A Republican bill with 1 Democratic cosponsor · See the cosponsor
Last activity — Received in the Senate and Read twice and referred to the Committee on Finance.
In the other chamber's committee
Passed one chamber and has been handed to a committee in the other.
The committee decides whether it goes any further, and most bills that reach a committee never leave it. A committee that simply does nothing kills a bill without anyone ever voting against it, so no news from here is usually the news.
Its path through Congress
- Introduced
- Passed House voice vote
- In Senate committee
The House by voice vote (members called out yes or no together): no member's position on it was recorded.
What this bill would do
This bill, known as the "Taxpayer Notification and Privacy Act," aims to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986. It focuses on providing specific notice to taxpayers when the government seeks information from third parties. The Act requires that the IRS identify specific items of information they intend to seek if the data relates to tax liability and could be provided by the taxpayer. It also establishes a requirement to give taxpayers a period of at least 45 days to respond before contact is made with third parties. The Act includes an exception if the Secretary determines the information is necessary.
Yes· 3 of 22
- Scored +6
Does this protect people from being watched or searched?
The act provides taxpayers with notice and a 45-day window to respond before the government contacts third parties about their financial information.
- Scored +5
Does this make what the government does easier for the public to see?
The act requires the IRS to identify specific items of information they intend to seek from third parties.
- Scored +3
Would households on low incomes be better off under this?
The notice requirement provides a layer of protection for all taxpayers during the information-gathering process.
The opposite
No question was scored the opposite.
Who it would affect, and how
Potential Positive Impacts for People
-
Increased Transparency and Notice: Under Section 2(a), when the government seeks information related to tax liability that hasn't been requested from the taxpayer and could be provided by them, the law would require the government to identify each specific item of information they intend to seek.
-
Opportunity to Respond: Section 2(a) amends the code to ensure the taxpayer is provided a reasonable opportunity and a period of not less than 45 days to respond before contact is made with third parties, or longer if the taxpayer shows reasonable cause and requests more time.
Potential Negative Impacts for People
- Secretary Discretionary Power: Under Section 2(b), an exception is created where the requirement to identify specific information does not apply if the Secretary determines that such information is necessary.
Groups and Interests Ranking
Every group the model scored this bill for, from -10 to +10. Tap or hover a score for the reason it gave.
- Demographic And Interest Groups
- Would Black Americans be better off under this? — The requirement for specific notice and a response period offers increased procedural protection to all taxpayers. Would Asian Americans be better off under this? — The act improves transparency by requiring the IRS to identify specific items of information sought. Would farmers be better off under this? — The act ensures taxpayers are notified of specific information the IRS intends to seek from third parties. Would high-income households be better off under this? — The bill ensures taxpayers have a specific period to respond before their financial data is requested from third parties. Would Hispanic Americans be better off under this? — The bill provides taxpayers with a 45-day window to respond before the government contacts third parties. Would immigrants be better off under this? — The bill provides more procedural notice and a window for response regarding financial inquiries. Would LGBTQ people be better off under this? — The bill increases transparency in how the government seeks personal financial information from third parties. Would households on low incomes be better off under this? — The notice requirement provides a layer of protection for all taxpayers during the information-gathering process. Would men be better off under this? — The bill creates a 45-day period for taxpayers to respond to potential third-party inquiries. Would middle-income households be better off under this? — The act mandates that the IRS specify information sought, providing more transparency to middle-income taxpayers. Would Native Americans be better off under this? — The bill grants taxpayers a reasonable opportunity to respond before third-party contact occurs. Would people with disabilities be better off under this? — The act creates more transparency in the government's information-seeking processes. Would retired people be better off under this? — The bill provides a notice period that allows taxpayers to respond before the government contacts third parties. Would people in rural areas be better off under this? — The act provides more transparency regarding how the IRS seeks information from third parties. Would students be better off under this? — The requirement for specific notice increases procedural transparency for all taxpayers. Would union members be better off under this? — The bill provides increased notice and a period to respond to third-party information requests. Would people in cities be better off under this? — The bill mandates a response window before the IRS contacts third parties about a taxpayer's information. Would veterans be better off under this, taking everything together? — The act enhances privacy by requiring the IRS to identify specific data points before third-party contact. Would white Americans be better off under this? — The mandate for specific information identification increases transparency for taxpayers. Would women be better off under this? — The act provides a procedural buffer and increased notice regarding third-party information requests.
- Governance And Ideology
- Does this protect people from being watched or searched? — The act provides taxpayers with notice and a 45-day window to respond before the government contacts third parties about their financial information. Does this make what the government does easier for the public to see? — The act requires the IRS to identify specific items of information they intend to seek from third parties.
- 4/28/2026
- Received in the Senate and Read twice and referred to the Committee on Finance.
- 4/27/2026
- Motion to reconsider laid on the table Agreed to without objection.
- Passed/agreed to in House: On motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill, as amended Agreed to by voice vote. (text: CR H3106)
- On motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill, as amended Agreed to by voice vote. (text: CR H3106)
- DEBATE - The House proceeded with forty minutes of debate on H.R. 6495.
- Considered under suspension of the rules. (consideration: CR H3106-3107)
- Mr. Smith (MO) moved to suspend the rules and pass the bill, as amended.
- 1/7/2026
- Reported (Amended) by the Committee on Ways and Means. H. Rept. 119-427.
- Placed on the Union Calendar, Calendar No. 372.
- 12/10/2025
- Committee Consideration and Mark-up Session Held
- Ordered to be Reported in the Nature of a Substitute (Amended) by the Yeas and Nays: 41 - 0.
- 12/5/2025
- Referred to the House Committee on Ways and Means.
- 1 Cosponsor added.
- Introduced in House
One bill Congress.gov lists as related to this one — companions in the other chamber, earlier versions, and bills this one absorbed or was folded into.
Jimmy PanettaDemocrat · California