Targeted Tax Provisions Have a History Before AIG Bonus Tax
People are shocked—shocked!—at the notion of using the tax code to punish a specific group, but it is not that hard to imagine. In fact it is keeping with another longtime congressional tradition: using the tax code to benefit a specific group in what used to be called "rifle shot" tax provisions.
They were called "rifle shots" because they would be written in such a way as to create a loophole so small that it would belong only to a specific group.
Jeffrey Birnbaum and Alan Murray recount several examples of these from the 1980s in their classic Showdown at Gucci Gulch. Some were buried in bills but written in plain language so one could tell its intended beneficiary. Others were more obscure, benefiting, for example, "an automobile manufacturer that was incorporated in Delaware on October 13, 1916" (General Motors) or "a mass-commuting facility that provides access to an international airport" (Dulles Airport) or "a binding contract entered into on October 20, 1984, for the purchase of six semi-submersible drilling units" (an Alabama firm called Sonat).
According to this Hill article, such provisions have, by informal agreement, been banned from tax bills. But given the history, it should not surprise anyone that tax bills might be crafted to punish rather than reward specific interests.
On Facebook? You can keep up with Thomas Jefferson Street blog postings through Facebook's Networked Blogs.
- Read more by Robert Schlesinger.
- Read more from the Thomas Jefferson Street blog.
- Read more about taxes.
Tools: 
Share
|
| Comments (4) | Print
Reader Comments
northern clouds 1960
findings galactic near biological during 20th panel
if you counted all the rifle shots taken with real rifles...
... over the last 60 years and compared it to the number of rifle shots in the income tax code today you'd probably find there are more in the tax code.
Rifle shots
just another way for them democrats to interfere with the legal way of doing things. I don't see what gives them the right break a legally binding contract. Not to much the illegal use of the tax code. Guess what this is a violation of the US constitution, the action is called a bill of attainder. They are illegal, but why would the democrat majority worry about the law they don't even pay their own taxes.
advertisement
