[House Report 119-7]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
119th Congress } { REPORT
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVEShr
1st Session } { 119-7
======================================================================
PROVIDING FOR CONGRESSIONAL DISAPPROVAL UNDER CHAPTER 8 OF TITLE 5,
UNITED STATES CODE, OF THE RULE SUBMITTED BY THE INTERNAL REVENUE
SERVICE RELATING TO ``GROSS PROCEEDS REPORTING BY BROKERS THAT
REGULARLY PROVIDE SERVICES EFFECTUATING DIGITAL ASSET SALES''
_______
February 28, 2025.--Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on
the State of the Union and ordered to be printed
_______
Mr. Smith of Missouri, from the Committee on Ways and Means, submitted
the following
R E P O R T
together with
DISSENTING VIEWS
[To accompany H.J. Res. 25]
The Committee on Ways and Means, to whom was referred the
joint resolution (H.J. Res. 25) providing for congressional
disapproval under chapter 8 of title 5, United States Code, of
the rule submitted by the Internal Revenue Service relating to
``Gross Proceeds Reporting by Brokers That Regularly Provide
Services Effectuating Digital Asset Sales'', having considered
the same, reports favorably thereon without amendment and
recommends that the joint resolution do pass.
CONTENTS
Page
I. SUMMARY AND BACKGROUND...........................................2
A. Purpose and Summary................................. 2
B. Background and Need for Legislation................. 2
C. Legislative History................................. 3
D. Designated Hearing.................................. 3
II. EXPLANATION OF THE RESOLUTION....................................3
III. VOTE OF THE COMMITTEE............................................6
IV. BUDGET EFFECTS OF THE RESOLUTION.................................7
A. Committee Estimate of Budgetary Effects............. 7
B. Statement Regarding New Budget Authority and Tax
Expenditures Budget Authority...................... 7
C. Cost Estimate Prepared by the Congressional Budget
Office............................................. 7
V. OTHER MATTERS TO BE DISCUSSED UNDER THE RULES OF THE HOUSE.......8
A. Committee Oversight Findings and Recommendations.... 8
B. Statement of General Performance Goals and
Objectives......................................... 8
C. Applicability of House Rule XXI, Clause 5(b)........ 8
D. Information Relating to Unfunded Mandates........... 8
E. Congressional Earmarks, Limited Tax Benefits, and
Limited Tariff Benefits............................ 8
F. Duplication of Federal Programs..................... 8
G. Tax Complexity Analysis............................. 9
VI. CHANGES IN EXISTING LAW MADE BY THE RESOLUTION, AS REPORTED......9
VII. DISSENTING VIEWS................................................10
I. SUMMARY AND BACKGROUND
A. Purpose and Summary
H.J. Res. 25, a joint resolution disapproving of the rule
promulgated by the Department of the Treasury relating to
``Gross Proceeds Reporting by Brokers That Regularly Provide
Services Effectuating Digital Asset Sales,'' was ordered
reported favorably by the Committee on Ways and Means on
February 26, 2025.
Under the resolution, the Treasury regulations published
and finalized on December 30, 2024,\1\ are disapproved under
the Congressional Review Act (the ``CRA''), and will be treated
as if they had never taken effect.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\T.D. 10021, 89 Fed. Reg. 106928, December 30, 2024.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
B. Background and Need for Legislation
On December 27, 2024, the U.S. Department of the Treasury
(``Treasury'') released final regulations titled, ``Gross
Proceeds Reporting by Brokers that Regularly Provide Services
Effectuating Digital Asset Sales.'' These final regulations
created reporting requirements for trading front-end service
providers that work directly with users on digital asset
transactions, sometimes referred to as ``DeFi brokers.'' The
final regulations were finalized as part of the Infrastructure
Investment and Jobs Act, Public Law 117-58. Under these new
regulations, users engaging in digital asset trades on DeFi
platforms, including newly defined ``DeFi brokers'', would be
required to file a Form 1099-DA and disclose information
including taxpayer information for those involved in digital
asset transactions as well as the financial details of those
transactions.
