TAXPAYER DUE PROCESS ENHANCEMENT ACT

On 2026-05-19, Representative Terri A. Sewell (D-AL-7) delivered a floor speech titled "TAXPAYER DUE PROCESS ENHANCEMENT ACT" in the House.

TAXPAYER DUE PROCESS ENHANCEMENT ACT

Congressional Record, Volume 172 Issue 85 (Tuesday, May 19, 2026) [Congressional Record Volume 172, Number 85 (Tuesday, May 19, 2026)] [House] [Pages H3564-H3567] From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [ www.gpo.gov ] TAXPAYER DUE PROCESS ENHANCEMENT ACT Mr. SMITH of Missouri. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 6506) to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to suspend the period of limitations on filing a claim for credit or refund during collection action proceedings, to prohibit the crediting of overpayments against disputed tax liability during such proceedings, and to expand the jurisdiction of the Tax Court, as amended. The Clerk read the title of the bill. The text of the bill is as follows: H.R. 6506 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. This Act may be cited as the ``Taxpayer Due Process Enhancement Act''. SEC. 2. SUSPENSION OF PERIOD OF LIMITATIONS ON FILING A CLAIM FOR CREDIT OR REFUND DURING COLLECTION ACTION PROCEEDINGS. (a) In General.--Section 6330(e)(1) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended by inserting ``subsection (a), (b), or (c) of section 6511 (relating to limitations on credit or refund),'' after ``section 6502 (relating to collection after assessment),''. (b) Period of Limitations on Filing a Claim for Credit or Refund.--Section 6330(e) of such Code is amended by adding at the end the following new paragraph: ``(3) Period of limitations on filing a claim for credit or refund.--In the case of the running of any period of limitations under subsection (a), (b), or (c) of section 6511 with respect to the filing of any claim for credit or refund, paragraph (1)-- ``(A) shall apply only to the extent that such credit or refund relates to an underlying tax liability properly disputed at the hearing requested under this section, and ``(B) shall not result in a suspension of the running of such period of limitations after any date on which a lapse of a deadline, a court filing, or a court order establishes that the taxpayer has forfeited or otherwise lost the right to pursue such dispute.''. (c) Cross Reference.--Section 6511(i) of such Code is amended by adding at the end the following new paragraph: ``(8) For limitations in case of collection action proceedings, see section 6330(e).''. (d) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section shall apply to the running of any period of limitations if such period (determined without regard to the amendments made by this section) ends on or after the date of the enactment of this Act. SEC. 3. PROHIBITION ON CREDITING OF OVERPAYMENTS AGAINST DISPUTED TAX LIABILITY DURING COLLECTION ACTION PROCEEDINGS. (a) In General.--Section 6402 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended by adding at the end the following new subsection: ``(o) Prohibition on Crediting of Overpayments Against Disputed Tax Liability During Collection Action Proceedings.--If a hearing is properly requested under section 6320(a)(3)(B) or 6330(a)(3)(B), and an underlying tax liability referred to in section 6330(c)(2)(B) is properly disputed at such hearing, such tax liability shall not, except with the consent of the taxpayer, be taken into account under subsection (a) for the period during which the period of limitations for filing a claim for credit or refund relating to such tax liability is suspended by reason of section 6330(e).''. (b) Clarification of Application of Certain Levy Hearing Rules to Lien Hearings.--Section 6330(c)(2)(A) of such Code is amended by striking ``unpaid tax or the proposed levy'' and inserting ``unpaid tax, collection action, or proposed collection action''. (c) Effective Dates.-- (1) In general.--The amendment made by subsection (a) shall apply with respect to any period described in section 6402(o) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (as added by this section) if any portion of such period is after the date of the enactment of this Act. (2) Clarification of application of certain levy hearing rules to lien hearings.--The amendment made by subsection (b) shall take effect on the date of the enactment of this Act. SEC. 4. EXPANSION OF JURISDICTION OF TAX COURT. (a) In General.--Section 6330(d)(1) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended to read as follows: ``(1) Petition for review by tax court.-- ``(A) In general.--In the case of a determination under this section, the person may, within 30 days of such determination, petition the Tax Court for review of-- ``(i) such determination, and ``(ii) any underlying tax liability referred to in subsection (c)(2)(B) which is properly disputed at the hearing in which such determination is made. ``(B) Jurisdiction of tax court.