Bill Overview
Title: IRS Funding Accountability Act
Description: This bill delays for a 60-day period funding for the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) enforcement activities enacted by the Inflation Reduction Act (except for eliminating return processing backlogs and reducing call wait times) until an annual spending plan for such activities is submitted to the congressional tax and appropriation committees. Congress may enact a joint resolution of disapproval of the spending plan before the end of the 60-day period requiring the IRS to submit a new spending plan. The IRS and the Department of the Treasury must make quarterly reports to the committees on expenditures for enforcement activities. The bill requires reductions in appropriations to the IRS for any failure to submit required reports.
Sponsors: Sen. Thune, John [R-SD]
Target Audience
Population: Global taxpayers potentially affected by IRS enforcement activities
Estimated Size: 331000000
- The bill affects IRS enforcement activities, which are relevant to all taxpayers because enforcement affects tax compliance.
- Delays in IRS enforcement may affect government revenue collection, impacting all citizens due to potential changes in government service funding.
- IRS enforcement can affect individuals and businesses at any income level, who need to comply with tax regulations.
Reasoning
- The policy primarily impacts how the IRS is able to enforce tax collection and compliance, which could have broader implications for government revenue and accountability of spending. This may affect taxpayer confidence and willingness to comply.
- Impacted groups include individual taxpayers, small business owners, and large corporations, each of which may experience changes in enforcement levels differently. The policy does not directly infuse new funds for direct taxpayer relief but rather alters IRS operational oversight.
- The scope of impact varies from direct (changes in compliance procedures) to indirect (changes in government service provision due to revenue shifts).
Simulated Interviews
Small Business Owner (Austin, TX)
Age: 45 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- As a small business owner, I'd like transparency in how my taxes are used, so I appreciate oversight of IRS spending.
- Delays in enforcement might mean less pressure during tax season, but I'm also concerned about long-term impact on public services if enforcement drops.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 5 | 4 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 4 |
Freelance Graphic Designer (Los Angeles, CA)
Age: 33 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 3.0 years
Commonness: 6/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Any policy that potentially reduces the IRS's enforcement stress is welcome, as long as it doesn't come at the cost of increased complexity or errors in processing.
- I worry about long processing times and mistakes the IRS might make if there's too much focus on oversight and not enough on efficiency.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 5 |
Software Engineer (Seattle, WA)
Age: 58 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I see the IRS prioritizing oversight as a good thing, but I'm skeptical that it will result in fair treatment for high earners like myself.
- If enforcement slows, it might benefit me financially in some ways, but I worry about the long-term tax hike implications.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 5 |
Public School Teacher (New York, NY)
Age: 28 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 2.0 years
Commonness: 9/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I support any measures to improve the accountability of IRS spending, but I am wary of delays that might affect return processing.
- If enforcement cutbacks lead to more evasion by others, that means less funding for public services like education.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 5 | 4 |
| Year 5 | 5 | 4 |
| Year 10 | 5 | 4 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 4 |
Retired (Detroit, MI)
Age: 62 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 9/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Government spending efficiency is welcome, but I depend on accurate and timely processing of benefits and refunds.
- I hope smoother IRS operations don't come at the cost of vital services or lead to more tax complexity.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 5 | 4 |
| Year 20 | 4 | 4 |
Corporate Tax Manager (Chicago, IL)
Age: 40 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 3.0 years
Commonness: 4/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Better IRS accountability is good for ensuring fair play in the corporate field.
- Delays might complicate corporate tax strategy planning, and increased scrutiny afterwards doesn't guarantee fairness.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 8 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 5 |
Farmer (Rural Alabama)
Age: 50 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 7/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I'm relieved if they slow down enforcement; sometimes the IRS feels like too much of a pressure.
- But I worry about funding for programs that impact rural areas and farms if government revenue drops.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 4 | 4 |
| Year 3 | 4 | 4 |
| Year 5 | 5 | 4 |
| Year 10 | 5 | 4 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 4 |
Startup Founder (San Francisco, CA)
Age: 27 | Gender: other
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 2.0 years
Commonness: 6/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I struggle with IRS compliance requirements as a new business; any delay could be beneficial.
- However, I understand the need for proper enforcement, especially in tech where fraud can occur.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 5 | 4 |
| Year 20 | 4 | 4 |
Healthcare Professional (Atlanta, GA)
Age: 39 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 3.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Delays in the IRS sound like it might impact my refund timing or credit eligibility.
- Accountability in spending is positive, but not if it leads to uncertainty about my family's financial planning.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 4 |
Real Estate Agent (Miami, FL)
Age: 47 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I support oversight that may clarify IRS guidelines, but am wary if it leads to market uncertainty.
- I worry enforcement reduction could mean less investment in local infrastructure if revenues decrease.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 5 | 4 |
| Year 3 | 5 | 4 |
| Year 5 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 5 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $15000000 (Low: $10000000, High: $20000000)
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 effectiveness of IRS enforcement activities directly influences government revenue.
- Administrative processes in reporting and spending plan reviews could increase operational costs.
- Potential disruptions to enforcement could marginally impact federal revenues and GDP, depending on the scale of the delays.