A number of tax provisions either expired in 2011 or are scheduled to expire at the end of 2012. These include the following: The Bush tax cuts, which reduced income taxes by reducing tax rates, reducing the marriage penalty, repealing limitations on personal exemptions and itemized deductions (PEP and Pease, respectively), expanding refundable credits, and modifying education tax incentives. The Bush tax cuts also reduced estate tax liabilities by increasing the amount of an estate exempt from taxation and by lowering the tax rate; The alternative minimum tax (AMT) patch, which, by increasing the amount of income that is exempt from the AMT and allowing certain personal credits against the AMT, prevents an estimated 26 million additional taxpayers from owing the AMT; The payroll tax cut, which reduced an employee's share of Social Security taxes by two percentage points; A variety of previously extended temporary tax provisions, commonly referred to as "tax extenders," which affect individuals, businesses, charitable giving, energy, community development, and disaster relief. As Congress decides whether to extend these provisions, it may consider the estimated revenue losses associated with their extension. The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimated that extending these provisions through 2022, except for the payroll tax cut, which CBO assumes expires as scheduled at the end of 2012, would reduce revenues by $5.4 trillion between 2013 and 2022. Specifically, over this 10-year budgetary window extending the Bush tax cuts and extending the AMT patch would reduce revenues by $4.6 trillion, while extending the tax extenders would reduce revenues by $839 billion. The cost of extending the payroll tax cut for one year (2012) was estimated to be $114 billion over the 2012-2022 budgetary window. In addition to budgetary cost, Congress may also consider other factors when evaluating tax policy. For example, when considering extending the Bush tax cuts, policy makers might consider that the majority of the benefits of this policy accrued to the top 20% of taxpayers. They might also evaluate the potential contractionary impact the expiration of these cuts in 2013 may have on the economy, especially since both the scheduled expiration of the payroll tax cut and the enactment of budget cuts as part of the Budget Control Act (P.L. 112-25) are scheduled to go into effect at the same time. Similarly, Congress may examine the cost effectiveness of the payroll tax cut. According to CBO, the short-term stimulus impact of the payroll tax cut is lower than increasing aid to the unemployed or providing additional refundable tax credits to low- and middle-income households, but more stimulative than extending the Bush tax cuts. Finally, Congress may weigh the lower budgetary costs of short-term extensions of tax extenders against the unpredictability for taxpayers that can arise from short-term extensions. In past years, Congress has extended expiring provisions en masse in one legislative vehicle. In the 112th Congress, Members have considered legislation to extend certain provisions, including S. 3412, S. 3413, and H.R. 8, which extend some or all of the Bush tax cuts and the AMT patch. In addition, the Senate may consider S. 3521, which extends certain temporary expiring provisions.

The American Opportunity Tax Credit (AOTC)-enacted on a temporary basis by the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA; P.L. 111-5) and extended through the end of 2012 by the Tax Relief, Unemployment Insurance Reauthorization, and Job Creation Act of 2010 (P.L. 111-312)-is a partially refundable tax credit that provides financial assistance to taxpayers who are attending college, or whose children are attending college. The credit, worth up to $2,500 per student, can be claimed for a student's first four years of post-secondary education. In addition, 40% of the credit (up to $1,000) can be received as a refund by taxpayers with little or no tax liability. The credit phases out for taxpayers with income between $80,000 and $90,000 ($160,000 and $180,000 for married couples filing jointly) and is hence unavailable to taxpayers with income above $90,000 ($180,000 for married couples filing jointly). There are a variety of other eligibility requirements associated with the AOTC, including the type of degree the student is pursuing, the number of courses the student is taking, and the type of expenses which qualify. Prior to the enactment of the AOTC, there were two permanent education tax credits, the Hope Credit and the Lifetime Learning Credit. The AOTC temporarily replaced the Hope Credit from 2009 through the end of 2012 (the Lifetime Learning Credit remains unchanged). A comparison of these two credits indicates that the AOTC is both larger-on a per capita and aggregate basis-and more widely available in comparison to the Hope Credit. Data from the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) indicates that enactment of the AOTC contributed to a more than doubling of the amount of education credits claimed by taxpayers. Education tax credits were intended to provide federal financial assistance to students from middle-income families, who may not benefit from other forms of traditional student aid, like Pell Grants. The enactment of the AOTC reflected a desire to continue to provide substantial financial assistance to students from middle-income families, while also expanding the credit to certain lower- and upper-income students. A distributional analysis of the AOTC highlights that this benefit is targeted to the middle class, with more than half (53%) of the estimated $16 billion of AOTCs in 2009 going to taxpayers with income between $30,000 and $100,000. One of the primary goals of education tax credits, including the AOTC, is to increase college attendance. Studies analyzing the impact education tax incentives have had on college attendance are mixed. Recent research that has focused broadly on education tax incentives that lower tuition costs and have been in effect for several years, including the Hope and Lifetime Learning Credits, found that while these credits did increase attendance by approximately 7%, 93% of recipients of these benefits would have attended college in their absence. Even though the AOTC differs from the Hope Credit in key ways, there are a variety of factors that suggest this provision may also have a limited impact on increasing college attendance. In addition, a recent report from the Treasury Department's Inspector General for Tax Administration (TIGTA) identified several compliance issues with the AOTC. There are a variety of policy options Congress may consider regarding the AOTC, including extending the credit, extending a modified AOTC, or repealing the Hope and Lifetime Credits and extending a modified AOTC that includes provisions included in these credits. Alternatively, Congress may want to examine alternative ways to reduce the cost of higher education.

