After a presidential campaign that saw a steady stream of tax proposals aimed at a wide range of constituents, Donald Trump appears to be due to return to the White House next January, when he can begin trying to deliver on those promises.
One of the most significant areas of focus will be on the expiring provisions of the former and future president’s 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, which was a signature achievement of his first term. Republicans have taken control of the Senate, but control of the House remains in question as votes continue to be counted.
Extending all the provisions could cost as much as $4.6 trillion, according to Rochelle Hodes, Washington National Tax Office principal at Top 25 Firm Crowe.
“Most of them are related to individuals,” she explained. “If they are allowed to expire, that would raise the tax for many individuals, which is an unattractive proposition for any president or for Congress. The decision will have to be made about which will be allowed to expire, whether or not some of the provisions will be changed in order to accommodate whatever budget goals are agreed upon, then the decision and consensus will have to be made concerning offsets to pay for the resolution of expiring provisions.”
The Republican Party platform called for making permanent many provisions of the TCJA, including doubling the standard deduction, and there is strong interest in reducing the corporate tax rate below the act’s 21% (though perhaps by only a percentage point).
Trump also expressed a willingness to revisit the $10,000 limit on state and local tax deductions that was enacted as part of the TCJA, following complaints from Republicans representing states with high local tax rates.
Another central provision Trump and the Republicans will look to restore is the Section 174 deduction for R&D expenditures — which is widely popular on both sides of the aisle in Congress.
“We saw pervasive support for that in a bipartisan bill in the House at the beginning of the year,” said Kasey Pittman, director of tax policy at the Washington tax council practice of Top 10 Firm Baker Tilly. “The vote tally was 374 for the bill, and 70 against.”
The bill failed in the Senate but not due to lack of support for the business provisions, according to Pittman.
“There was some politics involved. For example Senator Crapo, believing that Republicans will have more leverage after the 2024 election, didn’t wish to provide as much support for changes to the Child Tax Credit as the bipartisan bill called for. The stumbling block in the Child Tax Credit wasn’t the top line amount of the credit, but the refundability of the credit,” she said. “I think there’s just an ideological difference between the parties on how the credit should function.”
Beyond those major issues, Trump also proposed a number of narrowly focused tax ideas on the campaign trail, including:
Eliminating taxes on tips of restaurant and hospitality workers;
Eliminating taxes on Social Security benefits;
Eliminating taxes on overtime;
Eliminating taxes on firefighters, police officers and members of the military;
Providing a tax credit for family caregivers taking care of parents or loved ones; and,
Allowing those who buy a car that was made in the U.S. to write off the interest on their car loans.
To fund all those tax cuts and credits, Trump promised to implement high tariffs on goods entering the U.S., though economists and others question whether the tariff rates he was generally suggesting would cover the cost.
The Internal Revenue Service may be facing steep cuts in its budget with the win on Tuesday night of President-elect Donald Trump.
Funding for the IRS has become a political issue, with Republicans successfully pushing to cut the extra $80 billion funding from the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022 already during battles over the debt limit.
“I think IRS funding is at significant risk right now, both the annual appropriation funding as well as the remaining IRA funding,” said Washington National Tax Office principal Rochelle Hodes at the Top 25 Firm Crowe LLP.
So far, Republicans have mainly called for cuts in the IRS’s enforcement budget. The increase in enforcement is supposed to be used to pay for the cost of the IRA, but the funding increase is also supposed to be used for taxpayer service and technology improvements.
“The only question for me on funding is, will any portion of the funding remain available for taxpayer service-related improvements at the IRS?” said Hodes.
“I don’t think that will be in the sight line, but the IRA money is part of what’s being used for that,” said Hodes. “As we’ve seen in appropriations bills, there could be language directed at that, that no money can be spent on that initiative.”
A more important priority will be the extension of the expiring provisions of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017. “Getting TCJA resolved is going to be the first priority,” said Hodes. “The second question is, how will the cost of that endeavor be determined. If the view that is held by several Senate Republicans wins the day, then the cost of extending the expiring provisions will not be counted under those particular budget rules that are created dealing with extending current policy. If, however, that view is not adopted, then there is a high cost just to TCJA, and so any other provisions with cost will sort of stretch the boundaries of what many in Congress would be comfortable with. I think it will be necessary to see how the scoring goes for extending TCJA provisions.”
