News You Can Use

RTA NEWS YOU CAN USE
September 23, 2014

WE ARE PRESENTING THE FOLLOWING TIA'S WEEKLY LEGISLATIVE UPDATE AS A SERVICE TO READERS OF RTA NEWS YOU CAN USE MEMOS AND WILL CONTINUE TO DO SO WEEKLY BEGINNING WITH THIS WEEK. IF YOU ARE ON THE TIA MAILING LIST YOU WILL HAVE ALREADY SEEN THIS, BUT IF NOT YOU MAY FIND THE FOLLOWING INTERESTING.

TIA'S WEEKLY LEGISLATIVE UPDATE 
September 22, 2014

CONGRESS ADJOURNS

 
On September 18, the House and Senate completed their business and adjourned until November 12th without action to extend WOTC or other tax extenders.

The Senate passed a dozen bills by unanimous consent before adjourning but Senator Reid and Senator McConnell couldn't find unanimity in their caucuses to pass the EXPIRE tax extenders bill.

Before adjourning, the Senate passed by unanimous consent and sent to the President, H.R. 5404, Department of Veterans Affairs Expiring Authorities Act, extending through fiscal year 2015 some 30 VA programs in the areas of health care, rehabilitation, housing, transportation, education and other benefits. The bill does not cover veterans' employment programs.

Before adjourning, the House passed and sent to the Senate H.R. 4, Jobs For America Act, making permanent four business tax extenders-research tax credit, bonus depreciation, increased Section 179 expensing, and tax relief on sale or transfer of S-corporation stock. This bill has not been acted on by the Senate.

Before adjourning, the House passed H.R. 2, American Energy Solutions Act, a comprehensive energy bill that does not, however, include any energy tax extenders. The bill has not been acted on by the Senate.

Since government funding expires on December 12th, there will definitely be a lame duck session and we'll have another crack at passing a retroactive WOTC extension.

OSHA POSTING PROPOSAL
 
Several months ago, TIA submitted comments to OSHA in opposition to their proposed rulemaking that is intended to improve the reporting of work-related injuries and illnesses. During the comment period several stakeholders including TIA expressed concern that the proposal could motivate employers to under-record injuries and illnesses and that the proposal could promote workplace policies and procedures that deter or discourage employees from reporting work-related injuries and illnesses. In response to the comments, on August 14th, OSHA published a supplemental notice of proposed rulemaking that is intended to improve the reporting and tracking of work-related injuries and illnesses (79 Fed. Reg. 47605). The supplemental notice would amend OSHA's regulation on the annual injury and illness reporting requirements by adding three new electronic reporting obligations (78 Fed. Reg. 67254). OSHA has now requested additional comments from stakeholders on the supplemental notice. The supplemental notice seeks comment on 14 specific questions that are listed below.
 
1. Are you aware of situations where employers have discouraged the reporting of injuries and illnesses?
 
2. Will the fact that employer injury and illness statistics will be publically available on the internet cause some employers to discourage their employees from reporting injuries and illnesses?
 
3. Are you aware of any studies or reports on practices that discourage injury and illness reporting?
 
4. Do you or does your employer currently inform employees of their right to report injuries and illnesses?
 
5. Are there any difficulties or barriers an employer might face in trying to provide such information to its employees?
 
6. How might an employer best provide this information?
 
7. What procedures do you or does your employer have about the time and manner of reporting injuries and illnesses?
 
8. Are you aware of any examples of reporting requirements that are unreasonably burdensome and could discourage reporting?
 
9. How should OSHA clarify the requirement that reporting requirements are reasonable and not unduly burdensome?
 
10. Are you aware of employer practices or policies to take adverse action against persons who report injuries or illnesses?
 
11. Are you aware of any particular situations where an employee decided not to report an injury or illness to his or her employer because of a fear that the employer would take adverse action against the employee?
 
12. What kinds of adverse actions might lead an employee to decide not to report an injury or illness?
 
13. Are there any employer practices that OSHA should explicitly exclude to ensure that employers are able to run an effective workplace safety program?
 
14. What other actions can OSHA take to address the issue of employers who discourage employees from reporting work-related injuries and illnesses?
 
Link to the official notice:
http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2014-08-14/pdf/2014-19083.pdf
 
     TIA will be submitting comments next month. If you have your own comments or concerns please send them to rlittlefield2@tireindustry.org and we will include your feedback in our final draft. Thank you.

LIFO REPEAL TO PAY FOR TRANSPORTATION?
TIA SAYS "NO!"
 
 Senators Joe Donnelly (D-IN) and Mike Enzi (R-WY) have drafted a letter to Treasury Secretary Lew opposing the LIFO repeal as a pay-for for the Highway Trust Fund and tax reform (click here to view letter).  Senators Donnelly and Enzi are hoping to get a significant number of signatures on their letter, and have circulated the attached "Dear Colleague" letter  to their colleagues in the Senate urging them to sign on.
 
We need your help.
 
Many of you have already reached out to Senate offices, and we need your help to keep up the communication with these offices and continue to receive commitments and to collect as many signatures as possible on this letter.  A letter with a strong demonstration of support for LIFO from the Senate could help prevent future Senate tax reform proposals from including LIFO repeal.  Additionally, a strong demonstration of support for LIFO right now could also help ensure that LIFO repeal is not used as a pay-for in any other legislation this year, especially in the likely lame duck session this fall.
 
