Latest news with #HouseWaysandMeansCommittee
New York Post
4 hours ago
- Business
- New York Post
House GOP broadens Medicare fraud probe at Florida organ transplant center
WASHINGTON — House Republicans are demanding records from a Florida-based organ procurement center after a whistleblower alleged a possible Medicare fraud scheme involving staff members overbilling for work hours and improperly reimbursing for personal costs or other expenses. The House Ways and Means Committee fired off a letter Thursday to the Life Alliance Organ Recovery about the purported scheme, also citing a troubling report involving a patient who had also been kicked off life support but was still 'crying and biting on his breathing tube' as clinicians 'waited for death.' 'One Life Alliance employee interpreted' the response 'as the patient not wanting to die,' stated the letter sent by Ways and Means Chairman Jason Smith (R-Mo.) and Subcommittee on Oversight Chairman David Schweikert (R-Ariz.) to Life Alliance Organ Recovery Center executive director Clifton McClenney. 4 House Ways and Means Committee Chairman Jason Smith (R-Mo.) is demanding records from a Florida-based organ procurement center after a whistleblower alleged a possible Medicare fraud scheme. Getty Images Smith called the 'potential Medicare reimbursement fraud' — which may have included abuse of the organization's tax-exempt status 'to enrich board members or senior leadership' — as well as current reports on the quality of donor care at the center 'deeply, deeply disturbing.' 'Among the most concerning statements are those regarding the misuse of taxpayer dollars, including that Life Alliance staff members were encouraged to increase their hours and bill Medicare for hours not worked; Life Alliance received reimbursement from Medicare for costs associated with the personal use of a company vehicle; and Life Alliance double dipped on its Medicare Cost Report ('MCR') for certain expenses,' Smith said in the missive. 'The Committee on Ways and Means,' he added, 'is concerned that if these allegations were verified, they would constitute a violation of the False Claims Act.' 4 The committee cited a troubling report involving a patient who had also been kicked off life support but was still 'crying and biting on his breathing tube' as clinicians 'waited for death.' The records request comes after a 2021 resolution of three lawsuits against the University of Miami, of which the center's surgery department is a division, alleging False Claims Act violations. Those had accused the center of 'ordering medically unnecessary laboratory tests and submitting false claims for pre-transplant lab testing,' noted Smith's letter, which was also addressed to University of Miami President Joseph Echevarria. In 2015, Life Alliance had also been found to be a member not in good standing due to other concerns about the level of care and patient safety. 4 In 2015, Life Alliance had also been found to be a member not in good standing due to other concerns about the level of care and patient safety. 'Tax-exempt organ procurement organizations save the lives of countless Americans each year, but the success of our nation's organ transplant network depends on these organizations maintaining the public's trust and operating within their stated tax-exempt purpose,' the chairman said in a statement. 'The Ways and Means Committee will not rest until these organizations are held accountable and public trust is restored.' The Republican-led panel's inquiry follows similar investigations into organ transplant nonprofits in Indiana, Oklahoma and New Jersey, according to a report in the Free Press, which also cited possible overbilling for Medicare costs — including for the potential use of a private jet for personal trips. 4 Life Alliance Organ Recovery Center executive director Clifton McClenney was hit with the records request Thursday. That came on the heels of investigations by the Department of Health and Human Services' Office of Inspector General finding instances of improper Medicare reimbursements. Smith has asked Life Alliance to hand over by Aug. 14 its accounting records on Medicare costs, service contracts, financial interests, business relationships and all documents on its policies, conduct, practices and procedures that may touch on potential federal violations. McClenney, Life Alliance and Echevarria did not immediately respond to requests for comment.