Trump has also called for exempting various forms of income, such as tip income, Social Security income and overtime from taxes.
“I also am not sure which of the ideas that were put forward on the campaign trail, other than extending TCJA, are provisions that have true champions who will want to pursue those,” said Hodes.
That may depend on who ends up in Congress, with several important races in the House yet to be decided.
“Although the House remains undecided, the Republicans’ control of the Senate makes it much more likely that Republicans will be able to implement many of Trump’s proposed tax policies, such as making parts of the expiring 2017 TCJA provisions permanent,” said John Gimigliano, principal in charge of the Federal Legislative & Regulatory Services group within KPMG’s Washington National Tax practice, in a statement. “The pressing question now is how the Administration and Congress will fund such an ambitious agenda and what additional measures they might introduce, such as eliminating taxes on tips and overtime. These items will only add to the hefty $4+ trillion price tag they face. Until then, taxpayers should continue to stay apprised of developments and scenario plan for the different outcomes to get ahead.”
Over half of accounting and tax firms plan to increase fees across all services in 2025, according to a new survey.
The survey, released Wednesday by practice management technology company Ignition, found that the majority (around 58%) cited rising business costs as the main motivator for their fee increases, while only 5% are raising prices to increase revenue. Most of the nearly 350 firms surveyed intend to increase fees across services by 5% or 10%.
Some 57% of the respondents plan to increase fees across all services. With regard to tax preparation specifically, 90% of the survey respondents plan to increase fees for individual tax returns, and 87% plan to increase fees for business tax returns. In addition, 70% plan to increase fees for tax planning and advisory services;. 85% plan to increase fees for bookkeeping and accounting services; and 76% plan to increase fees for CFO and controller services.
“While accounting firm owners are embracing price increases in 2025, the report shows that the majority (around 58%) cite rising business costs as the main motivator,” said Ignition global president Greg Strickland in a statement. “Only 5% are raising prices to increase revenue, which indicates an opportunity for firms to leverage pricing as a strategic tool to unlock revenue growth.”
The report found a shift from hourly billing to fixed-fee and value-based pricing, with 79% of the survey respondents indicating they use fixed-fee or value-based pricing for bookkeeping and accounting services. Over half (54%) use fixed-fee or value-based pricing for tax preparation services, 67% use fixed-fee or value-based pricing for tax planning and advisory services, and 75% use fixed-fee or value-based pricing for CFO and controller services.
The report benchmarked current fees for tax, accounting and advisory services, which varied based on firms’ annual revenue range. The biggest variation in pricing was for tax planning and advisory services in particular. For firms with revenue of as much as $250,000, approximately 23% said they charge less than $500 for these services, while a nearly equal number (around 21%) indicated they charge more than $2000.
Illinois voters approved a nonbinding proposal to add an extra 3% levy on annual incomes of more than $1 million, which could fuel a new effort to raise taxes on the state’s highest earners.
The ballot measure – which was an advisory question – won 60% of support, according to the Associated Press. About 90% of the votes have been counted.
“The vote is a gigantic step in the right direction,” said former Governor Pat Quinn, a supporter of the measure.
While the proposal has no legal effect, the vote opens the door to a new debate over ramping up taxes on the rich even as Illinois and Chicago, its biggest city, contend with population declines and a string of departures by major companies and wealthy residents. In 2020, voters rejected a separate measure backed by Governor JB Pritzker to replace the state’s flat tax on incomes with a graduated system that would raise rates on higher-earners.
The Pritzker plan drew staunch opposition from billionaire financier Ken Griffin, who donated about $50 million to help torpedo the initiative. Griffin then left Chicago for Miami in 2022, moving the headquarters of his Citadel empire there as well. Companies from Caterpillar Inc. to Boeing Co. have also departed amid rising concerns over public safety, regulation and taxes.
This year’s referendum asked voters if the Illinois Constitution should be amended to create the additional tax on income over $1 million. It called for using the proceeds to ease the state’s notoriously high property levies.