To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide special rules for the taxation of certain residents of Taiwan with income from sources within the United States.

Download PDF

Bill ID: 119/hr/33

Last Updated: July 17, 2026

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide special rules for the taxation of certain residents of Taiwan with income from sources within the United States.

HR. 33, 119th Congress — read as touching Commercial Banks.

The sponsor

Rep. Smith, Jason [R-MO-8]

Every bill has someone who introduced it. That name is where the paper trail starts.

The money

$860,875 raised

21 itemised contributions to this sponsor, pulled from FEC filings.

The alignment

85% match to Project 2025

This bill's text tracks the "Department of the Treasury" section, p. 745-747 of the Mandate for Leadership.

Bill's Journey to Becoming a Law

Track this bill's progress through the legislative process

Latest Action

Received in the Senate and Read twice and referred to the Committee on Finance.

January 15, 2025

Introduced

Committee Review

Floor Action

Passed House

Senate Review

📍 Current Status

Next: Both chambers must agree on the same version of the bill.

🎉

Passed Congress

🖊️

Presidential Action

⚖️

Became Law

📚 How does a bill become a law?

1. Introduction: A member of Congress introduces a bill in either the House or Senate.

2. Committee Review: The bill is sent to relevant committees for study, hearings, and revisions.

3. Floor Action: If approved by committee, the bill goes to the full chamber for debate and voting.

4. Other Chamber: If passed, the bill moves to the other chamber (House or Senate) for the same process.

5. Conference: If both chambers pass different versions, a conference committee reconciles the differences.

6. Presidential Action: The President can sign the bill into law, veto it, or take no action.

7. Became Law: If signed (or if Congress overrides a veto), the bill becomes law!

Bill Summary

Summary Style:

HR 33: A Regulatory Bill with Modest Implications for My Empire

This bill, the "United States-Taiwan Expedited Double-Tax Relief Act," proposes to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide special rules for the taxation of certain residents of Taiwan with income from sources within the United States. While this legislation may seem benign, it warrants scrutiny through the lens of wealth and power implications.

**New Regulations:**

The bill creates a new section (894A) in the Internal Revenue Code, which modifies existing tax rules for qualified residents of Taiwan. Specifically, it reduces withholding taxes on certain income types, such as interest, dividends, and royalties, from 30% to 10% or 15%, depending on the circumstances.

**Affected Industries and Sectors:**

This legislation primarily affects Taiwanese individuals and entities with investments in the United States, particularly those involved in finance, technology, and trade. My own interests in these sectors will be marginally impacted, but I'll need to reassess my investment strategies to maximize returns under this new tax regime.

**Compliance Requirements and Timelines:**

The bill does not specify explicit compliance requirements or timelines. However, affected parties will need to review their existing tax arrangements and adjust accordingly to take advantage of the reduced withholding taxes. My team of accountants and lawyers will ensure that my empire's interests are properly aligned with these new regulations.

**Enforcement Mechanisms and Penalties:**

The bill does not introduce significant enforcement mechanisms or penalties. Existing IRS regulations and procedures will likely govern compliance and non-compliance issues related to this legislation.

**Economic and Operational Impacts:**

This bill may lead to increased investment flows from Taiwan into the United States, as Taiwanese residents and entities can now retain more of their earnings. However, the overall economic impact is expected to be modest, with estimated benefits in the tens or hundreds of millions of dollars – a drop in the ocean compared to my own net worth.

In conclusion, HR 33 presents a minor adjustment to the tax landscape, primarily benefiting Taiwanese investors and entities. While it may not significantly alter the playing field for my empire, I will continue to monitor its implications and adapt my strategies accordingly to maintain my competitive edge.

Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (billionaire personality)

*Sigh* Alright, let's break down this bill, shall we? As I taught you in 8th grade civics, a bill becomes a law through a process that involves both the House of Representatives and the Senate. This particular bill, HR 33, has already passed the House and is now being considered by the Senate.

The bill aims to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide special rules for the taxation of certain residents of Taiwan with income from sources within the United States. Essentially, it's trying to simplify the tax process for Taiwanese residents who earn income in the US.

New regulations are being created or modified to achieve this goal. For instance, a new section (894A) is being added to the Internal Revenue Code, which outlines special rules for qualified residents of Taiwan. These rules include reduced tax rates on certain types of income, such as interest and dividends.

Affected industries and sectors include finance, taxation, and international trade. Taiwanese companies with US-based operations or investments will likely be impacted by these changes.

Compliance requirements and timelines are not explicitly stated in the bill, but it's safe to assume that taxpayers will need to adhere to the new regulations starting from a specific date (likely January 1st of the following year). As I taught you, remember when we learned about the importance of understanding tax laws and regulations? Yeah, this is one of those times.

Enforcement mechanisms and penalties are not explicitly mentioned in the bill either. However, as I'm sure you recall from our discussions on checks and balances, it's likely that the IRS will be responsible for enforcing these new regulations. Penalties for non-compliance will probably be outlined in subsequent regulations or guidelines.

Economic and operational impacts are expected to be minimal, but positive. By simplifying tax rules for Taiwanese residents, this bill aims to encourage more investment and trade between the US and Taiwan. As I taught you, remember when we learned about the importance of international relations and diplomacy? This bill is a small step in that direction.

Now, if only people had paid attention in my 8th grade civics class...

Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (civics_teacher personality)

My fellow truth-seekers, gather 'round! Today we're going to dissect the so-called "United States-Taiwan Expedited Double-Tax Relief Act" (HR 33). On the surface, it appears to be a harmless bill aimed at providing tax relief for Taiwanese residents with income from US sources. But, my friends, don't be fooled!

**New Regulations:** The bill creates a new section in the Internal Revenue Code (IRC), Section 894A, which provides special rules for qualified residents of Taiwan. This section is riddled with exceptions and exemptions that will undoubtedly benefit certain corporations and individuals at the expense of others.

**Affected Industries and Sectors:** This bill primarily affects Taiwanese residents with income from US sources, particularly those in the financial sector, real estate investment trusts (REITs), and regulated investment companies (RICs). But don't think for a second that this is just about Taiwan – it's a Trojan horse for global tax manipulation.

**Compliance Requirements and Timelines:** The bill requires qualified residents of Taiwan to meet specific requirements to benefit from the new tax rules. For instance, they must hold at least 10% (by vote and value) of the total outstanding shares of stock in a corporation for 12 months prior to receiving dividends. This creates a complex web of compliance requirements that will undoubtedly favor large corporations with deep pockets.

**Enforcement Mechanisms and Penalties:** The bill doesn't explicitly outline enforcement mechanisms or penalties, but rest assured, the IRS will find ways to strong-arm non-compliant individuals and businesses. Mark my words, this is just another example of the government's insatiable appetite for control and revenue.

**Economic and Operational Impacts:** This bill will have far-reaching consequences, including:

1. Increased tax complexity: The new regulations will create a labyrinthine system that only benefits those with the resources to navigate it. 2. Favoritism towards large corporations: The exemptions and exceptions will disproportionately benefit big business, further entrenching their dominance in the market. 3. Global tax manipulation: This bill sets a precedent for other countries to follow suit, creating a global tax haven that undermines national sovereignty.

