House Tax Plan Would Kill Direct File And Rescue Controversial Contingency Fees
If you were expecting the budget reconciliation process to be easy, you haven't been paying attention. Several committees are working on language related to the bill, including Agriculture, Energy and Commerce, and Ways and Means. Each of those committees will also consider amendments, proposals, and markups. That means there are several working parts and, in some cases, different priorities. Add-ons like plans to nix IRS Direct File may not have been included in early drafts, but appear as the process churns on.
Even as the Energy and Commerce Committee considered significant changes to Medicaid, including work requirements, most of the tax-specific language will come from the Ways and Means Committee. The committee released a draft version of the bill over the weekend, and a substitute amendment was made public on Monday—you can read a summary of some of the early highlights here.
Included in the substitute amendment were a few IRS-specific provisions that did not appear in the original draft. At the top of the list? Eliminating IRS Direct File.
The language in the amendment requires the Treasury to ensure that the IRS Direct File program has been "terminated" no later than 30 days after the enactment of this Act. That isn't all. The bill would then require creating a task force to "design a better public-private partnership between the IRS and private sector tax preparation services" to replace Free File and Direct File.
Under the amendment, the task force is directed to report on "1) the cost of a new public-private partnership to provide for free tax filing for up to 70 percent of all taxpayers calculated by adjusted gross income to replace free file and any IRS- run direct file programs; (2) taxpayer opinions and preferences regarding a taxpayer-funded, government-run service or a free service provided by the private sector; (3) assessment of the feasibility of a new approach, how to make the options consistent and simple for taxpayers across all participating providers, how to provide features to address taxpayer needs, and how much money should be appropriated to advertise the new option.' The amount of money earmarked is $15,000,000.
If you're feeling a bit of deja vu, you're not wrong. The Inflation Reduction Act of 2021 also created a task force to design a direct file tax return system. The task force was required to explore the "(I) the cost (including options for differential coverage based on taxpayer adjusted gross income and return complexity) of developing and running a free direct efile tax return system, including costs to build and administer each release, with a focus on multi-lingual and mobile-friendly features and safeguards for taxpayer data; (II) taxpayer opinions, expectations, and level of trust, based on surveys, for such a free direct efile system; and (III) the opinions of an independent third-party on the overall feasibility, approach, schedule, cost, organizational design, and Internal Revenue Service capacity to deliver such a direct efile tax return system." The cost? Also $15,000,000.
(Apparently, it was such a good idea that the House wants to gut it and do it all over again.)
The result of the IRA was a limited-scope pilot of Direct File, which debuted in 2024. The pilot, the IRS claimed, was a success. The tax agency said that Direct File users reported a high degree of satisfaction and quick answers to their filing questions. After the first year, the Treasury Department declared that Direct File would be a permanent, free tax filing option. The IRS also expanded the program in 2025 to include more states and the ability to handle more kinds of income, credits, and deductions.
Following the 2024 election, Musk and Vivek Ramaswamy, at that time leaders of the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), reportedly discussed creating a mobile app for Americans to file their taxes for free with the IRS. That program already existed—Direct File.
In 2025, the program found itself in DOGE crosshairs when Musk posted on X (formerly Twitter) that he had "deleted" 18F, the group responsible for creating the technology behind Direct File.
Critics of Direct File point to Free File, an existing program offered as part of a public-private partnership between the IRS and Free File Inc., formerly the Free File Alliance. Through this partnership, tax preparation and filing software providers make their online products available to eligible taxpayers (as compared to Direct File, an IRS program).
Free File debuted in 2003 and was occasionally marred by allegations that participating tax software companies, including TurboTax and H&R Block, hid free options to get taxpayers to pay for services. The allegations created quite a stir—and resulted in litigation.
Today, tax preparation software companies are prohibited from hiding free filing services from Google or other search results pages. Following the changes, Intuit and H&R Block opted out of the program.
While Free File remains on the books, the current administration has already signaled that it will eliminate Direct File. A Congressional move would make it official.
Access to taxpayer data is tightly restricted by law—a protection that's been in the news recently because of demands by DOGE to access that data.