On December 31, 2012, a variety of temporary tax provisions which were part of the "fiscal cliff" expired. Two days later, the American Taxpayer Relief Act of 2012 (ATRA; P.L. 112-240) retroactively extended, and in certain cases modified, many of these provisions. The short time period between the expiration of these provisions and the enactment on January 2 of ATRA retroactively meant that from the perspective of all but upper-income taxpayers, income taxes remained unchanged between 2012 and 2013 (i.e., the amount of income tax withheld from their paycheck and the availability of certain tax deductions, credits, and exclusions remained unchanged). This report provides an overview of the tax provisions (Titles I-IV and Title X of P.L. 112-240) included in the "fiscal cliff deal," including: the permanent extension and modification of the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts, often referred to collectively as the "Bush-era tax cuts"; the temporary extension of certain tax provisions originally included as part of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA; P.L. 111-5), often referred to as the "2009 tax cuts"; the permanent extension of the alternative minimum tax (AMT) patch; the temporary extension of a variety of other temporary expiring provisions for individuals, businesses, and energy often referred to as "tax extenders"; and the expansion of in-plan conversions of traditional employer-sponsored retirement accounts (like 401(k) plans) to employer-sponsored Roth accounts (like Roth 401(k) plans). ATRA did not extend the payroll tax cut. The payroll tax cut-temporarily enacted for 2011 and 2012-reduced Social Security taxes from 6.2% to 4.2% for employees and from 12.4% to 10.4% for the self-employed on the first $110,100 of wages in 2012. In addition, P.L. 112-240 did not change another component of the fiscal cliff, namely new taxes primarily related to Medicare and enacted as part of the Affordable Care Act (ACA; P.L. 111-148, as amended), which went into effect at the beginning of 2013. The Joint Committee on Taxation (JCT) estimates that the tax provisions of ATRA (Titles I-IV and Title X) would reduce revenues by $3.9 trillion over the 10-year budgetary window from 2013 to 2022 in comparison to the official current law baseline. (The official current law baseline was an estimate of future revenue if all temporary tax provisions had expired as originally scheduled.) Of this $3.9 trillion, $1.5 trillion (39%) is a result of permanently extending certain income tax provisions of the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts, $369.1 billion (9%) is a result of permanently extending and modifying estate tax provisions, $134.2 billion (3%) is a result of temporarily extending 2009 tax cut provisions, $1.8 trillion (46%) is a result of permanently extending the AMT patch, and $76.3 billion (2%) is a result of temporarily extending certain temporary expiring provisions and "tax extenders." In contrast, using a current policy baseline which estimates future revenues if all temporary tax provisions (excluding the payroll tax cut) had been extended, the Administration has stated that these tax provisions would raise revenues by $618 billion. ATRA includes other non-tax provisions, including those related to budget sequestration, emergency unemployment benefits, and Medicare.

Currently, taxpayers may be able to claim two tax credits for residential energy efficiency: one is scheduled to expire at the end of 2011, whereas the other is scheduled to expire at the end of 2016. The nonbusiness energy property tax credit (Internal Revenue Code (IRC) 25C) currently provides homeowners with a tax credit for investments in certain high-efficiency heating, cooling, and water-heating appliances, as well as tax credits for energy-efficient windows and doors. For installations made during 2011, the credit rate was 10%, with a maximum credit amount of $500. The credit available during 2011 was less than what had been available during 2009 and 2010, when taxpayers were allowed a 30% tax credit of up to $1,500 for making energy-efficiency improvements to their homes. The residential energy efficient property credit (IRC 25D), which provides a 30% tax credit for investments in properties that generate renewable energy, such as solar panels, is scheduled to remain available through 2016. Advances in energy efficiency have allowed per-capita residential energy use to remain relatively constant since the 1970s, even as demand for energy-using technologies has increased. Experts believe, however, that there is unrealized potential for further residential energy efficiency. One reason investment in these technologies might not be at optimal levels is that certain market failures result in energy prices that are too low. If energy is relatively inexpensive, consumers will not have a strong incentive to purchase a technology that will lower their energy costs. Tax credits are one policy option to potentially encourage consumers to invest in energy-efficiency technologies. Residential energy-efficiency tax credits were first introduced in the late 1970s, but were allowed to expire in 1985. Tax credits for residential energy efficiency were again enacted as part of the Energy Policy Act of 2005 (P.L. 109-58). These credits were expanded and extended as part of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (ARRA; P.L. 111-5). The Section 25C credit was again extended, at a reduced rate, and with a reduced cap, through 2011, as part of the Tax Relief, Unemployment Insurance Reauthorization, and Job Creation Act of 2010 (P.L. 111-312). Although the purpose of residential energy-efficiency tax credits is to motivate additional energy efficiency investment, the amount of the investment resulting from these credits is unclear. Purchasers investing in energy-efficient property for other reasons-for example concern about the environment-would have invested in such property absent tax incentives, and hence stand to receive a windfall gain from the tax benefit. Further, the fact that the incentive is delivered as a nonrefundable credit limits the provision's ability to motivate investment for low- and middle income taxpayers with limited tax liability. The administration of residential energy-efficiency tax credits has also had compliance issues, as identified in a recent Treasury Department Inspector General for Tax Administration (TIGTA) report. There are various policy options available for Congress to consider regarding incentives for residential energy efficiency. One option is to let the existing tax incentives expire as scheduled. A second option would be to extend or modify the current tax incentives. S. 3521, the Family and Business Tax Cut Certainty Act of 2012, would extend the 25C credit for two years-2012 and 2013. Another option would be to replace the current tax credits with a grant or rebate program-the Home Star Energy Retrofit Act of 2010 (H.R. 5019 / S. 3177 in the 111th Congress), for example. Grants or rebates could be made more widely available, and not be limited to taxpayers with tax liability. Enacting a grant or rebate program, however, would have additional budgetary cost.