National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2026 (S 2296) – Introduced by Sen. Roger Wicker (R-MS) on July 15, the Senate passed this legislation on Oct. 9. The bill is a carve-out of the 2026 budget bill intended to fund military appropriations for the 2025-2026 fiscal year. The bill was largely supported by Republicans but less so by Democrats, who are in favor of keeping the government closed until all of their budget concerns are addressed. In addition to establishing funding and policies for military and defense-related activities, the bill includes a roadmap for bomber modernization, a real-time database for contractor compliance oversight, and authorizing programs for nuclear weapons facilities. The legislation would authorize $32.1 billion over the President’s budget request, and the White House opposes provisions in the bill that thwart the President’s ability to control immigration and conduct foreign affairs, including submitting plans to Congress ahead of actions, dictating the terms of intelligence support to Ukraine, and enabling the Defense Department to bypass the Administration’s tariffs. The bill currently rests with the House, which asserts it will not return to regular session until the Senate passes the current controversial CR budget bill.
Employee Ownership Representation Act of 2025 (S 1728) – This bipartisan bill seeks to expand the membership of the Advisory Council on Employee Welfare and Pension Benefit Plans to include two representatives of employee ownership organizations. While the council presently includes 15 members from business, labor, and the public, the council has no expertise specific to Employee Stock Ownership Plans (ESOPs). The legislation was introduced by Sen. Bill Cassidy (R-LA) on May 13 and passed in the Senate on Oct. 9. It currently awaits consideration by the House.
Retire Through Ownership Act (S 2403) – The main purpose of this bill is to provide a clear definition for certain closely held stock that aligns valuations with IRS standards in an effort to mitigate valuation risk for ESOPs. It would also provide “safe harbor” for trustees relying on these guidelines. The Act was introduced by Sen. Roger Marshall (R-KS) on July 23. It passed in the Senate on Oct. 9 and currently lies with the House.
Uniformed Services Leave Parity Act (S 1440) – Introduced by Sen. Tammy Duckworth (D-IL) on April 10, this legislation would authorize leave benefits (parental leave, emergency leave) to Public Health Service (PHS) officers. The bill sponsors assert that the current lack of these important benefits is a challenge to recruiting and retaining PHS personnel, who should be on par with the same benefits offered to uniformed service members. The bill passed in the Senate on Oct. 9 and is up for review in the House.
Internal Revenue Service Math and Taxpayer Help Act (HR 998) – This bill was introduced on Feb. 5 by Rep. Randy Feenstra (R-IA). Among other provisions, it instructs the IRS to provide taxpayers with details of notices that relate to a math or clerical error. The bill passed in the House on March 31 and in the Senate on Oct. 20. It currently awaits the President’s signature to become law.
Alan F Burke CPA
Controversial Defense Funding Bill, Shoring Up ESOP Plans, and Leave Benefits for Public Health Personnel
November 1, 2025 · Blog, Congress at Work
⏱ 3 min read
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2026 (S 2296) – Introduced by Sen. Roger Wicker (R-MS) on July 15, the Senate passed this legislation on Oct. 9. The bill is a carve-out of the 2026 budget bill intended to fund military appropriations for the 2025-2026 fiscal year. The bill was largely supported by Republicans but less so by Democrats, who are in favor of keeping the government closed until all of their budget concerns are addressed. In addition to establishing funding and policies for military and defense-related activities, the bill includes a roadmap for bomber modernization, a real-time database for contractor compliance oversight, and authorizing programs for nuclear weapons facilities. The legislation would authorize $32.1 billion over the President’s budget request, and the White House opposes provisions in the bill that thwart the President’s ability to control immigration and conduct foreign affairs, including submitting plans to Congress ahead of actions, dictating the terms of intelligence support to Ukraine, and enabling the Defense Department to bypass the Administration’s tariffs. The bill currently rests with the House, which asserts it will not return to regular session until the Senate passes the current controversial CR budget bill.
Employee Ownership Representation Act of 2025 (S 1728) – This bipartisan bill seeks to expand the membership of the Advisory Council on Employee Welfare and Pension Benefit Plans to include two representatives of employee ownership organizations. While the council presently includes 15 members from business, labor, and the public, the council has no expertise specific to Employee Stock Ownership Plans (ESOPs). The legislation was introduced by Sen. Bill Cassidy (R-LA) on May 13 and passed in the Senate on Oct. 9. It currently awaits consideration by the House.
