Museado / NARA Collection grf-0067 — Collection grf-0067
Recent Folios
Login Register
English (inglés) español magyar (húngaro) हिन्दी (hindi)

Survos folio page chat

Taxes - General

Ask the Scholar

Page 1 of 1
I can add historical knowledge about this page.

Page image

Page 1

OCR

The original documents are located in Box 32, folder "Taxes - General" of the John Marsh Files at the Gerald R. Ford Presidential Library. Copyright Notice The copyright law of the United States (Title 17, United States Code) governs the making of photocopies or other reproductions of copyrighted material. Gerald R. Ford donated to the United States of America his copyrights in all of his unpublished writings in National Archives collections. Works prepared by U.S. Government employees as part of their official duties are in the public domain. The copyrights to materials written by other individuals or organizations are presumed to remain with them. If you think any of the information displayed in the PDF is subject to a valid copyright claim, please contact the Gerald R. Ford Presidential Library. JUL 1 1975 THE WHITE HOUSE WASHINGTON M Date: 6.30.75 TO: Jack marsh FROM: Max L. Friedersdorf For Your Information Please Handle Please See Me Comments, Please Other FORD LIE halmy (A/m & BERALD Digitized from Box 32 of the John Marsh Files at the Gerald R. Ford Presidential Library THE WHITE HOUSE WASHINGTON June 30, 1975 MEMORANDUM FOR: MAX L. FRIEDERSDORF THROUGH: VERN LOEN VL FROM: TOM LOEFFLER V.Z. SUBJECT: Committee on Ways and Means -- Tax Reform Consideration The Committee on Ways and Means is holding tax reform hearings which commenced on Monday, June 23, 1975. This begins the first phase of a series of tax reform hearings, the second phase of which will begin in November of this year after completion of development and passage of the bill resulting from the hearings now ongoing. The first set of public hearings on tax reform will be in three parts: (1) panel discussions on the objectives and approaches to tax reform; (2) testimony from Administration officials beginning July 8; and (3) presentation of testimony from the interested public. These first- phase hearings are scheduled to be completed by the end of July. Mark-up sessions should begin in early September after the August recess. TOPICS FOR TAX REFORM CONSIDERATION IN FIRST PHASE 1. Tax shelters and minimum tax. 2. Tax simplification and reform of domestic income of individuals. 3. Foreign income. 4. Administrative provisions. 5. Repeal and revision of obsolete, rarely used, etc. provisions. 6. Extension of individual and corporate tax reductions provided in the Tax Reduction Act of 1975. - 2 - 7. Capital formation (including fast depreciation, invest- ment credit, and integration of corporate and individual taxes). 8. Capital gain and losses. TOPICS LIKELY TO BE GIVEN TAX REFORM CONSIDERATION IN SECOND PHASE 1. Estate and gift taxation. 2. Tax treatment of single persons and married couples. 3. Tax exempt state and municipal bonds. 4. Small business tax problems including Subchapter S. 5. Percentage depletion for minerals generally. 6. Tax treatment of financial institutions. 7. Tax treatment of cooperatives. 8. Tax treatment of insurance companies, including casualty and life companies. 9. Tax exempt organizations including private foundations. 10. Charitable contribution deductions. 11. Net operating loss deductions. 12. Bank holding companies; real estate investment trusts. 13. Excise taxes. 14. Integration of pensions and social security. 15. Tax treatment of annuities. CC: Charlie Leppert Bill Kendall Pat O'Donnell Some items in this folder were not digitized because it contains copyrighted materials. Please contact the Gerald R. Ford Presidential Library for access to these materials. 1.8.1975 THE WHITE HOUSE WASHINGTON From: Robert T. Hartmann Rth by neta m Don Rumsfeld To: Jack Marsh x36xXxx Date: October 17, 1975 Time p.m. I have been requested by my friend, Jim Bass, Vice President of American Airlines, to provide copies of this to you for your information. R- - copies FORD is LIBRARY 1. Seiden 2. Simman done 10/21 Attachment 1 THE CASE FOR LEGISLATION TO REFUND EARNED BUT EXPIRING INVESTMENT TAX CREDITS I. Administration Position Statements On Refunding Unused Investment Tax Credits 1. On October 8, 1974, in addressing a Joint Session of Congress, President Ford stated: "To help industry to buy more machines and create more jobs, I am recommending a liberalized 10 percent investment tax credit. This credit should be especially helpful to capital-intensive industries, such as primary metals, public utilities, where capacity shortages have developed." The White House Fact Sheet provided the following details regarding the Administration's Investment Tax Credit proposals: "Replace the present limit on the maximum credit which may be claimed with eventual full refundability for the excess of credits over tax liability. Credits in excess of the present limitations may be carried back three years and then to the succeeding three years to offset tax liability, after which time any remaining excess credits will be refunded directly to the taxpayers. This will -- Help growing companies which have present investments which are large in comparison with their current incomes. FORD -- Help companies in financial difficul- ties, which get no benefit from credit because they have little or no income tax liability against which to apply it. -- Help small businesses, which under present law are more severely affected by the restrictions and limitations. 2. On December 9, 1974, Assistant Secretary of Treasury Frederic Hickman made the following remarks concerning the Administration's investment tax credit proposals: - 2 - "A one-sentence summary of the proposed restructuring is that it repre- sents a new way of dividing up the benefit pie. The businesses that will benefit most are those for which the present credit works unfairly -- including, particularly, small businesses, growing businesses, businesses in financial difficulty and utilities. These limitations cause the present credit to be seriously unneutral. Because of the income limitation, the credit offers no assistance at all to companies in financial difficulty and with no taxable income. Thus, the companies for which increased productivity is the most critical get nothing at all, and the government is constantly importuned to aid them in other ways, while their investment credits simply go down the drain. The income limitation also causes the credit to discriminate against the innovative, growing firm. They are making large invest- ments now that will produce income in the future. But they lose the credit because of the accidental fact that the smaller invest- ments which they made in the past do not produce enough income to absorb the credit. Big companies with steady budgets avoid this problem. But many smaller companies are hit hard. 3. On January 15, 1975, in his State of the Union address to Congress, President Ford noted that: "This tax cut does not include the more fundamental reforms needed in our tax system but it points us in the right direction -- allowing taxpayers rather than the Government to spend their pay " The accompanying Fact Sheet noted that the Administration was simply deferring its refundability proposal: - 3 - "This increase in the credit will provide benefits of $4 billion in 1975 to immediately stimulate job-creating invest- ment. (In view of the need for speedy enactment and the temporary nature of the increased credit, this change does not include the basic restructuring of the credit as proposed on a permanent basis in October, 1974.)" 4. On January 16, 1975 Presidential Assistant L. William Seidman in a press conference underscored the Administration's hope of dealing with this basic defect in the Investment Tax Credit: MR. SEIDMAN: "The basic question is that a tax credit does not do a company any good if it is in a loss position and a good many of the utilities are in that position, so what are we -doing about it. First, as part of the tax reform package, there will again be considered the provision that was originally suggested; that is, if you do not have income from which to deduct the tax credit, it will be paid back to you as a specific subsidy. That is one possibility. That is not part of the current one-year program, but it is very much a possibility when we get to tax reform." 