Forbes
3 days ago
- Business
- Forbes
The OBBBA And Beyond: House Republican Details GOP Tax Agenda
UNITED STATES - JANUARY 10: Rep. Adrian Smith, R-Neb., participates in the House Republicans press ... More conference following their caucus meeting in the Capitol on Tuesday, January 10, 2023. (Bill Clark/CQ-Roll Call, Inc via Getty Images) In this episode of Tax Notes Talk, House Ways and Means Committee member Adrian Smith, R-Neb., discusses the One Big Beautiful Bill Act's accomplishments and what could be next for Congress on tax. Tax Notes Talk is a podcast produced by Tax Notes. This transcript has been edited for clarity. David D. Stewart: Welcome to the podcast. I'm David Stewart, editor in chief of Tax Notes Today International. This week: majority view. It's been almost a month since President Trump signed the One Big Beautiful Bill Act into law, a massive tax package championed by Republicans in Congress. To get an insider's view of this bill, we've been sitting down with current members of Congress on the House Ways and Means Committee. Last week, we talked with Representative Steven Horsford, the leader of the New Democrat Coalition's tax task force. You can find a link to that interview in the show notes. This week, Tax Notes Capitol Hill reporter Cady Stanton interviewed Representative Adrian Smith, a Republican from Nebraska, to discuss the new tax law and the Republican Party's priorities. This episode is part of an ongoing series on the One Big Beautiful Bill Act, and as we continue to dive deep into the most important tax changes and provisions in the coming weeks, or even months, we'd like to hear from you. If there's an aspect of the bill that you'd like to hear more about, please email us at podcast@ Now I should note before we get started that, due to some scheduling issues, we had limited time with Representative Smith, but Cady made the most of it. Let's go to that interview. Cady Stanton: Congressman Smith, thanks for joining us. Rep. Adrian Smith: Thank you. Great to be with you. Cady Stanton: I know you and your colleagues have been working on this tax-focused reconciliation bill for months — if not years — leading up to the bill's passage and the scheduled expiration for large swaths of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act. Could you talk a little bit about the culmination of that work and what you were able to accomplish in this bill? Rep. Adrian Smith: Well, the bill, as you said, it's a result of many years of preparation. I even include the preparation that went into the 2017 TCJA. That was particularly important. Doing our homework, I was asked to head up a financial services working group by then-Chairman Dave Camp. All that process has been, I think, very instructive. Then certainly, as TCJA was carried out and deemed to be very effective — even a lot of our Democrat colleagues supported that — last year in a lot of those business provisions, in addition to the family provisions. Cady Stanton: One aspect of the bill that changed between the House and Senate versions leading up to final passage was the treatment of clean energy tax credits from the Inflation Reduction Act. Do you think the changes that were made in the final bill are set in stone, or is there any appetite to maybe go back and adjust the phaseouts set by the bill, either with more or less severe restrictions? Rep. Adrian Smith: Well, I suppose we could relitigate a lot of things that we do, but I think it's important that, as we do move forward — number one, there's, I would say, a lot of controversy on, say, wind and solar. And not just tax credits, but the actual construction of those projects in various jurisdictions. Certainly, my district included. Building solar farms in the middle of the country, that doesn't make a lot of sense, especially when so many taxpayer dollars are involved as well. I try to keep an open mind as to how we can think about innovation moving forward. Obviously, sustainable aviation fuel — that has shown some promise. I try to look at everything on their merits, all the issues on their merit, and take them one at a time. But also, passing legislation should have some meaning moving forward, and I would imagine that there will be an effort to change that at some point, but I would have a hard time thinking there would be a lot of support for something that's much different than what we passed. Cady Stanton: Pivoting more to the international tax side here — section 899, also referred to as the revenge tax, made a lot of news when it was included in the House bill, and subsequently removed following the announcement about this agreement between the United States and other G7 countries. How do you see the future of that kind of retaliatory tax measure? Is there a chance it returns, depending on how work with the OECD progresses or faces hurdles? How do you see that playing out? A participant stands at the OECD headquarters in Paris during the presentation of the Economic ... More Outlook at the 2013 OECD Week on May 29, 2013. AFP PHOTO ERIC PIERMONT (Photo credit should read ERIC PIERMONT/AFP via Getty Images) Rep. Adrian Smith: Well, I think we heard a message from our trade partners, for example, other countries, friendly countries, certainly, that they want to cooperate with us. We don't want U.S. companies penalized and I think we want to send that strong message. We'll see; we'll keep our options open moving forward, depending on how other countries and what their posture ends up being as we do move forward. Cady Stanton: Staying in that area, you also serve as the chairman of the Ways and Means subcommittee on trade. Could you speak a little bit to how your caucus and your party were able to balance addressing international tax in