Retire Through Ownership Act (S 2403) – The main purpose of this bill is to provide a clear definition for certain closely held stock that aligns valuations with IRS standards in an effort to mitigate valuation risk for ESOPs. It would also provide “safe harbor” for trustees relying on these guidelines. The Act was introduced by Sen. Roger Marshall (R-KS) on July 23. It passed in the Senate on Oct. 9 and currently lies with the House.
Uniformed Services Leave Parity Act (S 1440) – Introduced by Sen. Tammy Duckworth (D-IL) on April 10, this legislation would authorize leave benefits (parental leave, emergency leave) to Public Health Service (PHS) officers. The bill sponsors assert that the current lack of these important benefits is a challenge to recruiting and retaining PHS personnel, who should be on par with the same benefits offered to uniformed service members. The bill passed in the Senate on Oct. 9 and is up for review in the House.
Internal Revenue Service Math and Taxpayer Help Act (HR 998) – This bill was introduced on Feb. 5 by Rep. Randy Feenstra (R-IA). Among other provisions, it instructs the IRS to provide taxpayers with details of notices that relate to a math or clerical error. The bill passed in the House on March 31 and in the Senate on Oct. 20. It currently awaits the President’s signature to become law.
Disclaimer
These articles provide general information on tax, accounting, and financial topics for small businesses and individuals. They are educational in nature and are not specific legal, accounting, financial, tax, or other professional advice, and should not be relied upon as such. This content was prepared by Service2Client and may have been reviewed or edited by the website owner for accuracy and compliance. Look for a trust mark below for verification details. No representation is made that any approach described will achieve a particular result, and no regulatory or professional body has reviewed or endorsed this content. Because each situation is different, readers should consult a qualified professional about their specific circumstances before acting. Images accompanying these articles are protected by copyright and may not be copied or reused.
America’s housing crisis has reached a breaking point. With median home prices soaring past $400,000, the National Association of Home Builders reports that 60 percent of U.S. households can’t even afford a $300,000 home. The math has become impossible for most American families.
While we often blame high mortgage rates, restrictive zoning laws and rising construction costs for the housing shortage, there’s another culprit hiding in plain sight: a decades-old tax rule that’s trapping millions of homeowners in houses they’d rather leave.
The $500,000 Problem
When Congress overhauled capital gains taxes on home sales in 1997, they created what seemed like a generous benefit: homeowners could exclude up to $250,000 in profits from taxes ($500,000 for married couples) when selling their primary residence. This replaced a complex system of rollovers and age-based exemptions with something simpler and cleaner.
But Congress made one critical mistake – they never adjusted these limits for inflation or housing price growth.
Nearly three decades later, these same dollar amounts remain frozen in time, even as home values have skyrocketed. According to new research from Moody’s Analytics, if the exclusion had kept pace with home prices, it would now stand at $885,000 for singles and $1,775,000 for couples. Even adjusting for general inflation alone would double today’s limits.
The Senior Squeeze
This outdated tax rule hits empty-nesters particularly hard. Consider this: nearly 6 million households headed by seniors live in homes larger than 2,500 square feet. Many would gladly downsize to something more manageable, but selling could trigger six-figure tax bills on homes they’ve owned for decades.
The result? They stay put, waiting until death when their heirs can inherit the property with a stepped-up basis that erases all capital gains. Meanwhile, these oversized homes remain off the market, unavailable to growing families who desperately need the space.
Moody’s Analytics estimates these “overhoused” seniors spend $3,000 to $5,000 more annually on maintenance, utilities and property taxes than they would in smaller homes – adding up to $20 billion to 30 billion in unnecessary costs nationwide each year.
An Unexpected Burden on the Middle Class
Surprisingly, this tax burden doesn’t primarily affect the wealthy. Middle-class homeowners in expensive markets like California and Massachusetts face steep tax bills despite modest incomes. Widows face their own challenges, having just two years after a spouse’s death to sell while maintaining the full $500,000 exclusion (though they do receive a partial step-up in basis on their late spouse’s share).
An IRS study revealed a startling fact: 20 percent to 25 percent of capital gains taxes collected under current rules come from filers earning less than $20,000 annually. Meanwhile, wealthier homeowners often have the resources and flexibility to structure sales strategically, minimizing their tax exposure.