In 2024, a former IRS contractor was sentenced to five years in prison for disclosing thousands of tax returns, including Donald Trump's tax returns, without authorization. That contractor, Charles Littlejohn, pleaded guilty to unauthorized disclosure of tax return and return information—a violation of section 7213(a)(1) of the tax code, the most serious offense for leaking tax information. Littlejohn had faced—and was sentenced to—the maximum penalty of five years in prison. That was true even though Littlejohn leaked information for multiple taxpayers.
The substitute amendment would increase the penalties for violating section 7213(a) from "$5,000, or imprisonment of not more than 5 years" to "$250,000, or imprisonment of not more than 10 years."
The language in the bill would also expand the punishment. Currently, a leak is generally considered a single violation. Under the language in the amendment, when there are multiple disclosures, as in the case of Littlejohn, the disclosure of information for each affected taxpayer would be considered a separate violation.
Language in the amendment would also put the brakes on efforts to "regulate, prohibit, or restrict the use of a contingent fee" in connection with tax returns or claims for refund.
Contingent fees typically represent a percentage of an amount received—in the context of lawsuits, you tend to see them as a percentage of the total award. When it comes to tax returns, they may be a percentage of the expected refund or a percentage of tax "savings"—however that is defined.
Earlier this year, Treasury and the IRS released proposed regulations to update the rules for certain tax professionals, including attorneys, certified public accountants (CPAs), and enrolled agents (EAs) who can practice before the IRS. These rules have long been found in Treasury Department Circular 230.
Rules published in 2007 prohibited tax professionals from charging contingent fees for original returns but permitted practitioners to charge a contingent fee for certain services rendered in connection with an audit or challenge to an original tax return, amended returns, or claims for refund or credit. Treasury and the IRS subsequently clarified the 2007 amendments in 2008 and proposed modifications in 2009. The 2009 proposed regulations were never finalized.
The IRS has continued to bump up against contingent fees. The section of Circular 230 that prohibits practitioners from entering into contingent fee arrangements for services rendered in connection with a "matter before the IRS" would be removed under the proposed regulations. However, the term "disreputable conduct" would include charging contingent fees for preparing an original or amended tax return or claim for refund or credit, as well as charging fees that are unconscionable under the facts and circumstances.
The American Institute for Certified Public Accountants (AICPA) Code of Professional Conduct prohibits CPAs from charging contingent fees for preparing original returns, amended returns, and ordinary refund claims because of the risk that these arrangements would allow a CPA to improperly benefit from the transaction. Many state accountancy board rules also ban contingent fee arrangements for preparing an original or amended return or claim for refund or credit.
Here's why the IRS doesn't like these fees. A contingent fee based on getting a big refund may encourage evasion or abuse of tax laws by incentivizing practitioners to take unduly aggressive tax positions. That gives the practitioner "a direct, financial interest in the tax benefits of a client." And that, says the IRS, is "incompatible with ethical practice" before the Treasury Department or the IRS under Circular 230.
Contingent fees have recently gotten a second look because of employee retention credits (ERC). Those assisting companies with ERC applications often took a contingent fee—typically, a percentage of the refund due the taxpayer. The IRS encouraged taxpayers to be wary of promoters who charged a contingent fee because of concerns that the economic driver could push promoters to suggest ineligible people file a claim for the credit and that they might not inform taxpayers that they must reduce the wage deductions they claimed on their federal income tax return by the amount of the credit. Especially in cases where the contingent fee is collected upfront, the IRS has warned that in the case of an ERC denial (or audit), the taxpayer may be stuck with a reduced credit or penalty—and out the contingent fee.
The ERC contingency fees were also in the news because it has been widely reported that some tax firms paid Trump's nominee for IRS Commissioner, Billy Long, on a contingency basis. Expect that issue to come up again while contingent fees are still considered controversial. Green-lighting contingency fees by banning regulations or restrictions would change the conversation. Long's confirmation hearing is scheduled for May 20, 2025.
You can see the original draft version of the bill before the markup here. The Smith amendment version is here.