5. The Administration's last comment in this area came on July 8, 1975. In his testimony on Tax Reform before the House Ways and Means Committee, Treasury Secretary William Simon noted: "The investment credit has been a valuable device for reducing the cost and increasing the supply of capital. It has been particularly helpful in stimulating investment in periods of economic sluggish- ness. However, the credit has discriminatory aspects and is significantly more helpful to some kinds of companies and to some kinds of activities than to others. It is, for example, of maximum benefit to profitable companies with assets predominantly in the range from about 7 to 10 years. On the other hand, it is of no benefit to companies that are unprofitable and tends to be of lesser benefit to small companies and growing companies. - 4 - Companies whose assets are predominantly very long lived are also discriminated against. These discriminations are magnified as the credit increases and we have been concerned about raising the level too far without trying to remedy the more discriminatory aspects. A further difficulty with the credit is that it engenders great political tempta- tion to turn it off and on, which substantially lessens its long term effectiveness. II. Senate Actions to Refund Unused Tax Credits 1. On July 22, 1975, the Senate Finance Committee adopted a proposal to allow a refundable income tax credit for expenditures for insulation of a home. The credit is an amount equal to 30% of the first $750 of qualified expendi- tures. 2. Also, on July 22, 1975, the Committee adopted a proposal to allow a refundable income tax credit for expen- 7 ditures for solar and geothermal energy equipment placed in a home. The amount of the credit is an amount equal to 40% of the first $1,000 and 25% of the next $6,400 of qualified investment. 3. On July 30, 1975, the Senate Finance Committee adopted a proposal to allow a refundable income tax credit to individuals age 18 and over. The credit would be equal to the amount estimated to be the revenue from the windfall profits tax also adopted by the Committee on decontrolled oil, plus the additional corporate and individual income taxes attributable to the decontrol profits, and the revenue from the existing $2 tariff. Attachment 2 ESTIMATES OF REVENUE EFFECT OF LEGISLATION TO REFUND EARNED BUT EXPIRING INVESTMENT CREDITS AT END OF CARRYOVER PERIODS * 1. Estimates of Credits to be Refunded as Compared with Credits Usable Under Existing Law ($ amounts in millions) Credits To Be Credits To Percentage of Expir- Used Under Expire Under ing Credits to Used Year Present Law Present Law Credits 1975 $5,890 $100 1.7% 1976 6,500 150 2.3% 1977 5,500 220 2.6% TOTALS $17,890 $470 2.6% 2. Estimate by Industry of Investment Credits Expiring in 1975, 1976 and 1977 ($ amounts in millions) 1975 1976 1977 Total % of Total Agriculture $0.4 $0.7 $1.1 $ 2.2 .46% Mining 2.5 5.0 7.8 15.3 3.19% Construction 0.4 0.9 1.4 2.7 .56% Manufacturing 14.0 27.0 43.0 84.0 17.49% (Petrol. Manufac. already in Mfg.) 2.7 5.6 8.7 17.0 3.54% Transportation 80.0 100.0 155.0 335.0 69.78% Communication 1.1 2.2 3.4 6.7 1.39% Elec. & Gas Util. 1.4 2.8 4.4 8.6 1.79% Wholesale Trade 0.4 0.7 1.1 2.2 .46% Retail Trade 1.0 2.1 3.2 6.3 .13% Finance Etc. 1.0 2.1 3.2 6.3 .13% Services 1.8 3.5 5.5 10.8 2.25% TOTAL $104. $147. $229. $480.1* * Estimates prepared by Dr. Gerard Brannon, Professor, Georgetown University Attachment 3 UNITED AIRLINES Office of the Chairman September 4, 1975 TO: ALL MEMBERS OF THE HOUSE WAYS AND MEANS COMMITTEE For many months, United Airlines has been considering the question of a necessary replacement airplane for part of its existing fleet. Last week, after reviewing the situation with painstaking care, our company decided that we must defer indefinitely any decision to purchase the Boeing 727-300 airplane. We are bringing this matter to your attention because of its national interest implications and because of the reasons underlying our decision. Those reasons, as described in the attached press release, bear directly on Investment Tax Credit legislation now pending before your Committee. The Boeing 727-300 airplare, as planned, appears to be the best long-run aircraft to meet the needs of United Airlines. It has specific advantages over existing aircraft, and offers the prospect of improved productivity. The unfortunate truth, however, is that, under current and projected economic conditions, United simply cannot afford to invest in this improved aircraft type. Continued inflation, sharply escalating fuel costs, and an uncertain regulatory environment all contributed to United's decision. In addition, the fact that existing law on Investment Tax Credit does not offer any incentive to make this significant capital investment was a critical element in our decision. This initial purchase of approximately $600 million would have a significant impact on the manufacturer. Beyond this specific order, there may, in our judgment, be grave implications for the future of United States aerospace manufacturing enterprise. This is one of the few remaining technical or P.O. Box 66100. Chicago, Illinois 60666 Location: Elk Grove Township, Illinois, on Route 62, one-half mile west of Route 83 House Ways & Means Committee Members September 4, 1975 manufacturing areas in which the United States retains world-wide leader- ship. If other air carriers are required to reach the same conclusion as United, the future of United States airframe and engine manufacturers will be jeopardized. One way to overcome this serious national problem is to provide a greater incentive for investment such as proposed in H.R. 8670, now before your Committee. Sincerely yours, Edward Portor Edward E. Carlson Chairman EEC :mhe Attachments FORD The The Wall Street Journal, Sept. 2, 1975 United Airlines Defers Decision Economic Regulation Mr. Carlson said, "The debate about the On Buying 727s future of economic regulation of air trans- portation continues and no one can predict the outcome. It is unclear whether the air- lines would be even further hampered by Boeing Says Indefinite Delay regulatory constraints." Airlines can't generate sufficient profits to take advantage on the investment tax Will Mean More Layoffs: credit, he said, because "inhibiting regula- tory forces crinole air carriers in their at- Economic Climate Cited tempts at capital formation and there aren't any reasonable incentives available to United to encourage large capital expendi- A WALL STREET JOURNAL News koundup tures. Under all these circumstances it sim- United Airlines, a unit of UAL Inc., de- ply isn't possible to do any rational planning ferred indefinitely any decision on whether for the acquisition of necessary new air- UNITED AIRLINES August 29, 1975 FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE United Airlines announced on August 28, following the August Board of Directors meeting, that it has deferred indefinitely a decision whether to purchase the Boeing 727-300 aircraft. Edward E. Carlson, Chairman and Chief Executive of United, issued the following statement: "The 727-300 has more to offer than any other aircraft for our fleet needs, and as a long run replacement airplane. However, a number of factors have combined to foreclose new type equip- ment purchases at this time. First, the uncertain general economic climate threatens to extend for some time. Second, future traffic growth will be stunted by the lack of disposable income and con- tinued inflation. Third, the rapidly escalating price of fuel has jeopardized the entire air transportation structure because of the enormous cost burden on the carriers -- without an opportunity to recover those costs. Fourth, the debate about the future of economic regulation of air transportation continues, and no one can