SEC. 113. DELAY IN APPLICATION OF WITHHOLDING ON GOVERNMENT CONTRACTORS.
Subsection (b) of section 511 of the Tax Increase Prevention and Reconciliation Act of 2005 is amended by striking “December 31, 2011” and inserting “December 31, 2013”.
Is this self explanatory?
Just in case it's not.
Tax Increase Prevention and Reconciliation Act of 2005
SEC. 511. IMPOSITION OF WITHHOLDING ON CERTAIN PAYMENTS MADE BY GOVERNMENT ENTITIES. (click title to enty - thank you)
(b) Effective Date- The amendment made by this section shall apply to payments made after December 31, 2010.
The law which contains this section is below. The bill is at that link in its entirety or as a summary. I am not getting into the IRS Code. Not now.
H.R. 4297: Tax Increase Prevention and Reconciliation Act of 2005 (click here)
I an not getting into the IRS Code. At least not now.
In taking a brief look at that bill, it seems corrupt to me. It applies to now, that is what is so curious to me. But, in 2005, what made the Republican House believe this was necessary?
This is what the CBO has to say:
A budget report is available for this bill from the Congressional Budget Office, which serves Congress.
Here is an excerpt:
In taking a brief look at that bill, it seems corrupt to me. It applies to now, that is what is so curious to me. But, in 2005, what made the Republican House believe this was necessary?
This is what the CBO has to say:
A budget report is available for this bill from the Congressional Budget Office, which serves Congress.
Here is an excerpt:
Based on a review of H.R. 4297, the Tax Relief Extension Reconciliation Act of 2005, as ordered reported by the Committee on Ways and Means on November 15, 2005, CBO and the Joint Committee on Taxation (JCT) estimate that enacting this legislation would reduce revenues by $56.1 billion over the 2006-2010 period and by $80.5 billion over the 2006-2015 period....
We were involved in Afghanistan and Iraq and the Republican House continued to cut taxes and reporting by their cronies the entire time. They were doing so as if there was going to be a problem in the future, because, this type of 'tax break' is applicable to now, but, why in 2005? It doesn't make sense?
That is very curious to me. It looks like blatant corruption. It looks like it needs an investigation. Not that it should not apply now, it is appropriate now, but, like...what the heck?
