[Congressional Record Volume 172, Number 85 (Tuesday, May 19, 2026)]
[House]
[Pages H3564-H3567]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
TAXPAYER DUE PROCESS ENHANCEMENT ACT
Mr. SMITH of Missouri. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and
pass the bill (H.R. 6506) to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to
suspend the period of limitations on filing a claim for credit or
refund during collection action proceedings, to prohibit the crediting
of overpayments against disputed tax liability during such proceedings,
and to expand the jurisdiction of the Tax Court, as amended.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The text of the bill is as follows:
H.R. 6506
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the ``Taxpayer Due Process
Enhancement Act''.
SEC. 2. SUSPENSION OF PERIOD OF LIMITATIONS ON FILING A CLAIM
FOR CREDIT OR REFUND DURING COLLECTION ACTION
PROCEEDINGS.
(a) In General.--Section 6330(e)(1) of the Internal Revenue
Code of 1986 is amended by inserting ``subsection (a), (b),
or (c) of section 6511 (relating to limitations on credit or
refund),'' after ``section 6502 (relating to collection after
assessment),''.
(b) Period of Limitations on Filing a Claim for Credit or
Refund.--Section 6330(e) of such Code is amended by adding at
the end the following new paragraph:
``(3) Period of limitations on filing a claim for credit or
refund.--In the case of the running of any period of
limitations under subsection (a), (b), or (c) of section 6511
with respect to the filing of any claim for credit or refund,
paragraph (1)--
``(A) shall apply only to the extent that such credit or
refund relates to an underlying tax liability properly
disputed at the hearing requested under this section, and
``(B) shall not result in a suspension of the running of
such period of limitations after any date on which a lapse of
a deadline, a court filing, or a court order establishes that
the taxpayer has forfeited or otherwise lost the right to
pursue such dispute.''.
(c) Cross Reference.--Section 6511(i) of such Code is
amended by adding at the end the following new paragraph:
``(8) For limitations in case of collection action
proceedings, see section 6330(e).''.
(d) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section
shall apply to the running of any period of limitations if
such period (determined without regard to the amendments made
by this section) ends on or after the date of the enactment
of this Act.
SEC. 3. PROHIBITION ON CREDITING OF OVERPAYMENTS AGAINST
DISPUTED TAX LIABILITY DURING COLLECTION ACTION
PROCEEDINGS.
(a) In General.--Section 6402 of the Internal Revenue Code
of 1986 is amended by adding at the end the following new
subsection:
``(o) Prohibition on Crediting of Overpayments Against
Disputed Tax Liability During Collection Action
Proceedings.--If a hearing is properly requested under
section 6320(a)(3)(B) or 6330(a)(3)(B), and an underlying tax
liability referred to in section 6330(c)(2)(B) is properly
disputed at such hearing, such tax liability shall not,
except with the consent of the taxpayer, be taken into
account under subsection (a) for the period during which the
period of limitations for filing a claim for credit or refund
relating to such tax liability is suspended by reason of
section 6330(e).''.
(b) Clarification of Application of Certain Levy Hearing
Rules to Lien Hearings.--Section 6330(c)(2)(A) of such Code
is amended by striking ``unpaid tax or the proposed levy''
and inserting ``unpaid tax, collection action, or proposed
collection action''.
(c) Effective Dates.--
(1) In general.--The amendment made by subsection (a) shall
apply with respect to any period described in section 6402(o)
of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (as added by this
section) if any portion of such period is after the date of
the enactment of this Act.
(2) Clarification of application of certain levy hearing
rules to lien hearings.--The amendment made by subsection (b)
shall take effect on the date of the enactment of this Act.
SEC. 4. EXPANSION OF JURISDICTION OF TAX COURT.
(a) In General.--Section 6330(d)(1) of the Internal Revenue
Code of 1986 is amended to read as follows:
``(1) Petition for review by tax court.--
``(A) In general.--In the case of a determination under
this section, the person may, within 30 days of such
determination, petition the Tax Court for review of--
``(i) such determination, and
``(ii) any underlying tax liability referred to in
subsection (c)(2)(B) which is properly disputed at the
hearing in which such determination is made.
``(B) Jurisdiction of tax court.--Upon the filing of a
petition, the Tax Court shall have jurisdiction with respect
to--
``(i) the determination referred to in subparagraph (A)(i),
``(ii) any underlying tax liability referred to in
subparagraph (A)(ii), and
``(iii) any equitable tolling of the 30-day deadline
referred to in subparagraph (A).
``(C) Retention of jurisdiction.--Upon a determination
being made under this section, subparagraphs (A) and (B)
shall apply whether or not the Secretary abandons the
collection action or proposed collection action at issue in
such determination.''.
