Referred to the House Committee on Ways and Means.
The bill amends Internal Revenue Code section 163(j) to remove the phrase limiting the allowance for depreciation, amortization, or depletion for purposes of calculating the business interest deduction to taxable years beginning before January 1, 2022. In effect, it makes permanent the ability to add back depreciation, amortization, and depletion when determining the income limitation on the deduction for business interest for taxable years beginning after December 31, 2021.
Liberals emphasize fiscal cost and distributional impact; conservatives emphasize investment relief.
Narrow, pro-business tax measure likely to find House support but revenue loss and lack of offsets create opposition.
The bill amends Internal Revenue Code section 163(j) to remove the phrase limiting the allowance for depreciation, amortization, or depletion for purposes of calculating the business interest deduction to taxable years beginning before January 1, 2022.
In effect, it makes permanent the ability to add back depreciation, amortization, and depletion when determining the income limitation on the deduction for business interest for taxable years beginning after December 31, 2021.
The change affects how the business interest deduction cap is computed for capital-intensive businesses.
Technically simple and targeted, but uncoupled revenue loss and lack of offsets reduce prospects unless bundled into larger legislation.
How solid the drafting looks.
Liberals emphasize fiscal cost and distributional impact; conservatives emphasize investment relief.
These are examples from the analysis, not a ranked list of the most-affected groups.
Liberals emphasize fiscal cost and distributional impact; conservatives emphasize investment relief.
Generally skeptical.
Would note the bill provides tax relief to capital-intensive businesses and manufacturers but likely reduces federal revenue and disproportionately helps corporations and owners of capital.
May acknowledge potential benefits for job retention in manufacturing, but would seek offsets or targeted protections for workers.
Cautiously favorable if economically justified.
Views the change as a targeted technical fix for capital-intensive sectors that could support investment, but wants clear scoring and fiscal offsets.
Would weigh manufacturing and small-business benefits against cost and complexity.
Supportive.
Sees the bill as pro-growth tax relief for manufacturers and Main Street businesses that removes an arbitrary sunset.
Views permanence as providing investment certainty and reducing tax burdens on capital formation.
Reached or meaningfully advanced
Reached or meaningfully advanced
Still ahead
Still ahead
Still ahead
Technically simple and targeted, but uncoupled revenue loss and lack of offsets reduce prospects unless bundled into larger legislation.
The bill has not accumulated any surfaced votes yet.
Liberals emphasize fiscal cost and distributional impact; conservatives emphasize investment relief.
Technically simple and targeted, but uncoupled revenue loss and lack of offsets reduce prospects unless bundled into larger legislation.
Pro readers get the full perspective split, passage barriers, legislative design review, stakeholder impact map, and lens-based policy tradeoff analysis for AIMM Act.
Go beyond the headline summary with full stakeholder mapping, legislative design analysis, passage barriers, and lens-by-lens tradeoff breakdowns.