I think it is a mistake to try to strike this language. This language says you can't expense over 2 years' payments that are made to keep a lease ongoing. Sometimes a person or a company may have a lease to drill or to explore. For whatever reason, they can't initiate exploration. It may be because of political problems. Maybe they can't get a particular permit. Maybe the price has dropped so low that it is not feasible. But they want to keep the lease open. So they make payments. Under the provision in the bill, we say those payments are expensed over 2 years. Frankly, they should be expensed in the year made. I might note we passed countless amendments that said let us give a tax credit for this. We will reduce taxes substantially; in other words, have the taxpayers subsidize it. In this case, we are not looking for subsidies. If somebody writes a check, we are asking that they be able to expense that check. Frankly, the provision in the Senate bill is over 2 years. It should be 1 year.
Don Nickles: “I think it is a mistake to try to strike this language. This language says you can't expense over 2 years' payments that…”
Editor's note · Context
Discussing tax treatment of lease payments during Senate floor debate.
Share
More from Don Nickles
I think for tax simplicity, you should allow every business to be able to expense certainly its wages.
When we reduce capital gains and corporate dividends to 15 percent, we actually raise more money for the Federal Government.
I have a couple comments. Again, I compliment my colleagues, Senator Kennedy and Senator DeWine. They have been steadfast in their advocacy. Senator DeWine is right, he and Senator Kennedy introduced this a long time ago. If I am correct…
I understand the Senator didn't like my first question because she is trying to give the Guard and Reserve additional compensation and additional pay but through a tax credit which goes to their employer which may take some time to get…