--Upon the filing of a petition, the Tax Court shall have jurisdiction with respect to-- ``(i) the determination referred to in subparagraph (A)(i), ``(ii) any underlying tax liability referred to in subparagraph (A)(ii), and ``(iii) any equitable tolling of the 30-day deadline referred to in subparagraph (A). ``(C) Retention of jurisdiction.--Upon a determination being made under this section, subparagraphs (A) and (B) shall apply whether or not the Secretary abandons the collection action or proposed collection action at issue in such determination.''. (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by this section shall apply with respect to petitions filed after the date of the enactment of this Act. The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Smith) and the gentlewoman from Alabama (Ms. Sewell) each will control 20 minutes. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Missouri. General Leave Mr. SMITH of Missouri. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and submit extraneous material on this bill under consideration. [[Page H3565]] The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Missouri? There was no objection. Mr. SMITH of Missouri. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 6506, the Taxpayer Due Process Enhancement Act, bipartisan legislation introduced by my Ways and Means colleagues, Representatives Nathaniel Moran and Terri Sewell. A recent Supreme Court decision will make it more difficult for American taxpayers to challenge the IRS in court when the agency seeks to impose levies over an alleged tax liability. Right now, the taxpayer can lose the opportunity to dispute the agency's actions simply by procedural technicalities. This bill enhances taxpayer rights by making collection proceedings more taxpayer-friendly. By protecting deadlines, safeguarding refunds, and ensuring fair judicial review, these changes are all for the benefit of the taxpayer. Mr. Speaker, as a former county judge, Representative Moran is leading the charge through this legislation to restore taxpayer rights and ensure that Americans can have their day in court. I reserve the balance of my time. Ms. SEWELL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise in great support of H.R. 6506, the Taxpayer Due Process Enhancement Act. Before I address this bill, I would like to take a moment to discuss the President's $1.8 billion slush fund, which was created by using money from American taxpayers, a fund based on a meritless lawsuit that will be used to pay his friends and allies. Yet, the Republican House remains silent. Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record an amicus brief filed on Monday by me, my colleagues on the Ways and Means Committee, and the Litigation Task Force, the link which can be found at: Https://litigationtaskforce.house.gov/sites/evo-subsites/ litigationandresponse.house.gov/files/evo-media-document/54- 1.pdf. IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA President Donald J. Trump, et al., Plaintiffs, v. Internal Revenue Service, et al., Defendants. No. 26-cv-20609-WILLIAMS/LETT Motion For Leave To File Brief As Amici Curiae By 93 Members of the United States House of Representatives INTRODUCTION Ninety-three Members of the United States House of Representatives respectfully submit this motion for leave to file a brief as amici curiae in support of neither party to assist this Court in scrutinizing the unprecedented circumstances that have given rise to the Court's ``concerns about whether it has subject matter jurisdiction in this case.'' ECF No. 43. President Trump's action against the federal government he currently leads is a collusive lawsuit that undermines the separation of powers, frustrates Congress' lawmaking prerogative, and--unless rightfully dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction--could siphon billions of taxpayer dollars into the pockets of the President, his family, and his allies. As Members of Congress, the proposed amici have a direct and substantial interest in ensuring that Article III's case or controversy requirement is enforced and that acts of Congress are faithfully executed by the Executive Branch. The proposed amici respectfully submit this brief, attached as Exhibit A, to present critical arguments regarding this Court's jurisdiction and, among other things, the constitutional and statutory limits on the Department of Justice's (``DOJ's'') settlement authority that have not been--and will not be-- advanced by any party in the litigation. INTEREST OF MOVANTS Movants are 93 Members of the United States House of Representatives. Movants are interested in this case because they took an oath to uphold and defend the Constitution. They also have a strong interest in ensuring that acts of Congress are faithfully executed by the Executive Branch. The President is attempting to undermine the Constitution by bringing this collusive suit against the federal government contrary to the requirement that federal courts may only hear ``Cases'' or ``C

Referenced legislation: HR6506, HR6506