(b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by this section
shall apply with respect to petitions filed after the date of
the enactment of this Act.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from
Missouri (Mr. Smith) and the gentlewoman from Alabama (Ms. Sewell) each
will control 20 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Missouri.
General Leave
Mr. SMITH of Missouri. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all
Members may have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks
and submit extraneous material on this bill under consideration.
[[Page H3565]]
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Missouri?
There was no objection.
Mr. SMITH of Missouri. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 6506, the Taxpayer Due Process
Enhancement Act, bipartisan legislation introduced by my Ways and Means
colleagues, Representatives Nathaniel Moran and Terri Sewell.
A recent Supreme Court decision will make it more difficult for
American taxpayers to challenge the IRS in court when the agency seeks
to impose levies over an alleged tax liability. Right now, the taxpayer
can lose the opportunity to dispute the agency's actions simply by
procedural technicalities.
This bill enhances taxpayer rights by making collection proceedings
more taxpayer-friendly. By protecting deadlines, safeguarding refunds,
and ensuring fair judicial review, these changes are all for the
benefit of the taxpayer.
Mr. Speaker, as a former county judge, Representative Moran is
leading the charge through this legislation to restore taxpayer rights
and ensure that Americans can have their day in court. I reserve the
balance of my time.
Ms. SEWELL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in great support of H.R. 6506, the Taxpayer Due
Process Enhancement Act.
Before I address this bill, I would like to take a moment to discuss
the President's $1.8 billion slush fund, which was created by using
money from American taxpayers, a fund based on a meritless lawsuit that
will be used to pay his friends and allies. Yet, the Republican House
remains silent.
Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record an amicus brief filed on Monday
by me, my colleagues on the Ways and Means Committee, and the
Litigation Task Force, the link which can be found at:
Https://litigationtaskforce.house.gov/sites/evo-subsites/
litigationandresponse.house.gov/files/evo-media-document/54-
1.pdf.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF
FLORIDA
President Donald J. Trump, et al., Plaintiffs, v. Internal
Revenue Service, et al., Defendants.
No. 26-cv-20609-WILLIAMS/LETT
Motion For Leave To File Brief As Amici Curiae By 93 Members of the
United States House of Representatives
INTRODUCTION
Ninety-three Members of the United States House of
Representatives respectfully submit this motion for leave to
file a brief as amici curiae in support of neither party to
assist this Court in scrutinizing the unprecedented
circumstances that have given rise to the Court's ``concerns
about whether it has subject matter jurisdiction in this
case.'' ECF No. 43. President Trump's action against the
federal government he currently leads is a collusive lawsuit
that undermines the separation of powers, frustrates
Congress' lawmaking prerogative, and--unless rightfully
dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction--could
siphon billions of taxpayer dollars into the pockets of the
President, his family, and his allies. As Members of
Congress, the proposed amici have a direct and substantial
interest in ensuring that Article III's case or controversy
requirement is enforced and that acts of Congress are
faithfully executed by the Executive Branch. The proposed
amici respectfully submit this brief, attached as Exhibit A,
to present critical arguments regarding this Court's
jurisdiction and, among other things, the constitutional and
statutory limits on the Department of Justice's (``DOJ's'')
settlement authority that have not been--and will not be--
advanced by any party in the litigation.
INTEREST OF MOVANTS
Movants are 93 Members of the United States House of
Representatives. Movants are interested in this case because
they took an oath to uphold and defend the Constitution. They
also have a strong interest in ensuring that acts of Congress
are faithfully executed by the Executive Branch.
The President is attempting to undermine the Constitution
by bringing this collusive suit against the federal
government contrary to the requirement that federal courts
may only hear ``Cases'' or ``Controversies.'' U.S. Const.
art. III, Sec. 2, cl. 1. Congress has enacted laws governing
the specific circumstances under which individuals and
entities may sue the United States for unauthorized
disclosure of their tax return information. The DOJ is
entrusted with defending the United States against claims
under these laws and ensuring that the statutory requirements
are met before money is paid pursuant to the statutes. Here,
however, the DOJ has colluded with President Trump and his
allies and, in so doing, abdicated these responsibilities.
The parties' actions, therefore, have frustrated Congress'
purpose in enacting these laws.
Moreover, Congress has a strong interest in ensuring that
the Executive Branch properly guards the public fisc. That
includes complying with the Constitution's commands that
``All Bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House
of Representatives.'' U.S. Const. art. I, Sec. 7, cl. 1, ``No
Money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in Consequence of
Appropriations made by Law,'' id. art. I, Sec. 9, cl. 7, and
forbidding the President from ``receiv[ing] within [his term]
any other Emolument from the United States'' than
compensation approved by Congress, id art. II, Sec. I, cl. 7.
