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
Buzz Feed
2 hours ago
- Buzz Feed
GOP Rep Faces Angry Crowd at Town Hall Meeting
Another Republican lawmaker has faced a cacophony of boos and jeers when coming face-to-face with the general public to defend President Donald Trump's legislative agenda. Rep. Doug LaMalfa (R-Calif.) felt the wrath of constituents over the huge tax and spending bill, the trade war, and the crackdown on immigration when speaking during a town hall in Chico, California, on Monday. Tensions ran so high that LaMalfa, who was reportedly holding his first in-person forum in close to eight years, was repeatedly called a 'liar' when doing his utmost to justify the president's policies. LaMalfa joins a growing cast of GOP politicians who have been given a raucous reception when meeting voters. Earlier this month, Rep. Mike Flood (R-Neb.) was heckled relentlessly when confronted over Medicaid cuts, the Jeffrey Epstein scandal, and ICE detentions. PBS / Via LaMalfa, who represents a large rural area of Northern California, held the town hall despite GOP top brass ordering an end to in-person events because of the rise of so-called 'professional protesters.' A major flashpoint in Chico came when a constituent asked LaMalfa, 'Why are you part of this movement toward fascism?' After LaMalfa asked him to 'stop right there,' the constituent continued with his actual question. He went on: 'If you're not here to announce your resignation, why aren't you here to apologize to the farmers of the North State because of your support for the Trump tariffs?' 'Do you actually want to talk about something productive?' LaMalfa replied, before suggesting the inquiry was 'grandstanding.' Against a backdrop of jeering and a distinct cry of 'You're a loser, Doug,' the congressman outlined how farmers in India had undercut growers in the region, so someone needed to be 'bold enough' to take action on tariffs. 'You're a little loose with the word 'fascism' when there's plenty of it going on on the other side of the aisle,' LaMalfa added, without giving details on the Democratic Party., LaMalfa was also drowned out by boos when delivering the standard Republican line about eliminating 'waste and fraud' to justify cutting Medicaid. GOP Rep. Doug LaMalfa held a town hall — and was drowned out by an uproar of boos from constituents. When he tried to bring up Medicaid a constituent shouted: "YOU CUT OUR HEALTH CARE" — More Perfect Union (@MorePerfectUS) August 11, 2025 @MorePerfectUS / Via Twitter: @MorePerfectUS 'We don't want anybody to be harmed by this effort,' he said. 'Indeed, we want the focus to be on those folks that actually do qualify. And that will be a bigger win for them.' 'You liar!' was one audible response among the dissonance. Also at the town hall, an attendee who said their parents were Holocaust survivors compared Japanese internment camps of World War II to ICE raids and deportations under Trump. 'Will the name LaMalfa be mentioned in the same sentence as [Hitler's propaganda chief Joseph] Goebbels, [Nazi physician Josef] Mengele, and Trump?' the constituent asked. 'I predict no,' LaMalfa replied.
Chicago Tribune
2 hours ago
- Chicago Tribune
Illinois students could see new testing standards with proposed state board revisions
Illinois students could be held to new standards for school testing, a shift the state school board says will better prepare them for college and postsecondary education careers while accurately measuring performance levels. The Illinois State Board of Education announced proposed changes to state standardized testing Tuesday — including the ACT, the Illinois Assessment of Readiness and the Illinois Science Assessment — that would create consistent measures of student performance on all state exams and make it easier to understand and track students' progress. It would also adjust the proficiency threshold for each exam section based on grade level, determining the minimum score a student must achieve to be considered on track for their grade level in learning. There are three major exams that Illinois students take while in school: The Illinois Assessment of Readiness is administered to students in grades three through eight each year to test their skills in English language arts and math, while the Illinois Science Assessment is only administered to students in fifth and eighth grades. Students take the PreACT in ninth and 10th grade and the ACT in 11th grade. Currently, the three exams do not use the same levels or benchmarks to assess student learning based on their exam scores. The current testing measurements have multiple performance levels for students to be sorted into, which are categories of score ranges on the state assessment. The varied scores from test to test can create confusion for parents and students due to the lack of consistency, Illinois State Superintendent of Education Tony Sanders said at a Tuesday media briefing. The change will allow the board to alleviate this confusion with a proposed new uniform scoring system on each test: 'below proficient,' 'approaching proficient,' 'proficient' and 'above proficient.' While the Illinois Science Assessment evaluates students in four levels — emerging, developing, proficient and exemplary — the Illinois Assessment of Readiness places students into five categories based on their scores: 'does not meet' (expectations), 'partially meets,' 'approaching meets,' 'meets expectations' and 'exceeds expectations.' A student is considered proficient when they are on track for their grade level in learning, and a proficiency benchmark is the score a student needs to be on track in their grade. The state determines these benchmarks. According to the board, there is currently a mismatch between proficiency thresholds in the different sections of exams — English language arts, science and math. The threshold for proficiency in science according to a student's exam score is too low, while the proficiency threshold for a student in English language arts and math is too high. This resulted in students excelling in class but not reaching the proficiency mark on exams, which can lead to discouragement in students when they think about their future options postgraduation, Sanders said. He gave the example of multiple former students, now in college, who excelled in advanced placement classes and had high GPAs but did not receive proficient scores on state standardized tests. 'If they had listened to us, they might not have enrolled in college. Maybe they wouldn't even have enrolled in dual credit (classes) while they were still in high school,' Sanders said. '… Thankfully, they didn't listen to what these cut scores told them and instead pursued these higher opportunities. But think about the kids that did not.' That all three required standardized tests — the ACT, Illinois Assessment of Readiness and Illinois Science Assessment — have different benchmarks for proficiency creates a sense of inconsistency and does not accurately reflect a student's level of college or career readiness, Sanders said. 'They're misaligned with what it actually means to succeed in college and career,' Sanders said. 