The Economic Effects of the 2017 Tax Revision: Preliminary Observations

Summary: The 2017 tax revision, P.L. 115-97, often referred to as the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, and referred to subsequently as the Act, substantially revised the U.S. tax system. The Act permanently reduced the corporate tax rate to 21%, made a number of revisions in business tax deductions (including limits on interest deductions), and provided a major revision in the international tax rules. It also substantially revised individual income taxes, including an increase in the standard deduction and child credit largely offset by eliminating personal exemptions, along with rate cuts, limits on itemized deductions (primarily a dollar cap on the state and local tax deduction), and a 20% deduction for pass-through businesses (businesses taxed under the individual rather than the corporate tax, such as partnerships). These individual provisions are temporary and are scheduled to expire after 2025. The Act also adopted temporary provisions allowing the immediate deduction for equipment investment and an increase in the exemption for estate and gift taxes. The Joint Committee on Taxation (JCT) estimated that these changes would reduce tax revenue by $1.5 trillion over 10 years.

Summary: In 2018, gross domestic product (GDP) grew at 2.9%, about the Congressional Budget Office's (CBO's) projected rate published in 2017 before the tax cut. On the whole, the growth effects tend to show a relatively small (if any) first-year effect on the economy. Although growth rates cannot indicate the tax cut's effects on GDP, they tend to rule out very large effects particularly in the short run. Although investment grew significantly, the growth patterns for different types of assets do not appear to be consistent with the direction and size of the supply-side incentive effects one would expect from the tax changes. This potential outcome may raise questions about how much longer-run growth will result from the tax revision.

Summary: CBO, in its first baseline update post enactment, initially estimated that the Act would reduce individual income taxes by $65 billion, corporate income taxes by $94 billion, and other taxes by $3 billion, for a total reduction of $163 billion in FY2018. Corporate revenues were about $40 billion less than projected whereas individual revenues were higher, with an overall revenue reduction of about $9 billion. From 2017 to 2018, the estimated average corporate tax rate fell from 23.4% to 12.1% and individual income taxes as a percentage of personal income fell slightly from 9.6% to 9.2%.

Summary: Real wages grew more slowly than GDP: at 2.0% (adjusted by the GDP deflator) compared with 2.9% for overall real GDP. Such slower growth has occurred in the past. The real wage rate for production and nonsupervisory workers grew by 1.2%.

Summary: Although significant amounts of dividends were repatriated in 2018 compared with previous years, the data do not appear to show a significant increase in investment flows from abroad. While evidence does indicate significant repurchases of shares, either from tax cuts or repatriated revenues, relatively little was directed to paying worker bonuses, which had been announced by some firms.

Summary: Although the legislation contained a number of provisions that discouraged inversions (shifting headquarters of U.S. firms abroad), these inversions had apparently already been significantly slowed by regulations adopted in 2014, 2015, and 2016.

The 2017 tax revision, P.L. 115-97 , often referred to as the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, and referred to subsequently as the Act, was estimated to reduce taxes by $1.5 trillion over 10 years. The Act permanently reduced the corporate tax rate to 21%, made a number of revisions in business tax deductions (including limits on interest deductions), and provided a major revision in the international tax rules. It also substantially revised individual income taxes, including an increase in the standard deduction and child credit largely offset by eliminating personal exemptions, along with rate cuts, limits on itemized deductions (primarily a dollar cap on the state and local tax deduction), and a 20% deduction for pass-through businesses (businesses taxed under the individual rather than the corporate tax, such as partnerships). These individual provisions are temporary and are scheduled to expire after 2025. The Act also adopted temporary provisions allowing the immediate deduction for equipment investment and an increase in the exemption for estate and gift taxes.

The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimated in April of 2018 that the Act would result in a $65 billion reduction in individual income taxes, a $94 billion reduction in corporate taxes, and a $3 billion reduction in other taxes, for a total of $163 billion (after rounding) for FY2018.

Numerous effects of the Act were projected during consideration of the law and shortly after, including

an increase in output and investment; an increase in the debt to GDP ratio; possible benefits for workers from tax cuts for businesses; the repatriation of income held abroad by U.S. subsidiaries in the form of dividends; and a decreased likelihood of inversions (U.S. companies moving their headquarters abroad).

Some claimed that business investment would increase because of (1) the flow of investment from abroad due to the lower corporate tax rate and (2) no longer imposing a tax penalty on paying dividends from foreign subsidiaries would free up resources.

This analysis examines the preliminary effects of the Act during the first year, 2018. In some cases it is difficult to determine the effects of the tax cuts (e.g., on economic growth) given the other factors that affect outcomes. In other cases, such as the level of repatriation and use of repatriated funds, the evidence is more compelling. This report discusses these potential consequences in light of the data available after the first year.

During consideration of the Act and subsequently, various claims were made about the growth effects of the tax change. A variety of organizations, including private and government forecasters, projected economic growth rates that tended to be modest. In its April 2018 report on the budget outlook, CBO projected the tax change to increase GDP by 0.3% in calendar year 2018. Prorating the FY2019 revenue loss estimate indicated that the tax cut in calendar year 2018 accounted for about 1.2% of GDP. Assuming a tax rate on marginal output of around 20%, this projection would imply a feedback effect of 5%.

The Joint Committee on Taxation (JCT) also projected the economic effects of the proposal, and while it did not report year-by-year estimates, its revenue feedback effect for calendar year 2018 was larger than that suggested by the CBO numbers—around 20%, which in turn indicates a projected increase in GDP four times larger, 1.2%. Given the baseline prior to the Act, that effect would have suggested a growth rate of 4.2% in 2018.

The CBO output estimate (i.e., the amount of GDP growth attributed to the tax change) was compared with projections by other forecasters and organizations. Of the seven other forecasts projecting the effects of the Act for 2018, five ranged from 0.3% to 0.5%, one was for 0.1%, and another for 0.8%.

CBO also disaggregated its output effect into an increase in potential GDP of 0.2%, with the remaining 0.1% reducing the gap between output with and without full employment. The increase in potential output reflects increases in investment and in the labor supply. The 0.1% increase might be characterized as a demand-side effect and the remainder as a supply-side effect. Because the economy was at full employment and most of the tax cut went to businesses and higher-income individuals who are less likely to spend the increases, a small demand-side effect would be expected. Demand-side effects are transitory, whereas supply-side effects are permanent.

CBO and other organizations also produced longer-term forecasts. CBO projected output effects rising to 0.6% in 2019, then rising slightly and peaking in 2022, and finally declining, with an estimated 0.5% effect in 2028, the last year reported. The decline in later years might be partially traced to the expiration of some provisions. Compared with other forecasts for the average over the 10-year period 2018-2027, CBO's 0.7% effect was similar to other forecasts. For the 10 th year, 2027, CBO projected an effect of 0.6%; there was considerably more divergence in the estimates for this year, with one organization projecting a negative effect by that time. This divergence presumably reflected competing views of the effects on capital formation due to lower tax rates on returns to investment and crowding out of private investment due to accumulating debt.

During the debate, some argued for much larger growth effects, including arguments that the tax cuts would produce so much growth that they would largely or entirely pay for themselves, or even raise revenues. These statements, however, were not supported by most of the published analysis.

In April 2018, CBO projected real GDP growth for the calendar year 2018 of 3.3% (indicating a projected 3% growth rate without the tax cut). According to the National Income and Product Accounts (NIPA), actual growth rate was 2.9%, which is consistent with a small effect of the tax revision, perhaps even smaller than projected by most analysts. Quarterly growth rates are shown in Figure 1 . The revenue loss from the tax cut without incorporated growth effects was estimated at about 1.2% of GBP in 2018.

The 2.9% annual growth rate for 2018 was higher than the 2.2% growth rate in 2017 and the 1.6% growth rate in 2016. In previous years, output grew by 2.9% in 2015 and 2.5% in 2014, thus the increase in growth is in line with the trend in growth over the period examined in Figure 1 . Forecasters had already projected an increase in growth rates in most cases that was similar to CBO's. In addition to the effect from the tax cuts, there was also some stimulus due to the increase in spending enacted in the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2018 ( P.L. 115-141 ) and the Bipartisan Budget Act of 2018 ( P.L. 115-123 ). Growth may have also been negatively affected by tariffs.

The high rate of growth in the second quarter of 2018 shown in Figure 1 may have been due to the demand-side stimulus of the tax cuts, which began to be reflected in withholding beginning in the first quarter, as well as the possibly delayed receipt of tax refunds.

On the whole, the growth effects tend to show a relatively small (if any) first-year effect on the economy. Although examining the growth rates cannot indicate the effects of the tax cut on GDP, it does tend to rule out very large effects in the near term.

The data appear to indicate that not enough growth occurred in the first year to cause the tax cut to pay for itself. Assuming a tax rate of 18% (based on CBO estimates), and estimating the tax cut to reduce revenue in calendar year 2018 by about 1.2% of GDP, a 6.7% GDP increase due to the tax cuts alone would be required. Rather, the combination of projections and observed effects for 2018 suggests a feedback effect of 0.3% of GDP or less—5% or less of the growth needed to fully offset the revenue loss from the Act.