Please contact ALL Senators offices, whether you have a relationship or not, and urge them to sign onto the Donnelly/Enzi letter.  
 
We appreciate the help with this effort.  And please let me know of any feedback that you get from Senators' offices.  We obviously need to know if they agree to sign the letter, but any feedback on their position on LIFO would be immensely helpful. Thank you.

SECTION 179 DIRECT EXPENSING
 
TIA wrote to U.S. Senate Finance Committee Chairman Ron Wyden and Ranking Minority Member Orrin Hatch urging the Senate Finance Committee to promptly support and pass a permanent extension of the Internal Revenue Code Section 179 ("Section 179") deduction limits that expired on December 31, 2013. At a minimum, the 2013 limits must be extended through 2014 and 2015.

 Section 179 allows businesses to write off small amounts of annual investment in capital assets, such as machinery, in the year that the asset is purchased in lieu of depreciating the investment over a number of years. Being permitted to take the full deduction for an asset in the year in which the purchase expense is incurred, is extremely important for the growth of small businesses. This is particularly true for small businesses in the first few years of existence when significant investments in capital assets are required and the business has not yet become profitable and is at the greatest risk of failure.

 Since 2003, there have been nine temporary increases or extensions to the Section 179 limits. In 2013, the American Tax Payer Relief Act temporarily increased the Section 179 deduction limit to $500,000 and increased the cap on the amount of capital assets that a business can purchase in a given year before their eligibility to take the Section 179 deduction is reduced or eliminated to $2,000,000. On January 1, 2014, these limits reverted back to the pre-2003 levels which, without inflation indexing, are a deduction limit of $25,000 and an asset purchase cap of $200,000.
 
If Congress allows the Section 179 limits to stay at the pre-2003 levels, it will be striking a significant blow to small business growth and, in turn, job creation. This is an issue that can not wait. Every day that the Section 179 limits are not resolved means another day of uncertainty for small business owners who are being forced to plan for their business' future without being able to assess what their annual tax liability would be.

 On June 12, 2014, the House of Representatives passed the America's Small Business Tax Relief Act of 2014 (H.R. 4457) which would make permanent the Section 179 $500,000 deduction limit and $2,000,000 asset cap. On behalf of small businesses across the country, we urge the Senate Finance Committee to do the same and take action, whether as a stand alone bill or a comprehensive extender package, to make increased Section 179 limits permanent. Promoting small business growth and success should be a bi-partisan objective. Making the increased Section 179 limits permanent is an important and common sense way to promote small business success.

N.J. ESTATE TAX EFFORT
 
TIA has written to New Jersey Governor, Chris Christie, supporting the small business effort to repeal the State estate and inheritance taxes.

 We are encouraged by recent movements by the state legislature calling for the elimination of the New Jersey estate and inheritance taxes. This change is much needed relief for the small business owners and individuals in New Jersey who are currently forced to grapple with the most burdensome state death taxes in the country. While other proposed reforms are a step in the right direction, New Jersey would be best served by full repeal of the estate and inheritance taxes.

 Simply put: death should not be a taxable event. It makes no sense to force a grieving family to pay a tax on their loved one's property. New Jersey is currently one of the only 19 states that impose an additional tax at death, and only one of two to impose both an estate and inheritance tax. Forbes recently listed New Jersey as a place "Not to Die" in 2014 because of its high death tax. New Jersey's low estate tax exemption of $675,000 and high rate of 16% make it the most confiscatory estate tax in the entire country. In New Jersey, even a middle-income family with a modest home and retirement savings can easily surpass the $675,000 exemption. In recent years, increasing home prices have led to 1 in 5 single-family home sales greater than $500,000.

 A New Jersey resident could easily move to any of the 32 states that don't tax death to avoid a state death tax altogether. From 2001-2010, $13 billion in annual gross income has left New Jersey, according to data from the non-partisan Tax Foundation. Recent studies in North Carolina, Oregon, Rhode Island, Connecticut and other states all show that the death tax discourages business expansion and drives productive tax payers out of states with death taxes. Florida, a state with no death tax and a constitutional ban on enacting estate taxes, has been the largest beneficiary of out-migration from high death tax states.

 Proposing repeal of the estate and inheritance tax comes at a critical time, as states have been moving quickly in recent years to eliminate or reduce the burden of their death taxes. In the past four years, Ohio, Indiana, North Carolina, and Tennessee have all eliminated their state death taxes. Additionally this year, Maryland, Minnesota, New York, and Rhode Island have increased their state tax exemptions.

 Repeal of New Jersey's estate and inheritance taxes is a common sense improvement that will help grow New Jersey's economy by keeping business owners, workers, and retirees in the state. We look forward to working with you this fall to see this important policy change through.

TIA's Legislative Update is written by:
Roy Littlefield, TIA Executive Vice President

Contact:  301.430.7280 ext. 108
rlittlefield@tireindustry.org

Tire Industry Association | 1532 Pointer Ridge Place | Suite G | Bowie | MD | 20716

•     •     •

THOUGHT FOR THE DAY

"In taking revenge,
a man is but even with his enemy;
but in passing it over, he is superior."
~ Francis Bacon