Should this lawsuit achieve Plaintiffs' desired ends, it
would result in the improper and unconstitutional transfer of
taxpayer dollars into the pockets of the President, his
family, and his allies. Having taken oaths to uphold and
defend the Constitution, the movants cannot stand by and let
the Constitution's provisions and prohibitions, including the
express bar on Presidential profiteering, go ignored.
DISCUSSION
District courts possess the inherent authority to allow
amici to assist in their proceedings. In re Bayshore Ford
Trucks Sales, Inc., 471 F.3d 1233, 1249 n.34 (11th Cir.
2006); Resort Timeshare Resales, Inc. v. Stuart, 764 F. Supp.
1495, 1500-01 (S.D. Fla. 1991). Because an amicus
``participates only for the benefit of the court, it is
solely within the discretion of the court to determine the
fact, extent, and manner of participation by the amicus.''
Id. at 1501 (quotation omitted).
This Court should grant this motion for leave to file an
amicus brief by 93 Members of the House of Representatives
because President Trump's presence on both sides of the
litigation, and his own blunt statements about his ability to
control the case, show that Plaintiffs and Defendants are not
adversaries. As such, the DOJ has failed to raise numerous,
clearly meritorious arguments for dismissal that it has
raised in other cases involving essentially identical facts.
The Court should allow the proposed amici to participate in
the litigation in order to equip the Court with these and
other critical considerations that will assist it in
conducting its analysis, including arguments regarding this
Court's Article III jurisdiction and the constitutional
and statutory limits on the DOJ's settlement authority.
Courts routinely grant leave to file an amicus brief where
the amicus `` `contributes to the court's understanding of
the matter in question' by proffering timely and useful
information.'' United States v. Santiago-Ruiz, No. 17-60022-
Crim-BLOOM, 2017 WL 11454398, at *2 (S.D. Fla. Dec. 4, 2017)
(quoting Conservancy of Sw. Fla. v U.S. Fish & Wildlife
Serv., No. 2:10-cv-106-FtM-SPC, 2010 WL 3603276. at *1 (M.D.
Fla. Sept. 9, 2010)). Courts also grant amicus status where
``[p]articipation as amicus curiae will alert the court to
the legal contentions of concerned bystanders . . . .''
Resort Timeshare, 764 F. Supp. at 1500-01 (citation omitted).
Here, the proposed amici bring the unique perspective of
current Members of Congress in a lawsuit that raises serious
questions about the separation of powers. the Origination
Clause, the Appropriations Clause, and the Emoluments Clause.
These issues are of critical importance to the proposed
amici, given their legislative and oversight roles, their
oaths, and their duties as constitutional stewards of the
federal treasury.
The brief by the proposed amici timely, as the Court has
indicated that it is currently analyzing whether it has
subject matter jurisdiction over the case. ECF No. 43.
CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, movants respectfully request
that the Court grant their motion for leave to file their
proposed amicus brief.
LOCAL RULE 7.1(a)(3) CERTIFICATION
Counsel for movants have made reasonable efforts to confer
with all parties regarding their positions with respect to
this motion but have been unable to do so. There have been
public reports that the parties are preparing to announce a
collusive settlement as early as today, May 18, 2026. Thus,
to ensure the Court has the benefit of amici's briefing
before such a settlement is announced, amici is filing this
motion and accompanying brief now.
Nevertheless, counsel for movants still sought the consent
of the parties. Movants' counsel emailed counsel for
Plaintiffs on Sunday, May 17, 2026, around 9:45 p.m. ET.
Plaintiffs' counsel has not yet responded to the request for
Plaintiffs' position on this motion. And although the
government has not yet entered an appearance in this matter,
counsel for movants emailed Matthew Feeley, Chief of the
Civil Division for the United States Attorney's Office for
the Southern District of Florida on Sunday, May 17, 2026,
around 9:45 p.m. ET. Mr. Feeley has not yet responded to the
request for the government's position on this motion.
[[Page H3566]]
Dated: May 18, 2026
Respectfully submitted,
Matthew J. Platkin, Angela Cai, Ravi Ramanathan, Aaron E.
Haier, Conor Bradley,
Platkin LLP, 413 Washington Ave., Unit 174, Belleville. NJ
07109.
Norman L. Eisen, David W. Ogden, Stephen A. Jonas,
Democracy Defenders Action, 600 Pennsylvania Ave. SE #15180,
Washington, D.C. 20003.
