HR-10060-119
Referred to the House Committee on Ways and Means.
Sponsored by Richard Neal (D-MA)
What it does
This bill would amend the Internal Revenue Code to prohibit the IRS from entering into, granting, or giving effect to any agreement, order, waiver, or similar instrument that affects federal tax matters involving a sitting President, their family members, or related business entities. It would also require the IRS to publicly report any such instruments — including those entered into after January 20, 2025 — within 7 days of enactment, with follow-up reports every 30 days. Additionally, the bill would extend the statute of limitations for tax assessment and collection for covered persons for up to 3 years after the President leaves office.
Who benefits
The general public and taxpayers broadly, who would gain access to public disclosures about any tax agreements involving the President and related parties. Congress, which would receive mandatory reports from the IRS. Journalists, watchdog organizations, and government accountability advocates who rely on public disclosure of potential conflicts of interest. Future administrations, which would inherit a clearer legal framework governing presidential tax enforcement.
Who is hurt
The sitting President and their immediate and extended family members, who would be singled out as a class of taxpayers subject to special restrictions on IRS settlement authority. Business entities under common control with the President or related persons, which could lose access to standard IRS dispute resolution tools (such as offers in compromise or closing agreements) available to all other taxpayers. The IRS itself may face administrative burdens from mandatory reporting requirements and legal uncertainty about how to handle pending matters. Taxpayers in legitimate disputes with the IRS who are related to the President through business ties may face prolonged uncertainty and extended statutes of limitations.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue that the President's unique authority over the executive branch — which includes the IRS — creates a structural conflict of interest when the President or their associates have open tax matters. They contend that without a statutory prohibition, a President could direct or pressure the IRS to settle or release tax claims in their favor, undermining the rule of law. They point to the IRS's own mandatory audit program for sitting presidents, which has faced scrutiny over compliance, as evidence that existing safeguards are insufficient and that a binding statutory prohibition with public reporting is necessary to ensure equal enforcement of tax law.
Opponents argue
Opponents argue that singling out the President and their family as a class of taxpayers who cannot access standard IRS dispute resolution tools raises serious equal protection and due process concerns, potentially denying them rights available to every other American taxpayer. They contend that existing law already prohibits improper political interference in IRS enforcement, and that this bill's broad definition of "related persons" — sweeping in business associates and extended family — could ensnare innocent parties in prolonged tax uncertainty for years beyond a presidency. They further argue that mandatory public disclosure of the President's tax return information, even in summary form, may conflict with longstanding taxpayer privacy protections under Section 6103 of the Internal Revenue Code.
Constitutional context
The bill's retroactive application to instruments entered into after January 20, 2025 — before the bill's enactment — implicates the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment, which limits Congress's ability to impose retroactive legal consequences. The mandatory public disclosure of return information also engages Section 6103's existing privacy framework, which the bill explicitly modifies. No direct Sixteenth Amendment or apportionment issue is raised, as the bill regulates enforcement procedures rather than imposing a new tax.
Checks and balances
Congress would gain oversight authority over IRS tax enforcement actions involving the President; the IRS (executive branch) would lose discretionary settlement authority for a specific class of taxpayers, and courts would remain available to review both the bill's constitutionality and any IRS actions taken under it.
Historical precedent
The Ethics in Government Act of 1978 and subsequent financial disclosure laws established precedents for imposing special legal obligations on the President and executive officials not applicable to ordinary citizens, though no prior law has specifically restricted IRS settlement authority for a sitting President.