Publish Date
Jun 18, 2025
TAW
On Monday, Senator Crapo released much-anticipated initial draft legislation from the Senate Finance Committee for the One Big Beautiful Bill Act reconciliation bill (the Senate Bill). This release marks a pivotal step in the ongoing legislative process as it adopts many of the tax priorities from the House-passed version (the House Bill) that we discussed in our prior alert. However, the Senate Bill introduces drastic changes, particularly regarding the deduction limit for state and local taxes, additional international tax reforms, and Medicaid. The next steps include ongoing negotiations among Republicans, both within the Senate and with House colleagues, as well as a review of the bill by the Senate Parliamentarian to determine whether any provisions are not allowed in a reconciliation bill (a process referred to as the Byrd bath). Nevertheless, we believe it is crucial to highlight the key tax provisions of the Senate Bill as they could play a significant role in shaping the 2025 tax reform legislation, with a mix of potentially favorable as well as adverse impacts for different taxpayers. In this alert, we aim to provide you with a summary of some of the key provisions and their potential implications.
A&M Insight: The Senate Bill largely mirrors the House Bill’s provisions for expensing of R&E costs and for bonus depreciation but proposes to make these TCJA provisions permanent, rather than expiring after 2029. This offers significant planning opportunities. However, the changes in the Senate Bill to the business interest expense limitation could have substantial implications, necessitating a thorough review of the impact on borrowing costs. While the Senate Bill proposes to make the return to the EBITDA-like calculation permanent, the exclusion of international tax income disfavors US multinationals owning foreign corporations. Distributions from US companies in the form of dividends are included in the limitation calculation, while there would be no equivalent treatment for foreign corporations. This discrepancy could affect the financial strategies and optimal legal entity organization structure for multinational companies. It is crucial for all taxpayers to reassess their tax planning and financing strategies to mitigate potential adverse effects.
Like the House Bill, provisions in the Senate Bill specifically affecting corporations are limited, and include, for example, proposed changes to the limitation on the deductibility of compensation for for-profit corporations (§162(m)). As in the House Bill, the Senate Bill provides that starting in 2026, compensation paid by all members of a controlled group will be aggregated for purposes of applying the $1 million deduction limitation. Additionally, the determination of the five highest compensated employees during the taxable year (excluding current and historic CEOs, CFOs, and the three highest compensated officers who were not CEOs or CFOs for any given year), which first applies in 2027, will be based on aggregate compensation paid to each individual by all members of the controlled group, potentially changing which employees’ compensation is subject to the deduction limitation. Any resulting limitation on deductibility would be allocated pro-rata across all controlled group members paying compensation to the relevant individuals.
The Senate Bill includes a similar provision as the House Bill (as discussed in our prior alert on the provision), which could dramatically impact the US tax liability of any taxpayer that is resident in a foreign country that imposes certain “unfair foreign taxes” and of any domestic corporation that is controlled by such residents (§899). The Senate Bill makes numerous modifications to the House Bill version, including:
A&M Insight: The reduction of the potential tax rate, clarification as to the application of the tax to certain income, and delay in effective date are generally viewed as taxpayer favorable changes. Additionally, the Senate Bill provides that §899 would not apply if a tax rate is doubled due to a Presidential proclamation under §891, which is amended to use the definitions of discriminatory and extraterritorial taxes in §899. A revitalized §891 gives the administration the option of issuing a proclamation under §891 in 2026 to engage with selected countries (e.g., Canada on its DST) while using the threat of §899 taking effect in 2027 to reach a global agreement with the OECD on Pillar 2 while avoiding the significant compliance costs that administering §899 starting next year would entail.
A&M Insight: The proposed changes to GILTI will increase the effective US tax rate on CFC income, which may be helpful in OECD discussions to exclude the United States from the scope of Pillar 2. However, modifications to the US foreign tax credit rules for GILTI and FDII may offset some of these impacts. The BEAT changes will likely raise costs for in-scope taxpayers, but the new “high tax exception” could reduce the overall applicability of the BEAT. Taxpayers using foreign tax credits to mitigate their US tax liability of GILTI inclusions and under the FDII regime will benefit from these proposed changes. Further, the revisions to the CFC rules attempt to continue to neutralize the tax implications of certain CFC out-from-under transactions (moving non-US entities out from under the US entity into local entities within the country in which they operate).
A&M Insight: Unlike the House Bill, the Senate Bill maintains the current 20 percent deduction for QBI, while softening the proposed restrictions for specified service trades or businesses but being more restrictive than the House Bill. Additionally, the expansion of opportunity zones, including allowing for some gain exclusion beginning after only one year of investment will likely spark significant interest in the program. However, like the House Bill, the opportunity zones provision requires careful planning as it only applies to amounts invested in a qualified opportunity fund beginning in 2027.
The Senate Bill introduces significant changes to many green energy incentives, including nuanced adjustments, enhancements, and phaseouts:
A&M Insight: The changes in the Senate Bill generally are a welcome adjustment compared to the House Bill. The reduction of eligibility for investment and production tax credits is primarily limited to wind and solar projects, without requiring projects to be placed in service by the end of 2028. Maintaining transferability will help sustain green energy credits, and the corresponding projects and markets. However, the Senate Bill includes additional restrictions, such as limiting assistance from foreign entities of concern. Many Republicans have expressed that the Senate Bill remains too generous with green energy credits, suggesting that further restrictions may be imposed in the final bill.
Like the House Bill, the Senate Bill does not include much-discussed changes to the rules governing carried interest.
A&M Insight: The Senate Bill contains several individual provisions, but the most important is the limitation on SALT deductions (including the limitation on PTET). This provision remains a contentious issue, with some House Republicans advocating for at least a $40,000 cap and some Senate Republications pushing for the elimination of the deduction altogether. The current provision in the Senate Bill — noted as a placeholder and subject to further negotiations — does not treat service partnerships differently than other partnerships for purposes of PTET benefits, as does the provision in the House Bill. The expanded gain exclusion rules for QSBS are a notable development offering substantial tax benefits for investors. Because many facets of QSBS gain exclusion require guidance, careful planning is necessary to ensure taxpayers qualify for the benefits of the provision.
The Republicans have slim majorities in both the House and the Senate. The Senate Bill, which proposes significant amendments to tax and non-tax (e.g., Medicaid) provisions, faces considerable hurdles. In the Senate, deficit hawks and those advocating for permanent benefits are on a collision course. In the House, due in large part to the SALT limitation, the Senate Bill appears to have no chance of being adopted. Therefore, while the proposed changes, especially the international tax provisions, are noteworthy, the path to enactment remains uncertain. Nonetheless, analysis of the provisions and their impact is important because once a provision is suggested, it could be adopted in subsequent legislation. Taxpayers should stay informed about potential revisions and legislative developments. If you would like to discuss how the evolving legislative and regulatory landscape could impact your business strategies and tax planning, please feel free to reach out to Kevin M. Jacobs of our National Tax Office.