Referred to the House Committee on Ways and Means.
Amends Internal Revenue Code section 4943 to change how certain repurchases of employee-owned stock affect private foundations' excess business holdings calculations. Stock purchased by a company from an employee stock ownership plan, and held as treasury stock, cancelled, or retired, can be treated as outstanding for purposes of foundation ownership percentages, subject to limits and a 10-year exclusion.
Progressives worry about benefits to wealthy foundations and donors.
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill is a narrowly focused substantive amendment to the Internal Revenue Code that clearly defines the legal mechanism and integrates with existing statutory provisions, while offering limited implementation guidance, fiscal acknowledgment, and oversight provisions.
Amends Internal Revenue Code section 4943 to change how certain repurchases of employee-owned stock affect private foundations' excess business holdings calculations.
Stock purchased by a company from an employee stock ownership plan, and held as treasury stock, cancelled, or retired, can be treated as outstanding for purposes of foundation ownership percentages, subject to limits and a 10-year exclusion.
The change applies to purchases after December 31, 2019 and taxable years ending after enactment.
A narrow, low‑salience tax technical fix with guardrails; passage plausible if adopted in committee or attached to broader tax legislation.
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill is a narrowly focused substantive amendment to the Internal Revenue Code that clearly defines the legal mechanism and integrates with existing statutory provisions, while offering limited implementation guidance, fiscal acknowledgment, and oversight provisions.
Progressives worry about benefits to wealthy foundations and donors.
These are examples from the analysis, not a ranked list of the most-affected groups.
Progressives worry about benefits to wealthy foundations and donors.
A mainstream progressive would view this as a narrow technical tax change that eases a compliance burden for foundations and companies.
They would be wary that it could let wealthy donors and corporations avoid excess holdings rules, even while acknowledging support for employee ownership plans.
A pragmatic centrist would see this mainly as a technical fix to an unintended interaction between ESOP distributions and foundation rules.
They would support clarity but seek assurances about fiscal effects and anti-abuse safeguards.
A mainstream conservative would likely view this as a reasonable, limited relief that supports employee ownership, reduces needless tax complexity, and protects businesses from unintended penalties.
They would favor the pro-business, pro-ESOP effect.
Reached or meaningfully advanced
Reached or meaningfully advanced
Still ahead
Still ahead
Still ahead
A narrow, low‑salience tax technical fix with guardrails; passage plausible if adopted in committee or attached to broader tax legislation.
The bill has not accumulated any surfaced votes yet.
Progressives worry about benefits to wealthy foundations and donors.
A narrow, low‑salience tax technical fix with guardrails; passage plausible if adopted in committee or attached to broader tax legislation.
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill is a narrowly focused substantive amendment to the Internal Revenue Code that clearly defines the legal mechanism and integrates with existing statutory provisions, w…
Go beyond the headline summary with full stakeholder mapping, legislative design analysis, passage barriers, and lens-by-lens tradeoff breakdowns.