Upon publication in the Federal Register, the regulations
relating to ``Gross Proceeds Reporting by Brokers That
Regularly Provide Services Effectuating Digital Asset Sales,''
was challenged in court, with opponents contending that the
rule exceeded places unlawful compliance burdens on software
developers and American entrepreneurs, stifles innovation, and
threatens the viability of the digital asset industry. The rule
would also create a large increase in taxpayer information
reported to the Internal Revenue Service (``IRS'') as well,
placing an overwhelming incumbrance on the IRS to analyze and
ultimately process these claims. Additionally, due to the
unique structure of ``DeFi'' exchanges and the nature of these
platforms--including the fact that DeFi brokers do not collect
any of the information that would be required to be reported to
the IRS under this final rule--the finalized rule would
especially harm DeFi brokers who may be unable to meet the
reporting requirements.
C. Legislative History
Background
House Joint Resolution 25 was introduced on January 21,
2025, and was referred to the Committee on Ways and Means.
Committee Hearings
On February 26, 2025, the Committee held a markup of H.J.
Res. 25.
Committee Action
The Committee on Ways and Means marked up H.J. Res. 25, a
joint resolution to disapprove and render ineffective
regulations relating to ``Gross Proceeds Reporting by Brokers
That Regularly Provide Services Effectuating Digital Asset
Sales'' on February 26, 2025, and ordered the resolution
favorably reported (with a quorum being present).
D. Designated Hearing
Pursuant to clause 3(c)(6) of rule XIII, the following
hearing was used to develop and consider H.J. Res. 25:
On January 22, 2025, the Committee held a hearing entitled,
``Member Day Hearing on Matters within the Committees Tax
Jurisdiction''.
II. EXPLANATION OF THE RESOLUTION
A. Disapproval of the Rule Relating to Gross Proceeds Reporting by
Brokers That Regularly Provide Services Effectuating Digital Asset
Sales (Secs. 6045 and 6045A of the Internal Revenue Code and Secs. 801
Through 808 of Title 5 of the United States Code)
PRESENT LAW
Gross proceeds reporting by persons regularly providing services
related to digital asset sales
In 2021, Congress clarified that broker information
reporting includes reporting with respect to transactions
involving digital assets by amending the provisions of the
Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (``the Code'')\2\ that generally
require brokers to report sales, and in the case of certain
broker-to-broker transactions, basis.\3\ A broker is defined to
include ``any person who (for consideration) is responsible for
regularly providing any service effectuating transfers of
digital assets on behalf of another person.''\4\ Except as
provided by the Secretary of the Treasury (the ``Secretary''),
digital assets are defined as ``any digital representation of
value which is recorded on a cryptographically secured
distributed ledger or any similar technology as specified by
the Secretary.''\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\All section references in the document are to the Code, unless
otherwise stated.
\3\Pub. L. No. 117-58, sec. 80603 (Information reporting for
brokers and digital assets); secs. 6045(c)(1)(D) and 6045A(d).
\4\Sec. 6045(c)(1)(D).
\5\Sec. 6045(g)(3)(D).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regulatory guidance to implement the reporting requirement
was proposed in 2023,\6\ and finalized in a Treasury Decision
published in July 2024 titled ``Gross Proceeds and Basis
Reporting by Brokers and Determination of Amount Realized and
Basis for Digital Asset Transactions'' (hereinafter, ``July
2024 Regulations'').\7\ The July 2024 Regulations address the
general rules for gross proceeds and basis reporting for
persons within scope of the regulations. The guidance also
provides the rules for determining the amount realized from the
sale, exchange, or disposition of digital assets by persons
subject to the broker reporting rules, as well as the
determination of basis in assets in such transactions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\88 Fed. Reg. 59576, August 29, 2023.
