S-3931-119
Read twice and referred to the Committee on Finance.
Sponsored by Mike Crapo (R-ID)
What it does
The Taxpayer Assistance and Service (TAS) Act would make broad changes to how the IRS interacts with taxpayers across ten areas. It would require the IRS to digitize tax returns and correspondence, publish real-time phone wait-time dashboards, expand online account access, strengthen protections for taxpayers in financial hardship, and increase oversight of tax return preparers. It would also expand Tax Court jurisdiction, strengthen whistleblower protections, provide tax deadline relief for hostages and wrongfully detained Americans abroad, and simplify tax rules for U.S. citizens living outside the country.
Who benefits
All U.S. taxpayers who interact with the IRS, particularly those who currently face long phone wait times or paper-processing backlogs. Low-income taxpayers would benefit from eliminated installment agreement fees (for those at or below 250% of the poverty line), automated refund offset bypass for those classified as "currently not collectible," and expanded Low-Income Taxpayer Clinic funding. U.S. citizens living abroad would benefit from simplified foreign currency rules, higher thresholds for foreign tax credit reporting, and reduced duplicative reporting burdens. Small businesses and independent contractors would benefit from voluntary withholding agreements and a failure-to-pay penalty safe harbor. Taxpayers who have been wrongfully levied or overcharged under an offer-in-compromise would gain new refund rights. Whistleblowers reporting tax fraud would receive stronger privacy protections, interest on awards, and exemption from sequestration cuts. Americans held hostage or wrongfully detained abroad would receive automatic tax deadline extensions. Tax professionals (attorneys, CPAs, enrolled agents) would gain streamlined multi-client online account access.
Who is hurt
Tax return preparers who engage in misconduct would face new or increased penalties, including for altering returns without authorization, misappropriating refunds, or failing to use valid preparer identification numbers — and could have their preparer IDs revoked. The IRS itself would face significant new administrative and technology implementation burdens, including real-time dashboards, digitization mandates, and expanded online account infrastructure. Taxpayers who currently benefit from the limitation period being suspended while seeking Taxpayer Advocate Service assistance would lose that protection under Section 404. Large partnerships would face new electronic filing mandates. Contractors and vendors who currently provide paper-based IRS services may see reduced demand. Taxpayers who committed fraud and relied on the existing limitation period rules would lose certain protections under Section 1003.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue that IRS customer service has been chronically underfunded and dysfunctional — the National Taxpayer Advocate's 2022 Annual Report documented that the IRS answered only 13% of calls and held a backlog of 21.3 million unprocessed returns. They contend that digitization, real-time dashboards, and expanded online accounts would directly address these failures, reducing taxpayer burden and improving compliance. Supporters further argue that the bill's hardship protections — eliminating fees for low-income installment agreements and automating refund bypass for those classified as uncollectible — correct a structural inequity where the poorest taxpayers face the steepest procedural barriers to resolving their tax debts.
Opponents argue
Opponents argue that the bill's sweeping technology mandates — real-time dashboards, full digitization, expanded mobile applications — impose implementation timelines and costs that the IRS, already strained by workforce reductions and aging IT infrastructure, may be unable to meet, potentially creating new compliance failures rather than fixing existing ones. They contend that expanding Tax Court jurisdiction, broadening whistleblower protections, and adding new preparer penalty regimes simultaneously increases litigation risk and administrative complexity without a clear funding mechanism, and that the bill's many unfunded mandates could divert IRS resources away from core enforcement and taxpayer service functions.