Referred to the House Committee on Ways and Means.
The bill makes the ’bonus depreciation’ rule in Internal Revenue Code section 168(k) permanent by setting the applicable percentage to 100 percent for qualified property placed in service after September 27, 2017. It also revises related technical and conforming provisions (including rules for certain planted or grafted plants and a related recovery-period clause) to align with permanent full expensing.
Progressives emphasize deficit and distributional harms from permanent tax cuts
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill is a straightforward substantive amendment to the Internal Revenue Code to make 100% bonus depreciation (full expensing) permanent, with appropriate targeted conforming edits and an explicit effective date.
The bill makes the ’bonus depreciation’ rule in Internal Revenue Code section 168(k) permanent by setting the applicable percentage to 100 percent for qualified property placed in service after September 27, 2017.
It also revises related technical and conforming provisions (including rules for certain planted or grafted plants and a related recovery-period clause) to align with permanent full expensing.
The effective date clause treats these changes as if included in the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (Pub.
Technically straightforward but high fiscal cost and limited compromise features reduce standalone enactment chances; more likely as part of larger tax package.
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill is a straightforward substantive amendment to the Internal Revenue Code to make 100% bonus depreciation (full expensing) permanent, with appropriate targeted conforming edits and an explicit effective date. The operative mechanism is specific and integrates cleanly into existing statutory text.
Progressives emphasize deficit and distributional harms from permanent tax cuts
These are examples from the analysis, not a ranked list of the most-affected groups.
Progressives emphasize deficit and distributional harms from permanent tax cuts
Likely wary or opposed: views the bill as a permanent corporate tax subsidy that disproportionately helps capital owners.
Concern centers on lost federal revenue and inequitable benefits unless paired with offsets or targeting.
Mixed: recognizes the pro-growth rationale and administrative simplicity, but worries about fiscal cost and windfall effects.
Would favor offsets, limits, or phase-in to balance tradeoffs.
Strongly favorable: views permanent full expensing as pro-growth tax reform that incentivizes investment and reduces tax complexity.
Prefers permanent, unconditional application.
Reached or meaningfully advanced
Reached or meaningfully advanced
Still ahead
Still ahead
Still ahead
Technically straightforward but high fiscal cost and limited compromise features reduce standalone enactment chances; more likely as part of larger tax package.
The bill has not accumulated any surfaced votes yet.
Progressives emphasize deficit and distributional harms from permanent tax cuts
Technically straightforward but high fiscal cost and limited compromise features reduce standalone enactment chances; more likely as part o…
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill is a straightforward substantive amendment to the Internal Revenue Code to make 100% bonus depreciation (full expensing) permanent, with appropriate targeted conformi…
Go beyond the headline summary with full stakeholder mapping, legislative design analysis, passage barriers, and lens-by-lens tradeoff breakdowns.