H.R. 1296: To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide appropriate rules for the application of the deduction for income attributable to domestic production activities with respect to certain contract manufacturing or production arrangements.

H.R. 1296: To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide appropriate rules for the application of the deduction for income attributable to domestic production activities with respect to certain contract manufacturing or production arrangements.

115th Congress · introduced 2017-03-01 · Taxation · Latest: Referred to the House Committee on Ways and Means.

federal

Follow this bill, step by step

Where it came from: introduced 2017-03-01 · official record
Who proposed it: Rep. Tiberi, Patrick J. [R-OH-12] · what a sponsor is
What happened next: no floor votes in our records yet. Why?
Where it stands now: Referred to the House Committee on Ways and Means. Not final yet: this can still change. We check for updates every day.
If it becomes law and spends money: follow the money to money laws, then agencies and contracts and grants.

What does this mean?

Official title

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide appropriate rules for the application of the deduction for income attributable to domestic production activities with respect to certain contract manufacturing or production arrangements.

Plain summary

This bill amends the Internal Revenue Code to specify rules for applying the deduction for income from domestic production activities to contract manufacturing or production arrangements. In a contract manufacturing or production arrangement, a person contracts with one or more unrelated persons for the manufacture, production, growth, or extraction of an item of qualifying production property (tangible personal property, computer software, and sound recordings) or film. The qualifying production property must be manufactured, produced, grown, or extracted in whole or significant part within the United States. In an arrangement in which any person makes a substantial contribution through the activities of its employees within the United States to the manufacture, production, growth, or extraction of qualifying production property: (1) the person shall be treated as engaging in the activity, and (2) the domestic production gross receipts of the person shall include the gross receipts received under the arrangement for the activities. The Internal Revenue Service must prescribe regulations that include specified factors for determining a substantial contribution. A person with an economic risk of loss of more than 50% of the direct material costs necessary to the manufacture, production, growth, or extraction of the qualifying production is deemed to make a substantial contribution. The parties to an arrangement may agree in writing to: (1) make only one person eligible for the deduction, or (2) apply the rules retroactively to tax years in which only one person claimed the deduction.

Congressional Research Service summary (Introduced in House), quoted unchanged (nonpartisan). Read the source.

What a vote does

A “Yea” vote

If it passes both chambers and is signed, it becomes law.

A “Nay” vote

If it is not passed, current law stays as it is.

PSI Sci description of the legislative step (not an opinion).

What does this mean? (plain words)

Official text

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide appropriate rules for the application of the deduction for income attributable to domestic production activities with respect to certain contract manufacturing or production arrangements.

Source: Congressional Research Service summary (Introduced in House)

AI explanation – may be wrong, check the official text

No AI explanation yet. It takes up to a minute to write and is then saved for everyone.

Limited to a few requests an hour per person.

The strongest published arguments

Arguments for (supporters)

Needs sources: no published arguments on this side yet. We only show items backed by a published source. Suggest one.

Arguments against (opponents)

Needs sources: no published arguments on this side yet. We only show items backed by a published source. Suggest one.

Alternatives

Needs sources: no published alternatives yet (for example a different bill, a law instead of an amendment, or keeping current law). We only show items backed by a published source. Suggest one.

How did my representative vote? · This bill's floor votes

Officials and money

Sponsor: Rep. Tiberi, Patrick J. [R-OH-12] · 9 cosponsors

Cost estimate: No cost estimate published yet.

Cosponsors on this site

Richard E. Neal (D-MA), John B. Larson (D-CT), Joyce Beatty (D-OH), Jim Jordan (R-OH), Jason Smith (R-MO)

No linked floor roll calls in our collected records yet. This does not mean the bill has never had a vote. Check the official bill history.

Words on this page, explained (3)

Appropriation: Money a legislature sets aside by law for a specific purpose. Government agencies may spend public money only as it has been appropriated.
Bill: A proposed law. It becomes law only if it passes the legislature and is signed by the president or governor (or a veto is overridden).
Rulemaking: The process agencies use to write regulations that carry out laws passed by Congress or a legislature. Usually an agency publishes a proposed rule, takes public comments, then publishes a final rule.

Plain meanings written from linked sources. All words.

Sources

Congressional Research Service summary (Introduced in House)
Congress.gov
Data: GovInfo BILLSTATUS bulk data (Library of Congress), BILLSTATUS-115hr1296.xml <https://www.govinfo.gov/bulkdata/BILLSTATUS/115/hr>

Record fed-us-cong115-hr1296 · catalog fed-us-congress-bills-cong115 · updated 2026-11-15 by psicol fed-bills-cong115