Consumption grew at 2.6% in 2018 in real terms, as shown in Figure 2 , about the same as 2017 (which was 2.5%) and below 2014-2016 (although higher than 2013). As shown in Figure 2 , there was a drop in the first quarter followed by a rise in the second quarter that was unexpected by most forecasters and may have reflected a delay in tax refunds. The initial effect of a demand side is likely to be reflected in increased consumption and the data indicate little growth in consumption in 2018. Much of the tax cut was directed at businesses and higher-income individuals who are less likely to spend. Fiscal stimulus is limited in an economy that is at or near full employment.

Although it is difficult to determine the Act's overall first-year impact on GDP, other than to confirm that the evidence is consistent with a small projected first-year effect, it is possible to discuss supply-side effects on investment in more detail.

CBO estimated that the 0.3% increase in growth from the Act is the result of a 0.4% increase in GDP due to private consumption and a 0.2% increase due to nonresidential fixed investment (with a negligible effect on residential investment and government consumption and investment). This 0.6% increase was projected to be offset by a decrease in net exports of 0.3% of GDP (from both a decline in imports and an increase in exports). This decrease is expected as a consequence of net capital flowing in from abroad to finance the deficit or due to capital inflows used for investment in response to tax changes.

Given the shares of GDP that went to consumption (70%) and investment in nonresidential fixed investment (14%) in 2017, these growth contributions indicated an additional growth in consumption of 0.7% and in fixed nonresidential investment of 1.5%.

In 2018, consumption grew at 2.6% and nonresidential investment grew at 7%. Such numbers might suggest a supply-side effect. There are reasons, however, not to necessarily view that growth as a supply-side effect of the tax change.

First, the growth rates of investment and its subcomponents are much more volatile than the growth rates of GDP, as shown in Figure 3 , making it hard to assign causation.

Second, the largest effects occurred in the first and second quarters of 2018, which allowed very little time to be the result of investments that must be planned in advance (even if the tax cut was anticipated in late 2017). Furthermore, structures growth rates were negative in the last two quarters.

Third, real growth in the subcategories of equipment, structures, and intellectual property products is inconsistent with the incentive effects of the tax change. Over the entire year, intellectual property products grew at the fastest rate (7.7%), equipment at a slightly lower rate (7.5%), and structures at 5.0%. To assess the incentive effects of the tax changes (which included a lower tax rate and faster depreciation for equipment), consider the change in the user cost of capital (or rental price of capital). It is the equivalent of the "price" of capital as an input (just as the wage is the price of labor input). It includes two costs of using capital: the opportunity cost of using funds (i.e., the required pretax rate of return on the asset) and depreciation (i.e., the cost of using up the asset). The user cost reflects the required rate of return at the margin (i.e., for an investment that earns just enough to be worth making). Estimates indicate that the user cost of capital for equipment declined by 2.7% and the user cost of structures declined by 11.7%, but the user cost of R&D (intellectual property products) increased by 3.4%. (See the Appendix for details on the derivation of these results.) The user cost of capital for equipment declined by less than that of structures primarily because more of the cost for equipment is for depreciation. The decline in the required rate of return was somewhat smaller for equipment as well because it was already favorably treated (eligible for expensing half of the cost). The benefits of lower rates are also moderated by the use of debt-financed capital, where a lower tax rate reduces the subsidy (or negative tax rate) that applies to debt-financed investment because of the deduction of nominal interest by businesses.

Thus, while it is possible that the Act increased the investment due to supply-side effects, it would be premature to conclude that the higher rate of growth of nonresidential fixed investment was due to the tax changes. Looking at changes in the user cost of capital, effects of investments in structures would be expected to be largest, with small (or negative) effects on intellectual property. To date this pattern has not been observed.

Overall revenue changes were close to projections, with revenues only $9 billion smaller than projected, due to a $45 billion increase in individual income tax revenues, but a $7 billion decrease in payroll taxes, along with a $40 billion decline in corporate revenues.

As noted above, data on GDP are not consistent with a large growth effect in 2018, and thus the tax cut is unlikely to provide enough growth to significantly offset revenue losses in 2018. Data from FY2018 suggest that the tax cut for corporations may have been larger than the $94 billion CBO projected in its April 2018 baseline. That baseline projected corporate revenues of $243 billion, but actual corporate revenues were $38 billion lower at $205 billion, 16% lower than projected. CBO's January 2019 report on the budget and economic outlook indicated that these lower corporate tax revenues could not be explained by economic conditions and stated that the causes will not be apparent until information from tax returns becomes available over the next two years. CBO also expected this decline in revenues to dissipate over time. With little evidence of whether the decline will actually be temporary or permanent, CBO may have relied on the historical tendency of unexplained changes to dissipate over time. It is also possible that estimated revenue losses from the corporate tax changes were too low in their earlier estimates.

The overall revenues were close to those projected as the lower corporate revenues were offset by gains from other taxes: a $45 billion increase in individual income tax revenues and a $7 billion decrease in payroll taxes. These differences, particularly for payroll taxes, are much smaller as a percentage of revenue, and CBO does not indicate any need for an explanation of these changes outside of economic forces.

Effective tax rates fell, with corporate effective tax rates declining significantly and individual effective income tax rates by a small amount.

Much of the tax revision was focused on corporations. Although the statutory corporate tax rate was reduced from 35% to 21%, the average effective tax rate decline (taxes divided by profits) would be smaller because of existing tax benefits (which lead to a smaller initial effective tax rate) and base-broadening effects. Such an effective tax rate can be calculated using aggregate data from the national income and products accounts, which attempt to measure economic income. The effective average tax rate for corporations was 17.2% in calendar year 2017, and fell to 8.8% in calendar year 2018. This estimate includes worldwide income, but not worldwide taxes. Although actual data on the division of domestic and worldwide income are not available for 2018, using the ratios projected by CBO to eliminate foreign-source income from the measure results in an average effective tax rate of 23.4% in 2017, falling to 12.1% in 2018. Either scenario suggests that the ratio of effective to statutory tax rate dropped following the tax revision. The statutory tax rate dropped by 40%, but the effective rate dropped by 48% (although the percentage point drop was smaller for the effective tax rate).

Another measure of effective rate is the marginal effective tax rate on income, a tax rate that is a component of the user cost of capital. These tax rates are prospective and capture the main elements of the tax code: tax rates, depreciation, and research credits. They also apply to domestic investment. Using a weighted average of equipment, structures, and intangibles, the effective marginal tax rate on equity investment was estimated to fall from 15.6% to 3.2% from 2017 to 2018. If the effects of reducing subsidies for debt-financed investment are accounted for, marginal tax rates are lower (actually slightly negative) and change less, from a -0.3% rate in 2017 to a -6.6% rate in 2018. Marginal tax rates are likely to be below average tax rates because they capture timing benefits (e.g., accelerated depreciation). Marginal effective tax rates are relevant to economic growth effects because they measure the incentive effects for investment.

The individual income tax changes for 2018 were smaller than the corporate tax changes in absolute size and substantially smaller as a percentage of income. The effective individual tax rate for federal income taxes as a percentage of personal income is estimated at 9.6% in 2017 and 9.2% in 2018, based on data in the National Income and Product Accounts. This change constitutes a reduction in effective tax rate of 4%. The Treasury Department's Office of Tax Analysis estimates a larger reduction in effective tax rate as a percentage of adjusted family cash income, with the rate falling from 10.1% in 2017 to 8.9% in 2019, although this estimate is based on projected rather than actual data. Both of these declines are smaller than the corporate tax rate decline. As noted earlier, the increase in the standard deduction and child and dependent credit was roughly offset by the elimination of the personal exemption. Statutory rate reductions for individuals were relatively small compared with the corporate rate reduction (the top rate of 39.6% was reduced by 2.6 percentage points, compared with 14 percentage points for the corporate rate), and the benefits of rate reductions were offset by restrictions on itemized deductions. Business income was in some cases eligible for a 20% reduction, which was more significant (an additional 20% deduction at the 37% rate is 7.4 percentage points), but not all business income qualified.

There are also effective marginal tax rates, although these are generally divided into rates on labor income and capital income. The marginal tax rate for labor income is typically above the average tax rates because of graduated tax rates and lack of timing benefits. CBO estimates that marginal tax rates on labor income fell from 29.4% to 27.2%. CBO also estimates the marginal tax rate for all capital income (which would include unincorporated businesses, owner-occupied housing, and taxes on interest, dividends, and capital gains, as well as corporate taxes). This value is estimated to fall from 16.5% to 14.7%. Although different from the marginal rates reported above for corporations, both estimated measures find small changes in marginal tax rates, which is consistent with an expected small behavioral response.