The Housing Market Ripple Effect
This tax trap creates a cascade of problems. Young families remain stuck in starter homes. First-time buyers face even fiercer competition for limited inventory. Labor mobility suffers as workers can’t relocate to areas with better job opportunities. The entire housing ecosystem becomes frozen.
The shortage is stark: monthly active listings only climbed back above 1 million in May, according to realtor.com. Before the pandemic, that number hadn’t dropped below that threshold since at least 2016.
Solutions on the Table
Congress is considering two approaches to break this logjam. One would be to double the current exclusions and index them to inflation going forward. The more radical proposal would eliminate the cap entirely.
The Double-Edged Sword
Any change comes with risks. Moody’s Analytics warns that while updating these limits could unlock hundreds of thousands of homes and boost inventory, it might also intensify competition at the lower end of the market as downsizing seniors compete with first-time buyers for the same properties. It could also make housing an even more attractive tax shelter, which would ultimately drive prices higher.
The Path Forward
The paradox is clear: raising or eliminating the capital gains exclusion could provide immediate relief to millions of homeowners trapped by tax considerations. It could inject a much-needed supply into a starved market. But without careful implementation, it could just as easily fuel another round of price increases, leaving affordability as elusive as ever.
Alan F Burke CPA
The Hidden Tax Trap Keeping America’s Housing Market Frozen
November 1, 2025 · Blog, Tax and Financial News
⏱ 4 min read
America’s housing crisis has reached a breaking point. With median home prices soaring past $400,000, the National Association of Home Builders reports that 60 percent of U.S. households can’t even afford a $300,000 home. The math has become impossible for most American families.
While we often blame high mortgage rates, restrictive zoning laws and rising construction costs for the housing shortage, there’s another culprit hiding in plain sight: a decades-old tax rule that’s trapping millions of homeowners in houses they’d rather leave.
The $500,000 Problem
When Congress overhauled capital gains taxes on home sales in 1997, they created what seemed like a generous benefit: homeowners could exclude up to $250,000 in profits from taxes ($500,000 for married couples) when selling their primary residence. This replaced a complex system of rollovers and age-based exemptions with something simpler and cleaner.
But Congress made one critical mistake – they never adjusted these limits for inflation or housing price growth.
Nearly three decades later, these same dollar amounts remain frozen in time, even as home values have skyrocketed. According to new research from Moody’s Analytics, if the exclusion had kept pace with home prices, it would now stand at $885,000 for singles and $1,775,000 for couples. Even adjusting for general inflation alone would double today’s limits.
The Senior Squeeze
This outdated tax rule hits empty-nesters particularly hard. Consider this: nearly 6 million households headed by seniors live in homes larger than 2,500 square feet. Many would gladly downsize to something more manageable, but selling could trigger six-figure tax bills on homes they’ve owned for decades.
The result? They stay put, waiting until death when their heirs can inherit the property with a stepped-up basis that erases all capital gains. Meanwhile, these oversized homes remain off the market, unavailable to growing families who desperately need the space.
Moody’s Analytics estimates these “overhoused” seniors spend $3,000 to $5,000 more annually on maintenance, utilities and property taxes than they would in smaller homes – adding up to $20 billion to 30 billion in unnecessary costs nationwide each year.
An Unexpected Burden on the Middle Class
Surprisingly, this tax burden doesn’t primarily affect the wealthy. Middle-class homeowners in expensive markets like California and Massachusetts face steep tax bills despite modest incomes. Widows face their own challenges, having just two years after a spouse’s death to sell while maintaining the full $500,000 exclusion (though they do receive a partial step-up in basis on their late spouse’s share).
An IRS study revealed a startling fact: 20 percent to 25 percent of capital gains taxes collected under current rules come from filers earning less than $20,000 annually. Meanwhile, wealthier homeowners often have the resources and flexibility to structure sales strategically, minimizing their tax exposure.
The Housing Market Ripple Effect
This tax trap creates a cascade of problems. Young families remain stuck in starter homes. First-time buyers face even fiercer competition for limited inventory. Labor mobility suffers as workers can’t relocate to areas with better job opportunities. The entire housing ecosystem becomes frozen.
The shortage is stark: monthly active listings only climbed back above 1 million in May, according to realtor.com. Before the pandemic, that number hadn’t dropped below that threshold since at least 2016.
Solutions on the Table
Congress is considering two approaches to break this logjam. One would be to double the current exclusions and index them to inflation going forward. The more radical proposal would eliminate the cap entirely.
