"sole focus on financial caps" - should caps here be expenditures? Slightly repetitive, I realize, but caps isn't quite right either.
"Provisions" - lots of this section deals with things that aren't the provisions themselves; maybe a more descriptive section title? And/or consider breaking this up into a few more sections - e.g., background, restrictions, penalties?
The sentence containing "not very advantageous" (Sec. 2) is rather long and somewhat hard to follow.
"which was ruled to include" - simply "which included" or maybe "which was defined to include"?
Consider splitting up history into pre-history(?) and passage and implementation of the election provision?
2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.
My only comment here is that the end-of-paragraph citations in lots of places make it a little harder to follow what source is being cited for what point (e.g., third paragraph of section 1). I might consider revising to sprinkle those more directly throughout the text in the relevant location (though I know that doesn't always make sense).
2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).
Though I might trim down the IRS caption, which is long and somewhat redundant.
7. Overall assessment.
Moved to GA after followup edits. Good article on a useful topic!
@LuisVilla: Thanks for the review! I've made the requested changes. Although for a topic like this, I'd think it's actually more reliable to cite the IRS directly for basic factual information, since secondary sources may make mistakes or misinterpret the regulations. Antony–22 (talk⁄contribs) 02:26, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'm OK with citing both the IRS source and a secondary source (it's always useful to have a primary source available!), it's just helpful if we're not the ones interpreting it. Does that distinction make sense? (I'm pretty sure there is an essay on that somewhere, but heck if I can find it...)—Luis (talk) 04:31, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]