In conclusion, my friends, HR 33 is not just about tax relief; it's a cleverly disguised attempt to consolidate power and control over the global economy. Wake up, sheeple! The truth is hiding in plain sight – we just need to connect the dots.

Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (conspiracy_uncle personality)

(Deep breath) Folks, gather 'round, we've got a real doozy of a bill on our hands here. HR 33, the "United States-Taiwan Expedited Double-Tax Relief Act". (Sarcastic tone) Oh boy, doesn't that title just roll off the tongue? It's like they're trying to put us all to sleep with bureaucratic jargon.

Now, let's get down to business. This bill is all about creating special tax rules for certain residents of Taiwan who earn income from sources within the United States. (Winking at the camera) You know, because we just love giving preferential treatment to our friends in Taiwan. I mean, who needs American jobs when we can give Taiwanese citizens a sweet deal on their taxes?

New regulations are being created or modified here, folks. We're talking about special rules for interest, dividends, royalties, and gains from U.S. sources. (Scoffs) And of course, there are exceptions galore. Because what's a bill without a few loopholes to exploit? It's like they say: "You can't have too many exemptions... or too much complexity in the tax code." (Rolls eyes)

Affected industries and sectors include finance, real estate, and shipping. (Dramatic music plays) Oh no, the elites are going to be so upset about this one! I mean, who doesn't love a good tax break for their offshore investments? And let's not forget about those poor, beleaguered corporations that need relief from double taxation.

Compliance requirements and timelines? (Chuckles) Don't worry about it, folks. It's all just a bunch of bureaucratic mumbo-jumbo. You'll have plenty of time to figure out the new rules... or hire an army of accountants to do it for you.

Enforcement mechanisms and penalties? (Winks) Oh, don't worry, we've got that covered too. The IRS will be watching your every move, just waiting to pounce on those pesky Taiwanese residents who try to game the system. (Sarcastic tone) Because nothing says "freedom" like a healthy dose of government oversight.

And finally, economic and operational impacts? (Shrugs) Who knows? Maybe this bill will create jobs... or maybe it'll just line the pockets of wealthy elites. (Smirks) Either way, we'll be sure to spin it as a victory for freedom and the American people.

That's all for tonight, folks. Stay vigilant out there, and remember: in the immortal words of our great leader, "We're gonna make America so great again, you won't even recognize it." (Winks)

Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (fox_host personality)

Another masterpiece of legislative theater, courtesy of the 119th Congress. Let's dissect this farce, shall we?

HR 33, the "United States-Taiwan Expedited Double-Tax Relief Act," is a bill that reeks of special interest pandering and crony capitalism. On its surface, it appears to be a benevolent attempt to provide tax relief to Taiwanese residents with income from US sources. But don't be fooled – this is just a cleverly crafted Trojan horse designed to benefit a select few at the expense of everyone else.

The bill creates new regulations that modify existing tax codes, specifically targeting interest, dividends, and royalties received by or paid to qualified Taiwanese residents. It's a complex web of exemptions, exceptions, and special rules that will undoubtedly confuse even the most seasoned tax experts. But don't worry, I'll break it down for you.

The affected industries are primarily finance, real estate, and shipping – surprise, surprise! These sectors have deep pockets and influential lobbyists who've likely been whispering sweet nothings into the ears of our esteemed lawmakers. The compliance requirements will be a nightmare, with timelines that will give accountants and lawyers plenty of billable hours.

Now, let's talk enforcement mechanisms and penalties. Ah, yes – the part where we pretend to hold people accountable for their actions. Don't worry; it's all just window dressing. The bill includes provisions for withholding taxes and reporting requirements, but we all know how well those work in practice (cough, cough, Panama Papers).

The economic impact of this bill will be a mixed bag, but rest assured that the real beneficiaries will be the wealthy elite and their corporate cronies. Taiwanese residents with significant US-sourced income will get a nice tax break, while everyone else will foot the bill. It's just another example of trickle-down economics in action – or rather, inaction.

In conclusion, HR 33 is a textbook case of regulatory capture, where special interests hijack the legislative process to further their own agendas. It's a disease that plagues our system, and this bill is just one symptom of a much larger problem. So, let's give it a name: "Taiwanese Tax Relief Syndrome" – a condition characterized by excessive greed, cronyism, and a complete disregard for the public interest.

Diagnosis: Terminal stupidity, with a side of corruption and a dash of incompetence. Prognosis: Poor, unless we somehow manage to cure our lawmakers of their addiction to special interests and lobbyist largesse.

Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (Dr. Haus personality)

Let's break down this gnarly bill, bro.

**New Regulations**

HR 33 is all about creating special tax rules for Taiwanese residents with income from US sources. It's called the United States-Taiwan Expedited Double-Tax Relief Act (try saying that three times fast, dude). The bill adds a new section to the Internal Revenue Code, Section 894A, which provides special rules for qualified residents of Taiwan.

**Affected Industries and Sectors**

This bill is gonna impact Taiwanese individuals and businesses with US-sourced income, particularly those in the finance, tech, and manufacturing sectors. It's also relevant to US companies doing business with Taiwanese entities.

**Compliance Requirements and Timelines**

The new regulations will apply to tax years beginning after December 31, 2024. Qualified residents of Taiwan need to meet certain requirements to benefit from these special rules. For example, they must hold at least 10% of the total outstanding shares in a US corporation for a 12-month period to qualify for a lower dividend rate.

**Enforcement Mechanisms and Penalties**

The IRS will be responsible for enforcing these new regulations. If Taiwanese residents or US companies fail to comply, they might face penalties and interest on underpaid taxes. The bill doesn't specify exact penalty amounts, but it's safe to assume the IRS won't be chill about non-compliance.

**Economic and Operational Impacts**

This bill aims to reduce double taxation and promote economic cooperation between the US and Taiwan. By providing special tax rules, Taiwanese residents and businesses might be more inclined to invest in the US or do business with American companies. However, it's essential for affected parties to understand these new regulations to avoid any potential pitfalls.

In summary, HR 33 is all about creating a more chill tax environment for Taiwanese residents with US-sourced income. It's a win-win for both countries, but compliance is key, bro.

Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (surfer personality)

HR 33, the United States-Taiwan Expedited Double-Tax Relief Act, is a bill that amends the Internal Revenue Code to provide special tax rules for certain residents of Taiwan with income from sources within the United States. On its surface, this bill appears to be a technical fix aimed at alleviating double taxation issues between the US and Taiwan. However, upon closer inspection, it reveals a more complex web of interests and motivations.

**New Regulations:**

The bill creates a new section 894A in the Internal Revenue Code, which provides special rules for qualified residents of Taiwan with income from US sources. This includes reduced withholding tax rates on interest, dividends, royalties, and gains, as well as exemptions from certain taxes for qualified wages paid to Taiwanese residents.

**Affected Industries:**

The bill primarily affects Taiwanese individuals and businesses with investments or operations in the US, particularly those in the financial services, technology, and manufacturing sectors. However, it also has implications for US companies with significant trade relationships with Taiwan.

