PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Became Public Law No: 109-264.
Congressional Research Service
Version 49 · Public Law · Aug 3, 2006
(This measure has not been amended since it was reported to the House on June 29, 2006. The summary of that version is repeated here.)
Amends federal law provisions which prohibit states from taxing the retirement income of nonresidents to include a prohibition on taxing retirement income paid by a partnership to a nonresident retired partner under any written plan, program, or arrangement in effect immediately before retirement begins. Makes such amendment applicable to retirement income received after December 31, 1995.
Provides that certain adjustments to retirement payments under pension or deferred compensation plans, including cost-of-living adjustments, shall not disqualify such plans under the "substantially equal periodic payments" test.
People & committees
Rep. Cannon, Chris [R-UT-3] · R–UT
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Became Public Law No: 109-264.
Became Public Law No: 109-264.
Signed by President.
Signed by President.
Presented to President.
Presented to President.
Message on Senate action sent to the House.
Passed Senate without amendment by Unanimous Consent. (text: CR S8135)
Passed/agreed to in Senate: Passed Senate without amendment by Unanimous Consent.(text: CR S8135)
Senate Committee on Finance discharged by Unanimous Consent. (consideration: CR S8135)
Senate Committee on Finance discharged by Unanimous Consent.(consideration: CR S8135)
Received in the Senate and Read twice and referred to the Committee on Finance.
Motion to reconsider laid on the table Agreed to without objection.
On motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill, as amended Agreed to by voice vote. (text: CR H5244)
Passed/agreed to in House: On motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill, as amended Agreed to by voice vote.(text: CR H5244)
DEBATE - The House proceeded with forty minutes of debate on H.R. 4019.
Considered under suspension of the rules. (consideration: CR H5244-5245)
Mr. Sensenbrenner moved to suspend the rules and pass the bill, as amended.
Placed on the Union Calendar, Calendar No. 304.
Reported (Amended) by the Committee on Judiciary. H. Rept. 109-542.
Reported (Amended) by the Committee on Judiciary. H. Rept. 109-542.
Ordered to be Reported (Amended) by Voice Vote.
Committee Consideration and Mark-up Session Held.
Forwarded by Subcommittee to Full Committee by Voice Vote.
Subcommittee Consideration and Mark-up Session Held.
Subcommittee Hearings Held.
Referred to the Subcommittee on Commercial and Administrative Law.
Referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary.
Sponsor introductory remarks on measure. (CR E2064)
Introduced in House
Introduced in House
Primary sources
Text links open the official source. We currently store references to these documents.
No related bills are listed in this snapshot. This does not establish whether the proposal has appeared in earlier Congresses.
Source last updated: Apr 7, 2025. Consult Congress.gov for the current record.
AI Conversation Starters
Choose a perspective, copy a prompt, and paste it into your preferred AI. Each prompt includes the bill version and available official source links, and asks for counterarguments as well as supporting evidence.
Analyze H.R.4019 as objectively as possible. Explain its main provisions, who would be affected, possible benefits and harms, implementation, exceptions, and uncertainties. Present the strongest arguments for and against it, and identify evidence needed to assess its public impact.
Examine H.R.4019 through a progressive lens, focusing on fairness, access, economic inequality, and effects on vulnerable communities. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and distinguish stated goals from demonstrated outcomes.
Examine H.R.4019 through a conservative lens, focusing on fiscal responsibility, institutional stability, federalism, and the scope of government. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and any provisions that challenge this perspective.
Examine H.R.4019 through a civil-liberties and limited-government lens. Consider individual rights, privacy, voluntary choice, accountability, and government power. Explain tradeoffs, possible safeguards, and the strongest counterarguments without assuming the proposal is beneficial or harmful.