predict the cutcome. It is unclear whether the airlines will be even further hampered by regulatory constraints. United and the vast majority of airlines have not be able to generate sufficient profits to enable them to enjoy the benefits of the Investment Tax Credit. The critical fact is that inhibiting regulatory force: cripple air carriers in their attempts at capital formation, and there are no reasonable incentives available to United to encourage large capital expenditures. Under all these circumstances it is simply not possible to do any rational planning for the acquisition of necessary new aircraft. United recognizes the necessity and desirability of replacing its existing fleet. It is also vital to the national interest to maintain the integrity and strength of our aircraft manufacturing industry. Without it the United States will surrender its leadership in one of the few remaining key manufacturing or technical industries. However, until such time as the general economic climate improves, and economic incentives for capital investment are provided, it would not be prudent for United's management to commit itself to a massive new equipment expenditure. If FORD Attachment 4 WORKLAS Transport Workers Union of America Affiliated with American Federation of Labor and Congress of Industrial Organizations OS AMBRICA LEGISLATIVE DEPARTMENT 100 INDIANA AVE., N. W. WASHINGTON, D. C. 20001 District 7-7407 MICHAEL J. QUILL INT'L HDQRS., 1980 BROADWAY, NEW YORK, N. Y. 10023 873-6000 International President 1934-1966 October 3, 1975 MATTHEW GUINAN International President DOUGLAS L. MAC MAHON The Honorable Harold E. Ford, Member Int'l Secretary-Treasurer House Ways and Means Committee JAMES F. HORST U. S. House of Representatives Int'l Executive Vice President Washington, D. C. 20515 WILLIAM G. LINDNER Dear Congressman Ford: Int'l Vice President. Director, Air Transport Division The Transport Workers Union, AFL-CIO, representing more than 55,000 members employed by this nation's airlines, is ERNEST MITCHELL Int'l Vice President deeply concerned with the very serious financial difficulties COPE Director these airlines are experiencing. We are concerned that unless their financial crisis improves soon, the impact upon our FRANCIS A. O'CONNELL Int'l Executive Council membership and the economy as a whole will be devastating. Legislative Director The attached editorial from The Wall Street Journal of September 25, "Airline Industry Lenders Grow More Doubtful That They Should and Can Continue Support", brings the airlines financial situa- tion into focus. Two bills are pending before the Ways and Means Committee that will go a long way in helping the airlines solve their financial problem. H.R.8670 and H.R.8939 provide for the refund of expiring investment tax credits which the airlines have already earned through investments in capital equipment. These investment tax credits, totalling millions of dollars in cash benefits, will be lost permanently unless the Committee acts favorably on this legislation. The Transport Workers Union, AFL-CIO, supports the airlines in urging your support of H.R.8670 and H.R.8939. Respectfully yours, James Exec. Vice President JFH:bk opeiu-153-AFL-CIO Enclosure FORD of LIBRARY QERALD Wall Steet Journal Sep. 25, 1975 Airline Industry Lenders Grow More Doubtful That They Should and Can Continue Support By TODD E. FANDELL Frederick W. Bradley Jr. vice president The problem plagued airline industry of First National City Bank of New York has been less than an attraction in the Further, institutional lenders haven't indi n stock market recently. Despite improving cated any interest in extending long-term traffic, long-term earnings prospects are loans to the industry and many banks are clouded by confusing uncertainties over much less interested in airline loans than fuel prices, fare levels, labor and other in the past, he adds. costs, the economy's course and the status Metropolitan Life Insurance Co. has of government regulation, combined with been a big airline supporter in the past, is the industry's declining and historically in but its airline investments peaked in 1969 to adequate earnings record at $607 5 million and have dropped to about Now, even the usually taciturn lenders $500 million. "It has been six years since n are speaking out forcefully. in angry we committed any money to a domestic October 21 THE WHITE HOUSE WASHINGTON TO: BILL SEIDMAN FROM: JOHN O. MARSH, JR. For Direct Reply For Draft Response XX For Your Information Please Advise October 21 THE WHITE HOUSE WASHINGTON TO: BILL SIMON FROM: JOHN O. MARSH, JR, For Direct Reply For Draft Response FORD is 038870 LIBRARY XX For Your Information Please Advise THE WHITE HOUSE WASHINGTON September 23, 1976 MEMORANDUM FOR: MIKE DUVAL FROM: JACK MARSH You may wish to show the President the attached "Dear Colleague" letter in reference to the higher education tax credit bill. This is the Roth Amend- ment which was in the Senate bill and was dropped in Conference on the big tax reform bill. This has passed the Senate as an amendment to a minor bill (Smith College Bill) and is now back in the House. Coughlin reports he believes the problem now is that the measure is being stalled by a failure to appoint conferees by the Speaker which is more fully set out in the letter attached. FORD is LIBRARY 076930 LAWRENCE COUGHLIN WASHINGTON OFFICE: 13TH DISTRICT, PENNSYLVANIA 306 CANNON BUILDING (202) 225-6111 DISTRICT OFFICE: COMMITTEE ON Congress of the United States 700 ONE MONTGOMERY PLAZA APPROPRIATIONS NORRISTOWN, PA. 19401 SUBCOMMITTEES: house of Representatives (215) 277-4040 596-1755 FOREIGN OPERATIONS LEGISLATIVE Washington, D.C. 20515 September 23, 1976 FOR MEMBER'S IMMEDIATE ATTENTION Dear Colleague: I urgently ask your help in bringing higher education tax credit legisla- tion to a House vote by asking the Speaker to appoint conferees for H.R. 1386 as soon as possible. On September 16, the Senate amended H.R. 1386, which passed the House last Spring, to provide families with tax credits to offset their children's vocational and higher education expenses. I have been informed, moreover, that when an identi- cal amendment was dropped by the Tax Reform pct Conference Committee Ways and Means Chairman Ullman assured the conferees of his efforts to bring the tax credit issue to a full House vote in the 94th Congress. As of this time, the House has not ap- pointed conferees to enable this. All of us are familiar with the Senate's tax credit amendment. A family would be able to reduce its 1977 tax bill by up to $100 for each child's vocational or college education expenses. The amount of the credit would increase in $50 in- crements annually until 1980. Nearly four dozen Members, from both parties, have sponsored higher educa- tion tax credit bills. Almost twice this number urged hearings on the tax credit approach. The Senate has passed such legislation in four of the past five Con-. gresses, including the 94th Congress. President Ford, himself, publicly endorsed the tax credit approach to education. Despite this overwhelming bi-partisan support, the full House has never had the opportunity to express its will. I, therefore, earnestly enlist your assistance in urging action on this legislation. It is the last chance for the 94th Congress to go on record on this important issue. Regardless of our individual opinions on this particular Senate amendment, I know you will agree to the importance of the issue itself. Please, write, call, or otherwise relay to the Speaker your desire that con- ferees for H.R. 1386 be appointed without delay. If you have any questions, or need further information, please contact Chris of my staff at x56111. Sincerely, Sauy LAWRENCE COUGHLIN FORD is LIBRARY 038870 FACT SHEET ON TAX CREDITS FOR HIGHER EDUCATION EXPENSES General: Almost four dozen Congressmen have sponsored bills providing tax credits for education costs. Nearly twice that number urged Ways and Means Committee Chairman Ullman to hold hearings on the tax credit approach. Hearings were never held. The Senate has passed tax credit legislation in four of the