Distributional analyses of the tax change suggested that the tax revision favored higher-income taxpayers, in part because most of the tax cut benefited corporations and in part because the individual income tax cut largely went to higher-income individuals. During the debate about taxes, however, arguments were made that these corporate tax cuts would benefit workers due to growth in investment and the capital stock.

After enactment, CBO projected these effects to be relatively small, with increases in labor productivity (which should affect the wage rate) negligible in 2018 and growing to 0.3% of GDP after 10 years. CBO projected that the total wage bill would grow because of the increase in employment and hours per worker of 0.2% in 2018. The labor supply response would rise through 2024, peaking at 0.8% and then decline as the individual tax cuts expired.

A Council of Economic Advisors (CEA) October 2017 study suggested a corporate rate reduction from 35% to 20%, if enacted, would eventually increase the average household's income by a conservative $4,000 a year. This was a longer-run estimate, but the study also estimated that workers would immediately get a significant share (30%) of the profits repatriated from abroad due to tax changes. Another CEA October 2017 report suggested wages could increase by up to $9,000 with such a corporate rate change using more optimistic assumptions. While the CEA study with respect to the $4,000 to $9,000 amounts referred to a long-term effect, the study was portrayed by the Administration as indicating an immediate effect. The amounts associated with repatriation were short term. A $4,000 to $9,000 effect per household, given the 126 million households that were estimated at that time, would produce a total effect ranging from $504 billion to $1,134 billion, or between 2.5% and 5.7% of GDP in 2018. The corporate rate cut from 35% to 21% cost about $125 billion over a full year, and it would cost about $133 billion with the additional percentage point rate reduction (to 20%) considered at that time. Thus, in these scenarios, the effects of the tax cuts would be many times (3.8 to 8.5) larger than the costs. The projections for long-run growth in the CEA study relied on a range of empirical economics literature, including the effects of changes in user cost on investment cost and corporate tax incidence. The econometric estimates of corporate tax incidence are problematic for a number of reasons, and the effects on investment considering user cost did not appear to take into account the direct effect of the tax rate change on the interest.

In the absence of the tax cuts, wages should grow with the economy and wage rates should grow as the capital stock grows. In addition, tight labor markets resulting from the approach to full employment should have put upward pressure on wage rates in any case. Evidence from 2018 indicated that labor compensation, adjusted to real values by the price indices for personal consumption expenditures, grew slower than output in general, at a 2.3% rate compared with a 2.9% growth rate overall. If adjusted by the GDP deflator, labor compensation grew by 2.0%. With labor representing 53% of GDP, that implies that the other components grew at 3.8%. Thus, pretax profits and economic depreciation (the price of capital) grew faster than wages.

Figure 4 shows the growth rate of real wages compared with the growth rate of real GDP for 2013-2018, indicating that wage growth has sometimes been faster than GDP growth and sometimes slower. There is no indication of a surge in wages in 2018 either compared to history or relative to GDP growth. This finding is consistent with the CBO projection of a modest effect.

The Department of Labor reports that average weekly wages of production and nonsupervisory workers were $742 in 2017 and $766 in 2018. Wages, assuming full-time work, increased by $1,248 annually. But this number must account for inflation and growth that would otherwise have occurred regardless of the tax change. The nominal growth rate in wages was 3.2%, but adjusting for the GDP price deflator, real wages increased by 1.2%. This growth is smaller than overall growth in labor compensation and indicates that ordinary workers had very little growth in wage rates.

Effects on Repatriation and International Investment Flows

One of the major sources of anticipated increased investment through supply-side effects is international capital flows, particularly in the short and medium term. Savings rates tend to be relatively unresponsive to changes in the rate of return and savings accumulate slowly. Thus the increased investment in the United States (in the aggregate) would need to come from abroad. Some expected foreign investment to flow due to the reduction in the user cost of capital.

Some also argued that eliminating the tax barrier to repatriating funds (as was done with the tax revision) would lead to reinvestment in the United States of unrepatriated earnings held abroad in U.S. subsidiaries. Under prior law, these earnings would have been taxed at 35%, adjusted for credits on foreign taxes paid, if paid as dividends to the parent company. The tax change exempted dividends from tax, imposed a transition tax on deemed repatriations of existing untaxed earnings at a rate lower than the new corporate rate of 21% (15.5% on liquid assets and 8% on illiquid assets), and imposed a global minimum tax on intangible income. These changes meant paying dividends resulted in no tax consequences. Although estimates varied, they indicated close to $3 trillion of unrepatriated earnings. There were a number of criticisms of the possibility that repatriation of these earnings would stimulate investment, considering the evidence that a repatriation holiday in 2004 had not affected investment.

Not all of these amounts were held in cash, as some were earnings reinvested in physical assets (such as plant and equipment) and some might be invested in other assets that were not cash equivalents. A Federal Reserve study estimated that $1 trillion was held in cash.

A significant amount of repatriations occurred in 2018, as compared both to history and 2017. Dividends in the previous three years ranged from $144 billion to $158 billion, as shown in Figure 5 , whereas $664 billion was repatriated in 2018. Simultaneously, reinvested earnings declined sharply before returning to more normal levels in the 4 th quarter of 2018.

It is important, however, to measure international capital flows in true terms that reflect the inflow of resources for capital investment and not by financial transactions, such as repatriation of income earned abroad through dividend payments from foreign subsidiaries. Capital investment involves resources that reflect actual investment in the United States. It could involve imports of investment goods directly, or it could involve imports of consumption goods that free up other resources for investment. In either case, the true capital invested in the United States is largely measured by the excess of exports over imports, or more precisely by the current account, which can also include a small amount of net income payments. In more fundamental terms, investment from abroad occurs in a real sense only when the amount of imported goods exceeds the amount of U.S. exports.

To measure this aggregate change in net capital inflows, examine the balance on the current account, which is generally negative, indicating a net capital inflow (imports exceed exports, or a trade deficit). Adjusting these amounts by the GDP deflator and looking at the change, there was a small increase that amounted to 0.8% of private investment. This change is relatively small and is not out of line with historical fluctuations; see Figure 6 .

Again, many factors can affect net capital inflows, including domestic borrowing by the government and domestic saving, but the evidence does not suggest a surge in investment from abroad in 2018.

Use of Funds for Worker Bonuses and Share Repurchase

Increased funds, whether accessed from abroad or through tax cuts, could be used in several ways: investment, paying down debt, increasing wages, paying wage bonuses, paying dividends, or repurchasing shares.

During the passage of the tax revision and in the immediate aftermath, some argued that firms would use these funds to pay worker bonuses (as discussed in the previous section on wages). Subsequently, a number of firms announced bonuses, which in some cases they attributed to the tax cut. One organization that tracks these bonuses has reported a total of $4.4 billion. With US employment of 157 million, this amount is $28 per worker. This amount is 2% to 3% of the corporate tax cut, and a smaller share of repatriated funds. It is consistent with what most economists would expect that a small percentage of increased corporate profits or repatriated funds (if any) would be used to compensate workers, as economic theory indicates that firms would pay workers their marginal product, a result of fundamental supply and demand forces. The bonus announcements could have reflected a desire to pay bonuses when they would be deducted at 35% rather than 21% (in late 2017 for firms with calendar tax years but in 2018 for firms with different tax years). Worker bonuses could also be a result of a tight labor market and attributed to the tax cut as a public relations move.

Much of these funds, the data indicate, has been used for a record-breaking amount of stock buybacks, with $1 trillion announced by the end of 2018. A similar share of repurchases happened in 2004, when a tax holiday allowed firms to voluntarily bring back earnings at a lower rate.

During the discussion of corporate tax revision over a number of years, one important issue repeatedly raised was the effect of the current tax system on incentives for firms to relocate abroad, or "invert." Inversions involved firms relocating their headquarters to low-tax jurisdictions that generally had territorial taxes, allowing firms to shift profits out of their U.S. operations (so-called earnings stripping) as well as providing potential paths to repatriate earnings without taxes. The earliest of these inversions, beginning in the early 1980s, were called "naked inversions," where a company simply relocated its headquarters without otherwise changing its activities. A number of legislative and regulatory actions largely ended these types of inversions. In 2004, the American Jobs Creation Act ( P.L. 108-357 ) required that any firm in which the former U.S. owners owned 80% or more of the new firm would continue to be treated as a U.S. firm. Firms with 60% to 80% ownership by former shareholders of the U.S. firm were considered inverted firms and subject to certain penalty taxes. This legislation allowed naked inversions in cases where the firm had substantial business activity in the new headquarters country, but regulations issued in 2012 tightened these requirements after a series of inversions used this rule to relocate.

In 2014, a new wave of inversions that involved mergers with smaller foreign firms began, with one of the most prominent being an announcement that Pfizer, the pharmaceutical company, would acquire Astra-Zeneca with a UK headquarters (although this merger never took place).