\7\T.D. 10000, 89 Fed. R. 56480, July 9, 2024.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In defining the class of persons within scope of the
reporting rules, the regulations introduce the terms ``U.S.
digital asset broker,'' ``customer,'' and ``digital asset
middleman.'' A U.S. digital asset broker is defined as ``a
person that effects sales of digital assets on behalf of others
and that is . . . a U.S. payor or U.S. middleman''\8\ and is
required to report with respect to each sale by a customer if,
in the ordinary course of business in which ``the broker stands
ready to effect sales to be made by others, the broker effects
the sale or closes the short position opened by the sale.''\9\
A customer, with respect to a sale effected by a broker, is
defined as the person (other than such broker) that makes the
sale if the broker acts as (1) an agent for such person in the
sale; (2) a principal in the sale; (3) the participant in the
sale responsible for paying to such person or crediting to such
person's account the gross proceeds of the sale; or (4) a
digital asset middleman that effects the sale of a digital
asset for such person.\10\ A digital asset middleman is defined
as any person who provides certain facilitative services with
respect to a sale of digital assets.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\Treas. Reg. sec. 1.6045-1(g)(4)(i)(A) (defines U.S. digital
asset broker). The term ``U.S. middleman'' is defined in regulations
under rules on interest reporting and intermediaries. Treas. Reg. secs.
1.6049-5(c)(5)(i) (defining U.S. middleman).
\9\Treas. Reg. sec. 1.6045-1(c)(2).
\10\Treas. Reg. sec. 1.6045-1(a)(2)(i).
\11\Former Treas. Reg. sec. 1.6045-1(a)(21).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In the preamble to the July 2024 Regulations (the
``Preamble''), Treasury distinguished between custodial and
non-custodial industry participants. Custodial industry
participants, such as custodial digital asset trading platforms
and certain digital asset hosted wallet providers, generally
act as principals or agents to effect digital asset
transactions on behalf of their customers. In contrast, non-
custodial industry participants are described as participants
that do not take possession of a customer's digital assets,
such as operators of non-custodial digital asset trading
platforms (sometimes referred to as decentralized finance or,
colloquially, ``DeFi''). As explained in the Preamble, the
decentralized finance industry offers services that allow for
transactions that use automatically executing software
(sometimes referred to as ``smart contracts'') that do not
require taking custody of a digital asset customer's private
access code (or ``private key'') needed to access such
customer's digital account.
As discussed above, the regulations defined a digital asset
middleman as any person who provides certain facilitative
services with respect to a sale of digital assets. The
Secretary finalized the definition of digital asset middleman
as applied to custodial industry participants by specifying
certain facilitative services, such as acceptance or processing
of digital assets as payment for property of a type which when
sold would constitute a sale by a broker that is in the
business of effecting sales of such property. However, Treasury
reserved on and did not finalize the definition of digital
asset middleman as applied to non-custodial industry
participants, noting that such rules would be provided in a
separate set of final regulations. The July 2024 Regulations
are otherwise in effect and generally require gross proceeds
reporting for sales of digital assets occurring on and after
January 1, 2025, and basis reporting for certain sales
occurring on and after January 1, 2026.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\Treas. Reg. sec. 1.6045-1(q).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The regulations finalized in December 2024, titled ``Gross
Proceeds Reporting by Brokers That Regularly Provide Services
Effectuating Digital Asset Sales'' (hereinafter, the ``December
2024 Regulations'') address only a revised definition of
digital asset middleman to encompass certain persons who
participate in effectuating decentralized financial
transactions (non-custodial industry participants).\13\ In the
definition of digital asset middleman, the December 2024
regulations replace ``facilitative services'' with
``effectuating services'' and provide that an ``effectuating
service'' includes both the previously-defined ``facilitative
services'' (as included in the July 2024 Regulations) as well
as trading front-end services where the nature of the service
arrangement is such that the person providing that service
ordinarily would know or be in a position to know that the
nature of the transaction potentially gives rise to gross
proceeds from the sale of digital assets.\14\ Trading front-end
services generally facilitate trading for customers who may
otherwise need to write software code in order to communicate,
and thus transact, with other decentralized finance
participants.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\T.D. 10021, 89 Fed. Reg. 106928, December 30, 2024.