'This misalignment has serious, real-world consequences. Students are being denied opportunities for acceleration, misidentified as needing interventions or believing, as I said earlier, that they're not ready to go into college.' This discrepancy in results can be confusing for families and students trying to determine readiness levels for classes, college or careers, especially when they do well in school but do not meet the state's level of proficiency. The new measurements aim to change that, Sanders said. For English language arts in the Illinois Assessment of Readiness, the proficiency threshold would be lowered from 750 to 735, increasing by two points each grade until they take the exam for the last time in grade eight. The proficiency threshold for math on the Illinois Assessment of Readiness would also be lowered from 750 to 732. The proficiency levels for the math section would rise to 740 for grades four and five, 742 for grade six, and 745 for grades seven and eight. As for the Illinois Science Assessment, which is administered only to fifth and eighth graders, students will have to increase their scores to 812 to be considered proficient. The current proficiency score is 799. The changes to the performance measures were initially put into motion last year when the ACT became a state-mandated exam to measure high school performance. This shift required the establishment of new performance standards for high schools. For students in grade nine taking the PreACT, an English language arts section score of 14 is proficient, while a math section score of 17 and a science section score of 14 meet proficiency standards. There are no prior proficiency levels to measure the proposed scores against because the state switched to the ACT this spring, the board said. For grade 10 students, a PreACT English language arts section score of 15, a math section score of 18 and a science section score of 16 would be proficient. Additionally, the proposed changes aim to align students taking the ACT in their junior year of high school with the scores necessary to get into college, pass college coursework and succeed in the workforce, the board said. The ACT is scored out of 36 and has an English language arts, math and science section. The new proficiency scores would be an English language arts score of 18, a math score of 19 and a science score of 19. The board spoke with educators, community members, student leaders and policy makers over an 18-month period to create new rubrics describing the range of performance expected in each performance level. Educators also took the exams to evaluate their difficulty and help determine what are known as 'cut scores' — the scores that differentiate one performance level from another, such as 'proficient' from 'above proficient.' While two-thirds of Illinois high school graduates go on to enroll in a two- or four-year college within a year of graduating, the current state assessment levels indicate that less than half that number of students are proficient in English language arts, and an even smaller number are proficient in math. The updated proficiency standards and performance levels help capture 'the full spectrum of skills students are developing,' CPS sixth grade teacher Comfort Agboola said at the meeting. '(The standards) acknowledge growth in ways that can motivate rather than discourage,' Agboola said. 'When students believe they are proficient or see themselves as getting closer, they are more willing to take risks, engage deeply with challenging text and push themselves further than they thought was possible.' Scott Rowe, superintendent of High School District 214 in the Arlington Heights area, added at the meeting that these changes would help accurately reflect a student's readiness and allow school districts to know where more support might be needed. 'Past benchmarks often miss the mark, but this step moves us closer to measuring real performance and readiness,' Rowe said. 'It also tells a more accurate story of the high quality instruction and postsecondary readiness our teachers are delivering for our communities across the state.'
NBC News
3 hours ago
- NBC News
These are smart moves for required withdrawals in retirement when you don't need the money
As year-end approaches, some older Americans must soon take required withdrawals from retirement accounts — and there are several options if you don't need the money, experts say. Most retirees must take required minimum distributions, or RMDs, from pretax retirement accounts starting at age 73 or face an IRS penalty. The first deadline is April 1 of the year after turning 73, and Dec. 31 is the due date for future years. But some retirees have 'a lot of guaranteed income' before RMDs, or spend less than they have coming in, according to Judy Brown, a certified financial planner who works at C&H Group in the Washington, D.C. and Baltimore area. In 2024, Social Security was the most common source of retirement income. But 81% of retirees had one or more types of private income, such as pensions, investments, rental income or employment, according to a Federal Reserve report published in May. When retirees have more than they need, there could be decisions about how to spend or reinvest their RMDs, experts say. 'It can definitely impact a lot of people,' and the right choice depends on your financial needs and goals, said Brown, who is also a certified public accountant. Here are some options to consider. Reinvest with exchange-traded funds If you still want long-term growth, you can reinvest RMD proceeds into a brokerage account. But you need to choose assets carefully because the account incurs yearly taxes, experts say. Typically, experts suggest exchange-traded funds, or ETFs, over mutual funds in a brokerage account because the assets are less likely to distribute capital gains or dividends throughout the year. 'It's also easier for tax-loss harvesting,' which involves selling a losing brokerage account asset to offset other portfolio gains, Brown said. Since ETFs trade throughout the day like a stock, you have more control when selling specific assets, she said. 'Skip the tax bill' with a transfer to charity For charitable investors, you could also consider a so-called qualified charitable distribution, or QCD, experts say. Open to retirees age 70½ or older, QCDs are a direct transfer from an individual retirement account to an eligible non-profit organization. For 2025, the limit is $108,000 per investor. Once you're 73 or older, you can use QCDs to satisfy yearly RMDs and the transfer won't increase your adjusted gross income. 'It's the IRS' best-kept secret for retirees,' said CFP Ashton Lawrence at Mariner Wealth Advisors in Greenville, South Carolina. 'Skip the tax bill and help a cause you believe in.' Legacy planning with a 529 contribution If legacy planning is important, you can also consider using RMDs to contribute to a 529 college savings plan for your family, experts say. As of May 2025, more than 30 states offer a state tax credit or deduction for 529 contributions, according to education website Saving for College. In most cases, this requires a deposit to your state's plan. There is not currently a federal income tax break for contributions.'It's not going to be enough to offset all of their state [income] taxes,' said Brown. But you can 'get a benefit going for the grandchildren' while securing a state tax break for yourself, she said.