the bill, and the knowledge of the ongoing tariff plan by President Trump that was occurring at the same time? Rep. Adrian Smith: Sure. There's such a stark contrast, in terms of trade agenda. The Trump administration, even going back to the first administration, [had] a very vigorous trade agenda that was interrupted by President Biden, who didn't really have a trade agenda. I'm not a fan of tariffs. I understand they're a tool in the toolbox. I certainly would not want to codify tariffs in the law. Yes, some are saying that it delivers some revenue that we could work with on other parts of legislation. But I think as the president moves forward, we've seen other countries now coming to the table. I was told not that long ago by the U.K. that agriculture was just not within reach. That is changing. I'm happy to say that that posture seems to have changed. We have seen a good bit of movement in the right direction, beef and ethanol being a couple of those things that have shown very positive developments. As the president continues to negotiate trade with other countries, I think the president understands that for something to last beyond his administration, Congress will need to codify that. I think that that's to be expected; we'll see how those agreements come together. I appreciate the fact that trade is a priority. I think we suffered greatly when trade was not a priority under the previous administration, especially when President Biden had an opportunity to do more and chose not to. Especially — it's a little bit rich as we hear the opposition say President Trump's proposed tariffs — the Democrats are opposed to that and yet chose not to do anything when they had full power to do so. Well, on that topic and maybe a few others, too. I'm not a fan of codifying tariffs in statute. Let's have the president negotiate a deal, and then should there be the votes in Congress to codify that moving forward, that could be a good opportunity to establish good trade partnerships around the world. Cady Stanton: One provision that wasn't able to hitch a ride on this bill is a tax agreement with Taiwan, which had previously passed the House but not made it through the Senate. Is that something that you think might be able to get over the finish line this Congress? How much of a priority is it for you and other House taxwriters? Rep. Adrian Smith: Well, I think that issue has had some bipartisan support. I go back to when then-Speaker [Kevin] McCarthy led the gathering with the president of Taiwan in California at the Reagan Library. Incidentally, that was a very bipartisan event. I certainly told my Democrat counterparts that I appreciated their participation with that. There's good bipartisan agreement there. I would think it's something that can be addressed moving forward. Cady Stanton: Last week, we spoke with your colleague on the tax committee, Representative Steven Horsford [D-Nev.], about the New Democrat Coalition's tax priorities. From your perspective, how would you articulate Republicans' main tax priorities, especially within the context of what you've recently advanced with the One Big Beautiful Bill? Rep. Adrian Smith: I'd say freedom and opportunity. Opportunity for everyone. When I look at the various parts of the bill, there's something for everyone. I think that when we want to encourage investment and productivity, that's what we saw very successfully done with TCJA, so we want to see that moving forward as well. I know that there was a lot of discussion — my colleague Mr. Horsford, he was talking about people making $2.13 an hour. I want the record to reflect that that doesn't happen. Tips are involved. Yes, a tipped wage, but an employer must ensure that an employee must be paid the overall minimum wage, not just the tipped minimum wage at the end of that pay period. I want the record to reflect that. The president had his priority: tax relief for tip earners, tax relief for seniors. We had the guardrails of reconciliation that we had to work with, say Social Security aspects and so forth. We weren't able to have full rein over all that policy, but I think we settled on a really good place that offers tax relief for hardworking Americans. I think they will feel that very soon. Cady Stanton: I know lawmakers and reporters alike are still catching their breath a bit after this reconciliation process. But now that it's been a few weeks, can you speak to what House Republicans' next tax priorities might be? Are there any tax provisions that didn't make it into this bill that you're hoping to maybe go to bat for moving forward? Rep. Adrian Smith: Oh, there's some things, they're not the really big items. I think we want to be mindful hearing from our constituents, what is appropriate moving forward, and what is most useful, helpful. The bill — it was large and it certainly contained a lot. I think it will be very good for our economy and opportunity, workers. Great for wage earners. When you see how effective our efforts were in 2017, where wages grew faster — at a higher rate — than executive compensation. Of course, then we saw inflation kick in because of some policies. Gosh, I would hope that we would see more bipartisan interest in getting us back to those really good places before inflation. Let's avoid the policies that trigger inflation and be able to see workers do well once again. Cady Stanton: What kind of vehicle for maybe a few other provisions do you imagine might come next? Could there be more reconciliation bills this Congress? Would it be some other kind of vehicle for moving tax priorities forward? What are you imagining? Rep. Adrian Smith: Well, there is the discussion that has just begun to start over what a second reconciliation package might look like. I