The bill is still working its way through the House where Republicans hold a slim majority. Even it's approved, the House bill must conform with the Senate version to be signed into law.
Keep checking our coverage for more details.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Hill
32 minutes ago
- The Hill
Democrats see political gift in Trump's ‘big, beautiful bill'
Democrats say Republicans have given them a political gift with President Trump's 'Big Beautiful Bill.' They say they can easily sell the bill to the public as a threat to working class voters, given its cuts to Medicaid and food stamps and significant tax breaks for the ultra-wealthy. 'This is a rare policy gift to Democrats in that it was perpetrated by Republicans, harms almost everybody, and it's actually relatively easy to talk about,' said Democratic strategist Christy Setzer. With that in mind, Democratic campaign operatives — with a big assist from liberal advocacy groups — have kicked off a messaging blitz that's likely to continue until Election Day. On Monday, the House Democrats' campaign arm launched its first national digital ad campaign of the year targeting 35 battleground Republicans who voted for Trump's bill despite reservations over Medicaid cuts. The House Democrats' top super PAC is finalizing another slate of ads — a six-figure mix of television and digital — that will launch in the coming weeks. And Unrig the Economy, an outside advocacy group, wasted no time complementing the effort. They've launched a seven-figure ad blitz targeting 12 vulnerable Republicans, with plans to spend an additional $10 million in the coming months. The ads highlight three of the most contentious provisions of the GOP bill: the cuts to health and nutrition programs, combined with a rollback of green-energy subsidies that's expected to spike utility costs across large parts of the country. 'Those are the three arguments that we see as the ones that hurt people the most, and the place that Republicans are most vulnerable to accountability,' a spokesperson for the group said Tuesday. The strategy is reminiscent of the Republican attacks on the Affordable Care Act, another wildly contentious bill that was broadly unpopular when Democrats passed it under President Obama in 2010. Months later, Republicans would pick up 63 House seats and flip control of the chamber — the same goal Democrats have set for next year's midterms. And the campaign extends far beyond Capitol Hill. Kentucky Gov. Andy Beshear (D), who says he is weighing a 2028 presidential bid, has already begun using the controversial legislation as a talking point as he looks toward next year's elections. 'Next year, I'll also be the head of the Democratic Governors Association, and especially in these rural states, where Republican governors have not spoken up whatsoever to stop this devastating bill, we're going to have strong candidates, we're going to win a lot of elections,' Beshear said in a CNN interview on Sunday. Republicans are also vowing to go on the offensive, highlighting the tax cuts as a windfall for workers and the immigration crackdown as a boon for public safety. If anyone should be on the defensive, they say, it's Democrats for opposing the legislation. 'National Democrats' desperate and disgusting fear-mongering tactics are nothing more than a lame attempt to distract voters from the fact that they just voted to raise taxes, kill jobs, gut national security, and allow wide open borders,' Mike Marinella, a spokesman for the House Republicans' campaign arm, said Tuesday. 'We will use every tool to show voters that the provisions in this bill are widely popular and that Republicans stood with them while House Democrats sold them out.' But some Republicans have already handed Democrats easy soundbites to put in their ads in the lead-up to 2026 midterms. 'What do I tell 663,000 people in two years or three years when President Trump breaks his promise by pushing them off of Medicaid because the funding isn't there anymore?' Sen. Thom Tillis (R-N.C.), one of the three GOP senators to oppose the bill, said last week on the chamber floor. The criticisms were not overlooked by Democrats, who see Tillis as an asset to their messaging efforts. Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) cited Tillis in arguing against the bill last week, and Tillis himself warned his colleagues about an Obamacare-style backlash to the bill. 'When you have even Republicans saying it on the record, it kind of rebuts any argument that the NRCC's gonna try to make,' said a Democratic operative. 'I think you will definitely see Thom Tillis in campaign ads — or his words, at minimum.' On the heels of the bill's passage, Democrats are already pointing to polling foreshadowing favorable outcomes in 2026. A Quinnipiac University poll out in late June revealed that 55 percent of voters oppose the 'Big Beautiful Bill,' and a Fox News poll out last month showed 59 percent of voters oppose it. But some Democrats worry that merely defining Republicans with the bill may not be enough, saying that the party needs to coalesce around an agenda of their own for voters to turn to. 