The myth of the limits on itemized deductions
Media misinformation is the real threat to charitable giving. For better or worse, the fiscal cliff deal doesn’t actually cap any itemized deductions.

Article Highlights

  • For better or worse, the fiscal cliff deal doesn’t actually cap any itemized deductions

    Tweet This

  • Contrary to the recent accounts, the fiscal cliff deal actually increases incentives to give to charity

    Tweet This

  • Misinformation on the fiscal cliff deal is the real threat to charitable giving

    Tweet This

Subscribe to AEI Today
A daily email of new publications, upcoming events, and videos across all AEI research areas.

First Name:
Last Name:
Email:
Zip Code:

As the fiscal cliff deal began to take shape at the end of December, media reports stated that the agreement would cap itemized deductions. In the days since the agreement was signed into law, some articles have continued to claim that it limits itemized deductions, including the charitable deduction, and therefore discourages charitable giving. But, it’s all a myth. For better or worse, the new law doesn’t actually cap any itemized deductions.

It’s easy to see why people might think otherwise. The new law brings back to life a provision — in effect from 1991 through 2009, but lapsed from 2010 through 2012 — that Congress calls the “overall limitation on itemized deductions.” But, the name is a misnomer, and not the only one in recent tax legislation. For nearly everyone who is subject to it, the resurrected provision has no economic link to itemized deductions and doesn’t change the tax savings from giving more to charity.

Here’s how the provision — which tax geeks call the Pease provision after its author, the late Congressman Donald Pease (D-Ohio) — normally works. Taxpayers with adjusted gross incomes above a threshold are taxed on an extra amount equal to 3 percent of the excess income over the threshold. Last week’s law sets the 2013 threshold at $300,000 for married couples. So, if a couple has $800,000 of adjusted gross income, Pease adds in an extra taxable amount of $15,000 (3 percent of the $500,000 excess income), on which the couple pays $5,940 of extra tax if they’re in the 39.6 percent bracket.

What does this have to do with itemized deductions? Nothing, except for how it’s labeled. The way the $15,000 gets added to taxable income is by subtracting $15,000 from the itemized deductions that the couple would otherwise claim. If the couple has $100,000 of charitable contributions, mortgage interest, state and local taxes, and other itemized deductions, Pease reduces the allowable deduction to $85,000. Deducting $85,000 rather than $100,000 makes taxable income $15,000 higher. But, calling the $15,000 a reduction in itemized deductions, rather than some other kind of increase in taxable income, makes no economic difference. No matter how it’s labeled, the extra taxable amount doesn’t change the couple’s incentive, on the margin, to give to charity or increase other itemized deductions.

Contrary to the recent accounts, the new law actually increases incentives to give to charity.
The incentive effects can be clarified by walking through how Pease affects the couple’s tax savings from giving an extra $100 to charity. Without Pease, the extra giving would boost the couple’s deductions from $100,000 to $100,100, trimming $100 from taxable income and providing $39.60 of tax savings. With Pease, the extra giving boosts the couple’s deductions from $85,000 to $85,100, still trimming $100 from taxable income and still providing $39.60 of tax savings. Either way, the tax reward for giving is 39.6 percent.

Because the $15,000 amount doesn’t go up when the couple claims more deductions, Pease doesn’t change the tax savings from claiming additional deductions. The $15,000 amount does go up if the couple earns more adjusted gross income, so Pease does amplify the tax burden from earning additional income. The Pease provision is actually a stealth tax rate increase rather than a cap on itemized deductions.

There is one caveat, which applies to high-income taxpayers whose itemized deductions are extremely small relative to their incomes. If the aforementioned couple’s contributions, taxes, mortgage interest, and certain other deductions had been less than $18,750, then Pease would have used a different formula to compute the extra taxable amount — that formula actually would have reduced the couple’s incentive to claim additional deductions. But, high-income taxpayers with such small deductions are few and far between. And certainly no charity should rely on them for financial support — by definition, people with few itemized deductions aren’t big givers.

Contrary to the recent accounts, the new law actually increases incentives to give to charity. For high-income people, the rise in the top bracket boosts the tax reward for giving from 35 to 39.6 percent. Unfortunately, the bracket increase also boosts the tax reward for working less and saving less.

Pease doesn’t actually reduce the tax benefits of giving to charity. But, reports that mislead donors into believing otherwise could prompt some of them to reduce their contributions. That misinformation is the real threat to charitable giving.

Also Visit
AEIdeas Blog The American Magazine
About the Author

 

Alan D.
Viard
  • Alan D. Viard is a resident scholar at the American Enterprise Institute (AEI), where he studies federal tax and budget policy.

    Prior to joining AEI, Viard was a senior economist at the Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas and an assistant professor of economics at Ohio State University. He has also been a visiting scholar at the US Department of the Treasury's Office of Tax Analysis, a senior economist at the White House's Council of Economic Advisers, and a staff economist at the Joint Committee on Taxation of the US Congress. While at AEI, Viard has also taught public finance at Georgetown University’s Public Policy Institute. Earlier in his career, Viard spent time in Japan as a visiting scholar at Osaka University’s Institute of Social and Economic Research.

    A prolific writer, Viard is a frequent contributor to AEI’s “On the Margin” column in Tax Notes and was nominated for Tax Notes’s 2009 Tax Person of the Year. He has also testified before Congress, and his work has been featured in a wide range of publications, including Room for Debate in The New York Times, TheAtlantic.com, Bloomberg, NPR’s Planet Money, and The Hill. Viard is the coauthor of “Progressive Consumption Taxation: The X Tax Revisited” (2012) and “The Real Tax Burden: Beyond Dollars and Cents” (2011), and the editor of “Tax Policy Lessons from the 2000s” (2009).

    Viard received his Ph.D. in economics from Harvard University and a B.A. in economics from Yale University. He also completed the first year of the J.D. program at the University of Chicago Law School, where he qualified for law review and was awarded the Joseph Henry Beale prize for legal research and writing.
  • Phone: 202-419-5202
    Email: aviard@aei.org
  • Assistant Info

    Name: Regan Kuchan
    Phone: 202-862-5903
    Email: regan.kuchan@aei.org

What's new on AEI

image The money in banking: Comparing salaries of bank and bank regulatory employees
image What Obama should say about China in Japan
image A key to college success: Involved dads
image China takes the fight to space
AEI on Facebook
Events Calendar
  • 21
    MON
  • 22
    TUE
  • 23
    WED
  • 24
    THU
  • 25
    FRI
Wednesday, April 23, 2014 | 12:00 p.m. – 1:30 p.m.
Graduation day: How dads’ involvement impacts higher education success

Join a diverse group of panelists — including sociologists, education experts, and students — for a discussion of how public policy and culture can help families lay a firmer foundation for their children’s educational success, and of how the effects of paternal involvement vary by socioeconomic background.

Event Registration is Closed
Thursday, April 24, 2014 | 12:00 p.m. – 1:30 p.m.
Getting it right: A better strategy to defeat al Qaeda

This event will coincide with the release of a new report by AEI’s Mary Habeck, which analyzes why current national security policy is failing to stop the advancement of al Qaeda and its affiliates and what the US can do to develop a successful strategy to defeat this enemy.

Friday, April 25, 2014 | 9:15 a.m. – 1:15 p.m.
Obamacare’s rocky start and uncertain future

During this event, experts with many different views on the ACA will offer their predictions for the future.   

No events scheduled this day.
No events scheduled this day.
No events scheduled this day.
No events scheduled this day.
No events scheduled this day.