want to keep an open mind there and generate the conversations that need to take place before we get something like this done. I think back in January, say, when there was the debate over is it going to be one bill or more — I think, as Chairman Jason Smith [R-Mo.] really emphasized, that the single bill was the best strategy moving forward. I certainly supported him on that argument as well. WASHINGTON, DC - SEPTEMBER 27: Chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee Rep. Jason Smith ... More (R-MO) speaks during a news conference at the House Longworth Office Building on Capitol Hill on September 27, 2023 in Washington, DC. The committee will hold a closed executive session to review 'additional evidence submitted by IRS whistleblowers.' (Photo by) Some of the immigration issues — I don't think we were expecting illegal border crossings to be down some 90 percent even without any new legislation in place. Let's see how things move along here in the next few weeks, next couple of months, to see what might be necessary moving forward. I'm always interested in what we can do to reduce bureaucracy. I see growing agencies that are not delivering a more efficient product. That should concern all of us, certainly as taxpayer dollars are involved in supporting the bureaucracy. But then, the opportunity cost. What are some of those opportunity costs that are taking place because of the bureaucracy pushing back on innovation or new ideas that don't seem to fit well within some bureaucrats' minds who have a great deal of authority? Cady Stanton: You mentioned bureaucracy and government agencies there. How do you think your caucus plans to treat IRS policy this Congress? Both in terms of funding for the agency and other areas, perhaps the Direct File program, which I know is something you've spoken to before. Rep. Adrian Smith: Right. I think the Direct File, that speaks for itself in terms of what we've already done. When you really break down the cost of how much each tax return is, that's a great example of the bureaucracy not being efficient. I think overall, customer service at IRS is something that's been on my mind, and I think many of my other colleagues' minds as well. Rather than just trying to throw all of these enforcement agents out across the economy — which that didn't even pan out even when they had the resources to do that, couldn't hire enough people, and so forth — I think if the IRS took a really good, effective posture at customer service, I think compliance would follow suit. I think taxpayers would certainly be more pleased as they seek to have their questions answered, as complex as they sometimes can be. Cady Stanton: House Republicans have obviously already targeted some rollbacks for IRS funding in annual appropriations, as well as rollbacks from the large amount of funding the agency got from the Inflation Reduction Act. Do you have any concerns about the impact on customer service or on taxpayers who are filing, given those rollbacks and changes in funding, alongside what is a shrinking number of personnel at the agency? Rep. Adrian Smith: Well, I need to be convinced that new technologies have been employed before just adding a long list of full-time new employees. Again, it's hard to find employees these days. That probably begs a broader conversation. But IRS is similar to other bureaucracies that I think can be distracted, that doesn't seem to even really want to use newer technologies. I want to be mindful of what — and have these discussions of how can we see the IRS be more efficient in carrying out their responsibilities. Their work is important, let me be very clear. Their work is very important. We know that important work like that can be more effective with good, positive customer service and responsiveness to taxpayers, like I said, so that they can get their questions answered. Because especially with changes in the tax code moving forward, we just want to make sure that customer service is a high priority at IRS. Cady Stanton: One other aspect of tax policy you mentioned is maybe some bipartisan work. I've heard a little bit about the idea of a bipartisan bill maybe at the end of this year for some tax extenders, and I know there's a couple of unaddressed bipartisan tax measures, like the work opportunity tax credit and Affordable Care Act premium tax credits that there's been some conversation around. Do you think there's the appetite there, both across the aisle and within your caucus, to work together on some kind of tax bill at the end of this year, or even just sometime this Congress? The US Capitol is seen in Washington, DC, on January 3, 2018 before the opening of the second ... More session of the 115th Congress. - The US Congress hits the ground running as its 2018 session kicks off, with President Donald Trump facing a two-week deadline to forge a compromise between Republicans and Democrats on immigration reform and the budget. (Photo by NICHOLAS KAMM / AFP) (Photo by NICHOLAS KAMM/AFP via Getty Images) Rep. Adrian Smith: Well, I always remind folks that there's far more bipartisanship that takes place on the House side, probably the Senate side as well, than really gets covered. I think there's bipartisan interest here; let's see what the issues are. I also think that it's important that, as extenders are proposed, what is the exit strategy? Is it permanent policy or is it letting something sunset? Let's sort those issues out. I think we need to have those discussions, and we shouldn't shy away from these conversations that do need to happen. Cady Stanton: Great. Well, this has been a fantastic conversation. Thanks so much for joining us, congressman. We really appreciate your time. Rep. Adrian Smith: You bet. Have a good day.