'Democrats have done a good job defining the bill as being bad for regular people. The Democrats have to do better at making an argument that they have an agenda that will challenge the status quo on behalf of working people to make their lives better,' said Democratic strategist Jamal Simmons. 'It's something Democrats need to start doing now because it's a long term problem that needs a long term solution.' A further challenge facing Democrats involves the timing of some of the law's provisions. While benefits like the tax cuts take effect long before the midterms, the cuts to Medicaid and food stamps are delayed until January of 2027 — after voters go to the polls. 'It will be harder to show someone who has lost his or her health care. Instead, they'll have to talk about who's at risk,' said Simmons. 'From a messaging perspective, it's more compelling to show someone who has…already lost their benefits than to discuss someone in jeopardy of losing their benefits.' Regardless, Democrats agree that the bill's impacts must be told at the local level with the stories of voters who are at risk or already affected. They're already pointing, for instance, at a rural hospital in Nebraska that's closing its doors as a direct result of the coming Medicaid cuts. 'You might see rural hospitals closing a little bit sooner. It's got to be about rural hospitals that were open and this month they're closed because of what Donald Trump and Republicans did,' said Democratic strategist Joel Payne. 'It's got to be an effect. It's got to be stories. It's got to be individuals and real people.' '…This can't be a Washington, inside-the-Beltway story. This has to be a story that's told all around the country,' Payne added. In recent years, political observers say Democrats have struggled to reach broader audiences, the latest example being their inability to connect with middle-income voters in the 2024 presidential election. But they say the time is ripe for Democrats to push beyond their 'very same tried and true tactics,' as Setzer put it. 'We have a messengers problem. We have a message problem. We don't actually have a substance problem right now,' Setzer said. 'We have a very important piece of legislation to run against right now that is very wide-ranging in its impact. So they need to expand who they are talking to…and expand the platforms on which we are talking to people.' 'In every electoral victory that we've seen lately, whether it is Donald Trump or Mamdani, you see someone who is willing to branch out in the platforms that they're going to,' Setzer added.
Entrepreneur
43 minutes ago
- Entrepreneur
How to Turn Summer Travel into More Business and Less Taxes
When you pursue business opportunities in the places you love to visit, you can make your summer profitable and fun. Opinions expressed by Entrepreneur contributors are their own. According to a recent Bankrate survey, fewer than half of Americans plan to travel this summer. Among those staying home, most cite cost as the main reason. That's a missed opportunity. Travel isn't just a luxury — it's a strategic tool. For entrepreneurs, stepping outside the day-to-day grind creates space to think creatively, meet new people and gain the fresh perspective that fuels innovation. One good conversation or idea sparked on the road could become your next big business move. Here's the best part: if you're strategic, you can align your travel with your business goals — and potentially write off a portion of the cost. The IRS allows business owners to deduct legitimate business-related travel expenses. With the right planning, your summer getaway can double as a business trip that moves your company forward. Related: A Business Owner's Guide to Maximizing Summer Profits Travel with purpose Making the primary purpose of your trip business-related doesn't mean you have to spend your days in meetings. For travel within the U.S., the IRS allows deductions as long as more than half of a standard workday (four or more hours) is spent on qualified business activities. That could include meeting with clients, scouting investment properties, researching a new market, or connecting with potential partners. The key is intention and documentation. If you're in the 32% tax bracket, treating your travel as a legitimate business expense can result in a 32% "discount" via tax savings. That's not a loophole—it's a smart use of existing tax code designed to support business growth. Take one of my clients, for example. He built a vacation around scouting real estate deals in New Mexico, a place he already loved visiting. The trip saved him around $3,000 in taxes—and even better, it led to a property deal that eventually earned him over $1 million in profit. What qualifies as deductible business travel? The IRS has clear rules on what counts as a deductible business expense. Common eligible expenses include: Airfare, train fare, or mileage to and from your destination Hotel or lodging costs Ground transportation (Uber, taxis, car rentals, airport transfers) Baggage