past five Congresses, including the 94th Congress. In each instance, the Senate position was dropped in House-Senate Conferences. What the present tax credit provision would do: A family would be able to reduce its 1977 tax bill by up to $100 for each child's vocational or college education expenses. The amount of the credit allowed would increase by $50 each year until 1980. The credit would then be $250 per student. Recent legislative history: The Tax Reform Act was amended by the Senate to include the above tax credit provision. The House-Senate Conference Committee, which had to convene to resolve the differences between the two chambers' tax reform bills, dropped the tax credit provision. This was done with the assurance from Ways and Means Committee Chairman Ullman, however, that he'd do everything he could to bring the issue to a House vote, if the Senate added the provision to another bill. The Senate did precisely this with an amendment to H.R. 1386. H.R. 1386 is a private relief bill for Smith College which passed the House last May. The Senate amended the bill on September 16, 1976 with the tax credit provision (explained above), requested a conference with the House to resolve the differences, and appointed conferees. As of September 23, however, the House has not appointed conferees. If a conference is not convened, the tax credit provision (as well as the Smith College relief) will die with the end of the 94th Congress. FORD is LIBRARY GERALD THE WHITE HOUSE WASHINGTON September 23, 1976 MEMORANDUM FOR: MIKE DUVAL FROM: JACK MARSH You may wish to show the President the attached "Dear Colleague" letter in reference to the higher education tax credit bill. This is the Roth Amend- ment which was in the Senate bill and was dropped in Conference on the big tax reform bill. This has passed the Senate as an amendment to a minor bill (Smith College Bill) and is now back in the House. Coughlin reports he believes the problem now is that the measure is being stalled by a failure to appoint conferees by the Speaker which is more fully set out in the letter attached. FORD is LIBRARY 03 LAWRENCE COUGHLIN WASHINGTON OFFICE: 306 CANNON BUIL DING 13TH DISTRICT, PENNSYLVANIA (202) 225-6111 DISTRICT OFFICE: COMMITTEE ON Congress of the United States 700 ONE MONTGOMERY PLAZA APPROPRIATIONS NORRISTOWN, PA. 19401 House of Representatives (215) 277-4040 SUBCOMMITTEES: 596-1755 FOREIGN OPERATIONS LEGISLATIVE Mashington, D.C. 20515 September 23, 1976 FOR MEMBER'S IMMEDIATE ATTENTION Dear Colleague: I urgently ask your help in bringing higher education tax credit legisla- tion to a House vote by asking the Speaker to appoint conferees for H.R. 1386 as soon as possible. On September 16, the Senate amended H.R. 1386, which passed the House last Spring, to provide families with tax credits to offset their children's vocational and higher education expenses. I have been informed, moreover, that when an identi- cal amendment was dropped by the Tax Reform Act Conference Committee Ways and Means Chairman Ullman assured the conferees of his efforts to bring the tax credit issue to a full House vote in the 94th Congress. As of this time, the House has not ap- pointed conferees to enable this. All of us are familiar with the Senate's tax credit amendment. ^ family would be able to reduce its 1977 tax bill by up to $100 for each child's vocational or college education expenses. The amount of the credit would increase in $50 in- crements annually until 1980. Nearly four dozen Members, from both parties, have sponsored higher educa- tion tax credit bills. Almost twice this number urged hearings on the tax credit approach. The Senate has passed such legislation in four of the past five Con-. gresses, including the 94th Congress. President Ford, himself, publicly endorsed the tax credit approach to education. Despite this overwhelming bi-partisan support, the full House has never had the opportunity to express its will. I, therefore, earnestly enlist your assistance in urging action on this legislation. It is the last chance for the 94th Congress to go on record on this important issue. Regardless of our individual opinions on this particular Senate amendment, I know you will agree to the importance of the issue itself. Please, write, call, or otherwise relay to the Speaker your desire that con- ferees for H.R. 1386 be appointed without delay. If you have any questions, or need further information, please contact Chris of my staff at x56111. Sincerely, Sany LAWRENCE COUGHLIN FORD LIBRARY FACT SHEET ON TAX CREDITS FOR HIGHER EDUCATION EXPENSES General: Almost four dozen Congressmen have sponsored bills providing tax credits for education costs. Nearly twice that number urged Ways and Means Committee Chairman Ullman to hold hearings on the tax credit approach. Hearings were never held. The Senate has passed tax credit legislation in four of the past five Congresses, including the 94th Congress. In each instance, the Senate position was dropped in House-Senate Conferences. What the present tax credit provision would do: A family would be able to reduce its 1977 tax bill by up to $100 for each child's vocational or college education expenses. The amount of the credit allowed would increase by $50 each year until 1980. The credit would then be $250 per student. Recent legislative history: The Tax Reform Act was amended by the Senate to include the above tax credit provision. The House-Senate Conference Committee, which had to convene to resolve the differences between the two chambers' tax reform bills, dropped the tax credit provision. This was done with the assurance from Ways and Means Committee Chairman Ullman, however, that he'd do everything he could to bring the issue to a House vote, if the Senate added the provision to another bill. The Senate did precisely this with an amendment to H.R. 1386. H.R. 1386 is a private relief bill for Smith College which passed the House last May. The Senate amended the bill on September 16, 1976 with the tax credit provision (explained above), requested a conference with the House to resolve the differences, and appointed conferees. As of September 23, however, the House has not appointed conferees. If a conference is not convened, the tax credit provision (as well as the Smith College relief) will die with the end of the 94th Congress. FORD & GERALD LIBRARY

Page data

Page
1
Source index
0
Type
document
Media ID
63197ec8dcb1b6e4
Size
unknown

Document data

ID
1563169
Core
doc
Type
document
DTO data 
{
    "id": "1563169",
    "sourceUrl": "https://catalog.archives.gov/id/1563169",
    "contentType": "document",
    "title": "Taxes - General",
    "citationUrl": "https://catalog.archives.gov/id/1563169",
    "collections": [
        "John O. Marsh Files (Ford Administration)",
        "John Marsh's General Subject Files"
    ],
    "subjects": [
        "Taxation"
    ],
    "iiifBase": "https://s3.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/opastorage/live/69/5631/1563169/content/library/document/0067/1563169.pdf",
    "thumbnailUrl": "https://s3.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/opastorage/live/69/5631/1563169/content/library/document/0067/1563169.pdf",
    "largeImageUrl": "https://s3.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/opastorage/live/69/5631/1563169/content/library/document/0067/1563169.pdf",
    "imageCount": 1,
    "hasImages": true,
    "source": "import",
    "hasTranscription": false
}

Context sent to Scholar

Document identity 
{
    "localId": "1563169",
    "label": "Taxes - General",
    "core": "doc",
    "dtoType": "document",
    "citationUrl": "https://catalog.archives.gov/id/1563169"
}
Document source metadata 
{
    "id": "1563169",
    "sourceUrl": "https://catalog.archives.gov/id/1563169",
    "contentType": "document",
    "title": "Taxes - General",
    "citationUrl": "https://catalog.archives.gov/id/1563169",
    "collections": [
        "John O. Marsh Files (Ford Administration)",
        "John Marsh's General Subject Files"
    ],
    "subjects": [
        "Taxation"
    ],