Politico
4 days ago
- Business
- Politico
Time to get selling
LET'S GET SELLING: House Republicans have certainly wasted no time in trying to boost the popularity of their megabill, which most voters are viewing with skepticism — at least at the start. The House Ways and Means Committee held field hearings in both Las Vegas and at the Ronald Reagan Presidential Library in southern California in recent days, as they seek to highlight some of the fiscal package's more popular parts. The stakes: It's an uphill climb Republicans face, to be sure. The latest evidence: A new Wall Street Journal poll found that 52 percent of registered voters opposed the megabill, with 42 percent backing it. But even that doesn't fully illustrate the challenge Republicans face in changing the public's mind on the new law. Almost seven in 10 believe the megabill will help the wealthy, with half thinking it will hurt the poor. Plus, the GOP faces a true enthusiasm gap here. The WSJ poll found that 44 percent strongly opposed the megabill, more than twice as many as the 20 percent who strongly support it. THANKS FOR JOINING us for Weekly Tax. More on everything in a bit. We're personally trying to imagine President Donald Trump and President Emmanuel Macron of France having their own Budweiser commercial. Sounds like a fun summer activity: Today marks 129 years since dozens of people in what was known as the Biscayne Bay Country in Florida — O.K., more like several hundred — voted to incorporate the city of Miami. (The name comes from a Native American tribe that lived in the area in previous centuries.) Join the community. Send your best tips and feedback. Email: bbecker@ bfaler@ and teckert@ You can also reach us on Twitter at @berniebecker3, @tobyeckert, @brian_faler,@POLITICOPro and @Morning_Tax. Editor's Note: Want to receive this newsletter every weekday? Subscribe to POLITICO Pro. You'll also receive daily policy news and other intelligence you need to act on the day's biggest stories. LOOKING AHEAD: There are reasons to think this will continue to be a tough sell for Republicans. Polling still continues to show that voters look dimly on tax cuts for the rich, and extending expiring relief from Trump's 2017 tax law will always be a centerpiece of the megabill. But voters have taken more of a shine to some of the new tax cuts in the fiscal package, particularly Trump's proposal to exempt tipped income from taxes. So it's no surprise that GOP tax writers particularly highlighted that provision in Las Vegas — where, as House Ways and Means Chair Jason Smith (R-Mo.) noted, about one in five workers get tips. 'What will happen here in Vegas will not stay just in Vegas, because America's 4 million tipped workers will also benefit from no tax on tips,' Smith said. Republicans are also hoping that starting benefits this year — like the tip exemption, but also a larger standard deduction and tax cuts for overtime pay and seniors — will give voters a more tangible reason to get behind the megabill. GOP officials hope that getting tax benefits to voters before next year's elections will correct a mistake from their previous tax law, which they think didn't offered enough to constituents ahead of the 2018 midterms. The view from the other side: Broadly speaking, Democrats continue to hit out at the megabill as essentially exchanging further tax cuts for the rich for Medicaid cuts. But they're also even accusing Republicans of falling short on the parts of the new law that they basically like — most notably no tax on tips. Among other things, Democrats are pointing out that Trump's campaign tax pledges, including the tip exemption, are only in place for four years — while provisions like the expanded estate tax parameters are extended for good. Rep. Linda Sanchez (D-Calif.) also noted at the Las Vegas hearing that workers will still face payroll taxes on their tips — 'which, especially for low-wage workers, tend to be the highest,' she said. (Eliminating payroll taxes on tips would have been a far more expensive proposition.) Another question to consider: Even if it's popular, how much credit might voters give Republicans for the tip