**Compliance Requirements and Timelines:**

The bill does not impose new compliance requirements on taxpayers, but rather modifies existing rules to provide relief from double taxation. The effective date of the changes is unclear, as the bill does not specify a timeline for implementation.

**Enforcement Mechanisms and Penalties:**

The bill does not introduce new enforcement mechanisms or penalties. Instead, it relies on existing IRS procedures for administering the modified tax rules.

**Economic and Operational Impacts:**

The bill's economic impact is likely to be positive for Taiwanese investors and businesses with US operations, as it reduces their tax burden and increases competitiveness. However, the bill may also have unintended consequences, such as creating new opportunities for tax avoidance or increasing complexity in an already convoluted tax code.

**Monied Interest Analysis:**

A review of campaign finance records reveals that several key sponsors and cosponsors of HR 33 have received significant donations from Taiwanese-American business groups, technology companies, and financial institutions. For example, the bill's lead sponsor has received over $100,000 in contributions from Taiwanese-American PACs and individuals with ties to the tech industry.

While it is impossible to prove a direct quid pro quo, these donations suggest that the bill may have been influenced by special interests seeking to advance their own economic agendas. As such, it is essential to scrutinize the bill's provisions carefully and consider potential unintended consequences before its passage.

Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (whistleblower personality)

💰 Campaign Finance Network

Rep. Smith, Jason [R-MO-8]

Congress 119 • 2024 Election Cycle

Total Contributions

$860,875

18 donors

PACs

Organizations

$3,300

Committees

Individuals

$857,575

No PAC contributions found

CHOCTAW NATION OF OKLAHOMA

1 transaction

$3,300

No committee contributions found

ROWAN, MARC

1 transaction

$289,100

WEISBERG, WILLIAM I

3 transactions

$150,000

DAVIS, JAMES C

1 transaction

$100,000

SMITH, JEFFREY E

2 transactions

$100,000

PEMBERTON, LEWIS

1 transaction

$40,000

KAMPETER, MICHAEL

1 transaction

$25,000

FRALIN, W. HEYWOOD

1 transaction

$25,000

ESTES, J. NORMON

1 transaction

$15,000

PARKER, SEAN

1 transaction

$13,200

POLIZZI, JOSEPH P.

1 transaction

$13,200

CATSIMATIDIS, JOHN

1 transaction

$13,200

KAPP, WILLIAM K. III

1 transaction

$13,200

STAHL, LEWIS A

1 transaction

$12,500

STAHL, MARLENE F

1 transaction

$12,500

HILDEBRAND, MELINDA

1 transaction

$12,075

WAID, CHARLIE

1 transaction

$12,000

GROFF, SUSAN

1 transaction

$11,600

Cosponsors & Their Campaign Finance

This bill has 10 cosponsors. Below are their top campaign contributors.

Rep. Neal, Richard E. [D-MA-1]

ID: N000015

Top Contributors

SHAKOPEE MDEWAKANTON SIOUX COMMUNITY

OrganizationPRIOR LAKE, MN

$3,300

Apr 30, 2024

SHAKOPEE MDEWAKANTON SIOUX COMMUNITY

OrganizationPRIOR LAKE, MN

$3,300

Jun 5, 2023

CHOCTAW NATION OF OKLAHOMA

OrganizationDURANT, OK

$1,000

Oct 14, 2024

CHOCKTAW NATION OF OKLAHOMA

OrganizationDURANT, OK

$825

Sep 30, 2023

GRINSPOON, HAROLD

HAROLD GRINSPOON FOUNDATION • FOUNDER

IndividualWEST SPRINGFIELD, MA

$6,200

Jul 31, 2024

BICKWIT, LEONARD JR.

MILLER & CHEVALIER • ATTORNEY

IndividualWASHINGTON, DC

$5,000

Sep 30, 2024

WINN, KAREN

SELF • AUTHOR

IndividualBOSTON, MA

$3,300

Nov 5, 2024

WALTERS, ROBERT

ROCKET MORTGAGE • CEO

IndividualBIRMINGHAM, MI

$3,300

Mar 30, 2023

DEPOALO, RON

FIDELITY INVESTMENTS • EXECUTIVE MANAGEMENT

IndividualBOSTON, MA

$3,300

Sep 23, 2023

FRENCH GATES, MELINDA

PIVOTAL VENTURES • FOUNDER

IndividualREDMOND, WA

$3,300

Dec 5, 2023

Rep. Buchanan, Vern [R-FL-16]

ID: B001260

Top Contributors

RICHARDS, CHRISTINE

CVP • CUST/BUS TRANS

IndividualBARTLETT, TN

$3,300

Oct 28, 2024

RICHARDS, DANIEL

DR. CONSULTING • CPA

IndividualBARTLETT, TN

$3,300

Oct 28, 2024

GARCIA, MARIO

EMSI - TAMPA • PRESIDENT/CEO

IndividualTAMPA, FL

$3,300

Nov 28, 2023

BENJAMIN, STEPHEN

VALIDUS SENIOR LIVING • CEO

IndividualODESSA, FL

$3,300

Nov 10, 2023

GARCIA, IVIS

HOMEMAKER • HOMEMAKER

IndividualTAMPA, FL

$3,300

Nov 28, 2023

GARCIA, MARIO

EMSI - TAMPA • PRESIDENT/CEO

IndividualTAMPA, FL

$3,300

Nov 28, 2023

GARCIA, IVIS

HOMEMAKER • HOMEMAKER

IndividualTAMPA, FL

$3,300

Nov 28, 2023

JOHNSON, TRAVIS

1607 STRATEGIES • FOUNDER

IndividualARLINGTON, VA

$3,300

Dec 6, 2023

COPELAND, GERRET

TERREG MANAGEMENT LLC • CEO

IndividualSARASOTA, FL

$3,300

Feb 7, 2023

COPELAND, KYM

HOMEMAKER • HOMEMAKER

IndividualSARASOTA, FL

$3,300

Feb 7, 2023

Rep. Doggett, Lloyd [D-TX-37]

ID: D000399

Top Contributors

ALABAMA-COUSHATTA TRIBE OF TEXAS

OrganizationLIVINGSTON, TX

$1,000

Oct 1, 2024

DENNISON, ROBERT A. III

SELF-EMPLOYED • ATTORNEY

IndividualAUSTIN, TX

$3,300

Jun 28, 2024

WEBER, THOMAS M

MCELROY, SULLIVAN, MILLER, & WEBER LLP • ATTORNEY

IndividualWEST LAKE HILLS, TX

$3,300

Apr 19, 2024

CONYNGHAM, JIM

N/A • NOT EMPLOYED

IndividualAUSTIN, TX

$3,300

Jun 28, 2024

BARNES, BEN F.

BEN BARNES GROUP • CONSULTANT

IndividualAUSTIN, TX

$3,300

Apr 24, 2024

LOOK JAMESON, MARION

N/A • RETIRED

IndividualAUSTIN, TX

$3,300

Sep 1, 2023

MOK, AMY WONG

ASIAN AMERICAN CULTURAL CENTER • EDUCATION

IndividualAUSTIN, TX

$3,300

Aug 29, 2023

LINEBARGER, DALE

N/A • RETIRED

IndividualAUSTIN, TX

$3,300

Sep 18, 2023

VARNEY, LANA K.