The Double-Edged Sword
Any change comes with risks. Moody’s Analytics warns that while updating these limits could unlock hundreds of thousands of homes and boost inventory, it might also intensify competition at the lower end of the market as downsizing seniors compete with first-time buyers for the same properties. It could also make housing an even more attractive tax shelter, which would ultimately drive prices higher.
The Path Forward
The paradox is clear: raising or eliminating the capital gains exclusion could provide immediate relief to millions of homeowners trapped by tax considerations. It could inject a much-needed supply into a starved market. But without careful implementation, it could just as easily fuel another round of price increases, leaving affordability as elusive as ever.
Disclaimer
These articles provide general information on tax, accounting, and financial topics for small businesses and individuals. They are educational in nature and are not specific legal, accounting, financial, tax, or other professional advice, and should not be relied upon as such. This content was prepared by Service2Client and may have been reviewed or edited by the website owner for accuracy and compliance. Look for a trust mark below for verification details. No representation is made that any approach described will achieve a particular result, and no regulatory or professional body has reviewed or endorsed this content. Because each situation is different, readers should consult a qualified professional about their specific circumstances before acting. Images accompanying these articles are protected by copyright and may not be copied or reused.
Contribution margin after marketing (CMAM) measures how much money is generated per unit retailed after factoring in a company’s variable costs, along with marketing costs.
It’s analogous with contribution margin, however, a business must factor in marketing costs the company experiences when publicizing a good to likely consumers with details on the business’ wares. This metric determines how well net sales can satisfy expense obligations and what percentage of net sales may remain to satisfy fixed expenses.
Comparing Variable Versus Fixed Costs
Variable costs, as the name implies, are expenses that rise and fall according to output quantities. Fixed costs, conversely, are expenses that don’t change despite variation of production quantities. Understanding these concepts is helpful when calculating CMAM to see how both types of expenses impact the different calculations.
It can also be determined on a per-unit basis to help a business understand how a single product unit contributes to the company’s comprehensive profits. One can calculate the CMPU (contribution margin per unit) as follows to provide a more granular analysis:
What separates variable costs (including marketing expenses) from the sales revenue is CMAM. The balance is profit along with fixed costs. To calculate if a business saw a net loss or profit, the formula is:
Net Operating Profit = CMAM – fixed costs
If a profit is reported after subtracting variable costs, costs to market, plus fixed costs, it means a business or specific department is profitable. If it’s negative, the business sees a loss that won’t enable it to pay its bills.
Illustrating CMAM
When it comes to a company producing widgets, the following is already known. Variable costs for production for a single widget are detailed below:
$2.25 for unprocessed inputs
$1.80 firsthand production expenses
$0.50 power
$0.40 freight expenses
$4,500 business equipment rentals
$6,000 factory rent
$30,000 management salary
$10,000 marketing costs
Each widget costs $10, and the business sold 30,000 last year. Therefore, it’s calculated as follows:
Variable Costs = ($2.25 + $1.80 + $0.50+ $0.40) x 30,000 = $4.95 x 30,000 = $148,500
CMAM = $300,000 = $148,500
The next step is to calculate net operating loss or profit: we take CMAM ($148,500), then subtract fixed costs:
$148,500 – ($4,500 + $6,000 + $30,000)
$148,500 – $40,500 = $108,000
Based on that calculation, the company producing widgets realized $108,000 for its net operating profit last year. The next section will discuss how businesses can use this information to improve their operations.
Using CMAM for Business Analysis
Managers use this metric to determine the viability of a product. If there are multiple iterations or options of a product, it can help managers determine which product sells the best and rank them if there are multiple versions of a widget. Businesses can analyze each unit’s contribution margin for each version of a widget to determine which versions provide the greatest option for profitability. Depending on the outcome, the company may choose to produce only the most profitable one or two widgets.
When it comes to the CMAM, businesses that use it for analysis can increase their sales efficiency for the present and future.
Alan F Burke CPA
Understanding Contribution Margin After Marketing
October 1, 2025 · Blog, General Business News
⏱ 3 min read
Contribution margin after marketing (CMAM) measures how much money is generated per unit retailed after factoring in a company’s variable costs, along with marketing costs.
