PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Placed on Senate Legislative Calendar under General Orders. Calendar No. 43.
Congressional Research Service
Version 80 · Reported to Senate without amendment · Apr 14, 2015
(This measure has not been amended since it was introduced. The summary has been expanded because action occurred on the measure.)
Philanthropic Enterprise Act of 2015
(Sec. 2) Amends the Internal Revenue Code to exempt the holdings of a private foundation in any business enterprise that meet specified requirements relating to exclusive ownership, minimum distribution of net operating income for the charitable purpose (all profits to charity), and independent operation (i.e., not controlled by a substantial contributor or family members) from the excise tax on excess business holdings, in taxable years beginning after 2014. Makes such exemption inapplicable to donor advised funds or supporting organizations that are subject to excess business holdings rules and certain charitable and split interest trusts.
People & committees
Sen. Hatch, Orrin G. [R-UT] · R–UT
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Placed on Senate Legislative Calendar under General Orders. Calendar No. 43.
Committee on Finance. Original measure reported to Senate by Senator Hatch. With written report No. 114-20.
Committee on Finance. Original measure reported to Senate by Senator Hatch. With written report No. 114-20.
Introduced in Senate
Primary sources
Text links open the official source. We currently store references to these documents.
Source last updated: Dec 5, 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 S.909 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 S.909 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 S.909 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 S.909 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.