Re:

Here's the explanation we go fr=m Crapo's tax guy

The conference report language is now posted =n the House Rules Committee website. Tony may have already told you =uys, since he was in the conference, but we found out from Team Hatch as t=e conference wrapped up that our USVI provisions had to be dropped out.Q=A0 Tony may more insight but apparently JCT ultimately determined that the=language as written would also apply to Puerto Rico, leading to a revised =core of $3.9 billion, which was more than they could accommodate in the bi=l. When they tried to find a way to adjust the language to only appl= to the VI, they found it couldn't be done without it being consid=red an ineligible tax earmark. I'm still waiting for more de=ails about how and why JCT ended up with this new interpretation. Bu= sadly it appears after all our efforts we are now back to the drawing boa=d.

Erika A. Kellerhals
Member
Kellerhals =erguson Kroblin PLLC

9053 Estate Thomas, Su=te 101
St. Thomas VI 00802

Office
Cell: ktel

I am absolutely disgusted.

Erika A. Kellerhals
Mem=er
Kellerhals Ferguson Kroblin PLLC

</=iv>
9053 Estate Thomas, Suite 101
St. Thomas VI 00802
<=iv>

Office
Cell: <=div>

sourcing rules taken=out in conference.

please note

The information contained in this communication is confidential, m=y be attorney-client privileged, may constitute inside information, and=is intended only for the use of the addressee. It is the property of

Unauthorized use, disclosure or copying of this communication or=any part thereof is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful. If you hav= received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by<=nreturn e-mail or by e-mail
to jeevacation@gmail.com mailto:jeevacation@gmail.com , and
destroy this communicati=n and all copies thereof,
including all attachments. copyright -all rig=ts reserved

pretty late in the game for that determination/expla=ation . that seems so clear . weird

In addition the large head of household and cuts to =he bottom , will decimate the low income tax base further. No growth=to compensate. I don't understand the earmark issue