It’s analogous with contribution margin, however, a business must factor in marketing costs the company experiences when publicizing a good to likely consumers with details on the business’ wares. This metric determines how well net sales can satisfy expense obligations and what percentage of net sales may remain to satisfy fixed expenses.
Comparing Variable Versus Fixed Costs
Variable costs, as the name implies, are expenses that rise and fall according to output quantities. Fixed costs, conversely, are expenses that don’t change despite variation of production quantities. Understanding these concepts is helpful when calculating CMAM to see how both types of expenses impact the different calculations.
It can also be determined on a per-unit basis to help a business understand how a single product unit contributes to the company’s comprehensive profits. One can calculate the CMPU (contribution margin per unit) as follows to provide a more granular analysis:
What separates variable costs (including marketing expenses) from the sales revenue is CMAM. The balance is profit along with fixed costs. To calculate if a business saw a net loss or profit, the formula is:
Net Operating Profit = CMAM – fixed costs
If a profit is reported after subtracting variable costs, costs to market, plus fixed costs, it means a business or specific department is profitable. If it’s negative, the business sees a loss that won’t enable it to pay its bills.
Illustrating CMAM
When it comes to a company producing widgets, the following is already known. Variable costs for production for a single widget are detailed below:
$2.25 for unprocessed inputs
$1.80 firsthand production expenses
$0.50 power
$0.40 freight expenses
$4,500 business equipment rentals
$6,000 factory rent
$30,000 management salary
$10,000 marketing costs
Each widget costs $10, and the business sold 30,000 last year. Therefore, it’s calculated as follows:
Variable Costs = ($2.25 + $1.80 + $0.50+ $0.40) x 30,000 = $4.95 x 30,000 = $148,500
CMAM = $300,000 = $148,500
The next step is to calculate net operating loss or profit: we take CMAM ($148,500), then subtract fixed costs:
$148,500 – ($4,500 + $6,000 + $30,000)
$148,500 – $40,500 = $108,000
Based on that calculation, the company producing widgets realized $108,000 for its net operating profit last year. The next section will discuss how businesses can use this information to improve their operations.
Using CMAM for Business Analysis
Managers use this metric to determine the viability of a product. If there are multiple iterations or options of a product, it can help managers determine which product sells the best and rank them if there are multiple versions of a widget. Businesses can analyze each unit’s contribution margin for each version of a widget to determine which versions provide the greatest option for profitability. Depending on the outcome, the company may choose to produce only the most profitable one or two widgets.
When it comes to the CMAM, businesses that use it for analysis can increase their sales efficiency for the present and future.
Disclaimer
These articles provide general information on tax, accounting, and financial topics for small businesses and individuals. They are educational in nature and are not specific legal, accounting, financial, tax, or other professional advice, and should not be relied upon as such. This content was prepared by Service2Client and may have been reviewed or edited by the website owner for accuracy and compliance. Look for a trust mark below for verification details. No representation is made that any approach described will achieve a particular result, and no regulatory or professional body has reviewed or endorsed this content. Because each situation is different, readers should consult a qualified professional about their specific circumstances before acting. Images accompanying these articles are protected by copyright and may not be copied or reused.
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2026 (S 2296) – Introduced by Sen. Roger Wicker (R-MS) on July 15, the Senate passed this legislation on Oct. 9. The bill is a carve-out of the 2026 budget bill intended to fund military appropriations for the 2025-2026 fiscal year. The bill was largely supported by Republicans but less so by Democrats, who are in favor of keeping the government closed until all of their budget concerns are addressed. In addition to establishing funding and policies for military and defense-related activities, the bill includes a roadmap for bomber modernization, a real-time database for contractor compliance oversight, and authorizing programs for nuclear weapons facilities. The legislation would authorize $32.1 billion over the President’s budget request, and the White House opposes provisions in the bill that thwart the President’s ability to control immigration and conduct foreign affairs, including submitting plans to Congress ahead of actions, dictating the terms of intelligence support to Ukraine, and enabling the Defense Department to bypass the Administration’s tariffs. The bill currently rests with the House, which asserts it will not return to regular session until the Senate passes the current controversial CR budget bill.
America’s housing crisis has reached a breaking point. With median home prices soaring past $400,000, the National Association of Home Builders reports that 60 percent of U.S. households can’t even afford a $300,000 home. The math has become impossible for most American families.
Contribution margin after marketing (CMAM) measures how much money is generated per unit retailed after factoring in a company’s variable costs, along with marketing costs.