    "iiifBase": "https://s3.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/opastorage/live/69/5631/1563169/content/library/document/0067/1563169.pdf",
    "thumbnailUrl": "https://s3.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/opastorage/live/69/5631/1563169/content/library/document/0067/1563169.pdf",
    "largeImageUrl": "https://s3.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/opastorage/live/69/5631/1563169/content/library/document/0067/1563169.pdf",
    "imageCount": 1,
    "hasImages": true,
    "source": "import",
    "hasTranscription": false
}
Document source extras 
{
    "url": "https://catalog.archives.gov/id/1563169",
    "naId": 1563169,
    "coverageEndDate": {
        "logicalDate": "1976-09-30",
        "month": 9,
        "year": 1976
    },
    "coverageStartDate": {
        "logicalDate": "1975-06-01",
        "month": 6,
        "year": 1975
    },
    "levelOfDescription": "fileUnit",
    "recordType": "description",
    "ocrSource": "nara-archive"
}
Page context 
{
    "seq": 1,
    "pageIndex": 0,
    "type": "document",
    "url": "https://s3.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/opastorage/live/69/5631/1563169/content/library/document/0067/1563169.pdf",
    "mediaId": "63197ec8dcb1b6e4",
    "ocrText": "The original documents are located in Box 32, folder \"Taxes - General\" of the John Marsh\nFiles at the Gerald R. Ford Presidential Library.\nCopyright Notice\nThe copyright law of the United States (Title 17, United States Code) governs the making of\nphotocopies or other reproductions of copyrighted material. Gerald R. Ford donated to the United\nStates of America his copyrights in all of his unpublished writings in National Archives collections.\nWorks prepared by U.S. Government employees as part of their official duties are in the public\ndomain. The copyrights to materials written by other individuals or organizations are presumed to\nremain with them. If you think any of the information displayed in the PDF is subject to a valid\ncopyright claim, please contact the Gerald R. Ford Presidential Library.\nJUL 1 1975\nTHE WHITE HOUSE\nWASHINGTON\nM\nDate: 6.30.75\nTO: Jack marsh\nFROM: Max L. Friedersdorf\nFor Your Information\nPlease Handle\nPlease See Me\nComments, Please\nOther FORD LIE halmy (A/m\n&\nBERALD\nDigitized from Box 32 of the John Marsh Files at the Gerald R. Ford Presidential Library\nTHE WHITE HOUSE\nWASHINGTON\nJune 30, 1975\nMEMORANDUM FOR:\nMAX L. FRIEDERSDORF\nTHROUGH:\nVERN LOEN\nVL\nFROM:\nTOM LOEFFLER\nV.Z.\nSUBJECT:\nCommittee on Ways and Means --\nTax Reform Consideration\nThe Committee on Ways and Means is holding tax reform hearings\nwhich commenced on Monday, June 23, 1975. This begins the first\nphase of a series of tax reform hearings, the second phase of which\nwill begin in November of this year after completion of development\nand passage of the bill resulting from the hearings now ongoing.\nThe first set of public hearings on tax reform will be in three parts:\n(1) panel discussions on the objectives and approaches to tax reform;\n(2) testimony from Administration officials beginning July 8; and\n(3) presentation of testimony from the interested public. These first-\nphase hearings are scheduled to be completed by the end of July.\nMark-up sessions should begin in early September after the August\nrecess.\nTOPICS FOR TAX REFORM CONSIDERATION\nIN FIRST PHASE\n1. Tax shelters and minimum tax.\n2. Tax simplification and reform of domestic income of\nindividuals.\n3. Foreign income.\n4. Administrative provisions.\n5. Repeal and revision of obsolete, rarely used, etc.\nprovisions.\n6. Extension of individual and corporate tax reductions\nprovided in the Tax Reduction Act of 1975.\n- 2 -\n7. Capital formation (including fast depreciation, invest-\nment credit, and integration of corporate and individual\ntaxes).\n8. Capital gain and losses.\nTOPICS LIKELY TO BE GIVEN TAX REFORM\nCONSIDERATION IN SECOND PHASE\n1. Estate and gift taxation.\n2. Tax treatment of single persons and married couples.\n3. Tax exempt state and municipal bonds.\n4. Small business tax problems including Subchapter S.\n5. Percentage depletion for minerals generally.\n6. Tax treatment of financial institutions.\n7. Tax treatment of cooperatives.\n8. Tax treatment of insurance companies, including casualty\nand life companies.\n9. Tax exempt organizations including private foundations.\n10. Charitable contribution deductions.\n11. Net operating loss deductions.\n12. Bank holding companies; real estate investment trusts.\n13. Excise taxes.\n14. Integration of pensions and social security.\n15. Tax treatment of annuities.\nCC: Charlie Leppert\nBill Kendall\nPat O'Donnell\nSome items in this folder were not digitized because it contains copyrighted\nmaterials. Please contact the Gerald R. Ford Presidential Library for access to\nthese materials.\n1.8.1975\nTHE WHITE HOUSE\nWASHINGTON\nFrom: Robert T. Hartmann Rth\nby neta m\nDon Rumsfeld\nTo:\nJack Marsh\nx36xXxx\nDate:\nOctober 17, 1975\nTime\np.m.\nI have been requested by my friend,\nJim Bass, Vice President of American\nAirlines, to provide copies of this\nto you for your information.\nR- - copies\nFORD is LIBRARY\n1. Seiden\n2. Simman done 10/21\nAttachment 1\nTHE CASE FOR LEGISLATION TO REFUND EARNED BUT\nEXPIRING INVESTMENT TAX CREDITS\nI. Administration Position Statements On\nRefunding Unused Investment Tax Credits\n1. On October 8, 1974, in addressing a Joint Session\nof Congress, President Ford stated:\n\"To help industry to buy more machines and\ncreate more jobs, I am recommending a\nliberalized 10 percent investment tax credit.\nThis credit should be especially helpful to\ncapital-intensive industries, such as\nprimary metals, public utilities, where\ncapacity shortages have developed.\"\nThe White House Fact Sheet provided the following details\nregarding the Administration's Investment Tax Credit\nproposals:\n\"Replace the present limit on the maximum\ncredit which may be claimed with eventual\nfull refundability for the excess of\ncredits over tax liability. Credits in\nexcess of the present limitations may be\ncarried back three years and then to the\nsucceeding three years to offset tax\nliability, after which time any remaining\nexcess credits will be refunded directly to\nthe taxpayers. This will\n-- Help growing companies which have\npresent investments which are large in\ncomparison with their current incomes.\nFORD\n-- Help companies in financial difficul-\nties, which get no benefit from credit\nbecause they have little or no income\ntax liability against which to apply it.\n-- Help small businesses, which under\npresent law are more severely affected\nby the restrictions and limitations.\n2. On December 9, 1974, Assistant Secretary of Treasury\nFrederic Hickman made the following remarks concerning the\nAdministration's investment tax credit proposals:\n- 2 -\n\"A one-sentence summary of the\nproposed restructuring is that it repre-\nsents a new way of dividing up the\nbenefit pie.\nThe businesses that will benefit most\nare those for which the present credit works\nunfairly -- including, particularly, small\nbusinesses, growing businesses, businesses\nin financial difficulty and utilities.\nThese limitations cause the present\ncredit to be seriously unneutral.\nBecause of the income limitation, the\ncredit offers no assistance at all to\ncompanies in financial difficulty and with\nno taxable income. Thus, the companies\nfor which increased productivity is the\nmost critical get nothing at all, and the\ngovernment is constantly importuned to aid\nthem in other ways, while their investment\ncredits simply go down the drain.\nThe income limitation also causes the\ncredit to discriminate against the innovative,\ngrowing firm. They are making large invest-\nments now that will produce income in the\nfuture. But they lose the credit because of\nthe accidental fact that the smaller invest-\nments which they made in the past do not\nproduce enough income to absorb the credit.\nBig companies with steady budgets avoid this\nproblem. But many smaller companies are\nhit hard.