Georgia Legislator Opposes Proposed Regs on Deductibility of State Lawmakers' Travel Expenses

To Whom It May Concern:

I write to express opposition to the adoption of the above-referenced proposed regulation by the Internal Revenue Service which will have the effect of preempting state definitions of "legislative day" for purposes of the income tax deduction for travel expenses of state legislators while away from home under IRC 162(h). The definition of "legislative day" under the proposed regulation is far narrower than the current Internal Revenue Code definition and many of the state definitions thereof. The proposed regulation will surely jeopardize the ability of state legislators to deduct travel expenses associated with certain meetings or events where legitimate legislative business is conducted. A state legislative day should be defined pursuant to state law as I am sure a federal legislative day is defined in federal law.

Current and Proposed Federal Law

Pursuant to the current Internal Revenue Code, legislators with districts farther than 50 miles from the respective state Capitol buildings may deduct expenses incurred in conducting legislative business on certain "legislative days," in an amount equal to the number of legislative days multiplied by the greater of the State per diem or the federal per diem. IRC 162(h). The term "legislative day" includes days that "(A) the legislature was in session (including any day in which the legislature was not in session for a period of 4 consecutive days or less), or (B) the legislature was not in session but the physical presence of the individual was formerly recorded at a meeting of a committee of such legislature." (IRC 162(h)(2)).

Effect of Proposed Changes

Under the proposed IRS regulation, "legislative day" would be defined more narrowly. For example, for purposes of the deduction for days when presence of the legislator is formerly recorded at a meeting of a committee of the legislature, the word "committee" will be defined as "any group consisting solely of legislators charged with conducting business of the legislature." In many states, interim committees often include and benefit from having non-legislator members. The legislator members of these committees should not be precluded from deducting their per diem for days they serve on these committees, as they are conducting business of the legislature. The narrowing of the definition most definitely will have a chilling effect on the zeal of elected people to carry out their duties, which I am sure is not an intended consequence of the proposed regulation.

Congress has already defined "legislative day" for purposes of this deduction, and it should be incumbent upon the states to further define this term as it applies to each individual state applying state law. A change in policy of this magnitude which rises to the level of affecting the entire population of the United States should, at the very least, be an Act of Congress approved by the Executive Branch, all of which are elected by the voting citizens of this country, rather than a regulation change by agencies that are not directly accountable to the voting public. It is clear based on the current broad definition of "legislative day" promulgated by the United States Congress that it was the intent of Congress to relegate to the states of the United States, respectively, the ability to refine and adapt this definition to suit state purposes.