[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 159 (2013), Part 9]
[House]
[Pages 12771-12772]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                  TAXPAYER BILL OF RIGHTS ACT OF 2013

  Mr. ROSKAM. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the 
bill (H.R. 2768) to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to clarify 
that a duty of the Commissioner of Internal Revenue is to ensure that 
Internal Revenue Service employees are familiar with and act in accord 
with certain taxpayer rights, as amended.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The text of the bill is as follows:

                               H.R. 2768

       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 Bill of Rights Act 
     of 2013''.

     SEC. 2. DUTY TO ENSURE THAT IRS EMPLOYEES ARE FAMILIAR WITH 
                   AND ACT IN ACCORD WITH CERTAIN TAXPAYER RIGHTS.

       Section 7803(a) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is 
     amended by redesignating paragraph (3) as paragraph (4) and 
     by inserting after paragraph (2) the following new paragraph:
       ``(3) Execution of duties in accord with taxpayer rights.--
     In discharging his duties, the Commissioner shall ensure that 
     employees of the Internal Revenue Service are familiar with 
     and act in accord with taxpayer rights as afforded by other 
     provisions of this title, including--
       ``(A) the right to be informed,
       ``(B) the right to be assisted,
       ``(C) the right to be heard,
       ``(D) the right to pay no more than the correct amount of 
     tax,
       ``(E) the right of appeal,
       ``(F) the right to certainty,
       ``(G) the right to privacy,
       ``(H) the right to confidentiality,
       ``(I) the right to representation, and
       ``(J) the right to a fair and just tax system.''.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from 
Illinois (Mr. Roskam) and the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Levin) each 
will control 20 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Illinois.


                             General Leave

  Mr. ROSKAM. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members 
have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks 
and to include extraneous material on the subject of the bill under 
consideration.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Illinois?
  There was no objection.

[[Page 12772]]


  Mr. ROSKAM. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  H.R. 2768 is entitled the ``Taxpayer Bill of Rights Act of 2013.'' 
What it does is address a fundamental question. There was an ambiguity, 
apparently, Mr. Speaker, in the testimony that you heard in the Ways 
and Means Committee and that the ranking member heard in the Ways and 
Means Committee and in some other testimony that we've heard from the 
other body, which is this: Who is responsible for having an 
understanding of what's going on at the Internal Revenue Service? Who 
is responsible for the missteps and the mishaps and so forth?
  There was a theme that we heard from a couple of folks who you would 
have thought would have said that the responsibility was theirs, but 
they weren't really willing to take the responsibility. Here is what I 
mean by that. There currently exists 10 enumerated rights in the 
statute, and let me just quickly run through these. It's important that 
we look at this as a foundation upon which we have an expectation that 
the Internal Revenue Service is operating:
  Taxpayers have the right to be informed, the right to be assisted, 
the right to be heard, the right to pay no more than the correct amount 
of tax, the right of appeal, the right of certainty, the right of 
privacy, the right of confidentiality, the right to representation, and 
the right to a fair and just tax system.
  That's current law, but here is where parts of things get lost in the 
shuffle in that, apparently, the Commissioner of the Internal Revenue 
Service doesn't view that as that person's responsibility to make sure, 
A, that the Commissioner knows it and, B, that other employees know it.
  So what we are doing today, what we are proposing to the House today, 
is to put this in a place in the statute that unambiguously says that 
this is the responsibility of the Commissioner's. I alluded to a couple 
of quotes before, and I want to walk through them with you just briefly 
and put it in this context:
  What we are talking about, Mr. Speaker, are fundamental rights that 
are foundational and that the Congress has put into the Internal 
Revenue Code to make sure that taxpayers are protected. This is settled 
ground. This is common knowledge. This is a general understanding. 
There is no new ground. Nobody is hunting out ahead of the pack here. 
This is a very solid doctrine, these 10 enumerated rights.

                              {time}  1545

  The former Commissioner of the Internal Revenue Service, Douglas 
Shulman, said before the Finance Committee in the other body on May 21:

       I certainly am not personally responsible for creating a 
     list that had inappropriate criteria on it. What I know, with 
     the full facts that are out, is from the inspector general's 
     report, which doesn't say I'm responsible for that.
       With that said, this happened on my watch, and I very much 
     regret that it happened on my watch.

  He also said this:

       I had a partial set of facts, and I knew that the inspector 
     general was going to be looking into it, and I knew that it 
     was going to be stopped. Sitting there then and sitting here 
     today, I think I made the right decision, which is to let the 
     inspector general get to the bottom of it, chase down all the 
     facts, and then make his findings public.

  We heard, in the Ways and Means Committee, Mr. Speaker, from the 
former Acting Commissioner, Steven Miller. He said this:

       I think that what happened here was that foolish mistakes 
     were made by people trying to be more efficient in their 
     workload selection. The listing described in the report, 
     while intolerable, was a mistake and was not an act of 
     partisanship.

  Can you imagine how we would all be feeling if somebody came and 
there was an officer of the law who said, Well, I know I'm supposed to 
read Miranda rights. I know that's what the law says. I know it's 
settled doctrine. I know that that's what a defendant expects. But I 
was busy. I had a heavy workload. So I chose not to Mirandize the 
defendant. I just figured I didn't have enough time.
  There are so many things that are going on in this IRS story, there 
are so many components and elements of it, much of this is actually 
things that we have yet to learn. I think we're marveling every day at 
new facts that are coming out, and I think the House has been very 
disciplined, frankly, in letting the facts speak for themselves. But 
there is a fact, and here it is: there is ambiguity about who is in 
charge at the IRS; there is ambiguity about who is responsible at the 
IRS. And when the IRS commissioners, both of these recent appointees--
not the current one, but both recent appointees--have the sense of, 
Well, the responsibility belongs here and the responsibility belongs 
there, I think it is incumbent on the House to say, No, the 
responsibility for this lies with the Commissioner of the Internal 
Revenue Service, and that's what the plain language of this bill does.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I support this bill, and I think everybody will.
  I think we all agree that IRS employees, indeed, should perform their 
duties in accordance with the taxpayers' rights outlined in this bill. 
These rights have been outlined a number of times in the National 
Taxpayer Advocate's annual report to Congress. In fact, Democrats in 
the past have introduced legislation to codify these rights, and the 
National Taxpayer Advocate's support for codifying these rights dates 
back to 2007.
  I urge support of this bill, and I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. ROSKAM. Mr. Speaker, I urge an ``aye'' vote on H.R. 2768, and I 
yield back the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion offered by the 
gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Roskam) that the House suspend the rules 
and pass the bill, H.R. 2768, 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.

                          ____________________