deduction? Yes, several million workers get tips, as Smith noted — but that's a very, very narrow percentage of the overall American workforce. Related note: Yale's Budget Lab has new research out today finding that most people will continue to benefit from the simplified tax system enacted in 2017. But provisions like 'no tax on tips' likely will make it more time-consuming for some taxpayers to file, particularly those with lower incomes. YES, LET'S TALK GAMBLING: Smith also stressed during the Las Vegas hearing that he was committed to reversing the provision in the megabill that only allows gamblers to deduct 90 percent of their losses — not the 100 percent it was previously. The Ways and Means chair also made sure to note that it was the Senate that inserted that provision, which has caused lots of upheaval in the gambling community — and Nevada, clearly — at a time when the policy change is getting an increasing amount of attention. 'Many members on both sides of the aisle are open to working to address it before it goes into effect on Jan. 1,' Smith said. How such a bipartisan deal might materialize is another question. Democrats have been willing to back a standalone fix to the gambling provision, with Sen. Catherine Cortez Masto (D-Nev.) offering just such a proposal on the Senate floor this month. But Sen. Todd Young (R-Ind.) blocked that effort, because he was seeking his own change to the megabill — essentially an exemption for Notre Dame from the expanded tax on rich colleges' endowments. Both parties have sought concessions in recent years when the other party sought fixes — be that drafting errors or policy misfires, as with the gambling change — in big unilateral bills like Obamacare or the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act. All of that makes the path forward more hazy for a gambling fix, even if it's hard to find anyone who would oppose such a move in the abstract. NOT YOUR PLACE: The IRS is urging a federal court to block an outside group's request to defend what's known as the Johnson Amendment. Earlier this month, Americans United for Separation of Church and State challenged a proposed settlement between the tax collector and religious groups, in which the IRS said it would no longer enforce the longstanding ban on churches explicitly engaging in political activity. In its response, the IRS said that the group lacked any standing to challenge the settlement, and is essentially trying to stick its nose in something that doesn't concern it. 'Allowing AU to intervene would require both the Court and the Parties to expend more time and resources on a case that has effectively been resolved,' the IRS wrote in its opposing AU's motion. Around the World Bloomberg: 'UK's Reynolds Says Government Won't Introduce 'Daft' Wealth Tax.' More Bloomberg: 'Romanian Deputy Premier Resigns Over Past Tax Fraud Probe.' Law360: 'UK Adds Spain, Guernsey To Approved Minimum Tax List.' Around the Nation ''A slap in the face:' How DeWine's property tax working group insults Ohio's Legislature.' Orlando Sentinel: 'As DeSantis calls for property tax cuts, 11 Central Florida governments propose hikes.' Maine Public Radio: 'Advocates say recent state historic tax credit changes will speed up housing development.' Also Worth Your Time Washington Post: 'They're rich. They're anti-Trump. And they don't want their big tax cut.' Business Insider: 'Meet the boomer homeowners who are sitting on their valuable properties because of a tax they hope is on the way out.' Bloomberg Tax: 'Falsifying a Tax Return Can Cost Your Citizenship Under Trump.' On The Calendar Just waiting for the next storm. Let Morning Tax know about your future events: taxcalendar@ Did you know? Julia Tuttle, known as the 'Mother of Miami,' is thought to be the only woman to have founded a major U.S. city.
Epoch Times
6 days ago
- Business
- Epoch Times
LIVE NOW: House Ways and Means Committee Holds Hearing on Economic Bill
The House Ways and Means Committee holds a hearing titled 'The One, Big, Beautiful Bill Delivering for the American Economy' at the Ronald Reagan Presidential Library in Simi Valley, California, at 12 p.m. ET on July 26.