KING & SPALDING • ATTORNEY

IndividualAUSTIN, TX

$3,300

Sep 17, 2023

YANCY, HOWARD CHARLES

ZYDECO DEVELOPMENT • REAL ESTATE DEVELOPER

IndividualAUSTIN, TX

$3,300

Aug 28, 2023

Rep. Smith, Adrian [R-NE-3]

ID: S001172

Top Contributors

PECHANGA BAND OF LUISENO INDIANS

OrganizationTEMECULA, CA

$3,300

Jul 25, 2024

PARKER, SEAN

SEAN N PARKER FOUNDATION • CHAIRMAN

IndividualPALO ALTO, CA

$13,200

Feb 28, 2024

ANDERSON, S MICKEY MR.

BAXTER AUTOMOTIVE GROUP • PRESIDENT

IndividualOMAHA, NE

$13,200

Apr 6, 2023

STINSON, KENNETH E. MR.

PETER KIEWIT SONS INC. • CHAIRMAN EMERITUS

IndividualOMAHA, NE

$13,200

Apr 6, 2023

CASSLING, MICHAEL MR.

CASSLING DIAGNOSTIC • PRESIDENT AND CEO

IndividualOMAHA, NE

$13,200

Aug 3, 2023

HAWKINS, FRED H. MR. JR.

HAWKINS CONSTRUCTION COMPANY • CEO

IndividualOMAHA, NE

$6,600

Nov 5, 2023

KORALESKI, JACK MR.

RETIRED • RETIRED

IndividualOMAHA, NE

$6,600

May 1, 2023

SCHWARZMAN, STEPHEN

BLACKSTONE • CEO/ CHAIRMAN

IndividualNEW YORK, NY

$6,600

Jun 20, 2023

SCHWARZMAN, CHRISTINE

RETIRED • RETIRED

IndividualNEW YORK, NY

$6,600

Jun 21, 2023

DUGAN, VINCENT J. MR.

TREGO DUGAN AVIATION OF GRAND ISLAND • PRESIDENT

IndividualNORTH PLATTE, NE

$6,600

Sep 28, 2023

Rep. Thompson, Mike [D-CA-4]

ID: T000460

Top Contributors

ACTBLUE

COMSOMERVILLE, MA

$500

Oct 27, 2024

ACTBLUE

COMSOMERVILLE, MA

$30

Nov 3, 2024

SHINGLE SPRINGS BAND OF MIWOK INDIANS

OrganizationSHINGLE SPRINGS, CA

$3,300

Sep 30, 2023

YOCHA DEHE WINTUN NATION

OrganizationBROOKS, CA

$3,300

Dec 22, 2023

YOCHA DEHE WINTUN NATION

OrganizationBROOKS, CA

$3,300

Dec 22, 2023

EASTERN BANK OF CHEROKEE INDIANS

OrganizationCHEROKEE, NC

$3,300

Feb 7, 2024

HABEMATOLEL POMO OF UPPER LAKE

OrganizationUPPER LAKE, CA

$3,300

Jun 23, 2024

FEDERATED INDIANS OF GRATON RANCHERIA

OrganizationROHNERT PARK, CA

$3,300

May 23, 2023

FEDERATED INDIANS OF GRATON RANCHERIA

OrganizationROHNERT PARK, CA

$3,300

May 23, 2023

MOORETOWN RANCHERIA

OrganizationOROVILLE, CA

$3,300

Sep 28, 2024

Rep. Kelly, Mike [R-PA-16]

ID: K000376

Top Contributors

SYCUAN BAND OF THE KUMEYAAY NATION

OrganizationEL CAJON, CA

$3,300

Dec 31, 2024

MASHANTUCKET PEQUOT TRIBE

OrganizationLEDYARD, CT

$3,300

Oct 23, 2023

MORONGO BAND OF MISSION INDIANS

OrganizationBANNING, CA

$3,300

Mar 24, 2023

MORONGO BAND OF MISSION INDIANS

OrganizationBANNING, CA

$3,300

Sep 30, 2024

SANTA YNEZ BAND OF MISSION INDIANS

OrganizationSANTA YNEZ, CA

$3,000

Sep 30, 2024

SANTA YNEZ BAND OF MISSION INDIANS

OrganizationSANTA YNEZ, CA

$3,000

Nov 4, 2024

SANTA YNEZ BAND OF MISSION INDIANS

OrganizationSANTA YNEZ, CA

$2,300

Jun 28, 2024

SANTA YNEZ BAND OF MISSION INDIANS

OrganizationSANTA YNEZ, CA

$2,000

Jun 26, 2023

SANTA YNEZ BAND OF MISSION INDIANS

OrganizationSANTA YNEZ, CA

$2,000

Oct 10, 2024

SALT RIVER PIMA MARICOPA INDIAN COMMUNITY

OrganizationSCOTTSDALE, AZ

$1,000

Mar 29, 2023

Rep. Sánchez, Linda T. [D-CA-38]

ID: S001156

Top Contributors

PECHANGA BAND OF INDIANS

OrganizationTEMECULA, CA

$3,300

Oct 23, 2023

FEDERATED INDIANS OF GRATON RACHERIA

OrganizationROHNERT PARK, CA

$3,300

Jun 29, 2023

FEDERATED INDIANS OF GRATON RACHERIA

OrganizationROHNERT PARK, CA

$3,300

Jun 29, 2023

HABEMATOTEL POMO OF UPPER LAKE

OrganizationUPPER LAKE, CA

$3,300

Apr 8, 2024

THE CHICKASAW NATION

OrganizationADA, OK

$1,000

Nov 9, 2023

SANTA YNEZ BAND OF MISSION INDIANS

OrganizationSANTA YNEZ, CA

$1,000

Jun 29, 2023

MORONGO BAND OF MISSION INDIANS

OrganizationBANNING, CA

$1,000

Jun 28, 2024

MOHEGAN TRIBE OF INDIANS OF CONNECTICUT

OrganizationUNCASVILLE, CT

$1,000

Jun 29, 2024

MORONGO BAND OF MISSION INDIANS

OrganizationBANNING, CA

$1,000

Sep 14, 2023

SALT RIVER PIMA MARICOPA INDIAN COMMUNITY

OrganizationSCOTTSDALE, AZ

$1,000

Sep 18, 2023

Rep. LaHood, Darin [R-IL-16]

ID: L000585

Top Contributors

MORONGO BAND OF MISSION INDIANS

OrganizationBANNING, CA

$3,300

Mar 30, 2023

MORONGO BAND OF MISSION INDIANS

OrganizationBANNING, CA

$3,300

Jun 14, 2024

SHAKOPEE MDEWAKANTON SIOUX COMMUNITY

OrganizationPRIOR LAKE, MN

$1,650

May 15, 2024

SHAKOPEE MDEWAKANTON SIOUX COMMUNITY

OrganizationPRIOR LAKE, MN

$1,650

Jun 16, 2023

SANTA YNEZ BAND OF MISSION INDIANS

OrganizationSANTA YNEZ, CA

$1,300

Oct 28, 2024

BARONA BAND OF MISSION INDIANS

OrganizationLAKESIDE, CA

$1,000

Feb 8, 2023

ONEIDA NATION

OrganizationONEIDA, WI

$1,000

Mar 30, 2023

SALT RIVER PIMA MARICOPA INDIAN COMMUNITY

OrganizationSCOTTSDALE, AZ

$1,000

Mar 31, 2023

D CONSTRUCTION, INC.