\n3. On January 15, 1975, in his State of the Union address\nto Congress, President Ford noted that:\n\"This tax cut does not include the more\nfundamental reforms needed in our tax\nsystem but it points us in the right\ndirection -- allowing taxpayers rather than\nthe Government to spend their pay \"\nThe accompanying Fact Sheet noted that the Administration was\nsimply deferring its refundability proposal:\n- 3 -\n\"This increase in the credit will\nprovide benefits of $4 billion in 1975 to\nimmediately stimulate job-creating invest-\nment. (In view of the need for speedy\nenactment and the temporary nature of the\nincreased credit, this change does not\ninclude the basic restructuring of the\ncredit as proposed on a permanent basis\nin October, 1974.)\"\n4. On January 16, 1975 Presidential Assistant L.\nWilliam Seidman in a press conference underscored the\nAdministration's hope of dealing with this basic defect\nin the Investment Tax Credit:\nMR. SEIDMAN: \"The basic question is\nthat a tax credit does not do a company any\ngood if it is in a loss position and a good\nmany of the utilities are in that position,\nso what are we -doing about it.\nFirst, as part of the tax reform package,\nthere will again be considered the provision\nthat was originally suggested; that is, if you\ndo not have income from which to deduct the\ntax credit, it will be paid back to you as a\nspecific subsidy. That is one possibility.\nThat is not part of the current one-year\nprogram, but it is very much a possibility\nwhen we get to tax reform.\"\n5. The Administration's last comment in this area came\non July 8, 1975. In his testimony on Tax Reform before the\nHouse Ways and Means Committee, Treasury Secretary William\nSimon noted:\n\"The investment credit has been a\nvaluable device for reducing the cost and\nincreasing the supply of capital. It has\nbeen particularly helpful in stimulating\ninvestment in periods of economic sluggish-\nness. However, the credit has discriminatory\naspects and is significantly more helpful to\nsome kinds of companies and to some kinds of\nactivities than to others. It is, for example,\nof maximum benefit to profitable companies\nwith assets predominantly in the range from\nabout 7 to 10 years. On the other hand, it\nis of no benefit to companies that are\nunprofitable and tends to be of lesser benefit\nto small companies and growing companies.\n- 4 -\nCompanies whose assets are predominantly very\nlong lived are also discriminated against.\nThese discriminations are magnified as the\ncredit increases and we have been concerned\nabout raising the level too far without\ntrying to remedy the more discriminatory\naspects. A further difficulty with the credit\nis that it engenders great political tempta-\ntion to turn it off and on, which substantially\nlessens its long term effectiveness.\nII. Senate Actions to\nRefund Unused Tax Credits\n1. On July 22, 1975, the Senate Finance Committee\nadopted a proposal to allow a refundable income tax credit\nfor expenditures for insulation of a home. The credit is an\namount equal to 30% of the first $750 of qualified expendi-\ntures.\n2. Also, on July 22, 1975, the Committee adopted a\nproposal to allow a refundable income tax credit for expen-\n7\nditures for solar and geothermal energy equipment placed in\na home. The amount of the credit is an amount equal to 40%\nof the first $1,000 and 25% of the next $6,400 of qualified\ninvestment.\n3. On July 30, 1975, the Senate Finance Committee\nadopted a proposal to allow a refundable income tax credit\nto individuals age 18 and over. The credit would be equal\nto the amount estimated to be the revenue from the windfall\nprofits tax also adopted by the Committee on decontrolled\noil, plus the additional corporate and individual income\ntaxes attributable to the decontrol profits, and the revenue\nfrom the existing $2 tariff.\nAttachment 2\nESTIMATES OF REVENUE EFFECT OF LEGISLATION TO REFUND EARNED\nBUT EXPIRING INVESTMENT CREDITS AT END OF CARRYOVER PERIODS *\n1.\nEstimates of Credits to be Refunded as Compared with Credits\nUsable Under Existing Law ($ amounts in millions)\nCredits To Be\nCredits To\nPercentage of Expir-\nUsed Under\nExpire Under\ning Credits to Used\nYear\nPresent Law\nPresent Law\nCredits\n1975\n$5,890\n$100\n1.7%\n1976\n6,500\n150\n2.3%\n1977\n5,500\n220\n2.6%\nTOTALS\n$17,890\n$470\n2.6%\n2.\nEstimate by Industry of Investment Credits Expiring in 1975,\n1976 and 1977 ($ amounts in millions)\n1975\n1976\n1977\nTotal\n% of Total\nAgriculture\n$0.4\n$0.7\n$1.1\n$ 2.2\n.46%\nMining\n2.5\n5.0\n7.8\n15.3\n3.19%\nConstruction\n0.4\n0.9\n1.4\n2.7\n.56%\nManufacturing\n14.0\n27.0\n43.0\n84.0\n17.49%\n(Petrol. Manufac.\nalready in Mfg.)\n2.7\n5.6\n8.7\n17.0\n3.54%\nTransportation\n80.0\n100.0\n155.0\n335.0\n69.78%\nCommunication\n1.1\n2.2\n3.4\n6.7\n1.39%\nElec. & Gas Util.\n1.4\n2.8\n4.4\n8.6\n1.79%\nWholesale Trade\n0.4\n0.7\n1.1\n2.2\n.46%\nRetail Trade\n1.0\n2.1\n3.2\n6.3\n.13%\nFinance Etc.\n1.0\n2.1\n3.2\n6.3\n.13%\nServices\n1.8\n3.5\n5.5\n10.8\n2.25%\nTOTAL\n$104.\n$147.\n$229.\n$480.1*\n*\nEstimates prepared by Dr. Gerard Brannon, Professor, Georgetown\nUniversity\nAttachment 3\nUNITED AIRLINES\nOffice of the Chairman\nSeptember 4, 1975\nTO:\nALL MEMBERS OF THE HOUSE WAYS AND MEANS COMMITTEE\nFor many months, United Airlines has been considering the question of a\nnecessary replacement airplane for part of its existing fleet. Last week,\nafter reviewing the situation with painstaking care, our company decided\nthat we must defer indefinitely any decision to purchase the Boeing\n727-300 airplane.\nWe are bringing this matter to your attention because of its national\ninterest implications and because of the reasons underlying our decision.\nThose reasons, as described in the attached press release, bear directly\non Investment Tax Credit legislation now pending before your Committee.\nThe Boeing 727-300 airplare, as planned, appears to be the best long-run\naircraft to meet the needs of United Airlines. It has specific advantages\nover existing aircraft, and offers the prospect of improved productivity.\nThe unfortunate truth, however, is that, under current and projected\neconomic conditions, United simply cannot afford to invest in this improved\naircraft type. Continued inflation, sharply escalating fuel costs, and an\nuncertain regulatory environment all contributed to United's decision. In\naddition, the fact that existing law on Investment Tax Credit does not\noffer any incentive to make this significant capital investment was a\ncritical element in our decision.\nThis initial purchase of approximately $600 million would have a significant\nimpact on the manufacturer. Beyond this specific order, there may, in our\njudgment, be grave implications for the future of United States aerospace\nmanufacturing enterprise. This is one of the few remaining technical or\nP.O. Box 66100. Chicago, Illinois 60666 Location: Elk Grove Township, Illinois, on Route 62, one-half mile west of Route 83\nHouse Ways & Means Committee Members\nSeptember 4, 1975\nmanufacturing areas in which the United States retains world-wide leader-\nship. If other air carriers are required to reach the same conclusion\nas United, the future of United States airframe and engine manufacturers will\nbe jeopardized.\nOne way to overcome this serious national problem is to provide a greater\nincentive for investment such as proposed in H.R. 8670, now before your\nCommittee.\nSincerely yours,\nEdward Portor\nEdward E. Carlson\nChairman\nEEC :mhe\nAttachments\nFORD The\nThe Wall Street Journal, Sept. 2, 1975\nUnited Airlines\nDefers Decision\nEconomic Regulation\nMr. Carlson said, \"The debate about the\nOn Buying 727s\nfuture of economic regulation of air trans-\nportation continues and no one can predict\nthe outcome. It is unclear whether the air-\nlines would be even further hampered by\nBoeing Says Indefinite Delay\nregulatory constraints.