These inversions gave rise to a number of legislative proposals, but also led to numerous regulatory proposals, which were released in 2014, 2015, and 2016. These regulations addressed a number of issues, including restricting the use of serial inversions to allow a firm to fall under the ownership limits, limiting the ability to access earnings of subsidiaries abroad, and limiting earnings stripping through locating debt in the United States.

The 2017 Act contained several provisions that made inversions less attractive (aside from the lower corporate tax rate). One notable provision required firms that inverted in the next 10 years to pay a deemed repatriation tax at 35%, rather than at the lower rates of 8% for non-cash holdings and 15.5% for cash or cash equivalents.

The Act introduced a new minimum tax to address international profit shifting, the base erosion and anti-abuse tax (BEAT), which adds back payments between related domestic and foreign companies to base income and then taxes that base at a lower rate. BEAT excludes payments which reduce gross receipts with the result that payment for the cost of goods sold is not included under BEAT. An exception applies for firms that invert after November 9, 2017, where payments to a foreign parent or any foreign firm in the affiliated group for cost of goods sold is included in BEAT. The legislation also contained some other provisions making inversions less attractive.

The Act also modified asset attribution rules. The constructive ownership rules for purposes of determining 10% U.S. shareholders, whether a corporation is a Controlled Foreign Corporation (CFC), and whether parties satisfy certain relatedness tests, which can trigger certain tax provisions including restrictive ones, were expanded in the 2017 tax revision. Specifically, the new law treats stock owned by a foreign person as attributable to a U.S. entity owned by the foreign person (so-called "downward attribution"). As a result, stock owned by a foreign person may generally be attributed to (1) a U.S. corporation, 10% of the value of the stock of which is owned, directly or indirectly, by the foreign person; (2) a U.S. partnership in which the foreign person is a partner; and (3) certain U.S. trusts if the foreign person is a beneficiary or, in certain circumstances, a grantor or a substantial owner.

The downward attribution rule was originally conceived to deal with inversions. In an inversion, without downward attribution, a subsidiary of the original U.S. parent could lose CFC status if it sold enough stock to the new foreign parent so the U.S. parent no longer had majority ownership. With downward attribution, the ownership of stock by the new foreign parent in the CFC is attributed to the U.S. parent, so that the subsidiary continues its CFC status, making it subject to any tax rules that apply to CFCs (such as Subpart F and repatriation taxes under the old law, and Subpart F and Global Low-Taxed Income (GILTI) under the new law).

The Act also contained other provisions affecting stockholders and stock compensation. These provisions were intended to discourage inversions. Dividends (like capital gains) are taxed at lower rates than ordinary income. The rates are 0%, 15%, and 20% depending on the rate bracket that ordinary income falls into. Certain dividends received from foreign firms (those that do not have tax treaties and Passive Foreign Investment Companies (PFICs)) are not eligible for these lower rates. Dividends paid by firms that inverted after the date of enactment of P.L. 115-97 are added to the list of those not eligible for the lower rates. Also, in 2004, an excise tax of 15% was imposed on stock compensation received by insiders in an expatriated corporation; the 2017 Act increased it to 20%, effective on the date of enactment for corporations that first become expatriated after that date.

These new laws did not change the definition of inverted firms but rather the consequences of inversions.

Although the legislative changes in the 2017 Act contributed to making inversions less attractive, announced inversions had already slowed substantially following the regulatory changes implemented in 2014, 2015, and 2016. In addition, data released by the Bureau of Economic Analysis indicated that foreign acquisitions of US companies, which rose substantially in 2015, fell by 15% in 2016 and 32% in 2017 (data not available for 2018). Some of the largest declines were in inversion-associated countries, such as Ireland, where acquisitions fell from $176 billion in 2015, to $35 billion in 2016, and to $7 billion in 2017.

The user cost of capital is the sum of the pretax required return for a marginal investment and the economic depreciation, or

Where C is the user cost, R is the required after-tax return, t is the effective marginal rate, and d is the economic depreciation rate. Economic depreciation is the decline in the value of the asset in real terms, and belongs in the cost term because it compensates the investor for the wearing away, or using up, of the asset. The user cost calculations use a weighted pretax rate of return that reflects both debt and equity finance to simplify the analysis. The effective marginal tax rate, in turn, depends on the statutory tax rate, the present value of economic depreciation, the inflation rate, the return on equity, the share debt-financed, and the nominal interest rate.

Table A-1 reports the effective tax rate for corporate and non-corporate investment before and after the 2017 changes for the basic types of nonresidential fixed capital.

The overall user cost also depends on the economic depreciation rates and the relative sizes of each type of capital stock in the corporate and non-corporate sector. For equipment, the economic depreciation rate is 12.95% per year, and corporate equipment comprises 67% of all equipment. Structures are composed of two types: (1) public utility structures (accounting for 23% of the total) with a depreciation rate of 2.24% and (2) buildings with a depreciation rate of 2.8%. Within public utility structures, corporations account for 84%; within buildings, corporate structures account for 55%. Intangible assets have a depreciation rate of 17%, and corporations account for 86%. User costs and their percentage changes are shown in Table A-2 .


The Payments in Lieu of Taxes (PILT) Program: An Overview

Summary: The Payments in Lieu of Taxes (PILT; 31 U.S.C. Â§Â§6901-6907) program provides compensation for certain tax-exempt federal lands, known as entitlement lands . PILT payments are made annually to units of general local governmentâtypically countiesâthat contain entitlement lands. PILT was first enacted in 1976 () and later recodified in 1982 ( P.L. 97-258 ). PILT is administered by the Office of the Secretary in the Department of the Interior (DOI), which is responsible for the calculation and disbursement of payments. PILT has most commonly been funded through annual discretionary appropriations, though Congress has authorized mandatory funding for PILT in certain years, which has replaced or supplemented discretionary appropriations. Since the start of the program in the late 1970s, PILT payments have totaled approximately $9.2 billion (in current dollars). From FY2015 through FY2019, authorized PILT payments averaged $489 million each year and appropriations for PILT payments averaged $485 million each year.

Summary: Although several federal programs exist to compensate counties and other local jurisdictions for the presence of federal lands within their boundaries, PILT applies to the broadest array of land types. Entitlement lands under PILT include lands administered by the Bureau of Land Management, the National Park Service, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, all in the DOI; lands administered by the U.S. Forest Service in the Department of Agriculture; federal water projects; some military installations; and selected other lands. Nearly 2,000 counties and other local units of government received an annual PILT payment in FY2019.

Summary: PILT comprises three separate payment mechanisms, which are named after the sections of law in which they are authorized: Section 6902 (31 U.S.C. Â§6902), Section 6904 (31 U.S.C. Â§6904), and Section 6905 (31 U.S.C. Â§6905). Section 6902 payments are the broadest of the three. They account for nearly all of the funding disbursed under the PILT program and are made to all but a few of the counties receiving PILT funding. In contrast, Section 6904 and Section 6905 payments are provided only under selected circumstances, account for a small fraction of PILT payments, and are made to a minority of counties (most of which also receive Section 6902 payments). In addition, whereas Section 6902 payments are provided each year based on the presence of entitlement lands, most payments under Section 6904 and Section 6905 are provided only for a short duration after certain land acquisitions.

Summary: Section 6902 payments are determined based on a multipart formula (31 U.S.C. Â§6903). Payments are calculated according to several factors, including (1) the number of entitlement acres present within a local jurisdiction; (2) a per-acre calculation determined by one of two alternatives (Alternative A, also called the standard rate , or Alternative B, also called the minimum provision ); (3) a population-based maximum payment (ceiling); (4) selected prior-year payments made to the counties pursuant to certain other federal compensation programs; and (5) the amount appropriated to cover the payments. Section 6904 and Section 6905 payments are provided to counties after the federal acquisition of specific types of entitlement lands (Section 6904) or entitlement lands located in specific areas (Section 6905) and are based on the fair market value of the acquisitions. If the appropriated amount is insufficient to cover the total payment amounts authorized in Sections 6902, 6904, and 6905, payments are prorated in proportion to the authorized rate. Annual discretionary appropriations bills generally also have included additional provisions dictating the terms of payments.

Summary: PILT is of perennial interest to many Members of Congress and stakeholders throughout the country, and many local governments consider PILT payments to be an integral part of their annual budgets. In contemplating the future of PILT, Congress may consider topics and legislation related to the eligibility of various federal lands for entitlement under PILT (such as Indian lands or other lands currently excluded from compensation), amendments to the formula for calculating payments (especially under Section 6902), and issues related to funding PILT, among other matters.

Introduction to the Payments in Lieu of Taxes (PILT) Program

The Payments in Lieu of Taxes (PILT) program provides compensation for certain entitlement lands that are exempt from state and local taxes. These lands include selected federal lands administered by the Bureau of Land Management, the National Park Service, and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, all in the Department of the Interior (DOI); lands administered by the U.S. Forest Service in the Department of Agriculture; federal water projects; dredge disposal areas; and some military installations. Enacted in 1976, PILT is the broadestâin terms of federal land types coveredâof several federal programs enacted to provide compensation to state or local governments for the presence of tax-exempt federal lands within their jurisdictions.