fees Laundry or dry cleaning during the trip 50% of non-entertainment meal costs To qualify, expenses must meet four basic criteria: Business purpose: There must be a clear business reason for the trip. Ordinary and necessary: It should be a typical and reasonable expense in your line of work. Directly related to business: The activity must advance or support your business. Properly documented: Keep records—receipts, dates, contacts, meeting notes, and outcomes. If your spouse or children are active in the business and perform meaningful work during the trip, their expenses may also be deductible. For example, if your spouse is a co-owner or your children help with content creation, marketing or research, their travel may be part of your business plan — if documented correctly. Related: How Smart Entrepreneurs Turn Mid-Year Tax Reviews Into Long-Term Financial Wins Work with a trusted advisor Blending business and personal expenses adds complexity to your tax situation. A tax advisor who specializes in entrepreneurs can help ensure your strategy is sound and legally compliant. The goal isn't just to deduct travel. It's to structure your business in a way that supports growth and lowers your tax liability year-round. Final thoughts Before you book your next trip, ask: How could this support my business? Maybe it's an investment scouting trip. Maybe it's reconnecting with a client in a new market. Maybe it's simply taking space to think clearly and plan your next move. When you approach travel with intention, the possibilities multiply. That break you've been craving could be the catalyst for your next revenue stream or expansion play—and with a smart tax strategy, the IRS could help fund it. If you love where you're traveling, why not plant business roots there? You'll have a reason to return—on another deductible trip—with even more upside next time. Because when travel helps you grow your business and lower your tax bill, the real question isn't whether you can afford to travel— It's whether you can afford not to.
Politico
an hour ago
- Politico
Senate GOP preps vote on the first judge of the second Trump era
House Budget Chair Jodey Arrington says Republicans shouldn't give up on advancing certain priorities that were cut out of their 'big, beautiful bill' for not complying with Senate rules, telling reporters Tuesday that lawmakers will try again in follow-up budget reconciliation packages. 'There may be a longer list of things that were kicked out by the Senate parliamentarian as non-compliant with the Byrd rule — I think we should make another run at that and look for ways to structure the provisions so that it's more fundamentally budgetary in impact and policy,' the Texas Republican said during the press call Tuesday afternoon. 'I suspect that's why they were kicked out.' The so-called Byrd rule limits what provisions can be included in a bill moving through Congress through the reconciliation process, which allows lawmakers to skirt the 60-vote filibuster threshold in the Senate. Arrington specifically pointed to one provision stripped in the Senate from the House-passed megabill that would have prohibited Medicaid coverage for gender affirming surgeries, and another that would have banned noncitizens from tapping into Medicaid resources. 'I think those — we need to spend more time' crafting the provisions to pass muster with the parliamentarian, Arrington said. 'I don't think we spent enough time to look for a pathway to success on them, and that's sort of the landscape, as I see it, of the opportunities in another reconciliation bill.' Echoing Speaker Mike Johnson 's recent comments, Arrington said he suspects GOP leaders will attempt to do two more party-line packages in the 119th Congress, with the next one slated for the fall. Arrington added members would likely demand that those additional measures be drafted under circumstances where both chambers adhere to the same budget framework, avoiding a repeat of the most recent scenario where House and Senate Republicans each gave their committees different deficit reduction targets. He lamented the fact that the Senate did not comply with the House's aggressive instructions for writing iits version of the megabill, but credited fiscal hawks for helping secure $1.5 trillion in savings in a final product, and noted that it was not 'feasible' to expect the full magnitude of cost savings would be acheived in a single reconciliation bill — 'politically, at least.' As it currently stands, the One Big Beautiful Bill Act, which President Donald Trump signed into law over the weekend, is 'front loaded with costs and back-end loaded with savings,' which Arrington said should compel Republicans to make sure the administration follows through in 'mak[ing] sure the savings actually happen.' 'That was a concern among conservative budget hawks,' Arrington said. 'When I think about the Budget Committee's role going forward, one of the things that we need to do … is keep the pressure on the Senate, on the House and the administration to be diligent in implementation and enforcement.'
