Bill Overview
Title: A bill to rescind certain funding provided to the Internal Revenue Service under section 10301 of Public Law 117-169.
Description: This bill rescinds unobligated amounts appropriated to the Internal Revenue Service by the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022 for enforcement activities and operations support.
Sponsors: Sen. Scott, Rick [R-FL]
Target Audience
Population: People who rely on IRS enforcement and operations
Estimated Size: 290000000
- The bill involves the IRS, which affects all taxpaying residents and businesses in the US.
- Rescinding IRS funding could alter the level of tax enforcement.
- Changes in enforcement funding might cause shifts in compliance and tax evasion rates.
- US residents could experience changes in tax services and enforcement actions.
- This includes audits and the management of tax filings both for individuals and businesses.
Reasoning
- The evaluated policy impacts a wide range of individuals due to its connection with the IRS, a critical national agency that touches every taxpayer's life in the United States.
- The budget constraints, particularly the $10 billion limit, mean the policy has a significant nationwide impact, primarily affecting taxpayers who may interact with IRS enforcement or services.
- Considering a diverse US population, simulated interviews reflect various demographic groups, occupations, and tax situations.
- Key dimensions in modeling include differences in socioeconomic status, geographic locations, and types of interactions (e.g., individuals, small businesses, large corporations).
- Impact assessment focuses on potential changes in wellbeing scores relative to one's current situation.
- Expect potential short-term adjustments in enforcement intensity and taxpayer services, with longer-term effects on compliance trends and IRS operational capacity.
Simulated Interviews
Small Business Owner (New York, NY)
Age: 45 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- As a small business owner, I worry that with less IRS funding, compliance might become more challenging.
- I prefer consistent communication with the IRS, but also fewer resources means potentially less scrutiny, which might reduce stress.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 4 | 6 |
Software Engineer (Austin, TX)
Age: 30 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 3.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I don't interact much with the IRS besides filing taxes, so I don't expect big changes personally.
- If IRS cuts result in slower processing times, it might inconvenience me during tax season.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 6 |
Freelance Artist (Los Angeles, CA)
Age: 55 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 6/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I rely on accurate IRS guidance due to inconsistent income.
- If enforcement decreases, I fear more people might evade taxes, leading to stricter audits when the IRS regains funds.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 4 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 3 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 3 | 4 |
Retired (Chicago, IL)
Age: 60 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 0.0 years
Commonness: 7/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I rarely deal with the IRS directly, but I support adequate IRS funding to ensure fair taxation.
- Concerned that lower enforcement will lead to greater tax evasion affecting public services.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 4 | 5 |
Nonprofit Worker (Seattle, WA)
Age: 28 | Gender: other
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 2.0 years
Commonness: 12/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I'm mostly worried about how policy changes might affect people who rely on IRS for guidance.
- Consistency from the IRS is vital; depleted resources could result in more errors.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 6 |
Accountant (Dallas, TX)
Age: 50 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 7.0 years
Commonness: 6/20
Statement of Opinion:
- My workload depends on IRS efficiency; cuts could bog down the process.
- Concerned about longer wait times for client disputes and audits.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 4 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 4 | 5 |
Teacher (Miami, FL)
Age: 40 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 3.0 years
Commonness: 11/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I expect minor changes in my interactions with the IRS, mostly paperwork delays.
- I'm hopeful for better funding allocation elsewhere if the IRS budget is cut.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 8 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 8 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 7 |
Retired Business Executive (St. Louis, MO)
Age: 70 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 6.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I appreciate less IRS scrutiny in retirement, though I'm aware of its societal role.
- Unsure if funding cuts will lead to more or fewer audits over time.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 4 | 5 |
Startup Founder (San Francisco, CA)
Age: 35 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 4/20
Statement of Opinion:
- IRS services help us navigate numerous tax incentives crucial to startups.
- Concerned that less oversight might lead to inconsistency in tax policy applications.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 6 |
Construction Worker (Denver, CO)
Age: 29 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 0.0 years
Commonness: 14/20
Statement of Opinion:
- With a straightforward tax situation, I expect minimal direct changes from this policy.
- Curious if less IRS enforcement might simplify or complicate tax filing.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 4 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 4 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 4 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 3 | 4 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $10000000000 (Low: $8000000000, High: $12000000000)
Year 2: $0 (Low: $0, High: $0)
Year 3: $0 (Low: $0, High: $0)
Year 5: $0 (Low: $0, High: $0)
Year 10: $0 (Low: $0, High: $0)
Year 100: $0 (Low: $0, High: $0)
Key Considerations
- The balance between cost savings and potential reductions in tax compliance due to less IRS enforcement.
- The short-term and long-term impact on tax revenue collection efficiency.
- Potential economic side effects due to shifts in enforcement of tax compliance.
- Implications for low, middle, and high-income groups given changes in the effectiveness of tax enforcement.
- How the rescission aligns with broader government fiscal policies and priorities.