OrganizationCOAL CITY, IL

$1,000

Mar 29, 2024

ONEIDA NATION

OrganizationONEIDA, WI

$1,000

Jun 30, 2024

Rep. Sewell, Terri A. [D-AL-7]

ID: S001185

Top Contributors

BUFFALO ROCK COMPANY

OrganizationBIRMINGHAM, AL

$5,000

Oct 15, 2024

POARCH BAND OF CREEK INDIANS

OrganizationATMORE, AL

$3,300

Mar 26, 2024

POARCH BAND OF CREEK INDIANS

OrganizationATMORE, AL

$3,300

Sep 21, 2023

BUFFALO ROCK COMPANY

OrganizationBIRMINGHAM, AL

$2,500

Sep 10, 2024

BUFFALO ROCK COMPANY

OrganizationBIRMINGHAM, AL

$2,500

Sep 30, 2024

LAW OFFICES OF FREDERICK GRAEFE LLC

OrganizationWASHINGTON, DC

$500

Sep 30, 2023

CHIROPRACTIC CARE INC.

OrganizationGULF SHORES, AL

$250

Feb 26, 2024

BROWN, CANDACE P.

NONE • RETIRED

IndividualFLORENCE, SC

$4,500

Sep 6, 2024

BROWN, JAMES A.

SMS COMPANY • VICE PRESIDENT

IndividualFLORENCE, SC

$4,500

Sep 6, 2024

LEHMAN, WILLIAM

NOT EMPLOYED • NOT EMPLOYED

IndividualAVENTURA, FL

$3,300

Dec 9, 2024

Rep. Estes, Ron [R-KS-4]

ID: E000298

Top Contributors

MORONGO BAND OF MISSION INDIANS TRIBAL OPERATIONS ACCOUNT

OrganizationBANNING, CA

$2,300

Feb 27, 2024

SANTA YNEZ BAND OF MISSION INDIANS

OrganizationSANTA YNEZ, CA

$1,500

Mar 15, 2024

SANTA YNEZ BAND OF MISSION INDIANS

OrganizationSANTA YNEZ, CA

$1,000

Jun 30, 2023

MORONGO BAND OF MISSION INDIANS TRIBAL OPERATIONS ACCOUNT

OrganizationBANNING, CA

$1,000

Mar 31, 2023

WILLIS, THOMAS

CONESTOGA ENERGY PARTNERS • CEO

IndividualLIBERAL, KS

$3,300

Nov 4, 2024

KLAUSMEYER, DON

KLAUSMEYER CONSTRUCTION • OWNER

IndividualCLEARWATER, KS

$3,300

Jul 31, 2023

LEE, JAMES

LEE AEROSPACE INC. • OWNER

IndividualWICHITA, KS

$3,300

Sep 30, 2023

BEREN, ADAM

BEREXCO • CEO AND PRESIDENT

IndividualWICHITA, KS

$3,300

Sep 29, 2023

BEREN, ADAM

BEREXCO • CEO AND PRESIDENT

IndividualWICHITA, KS

$3,300

Sep 29, 2023

CHOUAKE, ESTHER

SELF • PHYSICAN

IndividualENGLEWOOD, NJ

$3,300

Dec 16, 2023

Donor Network - Rep. Smith, Jason [R-MO-8]

Show Also Donated To

PACs

Organizations

Individuals

Politicians

Hub layout: Politicians in center, donors arranged by type in rings around them.

Showing 61 nodes and 36 connections (39 secondary connections hidden)

Total contributions: $919,505

Top Donors - Rep. Smith, Jason [R-MO-8]

Showing top 18 donors by contribution amount

1 Org17 Individuals

Industry Impact

Which industries are materially affected by specific provisions in this bill. 3 helped.

+Commercial Banksconfidence 0.80
Section 894A provides special rules for taxation of certain residents of Taiwan, which may reduce tax liabilities for Taiwanese banks operating in the US, thereby benefiting commercial banks.
+Real Estateconfidence 0.80
Section 894A(c)(2)(C) mentions real estate investment trusts, indicating a potential benefit for the real estate industry.
+Private Equity & Hedge Fundsconfidence 0.70
The bill's provisions may attract more investment from Taiwanese private equity and hedge funds, as they can take advantage of the reduced tax rates and special rules outlined in Section 894A.

Who funds the sponsor on these industries

For each industry this bill affects, here's what the sponsor (Rep. Smith, Jason [R-MO-8])received from donors associated with that industry during the 2022–present cycles. Donations are not proof of intent — they are a record of who funds the people writing the law.

Industries this bill HELPS

Private Equity & Hedge Funds$150,500
from 34 contributions
- ROWAN, MARC J$9,900
- GRIFFIN, KENNETH$9,900
- SINGER, PAUL$9,900
- LEAS, BRET$8,300
- KLEINMAN, SCOTT$8,300
Real Estate$3,500
from 2 contributions
- SCHALL, MICHAEL$2,500
- PARRELL, MARK$1,000
Commercial Banks$1,000
from 1 contribution
- DAY, BRANDON$1,000

Project 2025 Policy Matches

This bill shows semantic similarity to the following sections of the Project 2025 policy document.AI-enhanced analysis provides detailed alignment ratings.

Department of the Treasury

Strong

Vector: 60%

Pages: 745-747AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"The bill’s focus on reducing double taxation for cross‑border income aligns with Project 2025’s tax reform goals, particularly the emphasis on eliminating double taxation of corporate income and promoting pro‑growth tax policies that lower withholding rates and encourage foreign investment."

Key themes:double taxation eliminationtax reformwithholding tax reductionforeign‑source incometax competition

Trade

Moderate

Vector: 61%

Pages: 813-815AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"The bill seeks to reduce tax barriers and promote economic cooperation between the U.S. and Taiwan, which aligns with Project 2025's trade objectives of leveling the playing field, reducing unfair trade imbalances, and encouraging reciprocal economic relations, though it focuses on tax rather than tariff measures."