PILT was enacted in response to a shift in federal policy from one that prioritized disposal of federal landsâone in which federal ownership was considered to be temporaryâto one that prioritized retention of federal lands, in perpetuity, for public benefit. This shift began in the late 19 th century and continued into the 20 th century. Along with this shift came the understanding that, because these lands were exempt from state and local taxation and were no longer likely to return to the tax base in the foreseeable future, some compensation should be provided to the impacted local governments. Following several decades of commissions, studies, and proposed legislation, Congress passed PILT to at least partially ameliorate this hardship. PILT payments generally can be used for "any governmental purpose," which could include assisting local governments with paying for local services, such as "firefighting and police protection, construction of public schools and roads, and search-and-rescue operations."

The Office of the Secretary in DOI is responsible for the calculation and disbursement of payments under PILT. Payments under PILT are made annually to units of general local governmentâtypically counties, though other types of governmental units also may be used (hereinafter, counties refers to units of general local government)âcontaining entitlement lands . PILT comprises three separate payment mechanisms: Section 6902, Section 6904, and Section 6905 payments, all named for the sections of law in which they are authorized. Section 6902 payments account for nearly all payments made through PILT. The Section 6902 authorized payment amount for each county is calculated according to a statutory formula that is subject to a maximum payment based on the county's population (see " PILT Payments Under Section 6902 "). The remaining payments are provided through Section 6904 and Section 6905 under selected circumstances and typically are limited in duration. Through FY2019, PILT payments have totaled approximately $9.2 billion (in current dollars).

Members of Congress routinely consider amending PILT within both appropriations and authorizing legislation. For example, legislation in the 116 th Congress would amend how PILT appropriations are provided and would change how payments are calculated under Section 6902. In addition, Members of Congress may address issues related to which federal lands should be eligible for payments under PILT.

This report provides an overview of the PILT payment program and includes sections on

PILT's authorization and appropriations, which discusses the history of how Congress has provided funding for PILT; Section 6902 payments, which includes a breakdown of how Section 6902 payments are calculated; Section 6904 and Section 6905 payments, which outlines what situations result in payments under these mechanisms; and issues for Congress, which discusses several topics that have been or may be of interest to Members of Congress when considering the future of PILT.

Congress has funded PILT through both discretionary and mandatory appropriations at various times since the program was first authorized. Some stakeholders and policymakers have routinely expressed concern about changes in the appropriations source, both the process of switching between mandatory and discretionary appropriations and the uncertainty that may accompany such changes.

From 1982 to 2008, Section 6906 provided an "Authorization of Appropriations" for PILT, which stated, "Necessary amounts may be appropriated to the Secretary of the Interior to carry out [PILT]." Further, it clarified that "amounts are available only as provided in appropriation laws." Congress amended this language in 2008 and changed the section title from "Authorization of Appropriations" to "Funding." Further, Congress changed the text to read

For each of fiscal years 2008 through 2012-

(1) each county or other eligible unit of local government shall be entitled to payment under this chapter; and

(2) sums shall be made available to the Secretary of the Interior for obligation or expenditure in accordance with this chapter.

This amendment effectively changed PILT funding from being discretionary to being mandatory for the years specified (see Table 1 for PILT funding since FY2005). Since 2008, Congress has amended Section 6906 several times by changing the fiscal year in the first line through both annual discretionary appropriations laws and other legislative vehicles ( Table 1 ).

PILT was funded through discretionary appropriations from its enactment through FY2007. Since FY2008, Congress has provided funding for PILT through both discretionary and mandatory appropriations ( Table 1 ). From FY2008 through FY2014, Congress authorized mandatory funding for PILT through several laws . Since FY2015, funding has been provided, at least partially, through the annual appropriations process. In FY2015, PILT received both discretionary and mandatory appropriations. For FY2016 through FY2020, Congress funded PILT through the annual appropriations process. In FY2016 and FY2017, the appropriations laws provided specific funding levels for PILT, which was treated as discretionary spending. In FY2018, FY2019, and FY2020, the appropriations laws provided funding for PILT by amending the authority provided in 31 U.S.C. Â§6906, which was treated as mandatory spending. In each of these three years, funding was provided for PILT at the full statutory calculation levels.

Since FY2008, Congress has provided funding for PILT through both one-year and multiyear appropriations. Congress's actions have resulted in full funding and partial funding in different years ( Table 1 and Figure 1 ). These types of changes from year to year may have implications for counties that rely on PILT funding as part of their annual budgets.

In addition to appropriating funding for the program, Congress routinely provides other guidance on PILT within the annual appropriations process, such as minimum payment thresholds, set-asides for program administration, and provisions for prorating payments. When appropriated funding is insufficient to cover the full amount for authorized payments under Sections 6902, 6904, and 6905, counties typically receive a proportional payment known as a prorated payment ( Figure 1 shows the disparity between the authorized amount and the appropriated amount in recent years). Even in years in which appropriations are set equal to 100% of the full statutory calculation, payments to counties may be prorated if funding is set aside for purposes other than payments, such as administration.

Section 6902 payments are provided to units of local government jurisdictions (referred to as counties in this report) across the United States to compensate for the presence of entitlement lands within their boundaries. Section 6902 payments also are provided to the District of Columbia, Guam, Puerto Rico, and the Virgin Islands. Section 6902 payments account for nearly all of the payments made under PILT. In FY2019, 99.85% of all PILT payments were made through Section 6902. Further, more counties are eligible for Section 6902 payments than either Section 6904 or Section 6905 payments. In FY2019, of the 1,931 counties that received PILT payments, 1,927 received payments under Section 6902, and 134 received payments under Section 6904 and/or Section 6905 (130 counties received payments under both Section 6902 and Section 6904 and/or Section 6905).

There are nine categories of federal lands identified as entitlement lands in the PILT statute.

1. Lands in the National Park System 2. Lands in the National Forest System 3. Lands administered by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) 4. Lands in the National Wildlife Refuge System (NWRS) that are withdrawn from the public domain 5. Lands dedicated to the use of federal water resources development projects 6. Dredge disposal areas under the jurisdiction of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 7. Lands located in the vicinity of Purgatory River Canyon and PiÃ±on Canyon, CO, that were acquired after December 31, 1981, to expand the Fort Carson military reservation 8. Lands on which are located semi-active or inactive Army installations used for mobilization and for reserve component training 9. Certain lands acquired by DOI or the Department of Agriculture under the Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act ( P.L. 105-263 )

Of these categories, the first three (National Park System, National Forest System, and lands administered by BLM) largely account for all of the lands managed by the relevant agencies. The remaining categories are either lands tied to specific laws or actions (categories 7 and 9, above) or lands that represent a subset of the lands administered by a particular agency. For example, entitlement lands that are included within the NWRS (category 4) only account for lands within the system that have been withdrawn from the public domain, which excludes lands that have been purchased as additions to the NWRS. Further, lands administered by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service that are not included in the NWRS are not included within the definition of entitlement lands. Similarly, lands in the other categories (5, 6, and 8, above) may not include all, or even the majority of, lands administered by particular agencies or departments.

Section 6902 payments are determined based on a multipart formula (see Figure 2 ). The DOI Office of the Secretary calculates PILT payments according to several factors, including

the number of entitlement acres; a per-acre calculation determined by one of two alternatives (Alternative A, also called the standard rate , or Alternative B, also called the minimum provision ); a population-based maximum payment (ceiling); certain prior-year payments pursuant to other compensation programs; and the amount available to cover PILT payments.

To calculate a particular county's PILT payment, the DOI Office of the Secretary first must collect data from several federal agencies and the county's state to answer the following questions:

How many acres of eligible lands are in the county? What is the population of the county? What was the increase in the Consumer Price Index for the 12 months ending the preceding June 30? What were the prior year's payments, if any, for the county under the other payment programs of federal agencies? Does the state have any laws requiring the payments from other federal land payment laws to be passed through to other local government entities, such as school districts, rather than stay with the county government?

The first step in calculating a county's Section 6902 payment is to determine the number of entitlement acres within the county ( Figure 2 , Box A).

The next step is to calculate the population-based ceiling by multiplying the county's population by the population payment rate ( Figure 2 , Box B). County population data are provided by the U.S. Census Bureau. For this calculation, counties with different populations are treated differently ( Figure 3 ):

For counties with populations smaller than 5,000, a county's actual population is used in the calculation . For counties with populations larger than 5,000, a county's population is rounded to the nearest 1,000, and this rounded population is used in the calculation. All counties with populations greater than 50,000, regardless of their actual populations, are considered to have a population equal to 50,000 for the purposes of calculating the ceiling.