\14\Treas. Reg. sec. 1.6045-1(a)(21).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The December 2024 Regulations generally apply to sales of
digital assets occurring on or after January 1, 2027.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\15\Treas. Reg. sec. 1.6045-1(q) (the revised rule of Treas. Reg.
sec. 1.6045-1(a)(21) is applicable to sales of digital assets occurring
on or after Jan. 1, 2027).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Congressional Review Act
Under the Congressional Review Act (the ``CRA''),\16\
Congress may overturn certain Federal agency actions by passing
a joint resolution of disapproval that is introduced within 60
days of the date on which the rule is submitted to Congress for
review.\17\ Under a CRA joint resolution of disapproval, if a
disapproved rule has not yet gone into effect, the rule will
not take effect;\18\ if a disapproved rule has already gone
into effect, the rule shall be treated as though it had never
taken effect.\19\ Rules that do not take effect or do not
continue due to a CRA joint resolution of disapproval may not
be reissued in substantially the same form, and new rules that
are substantially the same as disapproved rules may not be
issued absent a change in law.\20\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\16\5 U.S.C. secs. 801-808.
\17\5 U.S.C. secs. 801(a), 801(d), and 802. The date of submission
is the date on which a report on the rule is submitted to Congress,
generally not later than the date on which the rule is published in the
Federal Register. If the session of Congress in which the report was
submitted adjourns until the first day of the following session of the
same or next Congress, the rule is treated as if published, in the case
of the House, on the 15th legislative day of the new session of
Congress.
\18\5 U.S.C. sec. 801(b)(1).
\19\5 U.S.C. sec. 801(f).
\20\5 U.S.C. sec. 801(b)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
REASONS FOR CHANGE
The Committee is concerned that the December 2024
Regulations may be broad, ambiguous, overly burdensome, and
impractical. First, the Committee believes that the regulations
fall outside the explicit scope of the statutory language that
extended third-party information reporting requirements to
digital asset transactions. Second, the noncustodial nature of
the activities presents for parties subject to the regulations
barriers to collecting the information necessary to comply with
the regulations.
EXPLANATION OF THE PROVISION
The provision is a joint resolution disapproving of the
rules published on December 30, 2024, by the Department of the
Treasury relating to ``Gross Proceeds Reporting by Brokers That
Regularly Provide Services Effectuating Digital Asset Sales.''
Under the CRA, the December 2024 Regulations immediately cease
to have effect and are treated as though they had never taken
effect. The July 2024 Regulations are not affected by the
resolution.
EFFECTIVE DATE
The joint resolution is effective on date of enactment.
III. VOTE OF THE COMMITTEE
Pursuant to clause 3(b) of rule XIII of the Rules of the
House of Representatives, the following statement is made
concerning the vote of the Committee on Ways and Means in its
consideration of H.J. Res. 25, disapproving of the rule
promulgated by the Department of the Treasury relating to
``Gross Proceeds Reporting by Brokers That Regularly Provide
Services Effectuating Digital Asset Sales,'' on February 26,
2025.
The resolution, H.J. Res. 25, disapproving of the rule
promulgated by the Department of the Treasury relating to
``Gross Proceeds Reporting by Brokers That Regularly Provide
Services Effectuating Digital Asset Sales,'' was ordered
favorably reported to the House of Representatives by a
recorded vote of 26 yeas and 16 nays, with a quorum being
present.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Representative Yea Nay Present Representative Yea Nay Present
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Smith (MO)..................... X ...... ......... Mr. Neal............. ...... X .........
Mr. Buchanan....................... X ...... ......... Mr. Doggett.......... ...... X .........
Mr. Smith (NE)..................... X ...... ......... Mr. Thompson......... ...... X .........
Mr. Kelly.......................... X ...... ......... Mr. Larson........... ...... X .........
Mr. Schweikert..................... X ...... ......... Mr. Davis............ ...... X .........
Mr. LaHood......................... X ...... ......... Ms. Sanchez.......... ...... X .........
Mr. Arrington...................... X ...... ......... Ms. Sewell........... ...... ...... .........
Mr. Estes.......................... X ...... ......... Ms. DelBene.......... ...... X .........
Mr. Smucker........................ X ...... ......... Ms. Chu.............. ...... X .........
Mr. Hern........................... X ...... ......... Ms. Moore (WI)....... ...... X .........
Mrs. Miller (WV)................... X ...... ......... Mr. Boyle............ ...... ...... .........
Dr. Murphy......................... X ...... ......... Mr. Beyer............ ...... X .........
