Read twice and referred to the Committee on Finance.
This bill permanently makes bonus depreciation (100% expensing under Internal Revenue Code section 168(k)) available for qualified property placed in service after September 27, 2017. It includes conforming edits to related provisions (including specified plants and recovery-period language) and is effective as if included in the 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act provisions.
Progressives emphasize revenue loss and regressivity concerns
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill performs the core legal work expected of a substantive tax-policy amendment: it identifies the target provisions, articulates the change (100% applicable percentage), and provides conforming edits and an effective-date clause.
This bill permanently makes bonus depreciation (100% expensing under Internal Revenue Code section 168(k)) available for qualified property placed in service after September 27, 2017.
It includes conforming edits to related provisions (including specified plants and recovery-period language) and is effective as if included in the 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act provisions.
The change allows taxpayers to deduct the full cost of qualifying property immediately instead of depreciating it over time.
Technically simple but fiscally costly permanent tax cut lacks compensating offsets and contains no sunset, lowering cross‑aisle support and raising budgetary obstacles.
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill performs the core legal work expected of a substantive tax-policy amendment: it identifies the target provisions, articulates the change (100% applicable percentage), and provides conforming edits and an effective-date clause. The statutory drafting is specific and aimed at direct insertion into the Internal Revenue Code.
Progressives emphasize revenue loss and regressivity concerns
These are examples from the analysis, not a ranked list of the most-affected groups.
Progressives emphasize revenue loss and regressivity concerns
Likely critical: views this as a permanent corporate tax subsidy that mainly benefits capital owners.
Concerns focus on large revenue loss and regressivity unless paired with offsets or targeting.
Mixed: recognizes potential to spur investment and simplify taxes but worries about budgetary cost and targeting.
Would seek fiscal offsets or evaluations to assess effectiveness.
Generally supportive: sees permanent full expensing as pro-growth tax policy that encourages investment, reduces complexity, and provides long-term certainty for businesses.
Reached or meaningfully advanced
Reached or meaningfully advanced
Still ahead
Still ahead
Still ahead
Technically simple but fiscally costly permanent tax cut lacks compensating offsets and contains no sunset, lowering cross‑aisle support and raising budgetary obstacles.
The bill has not accumulated any surfaced votes yet.
Progressives emphasize revenue loss and regressivity concerns
Technically simple but fiscally costly permanent tax cut lacks compensating offsets and contains no sunset, lowering cross‑aisle support an…
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill performs the core legal work expected of a substantive tax-policy amendment: it identifies the target provisions, articulates the change (100% applicable percentage),…
Go beyond the headline summary with full stakeholder mapping, legislative design analysis, passage barriers, and lens-by-lens tradeoff breakdowns.