HR-997-119
Message on Senate action sent to the House.
Sponsored by Randy Feenstra (R-IA)
What it does
The bill would amend Section 7803(c)(2)(D)(i) of the Internal Revenue Code to allow the National Taxpayer Advocate to appoint counsel in the Office of the Taxpayer Advocate who report directly to the Advocate or the Advocate's delegate. It would also change a related reference so that the existing personnel provision covers any employee of the Office of the Taxpayer Advocate, not just employees of local offices. The changes would take effect as if included in the 1998 IRS Restructuring and Reform Act.
Who benefits
The National Taxpayer Advocate and the Office of the Taxpayer Advocate, which could get legal advice from its own lawyers rather than relying on IRS Chief Counsel. Taxpayers who seek the Office's help with unresolved IRS problems may benefit indirectly if the Office can act more independently. Congress may also gain, since the Advocate reports to it annually.
Who is hurt
The IRS Office of Chief Counsel could lose some influence over legal advice given to the Advocate. The IRS and Treasury might see more friction if the Advocate's counsel supports positions that differ from the agency's. Taxpayers generally could bear modest added personnel costs, since the bill does not state whether new funding is needed, and the Advocate's office might shift existing resources.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue the bill carries out what the 1998 conference report intended, that the Advocate be able to hire and consult counsel as appropriate. They contend that lawyers who report directly to the Advocate would give the Office independent legal advice, so it need not depend on the IRS Chief Counsel, whose agency it sometimes challenges on behalf of taxpayers.
Opponents argue
Opponents argue the IRS already has a Chief Counsel office that provides legal advice, so separate counsel could duplicate functions and add personnel costs. They contend that lawyers outside the Chief Counsel's chain of command could produce inconsistent legal positions inside the agency, and that the retroactive effective date adds legal uncertainty about past arrangements.
Constitutional context
The bill rests on Congress's Article I power to structure executive offices and the Internal Revenue Service under the Necessary and Proper Clause. It raises no significant constitutional question; the retroactive effective date concerns internal personnel authority, not taxpayer liability, so Fifth Amendment due process limits on retroactive taxes are not meaningfully implicated.
Checks and balances
The bill modestly shifts internal authority toward the National Taxpayer Advocate within the executive branch, and Congress keeps oversight through the Advocate's annual reports and its appropriations power.
Historical precedent
The Internal Revenue Service Restructuring and Reform Act of 1998 created the National Taxpayer Advocate position, and this bill aims to carry out intent stated in that law's conference report.