The population payment rate generally declines as population increases in 1,000 person increments (per statute), although the population-based ceiling generally increases ( Figure 4 ). However, this is not always the case. For example, in FY2019, payment rates for several populations are the same despite increasing populations, such as the rates for populations of 26,000; 27,000; and 28,000, which are all $94.98. Further, some payment ceilings do not increase with increasing populations. For example, counties with populations of 50,000 have a lower ceiling than those with populations of 49,000 (49,000 Ã $76.33 = $3,740,170; and 50,000 Ã $74.63 = $3,731,500, or $8,670 less for the more populous county).

The population payment rate is adjusted annually for inflation based on the change in the Consumer Price Index for the 12 months ending on the preceding June 30. For FY2019, the population payment rates ranged from $186.56 per person for counties with populations of 5,000 or fewer to $74.63 per person for counties with populations of 50,000 or greater.

The next step is to calculate the payment level under alternatives A and B ( Figure 2 , Box C). Alternative A has a higher per-acre payment rate than Alternative B, but Alternative A is subject to a deduction for prior-year payments. Prior-year payments are those payments from the federal payment programs listed in statute:

the Act of June 20, 1910 (ch. 310, 36 Stat. 557); Section 33 of the Bankhead-Jones Farm Tenant Act (7 U.S.C. Â§1012); the Act of May 23, 1908 (16 U.S.C. Â§500), or the Secure Rural Schools and Community Self-Determination Act of 2000 (16 U.S.C. Â§Â§7101 et seq.); Section 5 of the Act of June 22, 1948 (16 U.S.C. Â§Â§577g-577gâ1); Section 401(c)(2) of the Act of June 15, 1935 (16 U.S.C. Â§715s(c)(2)); Section 17 of the Federal Power Act (16 U.S.C. Â§810); Section 35 of the Act of February 25, 1920 (30 U.S.C. Â§191); Section 6 of the Mineral Leasing Act for Acquired Lands (30 U.S.C. Â§355); Section 3 of the Act of July 31, 1947 (30 U.S.C. Â§603); and Section 10 of the Act of June 28, 1934 (known as the Taylor Grazing Act) (43 U.S.C. Â§315i).

However, if a state has a pass - through law that requires some or all of these prior-year payments to be paid directly to a sub-county recipient (e.g., a school district), these payments are not deducted from subsequent PILT payments in the following year.

Alternative B is calculated using a lower per-acre payment rate, but prior-year payments are not deducted. For FY2019, the per-acre payment rates were $2.77 per acre of entitlement land for Alternative A and $0.39 per acre of entitlement land for Alternative B. If the per-acre payment (number of acres multiplied by the per-acre payment rate) calculated under either alternative is greater than the population-based ceiling, then the population-based ceiling replaces the calculated amount.

Once each alternative is calculated, the greater of the two is the Section 6902 authorized payment for the county ( Figure 2 , Box D).

The Section 6902 authorized payments are calculated for every county, and this amount is added to the Section 6904 and Section 6905 authorized payments (for more information on Sections 6904 and 6905, see " PILT Payments Under Sections 6904 and 6905 "). This summed amount is the full statutory calculation for a given fiscal year ( Figure 2 , Box E). DOI compares the full statutory calculation with the amount appropriated and available for PILT payments to determine whether Congress has provided adequate funding to cover the full statutory calculation ( Figure 2 , Box F). If sufficient funding is available, each county receives its authorized amount; if funding is insufficient, each county receives a prorated payment that is proportional to its authorized payment ( Figure 2 , Box G).

The full statutory calculation and the amount available for PILT payments determine proration. Although there are additional adjustments made in the PILT proration calculation resulting from small idiosyncrasies related to the requirements for PILT paymentsânamely, the requirement of a minimum threshold of $100 for PILT payments âthe proration is fundamentally the ratio of the appropriated funding available for PILT payments to the full statutory calculation:

As a result, counties may receive less than their authorized PILT payment in years when appropriated funding is insufficient to cover the full statutory calculation. This scenario can occur even when total PILT appropriations match the full statutory calculation; this has been the case in years with mandatory appropriations, when part of the appropriated amount is set aside for a use other than county payments. For example, laws providing appropriations for PILT routinely have allowed DOI to retain a small portion of PILT appropriations for administrative expenses.

Section 6904 and Section 6905 payments account for a small fraction of total PILT payments. In FY2019, these payments were made to 134 counties and accounted for 0.15% of PILT payments ($750,605 of $514.7 million in total payments made). Once a county receives Section 6904 and Section 6905 payments, it is to disburse payments to governmental units and school districts within the county in proportion to the amount of property taxes lost because of the federal ownership of the entitled lands, as enumerated under these sections. County units and school districts may use these payments for any governmental purpose.

Section 6904 authorizes the Secretary of the Interior to make payments to counties that contain certain lands, or interests in lands, that are part of the National Park System and National Forest Wilderness Areas. However, Section 6904 specifies that these lands, or interests, are eligible only if (1) they have been acquired by the U.S. government for addition to these systems and (2) they were subject to local property taxes in the five-year period prior to this acquisition. Payment under Section 6904 is calculated as 1% of the fair market value of the land at the time it was acquired, not to exceed the amount of property taxes levied on the property during the fiscal year prior to its acquisition. Further, Section 6904 payments are made annually only for the five fiscal years after the land, or interest, is acquired by the U.S. government, unless otherwise mandated by law.

Section 6905 authorizes the Secretary of the Interior to make payments to counties that contain lands, or interests, that are part of the Redwood National Park and are owned by the U.S. government or that are acquired by the U.S. government in the Lake Tahoe Basin under the Act of December 23, 1980. Section 6905 payments are paid at a rate of (1) 1% of the fair market value of the acquired land or interests or (2) the amount of taxes levied on the land in the year prior to acquisition, whichever is lesser. Payments on these lands continue for five years or until payments have totaled 5% of the fair market value of the land.

PILT is of perennial interest to many in Congress and to stakeholders throughout the country. County governments are particularly interested in the certainty of PILT payments, as well as in how payments are calculated, because many consider PILT payments to be an integral part of their annual budgets. Congressional and stakeholder interests include questions of how PILT should be funded, what lands should be included as entitlement lands, and how authorized payment levels are calculated under PILT, among others.

Congress annually addresses questions of how funding should be provided to PILT. Congress has funded PILT through both mandatory and discretionary appropriations (see " PILT Authorizations and Appropriations "). More often than not, PILT funding has been provided through the discretionary appropriations process for one fiscal year at a time. Although PILT has consistently received funding since its enactment, the appropriations process has created uncertainty among some stakeholders about the level of annual funding. Stakeholders also have asserted that greater certainty, in terms of both the guarantee of funding and the amount of funding (i.e., full statutory calculation) would be better.

Members of Congress typically contemplate the implications and tradeoffs of discretionary versus mandatory spending and may have different views than the counties that receive PILT payments. Congress, for example, may weigh its discretion to review and fund PILT on an annual basis through the appropriations process against the certainty of funding for specific activities that accompany mandatory appropriations. Several bills have been introduced to amend how PILT is funded. For example, legislation has been introduced in the 116 th Congress that would require mandatory funding for PILT for either a set period of time (e.g., 10 additional years) or indefinitely.

The question of which lands should be eligible for PILT payments is also of interest to many Members and stakeholders. In law, entitlement lands are restricted to the listed federal land types (see " Entitlement Lands "). However, this definition does not fully encompass the types of lands that are held by the federal government, nor does it account for the full suite of lands that are exempt from state and local taxes. Although some of these other lands may receive compensation through other federal programs, not all do, which may cause financial hardships for counties that otherwise might receive revenue through taxation. To address this concern, some Members of Congress have contemplated amending the definition of entitlement lands under PILT. For example, past Congresses have introduced legislation that would have amended PILT by expanding the definition of entitlement land to include

land "that is held in trust by the United States for the benefit of a federally recognized Indian tribe or an individual Indian"; lands under the jurisdiction of the Department of the Defense, other than those already included in PILT; lands acquired by the federal government for addition to the National Wildlife Refuge System; and lands administered by the Department of Homeland Security, among others.

Amending the definition of entitlement lands could have several implications. Adding additional acres of entitlement lands could increase the authorized amount of payments under PILT, which likely would benefit those states with the added lands but not states that lack additional lands. This, in turn, could influence how Congress elects to fund PILT. Additional entitled lands may be eligible for other compensation programs, which could further affect PILT payments.

The authorized payment level under Section 6902, which accounts for nearly all payments under PILT, is calculated pursuant to the statutory requirements. This section has remained largely unchanged since it was amended in 1994 to add the requirement to adjust for inflation, among other changes. The inflation adjustment clause has resulted in increasing payment and ceiling rates since that time. Congress routinely considers whether the current formula is the best means of calculating payments under PILT or whether the formula should be amended. For example, in the 116 th Congress, bills have been introduced that would adjust the payment structure for counties with a population of less than 5,000. This adjustment would have implications for how population or area would be incorporated into calculating PILT payments and whether PILT payments were provided in an equitable manner.

PILT is of interest to a large number of counties and other state and local entities across the country, and it may remain of interest to many Members of Congress. In addition to the above issues, Congress may consider other issues related to PILT and how the program fits into the landscape of federal programs that compensate for the presence of tax-exempt federal lands.