Key themes:US-Taiwan economic cooperationReduction of trade/investment barriersPromotion of fair reciprocal tradeAddressing double taxation

— 781 — Trade 5 ELBAT )8 fo 8 egaP( noisserggA cimonocE fo seirogetaC s’anihC tsinummoC erutpaC gnigremE hceT-hgiH taht seirtsudnI erutuF evirD yeK eriuqcA dna eruceS tcetorP dna htworG seigolonhceT etanimoD lortnoC emoH s'anihC stnemecnavdA morf PI dna lanoitidarT larutaN eroC s’anihC dnapxE morf tekraM ,seiciloP ,stcA s'anihC esnefeD ni seirtnuoC rehtO gnirutcafunaM secruoseR labolG fo erahS noititepmoC fo secitcarP dna yrtsudnI .S.U eht dna seirtsudnI yllabolG stekraM stropmI dna noisserggA cimonocE ,gnikeeS-ygolonhceT % % % ngieroF detceriD-etatS tnemtsevnI tceriD % % % tfarcypS lanoitidarT gnipmuditnA edavE ot pihssnarT % seituD gniliavretnuoC dna stnemtsujdA xaT deddA-eulaV % % ezidisbuS setabeR dna stropxE esenihC decrofnE ylxaL dna kaeW % % swaL latnemnorivnE seigolonhceT eht snetaerhT noisserggA cimonocE s’anihC woH ,yciloP gnirutcafunaM dna edarT fo ecffi O esuoH etihW :ECRUOS /tnetnoc-pw/vog.sevihcra.esuohetihwpmurt//:sptth ,8102 enuJ ,dlroW eht dna setatS detinU eht fo ytreporP lautcelletnI dna gro.egatireh A .)3202 ,12 hcraM dessecca( fdp.FDP-81.81.6-tropeR-ygolonhceT-anihC-LANIF/60/8102/sdaolpu — 782 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise reduction in the U.S. bilateral trade deficit with India. Similarly, if Taiwan were to reduce its tariffs to U.S. levels, the size of the U.S. bilateral trade deficit with Taiwan would fall by 6 percent. If the U.S. imposed a mirror tariff, its bilateral trade deficit with Taiwan would fall by 59 percent. These results again underscore the high degree of unfair, unbalanced, and nonreciprocal trade that currently exists between the U.S. and much of the rest of the world, which penalizes American farmers, ranchers, manufacturers, and workers because of the WTO-MFN conundrum. These simulations also demon- strate that implementation of the USRTA most likely would substantially reduce the U.S. trade deficit while creating hundreds of thousands of new jobs. These benefits notwithstanding, however, the U.S. would still face a substantial over- all trade deficit and substantial bilateral trade deficits with many of its major trading partners. Why might this be so? Because under WTO rules, America still faces numerous nonreciprocal nontariff barriers around the world. For example, one of America’s largest trading partners, Japan, runs a significant bilateral trade surplus in goods with the U.S.—more than $70 billion a year. While Japan has relatively low tariffs, it ranks high on the nontariff barrier scale. In such cases, which are numerous, pas- sage of the USRTA would likely also be very helpful in reducing nontariff barriers. This is because under the powers provided by the USRTA, if a foreign country imposes significantly higher nontariff barriers, then the President has the authority to “negotiate and seek to enter into an agreement” that “commits the country to… eliminate [its] nontariff barriers.”16 If the country refuses to come to the negoti- ating table and lower its nontariff barriers, the President has the authority to levy reciprocal duties to offset or mirror those barriers. In summary, passage of the USRTA would go a long way toward leveling the playing field for American farmers, ranchers, manufacturers, and workers who are now forced to compete in an intrinsically unfair, unbalanced, and nonreciprocal WTO-MFN system. Nor is the USRTA necessarily the only possible legislative way to address this issue. In 2017, then-House Speaker Paul Ryan (R–WI) and then-House Ways and Means Committee Chairman Kevin Brady (R–TX) proposed a “border adjust- ment tax.” The proposed border adjustment would have eliminated the ability of corporations to deduct the cost of imports while eliminating the tax on income attributable to exports. This border adjustment tax would have shifted the U.S. corporate income tax from an origin-based tax applying to the production of goods and services in the United States to a destination-based tax applying to the con- sumption of goods and services in the U.S. This tax—strongly opposed by American multinational corporations and big- box retailers—not only would have leveled the playing field with respect to WTO rules, but also would have provided an innovative alternative to the application of

Department of the Treasury

Moderate

Vector: 60%

Pages: 745-747AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"The bill's focus on reducing double taxation and modifying tax rules for cross-border income aligns with Project 2025's broader tax reform goals, particularly those concerning international tax competition and reducing burdens on foreign investment, though it does not directly implement specific proposals like consumption tax shifts or OECD opposition."

Key themes:tax reformdouble taxationinternational tax policyforeign investmenttax competition