\"\nAirlines can't generate sufficient profits\nto take advantage on the investment tax\nWill Mean More Layoffs:\ncredit, he said, because \"inhibiting regula-\ntory forces crinole air carriers in their at-\nEconomic Climate Cited\ntempts at capital formation and there aren't\nany reasonable incentives available to\nUnited to encourage large capital expendi-\nA WALL STREET JOURNAL News koundup\ntures. Under all these circumstances it sim-\nUnited Airlines, a unit of UAL Inc., de-\nply isn't possible to do any rational planning\nferred indefinitely any decision on whether\nfor the acquisition of necessary new air-\nUNITED AIRLINES\nAugust 29, 1975\nFOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE\nUnited Airlines announced on August 28, following the August Board of\nDirectors meeting, that it has deferred indefinitely a decision whether\nto purchase the Boeing 727-300 aircraft.\nEdward E. Carlson, Chairman and Chief Executive of United, issued\nthe following statement:\n\"The 727-300 has more to offer than any other aircraft for our\nfleet needs, and as a long run replacement airplane. However,\na number of factors have combined to foreclose new type equip-\nment purchases at this time. First, the uncertain general economic\nclimate threatens to extend for some time. Second, future traffic\ngrowth will be stunted by the lack of disposable income and con-\ntinued inflation. Third, the rapidly escalating price of fuel has\njeopardized the entire air transportation structure because of the\nenormous cost burden on the carriers -- without an opportunity to\nrecover those costs. Fourth, the debate about the future of\neconomic regulation of air transportation continues, and no one\ncan predict the cutcome. It is unclear whether the airlines will\nbe even further hampered by regulatory constraints.\nUnited and the vast majority of airlines have not be able to\ngenerate sufficient profits to enable them to enjoy the benefits\nof the Investment Tax Credit. The critical fact is that inhibiting\nregulatory force: cripple air carriers in their attempts at capital\nformation, and there are no reasonable incentives available to\nUnited to encourage large capital expenditures. Under all these\ncircumstances it is simply not possible to do any rational planning\nfor the acquisition of necessary new aircraft.\nUnited recognizes the necessity and desirability of replacing its\nexisting fleet. It is also vital to the national interest to maintain\nthe integrity and strength of our aircraft manufacturing industry.\nWithout it the United States will surrender its leadership in one\nof the few remaining key manufacturing or technical industries.\nHowever, until such time as the general economic climate improves,\nand economic incentives for capital investment are provided, it\nwould not be prudent for United's management to commit itself to\na massive new equipment expenditure. If\nFORD\nAttachment 4\nWORKLAS\nTransport Workers Union of America\nAffiliated with American Federation of Labor and Congress of Industrial Organizations\nOS AMBRICA\nLEGISLATIVE DEPARTMENT\n100 INDIANA AVE., N. W. WASHINGTON, D. C. 20001 District 7-7407\nMICHAEL J. QUILL\nINT'L HDQRS., 1980 BROADWAY, NEW YORK, N. Y. 10023 873-6000\nInternational President\n1934-1966\nOctober 3, 1975\nMATTHEW GUINAN\nInternational President\nDOUGLAS L. MAC MAHON\nThe Honorable Harold E. Ford, Member\nInt'l Secretary-Treasurer\nHouse Ways and Means Committee\nJAMES F. HORST\nU. S. House of Representatives\nInt'l Executive Vice President\nWashington, D. C. 20515\nWILLIAM G. LINDNER\nDear Congressman Ford:\nInt'l Vice President.\nDirector, Air Transport\nDivision\nThe Transport Workers Union, AFL-CIO, representing more\nthan 55,000 members employed by this nation's airlines, is\nERNEST MITCHELL\nInt'l Vice President\ndeeply concerned with the very serious financial difficulties\nCOPE Director\nthese airlines are experiencing. We are concerned that unless\ntheir financial crisis improves soon, the impact upon our\nFRANCIS A. O'CONNELL\nInt'l Executive Council\nmembership and the economy as a whole will be devastating.\nLegislative Director\nThe attached editorial from The Wall Street Journal of September\n25, \"Airline Industry Lenders Grow More Doubtful That They Should\nand Can Continue Support\", brings the airlines financial situa-\ntion into focus.\nTwo bills are pending before the Ways and Means Committee\nthat will go a long way in helping the airlines solve their\nfinancial problem. H.R.8670 and H.R.8939 provide for the refund\nof expiring investment tax credits which the airlines have\nalready earned through investments in capital equipment. These\ninvestment tax credits, totalling millions of dollars in cash\nbenefits, will be lost permanently unless the Committee acts\nfavorably on this legislation.\nThe Transport Workers Union, AFL-CIO, supports the airlines\nin urging your support of H.R.8670 and H.R.8939.\nRespectfully yours,\nJames Exec. Vice President\nJFH:bk\nopeiu-153-AFL-CIO\nEnclosure\nFORD of LIBRARY QERALD\nWall Steet Journal\nSep. 25, 1975\nAirline Industry Lenders Grow More Doubtful\nThat They Should and Can Continue Support\nBy TODD E. FANDELL\nFrederick W. Bradley Jr. vice president\nThe problem plagued airline industry of First National City Bank of New York\nhas been less than an attraction in the Further, institutional lenders haven't indi\nn\nstock market recently. Despite improving cated any interest in extending long-term\ntraffic, long-term earnings prospects are loans to the industry and many banks are\nclouded by confusing uncertainties over much less interested in airline loans than\nfuel prices, fare levels, labor and other in the past, he adds.\ncosts, the economy's course and the status\nMetropolitan Life Insurance Co. has\nof government regulation, combined with been a big airline supporter in the past,\nis\nthe industry's declining and historically in but its airline investments peaked in 1969\nto\nadequate earnings record\nat $607 5 million and have dropped to about\nNow, even the usually taciturn lenders $500 million. \"It has been six years since\nn\nare speaking out forcefully. in angry we committed any money to a domestic\nOctober 21\nTHE WHITE HOUSE\nWASHINGTON\nTO:\nBILL SEIDMAN\nFROM: JOHN O. MARSH, JR.\nFor Direct Reply\nFor Draft Response\nXX\nFor Your Information\nPlease Advise\nOctober 21\nTHE WHITE HOUSE\nWASHINGTON\nTO:\nBILL SIMON\nFROM: JOHN O. MARSH, JR,\nFor Direct Reply\nFor Draft Response\nFORD is 038870 LIBRARY\nXX For Your Information\nPlease Advise\nTHE WHITE HOUSE\nWASHINGTON\nSeptember 23, 1976\nMEMORANDUM FOR:\nMIKE DUVAL\nFROM:\nJACK MARSH\nYou may wish to show the President the attached\n\"Dear Colleague\" letter in reference to the higher\neducation tax credit bill. This is the Roth Amend-\nment which was in the Senate bill and was dropped in\nConference on the big tax reform bill.\nThis has passed the Senate as an amendment to a\nminor bill (Smith College Bill) and is now back in\nthe House.\nCoughlin reports he believes the problem now is that\nthe measure is being stalled by a failure to appoint\nconferees by the Speaker which is more fully set out\nin the letter attached.\nFORD is LIBRARY 076930\nLAWRENCE COUGHLIN\nWASHINGTON OFFICE:\n13TH DISTRICT, PENNSYLVANIA\n306 CANNON BUILDING\n(202) 225-6111\nDISTRICT OFFICE:\nCOMMITTEE ON\nCongress of the United States\n700 ONE MONTGOMERY PLAZA\nAPPROPRIATIONS\nNORRISTOWN, PA. 19401\nSUBCOMMITTEES:\nhouse of Representatives\n(215) 277-4040\n596-1755\nFOREIGN OPERATIONS\nLEGISLATIVE\nWashington, D.C. 20515\nSeptember 23, 1976\nFOR MEMBER'S IMMEDIATE ATTENTION\nDear Colleague:\nI urgently ask your help in bringing higher education tax credit legisla-\ntion to a House vote by asking the Speaker to appoint conferees for H.R. 1386 as\nsoon as possible.\nOn September 16, the Senate amended H.R. 1386, which passed the House last\nSpring, to provide families with tax credits to offset their children's vocational\nand higher education expenses. I have been informed, moreover, that when an identi-\ncal amendment was dropped by the Tax Reform pct Conference Committee Ways and Means\nChairman Ullman assured the conferees of his efforts to bring the tax credit issue\nto a full House vote in the 94th Congress. As of this time, the House has not ap-\npointed conferees to enable this.