Transportation Infrastructure Investment as Economic Stimulus: Lessons from the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009

Summary: Congress is considering federal funding for infrastructure to revive an economy damaged by Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19). Congress previously provided infrastructure funding for economic stimulus in the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (ARRA; P.L. 111-5 ). Enacted on February 17, 2009, ARRA was a response to the "Great Recession" that officially ran from December 2007 through June 2009. This report discusses the economic impact of the transportation infrastructure funding in ARRA.

Summary: ARRA provided $48.1 billion for programs administered by the U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT), with more than half, $27.5 billion, authorized for highways. Other funding included $8.4 billion for public transportation, $8.0 billion for high-speed rail, $1.3 billion for Amtrak, $1.3 billion for aviation programs, and $1.5 billion for Transportation Investment Generating Economic Recovery (TIGER) grants, which could be used for a wide range of transportation projects. Most of the ARRA funding was distributed by DOT agencies to their usual grantees via existing formula programs. The high-speed rail funding and TIGER grants required the establishment of two new discretionary programs.

Summary: Based on approximately a decade or more of program and other data, the following are among the observations that can be made with regard to the economic effects of ARRA funding for transportation infrastructure:

Summary: Infra structure s pending wa s s lower than o ther t ypes of s timulus . ARRA transportation funding was expended more slowly than other types of assistance, such as unemployment compensation. About 9% of DOT funding was spent within the first six months of availability compared with 44% of unemployment compensation. The majority of DOT's ARRA funding was spent in FY2010 (37%) and FY2011 (24%).

Summary: Characteristics of i nfrastructure f unding a ffect ed e xpenditure t iming. Funding that was distributed by DOT agencies to their usual grantees via existing formula programs was expended relatively quickly. This included most of the funding for highways, public transportation, aviation, and maritime transportation. Discretionary funds for programs established in the law, such as for the high-speed rail program and TIGER grants, took much longer to expend on construction because DOT had to design the programs, issue rules, advertise the availability of funds, and wait for applications from state and local agencies, which then had to complete their own contracting procedures to get work under way.

Summary: The l evel of i nfrastructure i nvestment d epend ed on n onfederal e ntities. State and local expenditures make up around 75% of transportation infrastructure expenditures. In some sectors, such as highways, the growth in federal spending due to ARRA was accompanied by a decline in state and local government spending.

Summary: Maintenance-of- e ffort r equirements we re d ifficult to e nforce. The federal share of transportation projects using ARRA funds was generally 100%, but states were required to certify that they would spend amounts already planned. These maintenance-of-effort requirements in transportation were challenging to comply with and to administer.

Summary: Employment e ffects w ere m odest . Employment in highway construction, for example, rose slightly in the year following the passage of ARRA. A sustained increase in employment did not begin until 2015.

Summary: Financing i nfrastructure did l everage s tate r esources . ARRA included the Build America Bond (BAB) program, which permitted state and local governments to issue tax credit bonds for any type of capital investment. The attractiveness of BABs may have accelerated the timing of capital financings and, thus, capital investment. BABs had a relatively generous subsidy rate, but compared with ARRA grants, the issuance of BABs for infrastructure ensured a state funding match of 65%.

Summary: Stimulus- f unded p rojects c an p rovide t ransportation b enefits . Most ARRA transportation funding went to routine projects such as highway paving and bus purchases that were quick to implement. According to DOT estimates, such projects often have higher benefit-cost ratios than large "game changing" projects that build new capacity.

Congress is considering federal funding for infrastructure to revive an economy damaged by Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19). This is not the first occasion on which Congress has considered funding infrastructure for purposes of economic stimulus. This report discusses the economic impact of the trans portation infrastructure funding that was provided in the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (ARRA; P.L. 111-5 ). Enacted on February 17, 2009, ARRA was a response to the recession that officially ran from December 2007 through June 2009. This "Great Recession" proved to be the most severe economic downturn since the Great Depression of the 1930s. The recession was relatively deep and the recovery relatively slow. The unemployment rate, for example, rose from 4.4% in May 2007 to 10% in October 2009, and did not fall below 6% again until September 2014.

ARRA was the largest fiscal stimulus measure passed by Congress in reaction to the Great Recession. When enacted, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimated the law would cost the federal government $787 billion from FY2009 through FY2019. Of this amount, infrastructure accounted for approximately $100 billion to $150 billion (13% to 19%), depending on how the term is defined (see text box, 'What is Infrastructure?').

Of the original $787 billion cost estimate, programs administered by the U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) received a total of $48.1 billion, about 6% of the total. Other public works infrastructure funding in ARRA included $4.6 billion for Army Corps of Engineers projects, some of which were related to waterborne transportation; $4 billion for state clean water revolving funds; $2 billion for state drinking water revolving funds; and $2.5 billion for four major federal land management agencies. Authority for state and local governments to issue tax credit bonds for capital spending represented an additional federal subsidy of about $36 billion. These figures do not include ARRA funding for federal government buildings and facilities, communications technologies, and energy systems.

As is the case with most federal infrastructure investment, the infrastructure support authorized in ARRA was provided in four different ways:

direct spending on infrastructure the federal government owns and operates, including roads and bridges on federal lands and the air traffic control system; grants to nonfederal entities, especially state and local agencies such as state departments of transportation and local public transportation authorities; tax preferences to provide incentives for nonfederal investment in infrastructure, such as the authority granted state and local governments to issue bonds to finance capital spending on infrastructure; and credit assistance to nonfederal entities, such as loans and loan guarantees to public and private project sponsors.

Transportation Infrastructure Funding in ARRA

ARRA funding represented a 72% supplement to DOT's regular FY2009 funding of $67.2 billion. More than half of the DOT spending authorized in ARRA was for highways. The highway funding was predominantly distributed by formula, and, like most of the other funding, had to be obligated by the end of FY2010â19 months after the date of enactmentâand expended by the end of FY2015. Most of the funding for public transportation was also distributed by formula; the major exception was $750 million for the Federal Transit Administration's existing Capital Investment Grant program. The $8 billion for high-speed and intercity rail projects was an entirely new discretionary program. ARRA also created an entirely new discretionary program whose explicit purpose was economic stimulus, Transportation Investment Generating Economic Recovery (TIGER) grants, which could be used for a wide range of transportation projects ( Table 1 ).

For most of these programs, the ARRA grants did not require any local match. States were required to certify that they would use these grants to supplement their planned transportation spending, rather than substituting the additional funding for their planned spending. This was known as maintenance-of-effort certification.

Infrastructure Spending Is Slower Than Other Types of Stimulus

The timing of expenditures of ARRA transportation funding demonstrated that infrastructure funding is generally expended more slowly than other types of assistance, such as unemployment compensation, Medicaid payments, and Social Security payments. Of the funding allocated to DOT, about 9% was spent within the first six months or so of availability, compared with 44% of unemployment compensation ( Table 2 ). The majority of DOT's ARRA funding was spent in FY2010 (37%) and FY2011 (24%). Another 11% was spent in FY2012. As with regular federal funding provided though DOT programs, ARRA funding was provided on a reimbursable basis. State and local governments had to complete an eligible project, or a defined part of a project, before receiving federal payment, so at least some of the intended economic effects, such as wage payments and orders for construction materials, had occurred prior to each transfer of federal grant funds to a recipient.

There was a good deal of criticism of infrastructure spending as an economic stimulus, asserting that the expenditures were too slow. The Obama Administration emphasized that the money could be used for "shovel-ready" projects, but critics complained that there is "no such thing as shovel ready." CBO data show that almost half of DOT's ARRA funding was spent within about 18 months of enactment. The Obama Administration argued that the relatively slow expenditure of infrastructure funding could offer advantages in a deep and long economic downturn, such as the Great Recession, by noting that

different types of stimulus affect the economy with different speeds. For instance, aid to individuals directly affected by the recession tends to be spent relatively quickly, while new investment projects require more time. Because of the need to provide broad support to the economy over an extended period, the Administration supported a stimulus plan that included a broad range of fiscal actions.

Characteristics of Infrastructure Funding Can Affect Expenditure Timing

Although the ARRA infrastructure funding was expended more slowly than most other types of support provided in the law, there were major differences in the rate of expenditures among infrastructure programs. Much of the highway and transit funding was distributed by DOT agencies to their usual grantees via existing formula programs, and was therefore available for use relatively quickly. Similarly, the Federal Aviation Administration distributed airport funds through the existing Airport Improvement Program, and the Maritime Administration awarded grants through its existing Assistance to Small Shipyards Program. More than 50% of funding for these programs was expended by grantees by January 2011, less than two years after the enactment of ARRA ( Table 3 ).