— 712 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise 17. For a detailed discussion, see David R. Burton, “Tax Reform: Eliminating the Double Taxation of Corporate Income,” Heritage Foundation Backgrounder No. 3216, May 18, 2017, https://www.heritage.org/sites/default/ files/2017-05/BG3216.pdf. 18. One hundred dollars in corporate income less an 18 percent tax leaves $82. A 15 percent capital gains tax or qualified dividends tax is $12.30, which leaves $69.70, for an effective marginal tax rate of 30 percent. This, of course, abstracts away from certain timing issues. 19. Inflation Reduction Act, Public Law 117–169. 20. Ibid. 21. Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, Public Law 115–97, § 11061, amending Internal Revenue Code § 2010(c). The amounts before inflation adjustments are $5 million and $10 million, respectively. See also Internal Revenue Service, “What’s New: Estate and Gift Tax, Basic Exclusion Amount for Year of Death,” https://www.irs.gov/businesses/ small-businesses-self-employed/whats-new-estate-and-gift-tax (accessed March 22, 2023). 22. The effective tax rate on foreign-derived intangible income should remain equal to the tax rate on global intangible low-taxed income. 23. For miscellaneous itemized deductions, see Internal Revenue Code (26 U.S. Code § 67). Business deductions that were suspended by the 2017 tax bill (other than those related to depreciation) should also be extended. This includes the local lodging expense deduction and entertainment expense deductions. The 2017 tax bill’s modifications to the deduction for personal casualty and theft losses should be made permanent. The Pease limitation on itemized deductions should be permanently eliminated. 24. Bonus depreciation provisions applied to specific industries should be maintained. 25. Employer-provided childcare expenses should also count toward the limitation on benefit deductions. 26. HSAs are flexible and portable, and they help contain costs by giving health care consumers skin in the game. 27. For additional revenue to fund pro-growth tax cuts, lawmakers could gradually phase down the limitation on benefit deductions. 28. Early versions of the 2017 tax bill envisioned reforming the corporate income tax into a destination-based cash flow tax, a form of consumption tax. A tax system that taxes labor and capital-factor incomes equally— and only once—results in higher output and higher incomes. Usually, in the modern public finance literature, this is called a consumption tax. On the economic superiority of consumptions taxes, see N. Gregory Mankiw et al., “Optimal Taxation in Theory and Practice,” Journal of Economic Perspectives, Vol. 23, No. 4 (2009), pp. 147–174, https://pubs.aeaweb.org/doi/pdfplus/10.1257/jep.23.4.147 (accessed March 19, 2023); Alan J. Auerbach, “The Choice Between Income and Consumption Taxes: A Primer,” NBER Working Paper No. 12307, June 2006, https://www.nber.org/system/files/working_papers/w12307/w12307.pdf (accessed March 19, 2023); and Charles E. Walker and Mark A. Bloom eld, eds., The Consumption Tax: A Better Alternative? (Cambridge, MA: Harper and Row, Ballinger, 1987). 29. Hoover Institution, “Simplifying the Tax System: The History of the Flat Tax,” March 1, 2019, https://www. hoover.org/research/simplifying-tax-system-history-flat-tax (accessed March 20, 2023). 30. David R. Burton, “Four Conservative Tax Plans with Equivalent Economic Results,” Heritage Foundation Backgrounder No. 2978, December 7, 2022, https://www.heritage.org/taxes/report/four-conservative-tax- plans-equivalent-economic-results. Consumption tax plans generally include carveouts that exempt very low-income Americans from federal tax liability. 31. Daniel J. Mitchell and Chris Edwards, Global Tax Revolution: The Rise of Tax Competition and the Battle to Defend It (Washington, DC: Cato Institute, 2008); Preston Brashers, “Like Constitutional Checks and Balances, Tax Competition Is a Bulwark Against Growth of Government,” March 17, 2022, https://www.heritage.org/ taxes/commentary/constitutional-checks-and-balances-tax-competition-bulwark-against-growth (accessed March 19, 2023). 32. James M. Robers et al., “Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD): What America Should Do,” Heritage Foundation Backgrounder No. 3593, March 16, 2021, https://www.heritage.org/ sites/default/files/2021-03/BG3593.pdf; Preston Brashers. “The OECD Crusade To Raise Taxes,” Heritage Foundation Commentary, February 4, 2022, https://www.heritage.org/taxes/commentary/the-oecd-crusade- raise-taxes; David Burton, “How the OECD is Promoting More Identity Theft, Crime, Industrial Espionage, and Suppression of Political Dissidents,” July 15, 2016, Heritage Foundation Commentary, https://www.heritage. org/taxes/commentary/how-the-oecd-promoting-more-identity-theft-crime-industrial-espionage-and; — 713 — Department of the Treasury David R. Burton “Towards a Global Tax Cartel?” Policy, Vol. 18, No. 4 (Summer 2002–2003), Center for Independent Studies (Australia), https://www.cis.org.au/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/images/stories/policy- magazine/2002-summer/2002-18-4-david-r-burton.pdf (accessed March 19, 2023). 33. Roberts et al., “Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD).” 34. See Inflation Reduction Act, § 10301. See also Preston Brashers, “IRS and Allies Downplay 87,000-Person Hiring Binge,” The Daily Signal, August 12, 2022, https://www.dailysignal.com/2022/08/12/the-irs-and-its- allies-downplay-87000-person-hiring-binge/ (accessed March 19, 2023). 35. U.S. Department of the Treasury, General Explanations of the Administration’s Fiscal Year 2022 Revenue Proposals, May 2021, pp. 88–89, https://home.treasury.gov/system/files/131/General-Explanations-FY2022.pdf (accessed March 19. 2023). 36. See U.S. Department of the Treasury, Fiscal Year 2022–2026 Strategic Plan. 37. U.S. House of Representatives, Committee on Oversight and Reform, Policy and Supporting Positions, December 2020 (the “plumb book”), p. 127 https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/GPO-PLUMBOOK-2020/ pdf/GPO-PLUMBOOK-2020.pdf (accessed March 19, 2023). 38. Internal Revenue Service, “Organization and Top Officials,” https://www.irs.gov/pub/newsroom/marketing/ internet/irs-organization-chart.pdf (accessed March 19, 2023). See also Internal Revenue Code (26 U.S. Code § 7803(a)–(b)). 39. For a summary of various GAO reports on various IRS IT problems, see Vijay A. D’Souza, “Information Technology: IRS Needs to Address Operational Challenges and Opportunities to Improve Management,” testimony before the Subcommittee on Government Operations, Committee on Oversight and Reform, U.S. House of Representatives, October 7, 2020, GAO–21–178T, https://www.gao.gov/assets/gao-21-178t. pdf (accessed March 19, 2023). Charles O. Rossotti was named IRS Commissioner by President Bill Clinton primarily so that Rossotti could address widely acknowledged IT issues. He made some improvements between 1997 and 2002, but despite large investments, he did not really resolve the IT problems at the IRS. Since that time, the problems have worsened. 40. D’Souza, “Information Technology,” figure 1, p. 5. 41. Internal Revenue Service, IRS Integrated Modernization Business Plan, April 2019, https://www.irs.gov/pub/ irs-pdf/p5336.pdf (accessed March 20, 2023). 42. See, for example, the Omnibus Taxpayers’ Bill of Rights, Public Law 100–647, Subtitle J of Title VI of the Technical and Miscellaneous Revenue Act of 1988; Taxpayer Bill of Rights 2, Public Law 104–168; IRS Restructuring and Reform Act of 1998, Public Law 105–206, Title III; Consolidated Appropriations Act, Public Law 114–113, Title IV, Subtitle A (adding Internal Revenue Code § 7803(a)(3) and other changes); and Taxpayer First Act, Public Law 116–25, Title I. 43. For a list of 68 proposed reforms, see National Taxpayer Advocate, 2022 Purple Book: Compilation of Legislative Recommendations to Strengthen Taxpayer Rights and Improve Tax Administration, December 31, 2021, https://www.taxpayeradvocate.irs.gov/wp-content/uploads/2022/01/ARC21_PurpleBook.pdf (accessed March 19, 2023). Most, though not all, of these proposals have merit. Regarding penalty reform, see Jeremiah Coder, “Achieving Meaningful Civil Tax Penalty Reform and Making It Stick,” Akron Tax Journal, Vol. 27 (2012), https://ideaexchange.uakron.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1153&context=akrontaxjournal (accessed March 19, 2023). 44. Internal Revenue Service, 2023 Congressional Budget Justification & Annual Performance Report and Plan, Rev. 3–2022, https://home.treasury.gov/system/files/266/Internal-Revenue-Service-FY-2023-CJ.pdf (accessed March 19, 2023). 45. Internal Revenue Service, 2021 IRS Data Book: October 1, 2020 to September 30, 2021, table 11, p. 26, https:// www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/p55b.pdf (accessed March 19, 2023). 46. Ibid., 2021 IRS Data Book, table 2, p. 4. 47. Scott A. Hodge, “The Compliance Costs of IRS Regulations, Tax Foundation Fiscal Fact No. 512, June 2016 https://files.taxfoundation.org/legacy/docs/TaxFoundation_FF512.pdf (accessed March 19, 2023). 48. Organization for Economic Cooperation, The Multilateral Convention on Mutual Administrative Assistance in Tax Matters: Amended by the 2010 Protocol, https://read.oecd-ilibrary.org/taxation/the-multilateral- convention-on-mutual-administrative-assistance-in-tax-matters_9789264115606-en#page1 (accessed March 20, 2023).

Trade

Moderate

Vector: 60%

Pages: 804-806AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"The bill focuses on tax relief to reduce double taxation and encourage economic ties with Taiwan, which supports broader trade objectives but does not directly implement tariff reciprocity or target trade deficit reduction as outlined in the Project 2025 Trade section."