Mr. Kustoff........................ X ...... ......... Mr. Evans............ ...... X .........
Mr. Fitzpatrick.................... X ...... ......... Mr. Schneider........ ...... X .........
Mr. Steube......................... X ...... ......... Mr. Panetta.......... ...... X .........
Ms. Tenney......................... X ...... ......... Mr. Gomez............ ...... X .........
Mrs. Fischbach..................... X ...... ......... Mr. Horsford......... ...... ...... .........
Mr. Moore (UT)..................... X ...... ......... Ms. Plaskett......... ...... X .........
Ms. Van Duyne...................... X ...... ......... Mr. Suozzi........... ...... X .........
Mr. Feenstra....................... X ...... .........
Ms. Malliotakis.................... X ...... .........
Mr. Carey.......................... X ...... .........
Mr. Yakym.......................... X ...... .........
Mr. Miller (OH).................... X ...... .........
Mr. Bean........................... X ...... .........
Mr. Moran.......................... X ...... .........
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
IV. BUDGET EFFECTS OF THE RESOLUTION
A. Committee Estimate of Budgetary Effects
In compliance with clause 3(d) of rule XIII of the Rules of
the House of Representatives, the following statement is made
concerning the effects on the budget of the resolution, H.J.
Res. 25, as reported. The estimate prepared by the Joint
Committee on Taxation (``JCT'') is included below.
The staff of the Joint Committee on Taxation estimates the
resolution to have the following effect on Federal fiscal year
budget receipts for the period 2025 through 2034:
FISCAL YEARS
[Billions of dollars]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2025- 2025-
2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2029 2034
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Repeal of Treasury December 2024 regulations -0.1 -0.2 -0.3 -0.3 -0.4 -0.5 -0.5 -0.5 -0.5 -0.5 -1.3 -3.9
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
B. Statement Regarding New Budget Authority and Tax Expenditures Budget
Authority
In compliance with clause 3(c)(2) of rule XIII of the Rules
of the House of Representatives, the Committee states that the
resolution involves no new or increased budget authority.
C. Cost Estimate Prepared by the Congressional Budget Office
The Congressional Budget Act of 1974, as amended stipulates
that revenue estimates provided by the staff of the Joint
Committee on Taxation (``JCT'') will be the official estimates
for all tax legislation considered by Congress. As such CBO
incorporates these estimates into its cos estimates of the
effects of the legislation. The estimates for the revenue
provisions of H.J. Res. 25 were provided by JCT (See Section
IV, Subsection ).
V. OTHER MATTERS TO BE DISCUSSED UNDER THE RULES OF THE HOUSE
A. Committee Oversight Findings and Recommendations
With respect to clause 3(c)(1) of rule XIII of the Rules of
the House of Representatives, the Committee made findings and
recommendations that are reflected in this report.
B. Statement of General Performance Goals and Objectives
With respect to clause 3(c)(4) of rule XIII of the Rules of
the House of Representatives, the Committee advises that the
resolution does not authorize funding, so no statement of
general performance goals and objectives is required.
C. Applicability of House Rule XXI, Clause 5(b)
Rule XXI 5(b) of the Rules of the House of Representatives
provides, in part, that ``A bill or joint resolution,
amendment, or conference report carrying a Federal income tax
rate increase may not be considered as passed or agreed to
unless so determined by a vote of not less than three-fifths of
the Members voting, a quorum being present.'' The Committee has
carefully reviewed the resolution, and states that the
resolution does not provide such a Federal income tax rate
increase.
D. Information Relating to Unfunded Mandates
This information is provided in accordance with section 423
of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. No. 104-
4).
The Committee has determined that the resolution does not
contain Federal mandates on the private sector. The Committee
has determined that the resolution does not impose a Federal
intergovernmental mandate on State, local, or tribal
governments.
E. Congressional Earmarks, Limited Tax Benefits, and Limited Tariff
Benefits
With respect to clause 9 of rule XXI of the Rules of the
House of Representatives, the Committee has carefully reviewed
the provisions of the resolution, and states that the
provisions of the resolution do not contain any congressional
earmarks, limited tax benefits, or limited tariff benefits
within the meaning of the rule.