Rivero Mestre LLP, 2525 Ponce de Leon Boulevard, Suite 1000,
Miami, Florida 33134.
Andres Rivero, Florida Bar No. 613819,
Daniela Tenjido-Eljaiek, Florida Bar No. 1031531.
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I HEREBY CERTIFY that on this 18th day of May 2026, I
electronically filed the foregoing with the Clerk of Court by
using the CM/ECF system, which automatically serves all
counsel of record for the parties who have appeared.
Pursuant to Southern District of Florida Local Rule 5.2(a),
I further certify that I caused the foregoing to be served by
certified mail, return receipt requested, on the following
governmental entities who are defendants in this action or
act as an entity which accepts service on behalf of the
defendants in this action: (1) Internal Revenue Service, 1111
Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, D.C. 20224; (2) United
States Office of the Attorney General, 950 Pennsylvania
Avenue NW, Washington, D.C. 20530; and (3) Southern District
of Florida United States Attorney's Office, 99 N.E. 4th
Street, Miami, FL 33131. Service to these entities was made
via mail pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
5(b)(2)(C).
Andres Rivero.
Ms. SEWELL. Mr. Speaker, the Taxpayer Due Process Enhancement Act
will strengthen taxpayers' rights when the IRS uses a levy to collect
unpaid taxes by making technical fixes to the Tax Court's jurisdiction.
In the IRS Restructuring and Reform Act of 1998, language was added
to give taxpayers due process and an opportunity for review of IRS
collection cases involving levies. However, a recent U.S. Supreme Court
case has highlighted the need to revisit this section.
In this recent case, a taxpayer paid estimated taxes that were
applied to her ex-husband's account instead of her own account. The IRS
then proceeded to levy her property for the unpaid taxes.
She challenged this action in court, but while the case was pending,
the IRS offset her later-year refund against the unpaid taxes until it
eventually reached zero. At that point, the IRS sought to dismiss the
case and won.
The case was then appealed to the United States Supreme Court. The
Court held that the current statute limits the Tax Court's jurisdiction
to only reviewing whether a levy should proceed. Since there was no
longer a levy, she lost her ability to argue about the underlying
taxes. Worse, she also lost her later-year refunds because of the
statute of limitations being expired.
At every step of the process, Mr. Speaker, the system failed this
taxpayer. Our bill will fix this problem.
First, while disputing a levied case in the Tax Court, our bill tolls
the statute of limitations for filing refund claims.
Second, while the case is pending, the IRS is prohibited from using
later-year refunds to offset the taxpayer's liability without the
individual's consent.
Finally, this bill will give the Tax Court jurisdiction over the levy
and the underlying tax liability. The bill also would allow the Tax
Court to retain jurisdiction even if the IRS abandons the levy.
I thank my colleague, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Moran), for his
steadfast leadership in this area. I thank him for his generous
support, and I thank both of our staff for their hard work on this
bill.
We must work together to ensure that the IRS does not abuse its levy
authority and that taxpayer rights are clearly defined and protected. I
think it is very important that we make commonsense reforms like this,
and I am happy that they are bipartisan.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on this bill. I
reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. SMITH of Missouri. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may
consume to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Moran), the sponsor of this
legislation.
Mr. MORAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 6506, the
Taxpayer Due Process Enhancement Act, bipartisan legislation introduced
alongside my colleague Congresswoman Terri Sewell to strengthen
procedural protections for the American taxpayer.
This bill addresses a simple problem. Under current law, taxpayers
who challenge an IRS collection action can lose important other rights
and remedies simply because that process takes too long. That is not
the result we want for taxpayers.
Congress has a duty to ensure that when Americans dispute a tax
liability, the rules are clear, consistent, and taxpayer-friendly.
H.R. 6506 makes three important reforms to do just that.
First, it suspends the statute of limitations on refund claims while
collection disputes are pending. Under current law, a taxpayer can
spend years pursuing a legitimate challenge at Tax Court only to
discover the clock ran out on their ability to recover an overpayment.
This legislation will fix that.
Second, the bill prevents the IRS from automatically applying
taxpayer overpayments against disputed liabilities during collection
proceedings without the taxpayer's consent. Americans should not lose
access to their own funds before receiving a full and fair review of
the dispute and having that dispute settled.
{time} 1530
Third, H.R. 6506 expands the jurisdiction of the Tax Court to ensure
that taxpayers can obtain judicial review, even if the IRS later
abandons the collection action. The courthouse doors should not shut
out taxpayers because of procedural maneuvering and gamesmanship by the
IRS.