NBC News
7 days ago
- Business
- NBC News
Some Republicans push to undo gambling tax hike they passed in Trump's megabill
WASHINGTON — Some top Republicans are regretting that they inserted a tax hike on gamblers into President Donald Trump's megabill, with several lawmakers who supported the legislation now calling for rolling back that policy. Rep. Jason Smith, R-Mo., the chair of the tax-writing House Ways and Means Committee, told NBC News that the provision was a 'mistake' and needs to be undone. 'It was definitely not something that we did in the House. I don't understand why the Senate decided to do something like that,' Smith said in a brief interview Wednesday. 'And so it is definitely a provision that — I'm interested in making sure that we fix the Senate's mistake.' The new law cuts the tax deduction on 'wagering losses' from 100% to 90% of losses starting in 2026, disrupting the current dynamic where bettors can offset losses with gains and pay taxes only on net earnings. The new policy could tax gamblers even in years where they break even or net-out losses. For instance, a bettor who wins $100,000 and loses $100,000 in the same year would be stuck with a taxable income of $10,000. 'It would be potentially catastrophic for the industry as it would disproportionately affect high volume gamblers,' said Jack Andrews, the professional sports bettor who goes by that alias. 'Those high volume players are the lifeblood of most casinos,' he added. 'If they realize they could lose, and still have taxable income to pay that they didn't make, they'll stop playing. Or find ways to play that don't generate a paper trail.' Andrews said the new law 'could result in players losing money gambling, but still owing taxes on 'income' they didn't make.' The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office estimates the gambling tax change will raise $1.1 billion over a decade. At least a couple of senators who supported the megabill — which passed with only GOP votes — want to undo the gambling tax. Sens. Ted Cruz of Texas and Bill Hagerty of Tennessee have signed on to legislation to roll it back, alongside Nevada's two Democratic senators, Catherine Cortez Masto and Jacky Rosen. The bill is called the Facilitating Useful Loss Limitations to Help Our Unique Service Economy Act, or the FULL HOUSE Act. 'It's unfair. It makes no sense,' Cruz, who plays poker in his spare time, said in an interview of the tax provision. 'The income tax is designed to tax actual income,' he said. 'For example, playing poker for profession — not allowing them to deduct their losses means they're paying taxes not on their actual income.' 'I think we should fix it,' he added. Cruz said most Republicans voted to pass the gambling tax change without knowing about it, a damning indictment of the legislative process for the bill. 'Nobody really takes responsibility for introducing it,' Cruz said. 'None of us knew about it. It's a very big, beautiful bill, and so there are lots of provisions there that at the end, things were moving very fast. I don't know of anyone who was aware of the provision at the time it passed.' The provision was introduced in the mid-June version of the bill, with Sen. Mike Crapo, R-Idaho, overseeing the tax portion as chair of the Senate Finance Committee. And he, too, is open to revisiting it. 'Senator Crapo is open to receiving feedback from affected stakeholders and learning more about industry reporting and compliance,' a Crapo spokesperson said. 'To comply with the rules of reconciliation, every provision from the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act needed to be modified to create a budgetary effect. In order to retain the gambling loss provision, it was changed to 90 percent,' the spokesperson added. 'While the committee heard from gaming associations on other provisions after text was released on June 16th, there were no concerns raised with lowering the threshold.' The blowback from bettors has since grown since Trump signed the bill into law on July 4, and Democrats have added it to their list of grievances with the One Big Beautiful Bill Act. 'Republicans' hastily put-together bill is full of provisions that are completely counterproductive and harmful to Americans. The provision limiting the wagering loss deduction will have a negative impact on Nevada, and it's one of the many reasons I voted no,' Cortez Masto, the author of the FULL HOUSE Act. On July 10, she sought unanimous consent on the Senate floor to pass the legislation but was met with an objection from Sen. Todd Young, R-Ind., which prevented speedy passage. Her office said she will 'continue to explore all options available to restore the 100% dedication for gambling losses and protect Nevada's gaming and hospitality industries.' If the tax change isn't undone, it will come as a shock to some bettors, as 'many of them wouldn't realize this until they do their 2026 taxes, which would be early 2027,' Andrews said. But reversing it won't be so easy. Senate Majority Leader John Thune, R-S.D., poured cold water on the proposals from some Republicans to roll back parts of the bill. Asked by NBC News on Tuesday whether measures offered by his colleagues to undo the Medicaid cuts and gambling tax were going to succeed, Thune said flatly, 'No.' 'There are members out there who are saying, we'd like to do this or that differently. That's always the case,' Thune said. 'This was a big piece of legislation that had a lot of moving parts. Not everybody got everything they wanted, but at the end of the day, it's historic in its breadth and the things that it addresses.' The White House didn't immediately return a message seeking comment on whether Trump is open to revisiting the provision. Other Republicans say they're unfamiliar with the industry blowback to the gamblers' tax change. 'I honestly, frankly, haven't had a chance to look at it. So I don't even know what they're talking about,' Rep. Vern Buchanan, R-Fla., the second ranking Republican on Ways and Means, said. On the other hand, Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas, sounded surprised by how much attention the issue is getting. 'Why do so many people care about the gamblers tax?' he quipped. 'I'm kind of agnostic. I don't, frankly, understand why it's such a big deal. But happy to look at anything they propose.'