F. Duplication of Federal Programs
In compliance with clause 3(c)(5) of rule XIII of the Rules
of the House of Representatives, the Committee states that no
provision of the resolution establishes or reauthorizes: (1) a
program of the Federal Government known to be duplicative of
another Federal program; (2) a program included in any report
from the Government Accountability Office to Congress pursuant
to section 21 of Public Law 111-139; or (3) a program related
to a program identified in the most recent Catalog of Federal
Domestic Assistance, published pursuant to the Federal Program
Information Act (Pub. L. No. 95-220, as amended by Pub. L. No.
98-169).
G. Tax Complexity Analysis
Section 4022(b) of the Internal Revenue Service Reform and
Restructuring Act of 1998 (the ``IRS Reform Act'') requires the
staff of the Joint Committee on Taxation (in consultation with
the Internal Revenue Service and the Treasury Department) to
provide a tax complexity analysis. The complexity analysis is
required for all legislation reported by the Senate Committee
on Finance, the House Committee on Ways and Means, or any
committee of conference if the legislation includes a provision
that directly or indirectly amends the Internal Revenue Code
and has widespread applicability to individuals or small
businesses.
The staff of the Joint Committee on Taxation has determined
that there are no provisions that are of widespread
applicability to individuals or small businesses.
VI. CHANGES IN EXISTING LAW MADE BY THE RESOLUTION, AS REPORTED
As reported by the Committee, H.J. Res. 25 makes no changes
to existing law.
VII. DISSENTING VIEWS
Committee Democrats find it ironic that Republicans, who
claim to be stewards of fiscal responsibility, are once again
contributing to our ever-growing deficit by proposing an
additional $4 billion tax giveaway.
Gains on the sales and exchanges of cryptocurrency are
subject to tax, just like other assets. The Congressional
Review Act resolution in question does not address a new tax,
nor does it change taxpayers' tax filing obligations. Rather,
it repeals a Biden Administration regulation clarifying that
cryptocurrency transactions conducted on a decentralized
exchange are subject to reporting rules, where the exchange is
responsible for providing reports to both the taxpayer and the
IRS.
The fact that this resolution would cost nearly $4 billion
is a testament to the very need for these regulations. Too many
taxable gains from the sale of cryptocurrency currently go
unreported. When taxpayers with gains shirk their tax
obligations, that leaves honest taxpayers--and their children
and grandchildren--holding the bag.
To make matters worse, the CRA in question does not repeal
the entirety of the broker reporting regulations, rather, only
those regulations that deal with rules that respect
decentralized exchanges. Not only would this let the more
sophisticated cryptocurrency investors who use decentralized
exchanges off the hook for tax reporting, it would likely
encourage those who would otherwise transact on centralized
exchanges (generally more friendly to retail investors) to move
their transactions to decentralized exchanges, knowing that
evading tax liability was easier when they do so. This will
only serve to bolster the operations of those decentralized
exchanges, which are known to be the source of transactions
that facilitate the sale of fentanyl, terrorism financing, and
a host of other nefarious purposes.
For these reasons, Committee Democrats dissent.
Richard E. Neal,
Ranking Member.
DISSENTING VIEWS
The bill before us today would repeal sensible, and
important, Treasury regulations ensuring that taxpayers meet
their tax filing obligations, and do not skirt the law by
selling cryptocurrency without reporting the gains. It's that
simple.
By repealing this regulation, Republicans are allowing
taxpayers to raid the fisc of an additional $4 billion. And
make no mistake about it, this bill is unpaid for--a pattern we
are seeing from my colleagues across the aisle, notwithstanding
their fidelity to so-called fiscal responsibility.
I guess it shouldn't surprise us that Republicans are here
today, weakening the tools that the IRS has to enforce the tax
laws. They are the party that has consistently underfunded the
IRS. They are the party that actively seeks to repeal the
funding boost that Democrats gave the IRS. And they are the
party that has stood idly by, while Elon Musk and his cronies
have fired 6,700 IRS employees during tax season.
This is a bad bill, in service of bad tax policy, and I
will be voting no.
Richard E. Neal,
Ranking Member.
[all]