Mr. Speaker, this legislation was reported out unanimously from the
Ways and Means Committee by a vote of 41-0, proving that Members on
both sides of the aisle agree that taxpayers deserve due process and
fair judicial proceedings when dealing with the IRS.
For hardworking families and small business owners across east Texas
and across this Nation, dealing with the IRS can already be
intimidating enough. They deserve a system that is transparent,
accountable, and just. They deserve someone who will stand in their
corner, and this bill does just that.
No taxpayer should be at the whim of the IRS or deprived of important
remedies when they have successfully disputed their case.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to stand with the taxpayers today
and support H.R. 6506.
Ms. SEWELL. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. SMITH of Missouri. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may
consume to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Grothman).
Mr. GROTHMAN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Mr. Speaker, hearing the comments from a lot of my colleagues here, I
will repeat a quote that has been put over and over again on the news
the last couple of days. It is a Ronald Reagan quote: ``I'm from the
government, and I'm here to help.'' That is never going to happen.
Okay. Now I am here to support the Taxpayer Due Process Enhancement
Act. It is a bipartisan bill that strengthens taxpayer protections and
restores fairness to disputes with the IRS.
Prior to my time in elected office, I dealt with a law firm that did
hundreds of tax returns every year. I dealt with everyday Americans as
they brought their records, receipts, W-2s, 1099s, and whatever
paperwork they had received from the IRS. Many were not experts, and I
am talking about the people who work for the IRS, because they are
frequently wrong.
Our clients were workers, retirees, small business owners, and
families trying to do the right thing. I saw how easy it is for honest
taxpayers to become overwhelmed with our overcomplicated tax law and,
therefore, wind up confused with all of their notices and rules that
seemed to change from year to year, and they sometimes did.
Those are the people I came to Congress to help, and those are the
people this bill is meant to protect. They should not be at the mercy
of a Federal agency that can use procedural loopholes to avoid review
or pressure them into giving up a legitimate challenge.
Most taxpayers are not trying to cheat the system. They are just
trying to file correctly, correct honest mistakes, and make sure they
are treated
[[Page H3567]]
fairly. When a dispute arises, the IRS often has the advantage. It has
more resources, more lawyers, and a much better understanding of the
system than the average American. As I pointed out, frequently the IRS
agents themselves don't know the law.
This is why due process matters. Every American deserves the right to
challenge the IRS without worrying that the government will change the
rules.
Unfortunately, current law allows that to happen. The IRS can
effectively sidestep Tax Court review by applying refunds or disputed
tax liabilities or withdrawing collection actions before the court can
fully rule on the merits of the case. That is not how due process
should work in this country.
This legislation protects taxpayers by preserving refund rights
during disputes, preventing the IRS from taking refunds without
consent, and ensuring that taxpayers receive a full review before the
Tax Court. These are straightforward reforms rooted in fairness and
accountability. The IRS should not be allowed to use procedural
loopholes to pressure taxpayers or avoid review.
This bill is especially important for small businesses, working
families, and individuals, who don't have a team of lawyers or
accountants at their disposal. Americans should be able to challenge
the IRS on equal footing and trust that the system will treat them
fairly.
Mr. Speaker, I commend Representatives Moran and Sewell for advancing
this bipartisan legislation, and I urge my colleagues to support it.
Ms. SEWELL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time for
the purposes of closing.
Mr. Speaker, I thank my amazing, good friend, chair of the House Ways
and Means Committee, Jason Smith, for his leadership, and Ranking
Member Neal, who has always shown his support for the American people.
It is an honor to sit on a committee that can come together with
bipartisan legislation like this.
H.R. 6506 is a commonsense bill that will help taxpayers and the
courts. The bill passed 41-0 in the Ways and Means Committee, showing
bipartisan support for protecting the due process rights of taxpayers.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to
support this bill and pass this bill into law, and I yield back the
balance of my time.
Mr. SMITH of Missouri. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my
time.
Mr. Speaker, every taxpayer deserves the right to dispute IRS actions
taken against them. We have a judicial system in place that exists to
protect that right.
Unfortunately, as the system stands today, the IRS can circumvent
taxpayer rights, abandon judicial review, and impose penalties on
individuals who will have no real way to challenge what the government
claims.
Due process must be protected for all Americans, particularly for
those who are facing down a powerful government agency like the IRS.
Mr. Speaker, I encourage my colleagues to support this legislation,
and I yield back the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion offered by the
gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Smith) that the House suspend the rules
and pass the bill, H.R. 6506, as amended.
The question was taken; and (two-thirds being in the affirmative) the
rules were suspended and the bill, as amended, was passed.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
____________________