tax policy center
Tax Topics

Tax Topics

2009 Tax Stimulus
2012 Election Tax Plans
2015 Budget
Alternative Minimum Tax (AMT)
American Jobs Act of 2011
Brief Description of the Model 2013
Camp Tax Reform Plan
Current-Law Distribution of Taxes
Deficit Reduction Proposals
Distribution of the 2001 - 2008 Tax Cuts
Earned Income Tax Credit
Economic Stimulus
Education Tax Incentives
Estate and Gift Taxes
Expiration of the Bush Tax Cuts
Explanation of Income Measures 2013
Federal Budget
Fiscal Cliff
Fiscal Crisis
Flow-Through-Enterprises
Guide to TPC Tables
Health Insurance Tax Incentives
Homeownership
How to Interpret Distribution Tables 2013
Marriage Penalties
Model FAQ 2013
Model Related Resources and FAQs
Payroll Taxes
Presidential Transition - 2009
Recent Tax Stimulus Legislation
Retirement Saving
Tax Encyclopedia Index
Tax Expenditures
Tax Reform Proposals
Value-Added Tax (VAT)
Who Doesn't Pay Federal Taxes?
Working Families

E-mail Newsletter

Enter your e-mail address to receive periodic updates on TPC publications and events.

> newsletter archive

tax topics
 

2013-Budget-header

Incentives for Expanding Manufacturing and Insourcing Jobs in America

Provide New Manufacturing Communities Tax Credit

The Administration proposes to provide about $2 billion in tax credits per year between 2012 and 2014 to support investments in communities that have suffered a major job loss event, such as the happens when a military base closes or a major private employer closes or substantially reduces a facility or operating unit. Applicants for the credit would be required to consult with relevant state of local Economic Development Agencies in selecting those investments that receive a credit. The Administration proposes to work with Congress to craft the appropriate structure and selection criteria.

The rationale for this credit is that communities can be devastated by loss of a major employer and the credits would encourage investments that would help those communities recover. Because the credit is allocated, it works very much like a direct spending program, except that the money comes from the IRS in the form of a tax rebate instead from the agency determining who gets the grants.

Make the Research and Experimentation Tax Credit Permanent

Since its enactment as a temporary provision in 1981, the research and experimentation (R&E) tax credit has been extended, with modifications, 14 times. It expired on December 31, 2011. The president would reinstate the credit, make it permanent, and increase the rate of a simplified alternative credit option from 14 percent to 17 percent. Making the credit permanent (with a retroactive effective tax on January 1, 2012) would reduce federal receipts by $4.0 billion in fiscal year 2012 and another $108.5 billion over the subsequent ten years. The president has offered the same proposal in previous budgets..

The R&E credit is an incremental credit. Businesses may claim a nonrefundable credit equal to 20 percent of qualified expenditures in excess of a base amount. The base is generally determined by multiplying a company’s average annual gross receipts in the previous four years by its ratio of research expenses to gross receipts during the 1984 to 1988 period. (Companies that did not exist during the base period must use a fixed ratio of 3 percent.) The base cannot be less than 50 percent of qualified research expenses for the taxable year. Firms may elect to use an alternative simplified method that sets the credit at 14 percent of the increase of current-year qualified research expenses over 50 percent of the average of the same expenses for the previous three years. If the business does not have qualified expenses in any one of the three preceding years, then the alternative credit is determined by taking 6 percent of the current year’s qualified expenses. The president would increase the rate of the alternative credit from 14 to 17 percent.

The rationale for the credit is that investment in research and development often generates social returns (general knowledge or other social benefits) that exceed the private returns to investment. Without government intervention, firms would invest less in research than is socially desirable, making the economy less productive. Supporters argue that the credit provides an important stimulus to research spending. A 2008 Congressional Research Service report (cited below) found, however, that the credit delivered only a modest stimulus to domestic business research and development between 1997 and 2005. Making the credit permanent might increase its effectiveness because firms may currently forgo lengthy research projects for fear that Congress might allow the credit to lapse although, given past history, that fear could be overstated. Making the credit permanent would give a more realistic picture of its future budgetary costs; given the repeated extension of the credit, the sunset provision leads to an understatement of cost over the 10-year budget window. Critics of the credit acknowledge that some research generates social benefits not captured by the firms that perform it, but point out that not all qualifying research and development generates such excess benefits. The credit may also induce some firms to choose projects that qualify for the credit over those that generate higher returns.

Additional Resources

Congressional Research Service, Research and Experimentation Tax Credit: Current Status and Selected Issues for Congress (CRS Report RL31181, updated October 6, 2008).
Government Accountability Office, The Research Tax Credit’s Design and Administration Can Be Improved (GAO-10-136) November 6, 2009.
Joint Committee on Taxation, Tax Incentives for Research, Experimentation, and Innovation (JCX-45-11), September 16, 2011.
United States Department of the Treasury, Investing in U.S. Competitiveness: The Benefits of Enhancing the Research and Experimentation (R&E) Tax Credit, March 25, 2011.