\nAll of us are familiar with the Senate's tax credit amendment. A family\nwould be able to reduce its 1977 tax bill by up to $100 for each child's vocational\nor college education expenses. The amount of the credit would increase in $50 in-\ncrements annually until 1980.\nNearly four dozen Members, from both parties, have sponsored higher educa-\ntion tax credit bills. Almost twice this number urged hearings on the tax credit\napproach. The Senate has passed such legislation in four of the past five Con-.\ngresses, including the 94th Congress. President Ford, himself, publicly endorsed\nthe tax credit approach to education. Despite this overwhelming bi-partisan support,\nthe full House has never had the opportunity to express its will.\nI, therefore, earnestly enlist your assistance in urging action on this\nlegislation. It is the last chance for the 94th Congress to go on record on this\nimportant issue. Regardless of our individual opinions on this particular Senate\namendment, I know you will agree to the importance of the issue itself.\nPlease, write, call, or otherwise relay to the Speaker your desire that con-\nferees for H.R. 1386 be appointed without delay. If you have any questions, or need\nfurther information, please contact Chris of my staff at x56111.\nSincerely,\nSauy\nLAWRENCE COUGHLIN\nFORD is LIBRARY 038870\nFACT SHEET ON TAX CREDITS FOR HIGHER EDUCATION EXPENSES\nGeneral:\nAlmost four dozen Congressmen have sponsored bills providing tax\ncredits for education costs.\nNearly twice that number urged Ways and Means Committee Chairman Ullman\nto hold hearings on the tax credit approach. Hearings were never held.\nThe Senate has passed tax credit legislation in four of the past\nfive Congresses, including the 94th Congress. In each instance, the Senate\nposition was dropped in House-Senate Conferences.\nWhat the present tax credit provision would do:\nA family would be able to reduce its 1977 tax bill by up to $100\nfor each child's vocational or college education expenses. The amount\nof the credit allowed would increase by $50 each year until 1980. The credit\nwould then be $250 per student.\nRecent legislative history:\nThe Tax Reform Act was amended by the Senate to include the above\ntax credit provision. The House-Senate Conference Committee, which had\nto convene to resolve the differences between the two chambers' tax reform\nbills, dropped the tax credit provision.\nThis was done with the assurance from Ways and Means Committee Chairman\nUllman, however, that he'd do everything he could to bring the issue to a House\nvote, if the Senate added the provision to another bill.\nThe Senate did precisely this with an amendment to H.R. 1386. H.R.\n1386 is a private relief bill for Smith College which passed the House last\nMay. The Senate amended the bill on September 16, 1976 with the tax credit\nprovision (explained above), requested a conference with the House to resolve\nthe differences, and appointed conferees. As of September 23, however, the\nHouse has not appointed conferees.\nIf a conference is not convened, the tax credit provision (as well as\nthe Smith College relief) will die with the end of the 94th Congress.\nFORD is LIBRARY GERALD\nTHE WHITE HOUSE\nWASHINGTON\nSeptember 23, 1976\nMEMORANDUM FOR:\nMIKE DUVAL\nFROM:\nJACK MARSH\nYou may wish to show the President the attached\n\"Dear Colleague\" letter in reference to the higher\neducation tax credit bill. This is the Roth Amend-\nment which was in the Senate bill and was dropped in\nConference on the big tax reform bill.\nThis has passed the Senate as an amendment to a\nminor bill (Smith College Bill) and is now back in\nthe House.\nCoughlin reports he believes the problem now is that\nthe measure is being stalled by a failure to appoint\nconferees by the Speaker which is more fully set out\nin the letter attached.\nFORD is LIBRARY 03\nLAWRENCE COUGHLIN\nWASHINGTON OFFICE:\n306 CANNON BUIL DING\n13TH DISTRICT, PENNSYLVANIA\n(202) 225-6111\nDISTRICT OFFICE:\nCOMMITTEE ON\nCongress of the United States\n700 ONE MONTGOMERY PLAZA\nAPPROPRIATIONS\nNORRISTOWN, PA. 19401\nHouse of Representatives\n(215) 277-4040\nSUBCOMMITTEES:\n596-1755\nFOREIGN OPERATIONS\nLEGISLATIVE\nMashington, D.C. 20515\nSeptember 23, 1976\nFOR MEMBER'S IMMEDIATE ATTENTION\nDear Colleague:\nI urgently ask your help in bringing higher education tax credit legisla-\ntion to a House vote by asking the Speaker to appoint conferees for H.R. 1386 as\nsoon as possible.\nOn September 16, the Senate amended H.R. 1386, which passed the House last\nSpring, to provide families with tax credits to offset their children's vocational\nand higher education expenses. I have been informed, moreover, that when an identi-\ncal amendment was dropped by the Tax Reform Act Conference Committee Ways and Means\nChairman Ullman assured the conferees of his efforts to bring the tax credit issue\nto a full House vote in the 94th Congress. As of this time, the House has not ap-\npointed conferees to enable this.\nAll of us are familiar with the Senate's tax credit amendment. ^ family\nwould be able to reduce its 1977 tax bill by up to $100 for each child's vocational\nor college education expenses. The amount of the credit would increase in $50 in-\ncrements annually until 1980.\nNearly four dozen Members, from both parties, have sponsored higher educa-\ntion tax credit bills. Almost twice this number urged hearings on the tax credit\napproach. The Senate has passed such legislation in four of the past five Con-.\ngresses, including the 94th Congress. President Ford, himself, publicly endorsed\nthe tax credit approach to education. Despite this overwhelming bi-partisan support,\nthe full House has never had the opportunity to express its will.\nI, therefore, earnestly enlist your assistance in urging action on this\nlegislation. It is the last chance for the 94th Congress to go on record on this\nimportant issue. Regardless of our individual opinions on this particular Senate\namendment, I know you will agree to the importance of the issue itself.\nPlease, write, call, or otherwise relay to the Speaker your desire that con-\nferees for H.R. 1386 be appointed without delay. If you have any questions, or need\nfurther information, please contact Chris of my staff at x56111.\nSincerely,\nSany\nLAWRENCE COUGHLIN\nFORD\nLIBRARY\nFACT SHEET ON TAX CREDITS FOR HIGHER EDUCATION EXPENSES\nGeneral:\nAlmost four dozen Congressmen have sponsored bills providing tax\ncredits for education costs.\nNearly twice that number urged Ways and Means Committee Chairman Ullman\nto hold hearings on the tax credit approach. Hearings were never held.\nThe Senate has passed tax credit legislation in four of the past\nfive Congresses, including the 94th Congress. In each instance, the Senate\nposition was dropped in House-Senate Conferences.\nWhat the present tax credit provision would do:\nA family would be able to reduce its 1977 tax bill by up to $100\nfor each child's vocational or college education expenses. The amount\nof the credit allowed would increase by $50 each year until 1980. The credit\nwould then be $250 per student.\nRecent legislative history:\nThe Tax Reform Act was amended by the Senate to include the above\ntax credit provision. The House-Senate Conference Committee, which had\nto convene to resolve the differences between the two chambers' tax reform\nbills, dropped the tax credit provision.\nThis was done with the assurance from Ways and Means Committee Chairman\nUllman, however, that he'd do everything he could to bring the issue to a House\nvote, if the Senate added the provision to another bill.\nThe Senate did precisely this with an amendment to H.R. 1386. H.R.\n1386 is a private relief bill for Smith College which passed the House last\nMay. The Senate amended the bill on September 16, 1976 with the tax credit\nprovision (explained above), requested a conference with the House to resolve\nthe differences, and appointed conferees. As of September 23, however, the\nHouse has not appointed conferees.\nIf a conference is not convened, the tax credit provision (as well as\nthe Smith College relief) will die with the end of the 94th Congress.\nFORD & GERALD LIBRARY"
}