Discretionary funds for programs established in the law, such as for the high-speed rail program and TIGER grants, took much longer to distribute and to use because DOT had to design the programs, issue rules, advertise the availability of funds, and wait for applications. Congress recognized that setting up new programs would take some time by including longer obligation deadlines in the law. High-speed rail funding was expended particularly slowly. DOT data showed that three years after ARRA enactment, 8% of high-speed rail funding had been expended. High-speed rail had been studied for decades, but there were almost no plans or projects that were ready for implementation. In addition, unlike other parts of DOT, the Federal Railroad Administration was inexperienced at administering large amounts of grant funds.

A major exception to the general distinction between the timing of formula and discretionary program expenditures was the ARRA funding for the Federal Transit Administration's Capital Investment Grant (CIG) Program. The CIG Program, also known as New Starts, funds the construction of new fixed-guideway public transportation systems and the expansion of existing systems. Eligible projects include transit rail, such as subway/elevated rail (heavy rail), light rail, and commuter rail, as well as bus rapid transit and ferries. The agency has discretion in selecting projects to receive funds and in determining the federal contribution to each approved project. ARRA provided $750 million for the CIG Program. The Federal Transit Administration distributed these funds to 11 projects already under construction that "demonstrated some contract capacity to absorb additional revenues." The money was given to local transit authorities as various construction activities were completed. According to DOT, 63% of these funds were spent within one year of the ARRA's enactment and 100% were spent within two years.

In general, it was easier for state and local agencies to quickly spend funds on the types of small-scale projects that are typically made possible by formula funds. The Government Accountability Office (GAO) found that more than two-thirds of highway funds were committed for pavement improvement projects, such as resurfacing, reconstruction, and rehabilitation of existing roadways, and three-quarters of transit funds were committed to upgrading existing facilities and purchasing or rehabilitating buses. Funding for airports was used to rehabilitate and reconstruct runways and taxiways, as well as to upgrade or purchase air navigation infrastructure such as air traffic control towers and engine generators.

The Level of Infrastructure Investment Can Depend on Nonfederal Entities

Public spending on transportation, measured in inflation-adjusted 2017 dollars, has been on a downward trend since peaking in 2003 ( Figure 1 ). Infrastructure funding provided by ARRA interrupted that trend, buoying total spending in 2010 and 2011. Except for 2009, however, state and local expenditures, which make up around 75% of total infrastructure expenditures, continued to fall. State and local spending on transportation infrastructure, adjusted for inflation, was 8% lower in 2013 than in 2007, reflecting the long-term damage the Great Recession did to state and local budgets. As the stimulus from ARRA faded, 2013 saw the lowest spending on these major infrastructure systems since the late 1990s.

In some infrastructure sectors, such as highways, the growth in federal spending due to ARRA did not outweigh the decline in state and local government spending. Consequently, highway infrastructure spending fell over the period 2009 through 2013 ( Figure 2 ). Of course, there is no way to know exactly how highway spending would have changed in the absence of ARRA. Federal spending would have been lower, but it is possible that state and local government spending would have been higher if federal funding had not been available.

Maintenance-of-Effort Requirements Were Difficult to Enforce

Because of the Great Recession, state and local governments experienced a dramatic reduction in tax revenue even as demand for government services increased. For this reason, many jurisdictions found it difficult to maintain pre-recession levels of spending for at least some types of transportation infrastructure, leaving the possibility that additional federal dollars would simply replace state and local dollars. The federal share of transportation projects using ARRA funds was generally 100%, but states were required to certify that they would spend amounts already planned. This maintenance-of-effort requirement was in force from ARRA's enactment in February 2009, by which time the recession had been under way for over a year, through September 30, 2010.

In its analysis of ARRA, GAO found that the maintenance-of-effort requirements in transportation were challenging to comply with and to administer. For example, governors had to certify maintenance of effort in several transportation programs, some administered by the state and some administered by local governments and independent authorities. Within each state, these various programs typically had different and complex revenue sources. In many cases, states did not have a way to identify planned expenditures. Because of ambiguities in the law and practicalities that come to light with experience, DOT issued maintenance-of-effort guidance to the states seven times in the first year after ARRA enactment.

Some research on the effects of highway funding in ARRA on state highway spending found that, despite the maintenance-of-effort requirement, there was substantial substitution of federal dollars for state dollars. One analysis found that for every dollar of federal aid in ARRA for highways, on average, overall spending increased by 19 cents, meaning states decreased their own spending by 81 cents.

In many infrastructure sectors, the employment effects of ARRA funding were relatively modest. In highway construction, for example, employment dropped sharply from the end of 2007 through 2009. There was a slight increase through 2010, presumably related to the ARRA funding, but a sustained increase in employment did not begin again until 2015. The number of highway construction workers reached pre-recession levels in 2018 ( Figure 3 ).

Although employment in highway construction was much higher before the recession began in late 2007, employment might have fallen further in the absence of ARRA funding. The transportation funding in ARRA, therefore, may have allowed state and local governments to maintain a certain level of employment in the transportation construction sector. Additionally, it likely permitted state and local governments to maintain employment in other, nontransportation, sectors by shifting state expenditures from transportation to other purposes. The slow recovery of highway construction jobs suggests the sector could have productively absorbed more funding after the ARRA funding had largely been expended, particularly during the 2013, 2014, and 2015 construction seasons.

Financing Infrastructure May Leverage State Resources

The financial crisis and the accompanying recession affected state and local credit markets. Among other things, declines in employment and business activity made it difficult for state and local governments to raise funds through the sale of tax-exempt municipal bonds whose repayment depended on tax revenue. Limited access to financing or to financing at much higher costs may have contributed to a decline in state and local government infrastructure investment. In more normal economic times, municipal bonds account for about 10% of the capital invested in highways and public transportation.

In response to the problems in the municipal credit markets, ARRA included the Build America Bond (BAB) program, which permitted state and local governments to issue tax credit bonds from April 2009 through the end of 2010 to raise funds that could be used for any type of capital investment. Unlike traditional municipal bonds, which provide a subsidy to bondholders by exempting interest payments from federal income taxation and thereby allow issuers to sell bonds at low interest rates, BABs offered a higher taxable yield to investors; the federal government subsidized 35% of the issuer's interest costs. This subsidy rate was generally seen as generous, thereby reducing borrowing costs for state and local governments. Because the interest on BABs was taxable, the bonds were attractive to investors without federal tax liability, such as pension funds, enlarging the pool of possible investors. The taxable bond market is about 10 times the size of the traditional tax-exempt bond market. This larger market may have contributed to the reduction in borrowing costs. BABs were also considered more efficient than traditional municipal bonds because all of the federal subsidy went to the state or local government issuer. With traditional tax-exempt municipal bonds, some of the subsidy goes to investors.

There were 2,275 BAB issuances over the 21 months of eligibility, for a total of $181 billion. About 30% of BAB funding went to educational facilities, followed by water and sewer projects (13.8%), highways (13.7%), and transit (8.7%). Without the BAB program, some of this capital would have been raised using traditional tax-exempt bonds, although likely at a higher cost to state and local government issuers. The Department of the Treasury stated that BAB issuance surged in the last quarter of 2010, suggesting that issuers were accelerating the timing of capital financings and, thus, capital investment. Although BABs had a generous subsidy rate relative to other municipal bonds, their structure ensured that issuers paid 65% of the interest costs, effectively requiring state and local governments to pay a larger share of infrastructure costs than under ARRA grant programs. Because the federal subsidy is paid to the issuer as the interest is due to the investor, the cost to the federal government of BABs was spread over the subsequent years ( Table 2 ).

Stimulus-Funded Projects Can Provide Transportation Benefits

Because the purpose of ARRA was to stimulate the economy, the law included time limits on the obligation and expenditure of transportation funds. As noted earlier, about half of the transportation funds appropriated by ARRA were expended by the end of FY2010, within 20 months of the law's enactment. Much of this funding went to routine projects such as highway paving and bus purchases that were quick to implement. Larger projects that required more detailed environmental reviews and complex design work were not "shovel-ready," leading to assertions that ARRA did not "fund investments that would provide long-term economic returns."

In its examination of ARRA transportation expenditures, GAO found that the focus on quick implementation did change the mix of highway projects chosen. Some state officials stated that the deadlines "prohibited other, potentially higher-priority projects from being selected for funding." However, others noted that ARRA funding allowed them to complete so-called "state-of-good-repair" projects, presumably leaving greater financial capacity to undertake larger projects in the future. Furthermore, economic research shows that smaller state-of-good-repair projects often have higher benefit-cost ratios than new, large "game changing" projects whose benefits are often more speculative.

In its biennial examination of the highway and public transportation systems, DOT typically finds that, for the United States as a whole, too little is spent on state-of good-repair projects versus building new capacity. In its latest report, DOT examined actual spending in 2014 and various investment scenarios for the period 2015 through 2034. DOT found that state-of-good-repair spending was 76% of total highway spending in 2014, whereas to maximize economic benefits about 79% should go to such projects. For public transportation, DOT found that 64% to 74% of total infrastructure spending should be devoted to state-of-good repair projects, whereas 60% was used for that purpose in 2014.