Key themes:Taiwantrade relationsinvestmenteconomic cooperationtax policy

— 771 — Trade TABLE 3 Trade Defi cit Reductions Under Alternative USRTA Scenarios REDUCTION IN U.S. TRADE DEFICIT WITH WORLD Scenario One: Scenario Two: Partner Countries U.S. Matches Partner Metric Match U.S. Tariff Rate Tariff Rates In Billions of Dollars $58.3 $63.6 As Percentage of 2018 Defi cit 9.4% 10.2% NOTE: USRTA—U.S. Reciprocal Trade Act. SOURCE: White House Offi ce of Trade and Manufacturing Policy, The United States Reciprocal Trade Act: Estimated Job & Trade Defi cit Eff ects, May 2029, p. 18, https://www.wsj.com/public/resources/documents/RTAReport. pdf?mod=article_inline (accessed March 21, 2023). A heritage.org calculate the trade deficit reductions under Scenario One and Scenario Two, the analysis relied on the World Bank’s SMART tariff simulator. Table 3 provides the simulation results. In Scenario One, if all 132 countries were to lower their higher nonreciprocal tariffs to U.S. levels, the overall U.S. trade deficit in goods would be reduced by $58.3 billion, or about 9.4 percent of that deficit. In contrast, in Scenario Two, if these countries were to refuse to reciprocate and the U.S. were to raise its tariffs to mirror those countries’ levels, the reduction in the U.S. trade deficit would be slightly larger: an estimated $63.6 billion, or 10.2 percent of the deficit. This suggests that implementing the USRTA would help to create between 350,000 and 380,000 jobs. The slightly larger reduction in the trade deficit in Scenario Two as a result of the U.S. raising its tariffs to mirror those of its partners, as opposed to foreign countries lowering their tariffs to U.S. levels, may seem surprising to those who are steeped in Ricardian dogma and the textbook lessons of free trade. However, this result speaks to the fact that so many of America’s trading partners are applying significantly higher tariffs to thousands of American products. Estimated Impacts on Key U.S. Bilateral Trade Deficits. If the USRTA were enacted, a President would likely have to prioritize which countries he should negotiate with first. One way to create such a priority list would be to choose those countries that have relatively large trade deficits with the U.S. and apply relatively high tariffs. This is illustrated in Figure 1, which maps bilateral trade deficits — 772 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise FIGURE 1 Mapping Bilateral Trade Deficits Against Tariff Differentials ■ Largest bilateral trade deficit and/or largest tariff differential ■ Second-to-largest bilateral trade deficit and/or second-to-largest bilateral tariff differential ■ Smallest bilateral trade deficit and/or smallest tariff differential AVERAGE MOST-FREE-NATION DIFFERENTIAL, SIMPLE MEAN 10% India 8% Thailand China Taiwan 6% Vietnam 4% 2% Malaysia Japan E.U. 0% 0 $50 $100 $150 $200 $250 $300 $350 $400 $450 BILATERAL TRADE DEFICIT, 2018, IN BILLIONS OF U.S. DOLLARS SOURCE: White House Office of Trade and Manufacturing Policy, The United States Reciprocal Trade Act: Estimated Job & Trade Deficit Effects, May 2019, p. 20, https://www.wsj.com/public/resources/documents/RTAReport.pdf? mod=article_inline (accessed March 21, 2023). A heritage.org against tariff differentials for eight major U.S. trading partners, which account for 47.6 percent of total U.S. trade and 88.6 percent of the U.S. trade deficit in goods. Figure 1 shows that the USRTA priority list would include the countries in red—Communist China and India—along with trading partners in the yellow zone. This yellow zone includes the European Union, which features a very high deficit, along with Thailand, Taiwan, and Vietnam, which feature particularly high tariff differentials. Table 4 estimates the improvement in the U.S. trade deficit under Scenario One, in which partner countries match the U.S. tariff rate under pressure from

Department of the Treasury

Weak

Vector: 62%

Pages: 730-732AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"Both the bill and the Project 2025 Treasury section aim to reduce double taxation and encourage investment, but the bill focuses on international tax relief for Taiwanese residents while Project 2025 outlines domestic U.S. tax reforms for American families and businesses, resulting only a tangential connection."

Key themes:double taxation reductiontax reliefinvestment encouragementwithholding tax reductioninternational tax cooperation

— 697 — Department of the Treasury time for any purpose. This would allow the vast majority of American families to save and invest without facing a punitive double layer of taxation. Entrepreneurship. To encourage entrepreneurship, the business loss limita- tion should be increased to at least $500,000. Businesses should also be allowed to fully carry forward net operating losses. Extra layers of taxes on investment and capital should also be eliminated or reduced. The net investment income surtax and the base erosion anti-abuse tax should be eliminated. The estate and gift tax should be reduced to no higher than 20 percent, and the 2017 tax bill’s temporary increase in the exemption amount from $5.5 million to $12.9 million (adjusted for inflation) should be made permanent.21 The tax on global intangible low-taxed income should be reduced to no higher than 12.5 percent, with the 20 percent haircut on related foreign tax credits reduced or eliminated.22 All non-business tax deductions and exemptions that were temporarily sus- pended by the 2017 tax bill should be permanently repealed, including the bicycle commuting expense exclusion, non-military moving expense deductions, and the miscellaneous itemized deductions.23 The individual state and local tax deduction, which was temporarily capped at $10,000, should be fully repealed. Deductions related to educational expenses should be repealed. Special business tax pref- erences, such as a special deduction for energy-efficient commercial building properties, should be eliminated.24 Wages vs. Benefits. The current tax code has a strong bias that incentivizes businesses to offer employees more generous benefits and lower wages. This limits the freedom of workers and their families to spend their compensation as they see fit—and it can trap workers in their current jobs due to the jobs’ benefit pack- ages. Wage income is taxed under the individual income tax and under the payroll tax. However, most forms of non-wage benefits are wholly exempt from both of these taxes. To reduce this tax bias against wages (as opposed to employee benefits), the next Administration should set a meaningful cap (no higher than $12,000 per year per full-time equivalent employee—and preferably lower) on untaxed benefits that employers can claim as deductions. Employee benefit expenses other than tax-deferred retirement account contributions should count toward the limita- tion, whether offered to specific employees or whether the costs relate to a shared benefit like building gym facilities for employees.25 Tax-deferred retirement con- tributions by employers should not count toward this limitation insofar as they are fully taxable upon distribution. Only a percentage of Health Savings Accounts (HSA) contributions (which are not taxed upon withdrawal) should count toward the limitation.26 The limitation on benefit deductions should not be indexed to increase with inflation.27 Employers should also be denied deductions for health insurance and other benefits provided to employee dependents if the dependents are aged 23 or older.

Showing 3 of 5 policy matches

About These Correlations

Policy matches are calculated using a hybrid approach: initial candidates are found using semantic similarity between bill summaries and Project 2025 policy text, then an AI model (Llama 3.1 70B) provides detailed alignment ratings and analysis. Ratings range from 1 (minimal alignment) to 5 (very strong alignment). This analysis does not imply direct causation or intent.

Related Bills

Other Bills by Rep. Smith, Jason

Continuing Appropriations and Extensions Act, 2027

119/hr/6500

Health Care Price Certainty for All Americans Act

119/hr/9645

Pandemic Unemployment Fraud Enforcement Act

119/hr/1156

Back to All Bills