The Trump administration expressed wariness last week over the border adjustability proposal at the heart of the House GOP tax blueprint.
House Republicans want to make business taxes “border adjustable,” meaning that gross receipts from exports would be excluded from income, while the cost of any imported goods or parts could not be deducted. The Ways and Means Committee is hurrying to convert its blueprint
into a full legislative draft, but is facing skepticism from Trump on border adjustability.
The administration waffled a bit last week on the issue, but its discomfort is clear. Trump told the Wall Street Journal
in an interview that he didn’t “love it” and that it was too complex. Administration officials walked back some of the definitiveness of that statement in the following days, but are still not embracing the proposals. House Speaker Paul Ryan, R-Wis., acknowledged that Trump is still focused on his proposed trade tariffs as a potential separate initiative.
Border adjustability is proving to be the most controversial aspect of the House tax reform plan. Many influential business sectors and party members are rising in opposition, and criticism from Democrats will undoubtedly grow. For now, House tax writers remain fiercely committed to the idea. The provision is expected to be the primary revenue raiser in the bill and will pay for much of the aggressive rate cuts and business expensing.
The Treasury Department’s Office of Tax Analysis released a working paper
earlier this month on what a cash flow tax would look like for U.S. companies, concluding that such a tax, like the border adjustability mechanism of the GOP blueprint, would closely resemble a consumption tax. The paper also suggests that a cash flow tax, which may be “incapable of being sufficiently progressive” paired with a progressive individual income tax on wages and capital, “might prove to be the path forward.”
Meanwhile, Ways and Means committee Chair Kevin Brady, R-Texas, promoted the GOP blueprint in a speech before the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, calling it “stunningly simple” – a contrast to President Trump’s belief that such a tax was too complicated. Brady said the tax is economically equivalent to a value-added tax, but should not be considered one. Brady also defended the proposal as being compliant with the World Trade Organization (WTO). Detractors of the tax, and even advocates, have worried that the border adjustable mechanism of the GOP blueprint could fall outside the bounds of WTO rules.
Director, Washington National Tax Office
+1 202 861 4144
Tax professional standards statement
This content supports Grant Thornton LLP’s marketing of professional services and is not written tax advice directed at the particular facts and circumstances of any person. If you are interested in the topics presented herein, we encourage you to contact us or an independent tax professional to discuss their potential application to your particular situation. Nothing herein shall be construed as imposing a limitation on any person from disclosing the tax treatment or tax structure of any matter addressed herein. To the extent this content may be considered to contain written tax advice, any written advice contained in, forwarded with or attached to this content is not intended by Grant Thornton LLP to be used, and cannot be used, by any person for the purpose of avoiding penalties that may be imposed under the Internal Revenue Code.
The information contained herein is general in nature and is based on authorities that are subject to change. It is not, and should not be construed as, accounting, legal or tax advice provided by Grant Thornton LLP to the reader. This material may not be applicable to, or suitable for, the reader’s specific circumstances or needs and may require consideration of tax and nontax factors not described herein. Contact Grant Thornton LLP or other tax professionals prior to taking any action based upon this information. Changes in tax laws or other factors could affect, on a prospective or retroactive basis, the information contained herein; Grant Thornton LLP assumes no obligation to inform the reader of any such changes. All references to “Section,” “Sec.,” or “§” refer to the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended.