit would have been made permanent, while section 179 and bonus depreciation would have been extended. Section 179 is especially valuable to small businesses investing in large equipment and machinery. Many smaller tax breaks benefiting manufacturers of specific products, including those related to energy production and efficiency, also would have been extended.

Another, less obvious reason for manufacturers to support the tax extenders deal is because it would have operated as an obstacle to broader tax reform. For years now, the idea of lowering the corporate tax rate by eliminating various tax expenditures has enjoyed bipartisan support. While tax reform of this sort may be good for businesses generally, it may not benefit manufacturers, whose tax benefits would likely expire as part of any revenue-neutral corporate rate reduction package. If corporate reform means reducing rates of depreciation as prominent proposals suggest, it could mean higher tax bills for many manufacturers, especially those whose processes are capital-intensive. By contrast, the reported tax extenders deal would have benefited nearly all manufacturers, especially those with high capital costs.

The impending Republican takeover of the Senate makes the President’s unusual veto threat even more interesting. When President Obama and Senate Majority Leader-elect Mitch McConnell were asked after the midterms about areas of potential agreement, both were quick to mention tax reform. Senator McConnell was especially enthusiastic about “burning the midnight oil” to pass legislation and made reference to divided governments of years past that worked together to craft major reforms. Senator McConnell seemed genuine about his desire to cooperate with the President on tax reform and trade agreements.

If corporate tax reform results from a compromise, manufacturers should advocate for at least an extension of the research and development tax credit, since it too enjoys wide bipartisan support. They should also be partial to the President’s plan for a lower corporate tax rate for domestic manufacturing, and they should insist on relief for small businesses by increasing the deduction for domestic production to make up for the greater difference between personal income tax rates and the much lower corporate tax rate that results from reform. A tax extenders deal like the one nearly agreed to would have benefited manufacturers tremendously, but a broader tax reform package could include international as well as corporate tax reform, injecting liquidity into U.S. capital markets while also introducing a lower corporate tax rate.

In the short-term, it appears that tax extenders are headed for only a one year extension covering 2014. The combination of expiring tax benefits and uncertainty going forward puts manufacturers in a tough position. Assuming a one year extension is passed, small businesses thinking of purchasing machinery in the near future should try to take advantage of Section 179 and bonus depreciation while they still can. Come 2015, the tax consequences may differ dramatically.

Christopher R. Anderson is a law graduate with Foley & Lardner LLP. He is a member of the firm’s Finance & Financial Institutions Practice.

This blog is made available by Foley & Lardner LLP (“Foley” or “the Firm”) for informational purposes only. It is not meant to convey the Firm’s legal position on behalf of any client, nor is it intended to convey specific legal advice. Any opinions expressed in this article do not necessarily reflect the views of Foley & Lardner LLP, its partners, or its clients. Accordingly, do not act upon this information without seeking counsel from a licensed attorney. This blog is not intended to create, and receipt of it does not constitute, an attorney-client relationship. Communicating with Foley through this website by email, blog post, or otherwise, does not create an attorney-client relationship for any legal matter. Therefore, any communication or material you transmit to Foley through this blog, whether by email, blog post or any other manner, will not be treated as confidential or proprietary. The information on this blog is published “AS IS” and is not guaranteed to be complete, accurate, and or up-to-date. Foley makes no representations or warranties of any kind, express or implied, as to the operation or content of the site. Foley expressly disclaims all other guarantees, warranties, conditions and representations of any kind, either express or implied, whether arising under any statute, law, commercial use or otherwise, including implied warranties of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. In no event shall Foley or any of its partners, officers, employees, agents or affiliates be liable, directly or indirectly, under any theory of law (contract, tort, negligence or otherwise), to you or anyone else, for any claims, losses or damages, direct, indirect special, incidental, punitive or consequential, resulting from or occasioned by the creation, use of or reliance on this site (including information and other content) or any third party websites or the information, resources or material accessed through any such websites. In some jurisdictions, the contents of this blog may be considered Attorney Advertising. If applicable, please note that prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Photographs are for dramatization purposes only and may include models. Likenesses do not necessarily imply current client, partnership or employee status.

Related Services

Insights

Bad Holiday Season News! Estimates of an increase of Cyberattacks 20%!
13 December 2019
Internet, IT & e-Discovery Blog
Driving the Future of Automotive Technology
12 December 2019
Manufacturing Industry Advisor
Massachusetts Governor Proposes Facility Fee Ban
12 December 2019
Health Care Law Today
American Rule Prevails; PTO May Not Collect In-House Attorneys' Fees as "Expenses"
12 December 2019
IP Litigation Current
ACCC 46th Annual Meeting & Cancer Center Business Summit
04-05 March 2020
Washington, D.C.
Foley/Deloitte Compliance and Privacy Officer Roundtable
27 February 2020
Boston, MA
Let’s Talk Compliance
24 January 2020
Orlando, FL
New England Alliance Annual Meeting
15-17 January 2020
Woodstock, VT