PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Referred to the House Committee on Ways and Means.
Congressional Research Service
No official summary is available in the imported record yet.
People & committees
Rep. Smith, Adrian [R-NE-3] · R–NE
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Referred to the House Committee on Ways and Means.
Introduced in House
Introduced in House
Primary sources
Text links open the official source. We also preserved the text version used in the PlainBill explanation below.
No related bills are listed in this snapshot. This does not establish whether the proposal has appeared in earlier Congresses.
Source last updated: Oct 14, 2026. Consult Congress.gov for the current record.
AI Conversation Starters
Choose a perspective, copy a prompt, and paste it into your preferred AI. Each prompt includes the bill version and available official source links, and asks for counterarguments as well as supporting evidence.
Analyze H.R.10767 as objectively as possible. Explain its main provisions, who would be affected, possible benefits and harms, implementation, exceptions, and uncertainties. Present the strongest arguments for and against it, and identify evidence needed to assess its public impact.
Examine H.R.10767 through a progressive lens, focusing on fairness, access, economic inequality, and effects on vulnerable communities. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and distinguish stated goals from demonstrated outcomes.
Examine H.R.10767 through a conservative lens, focusing on fiscal responsibility, institutional stability, federalism, and the scope of government. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and any provisions that challenge this perspective.
Examine H.R.10767 through a civil-liberties and limited-government lens. Consider individual rights, privacy, voluntary choice, accountability, and government power. Explain tradeoffs, possible safeguards, and the strongest counterarguments without assuming the proposal is beneficial or harmful.
PlainBill explanation
Based on the full Introduced in House · 2026-10-06 text. This explanation has not received human editorial review. This overview describes the proposal’s major provisions; it does not establish what its real-world effects would be.
The proposal would tax covered colleges and universities that knowingly let certain people compete in intercollegiate athletics: people who have wagered on college competitions, or who have both been employed as professional athletes and appeared on a professional franchise’s roster for a similar competition. The tax would apply to the institution’s athletic receipts. Rates would rise with counted violations, subject to exceptions and a special counting rule for wagering-related violations.
There is hereby imposed on any eligible educational institution which commits an athletic participation violation during any taxable year a tax equal to the applicable percentage of the gross athletic receipts of such institution for such taxable year.
any instance in which such institution knowingly allows the active participation of a specified individual in any intercollegiate athletic event or competition.
(A) who has placed any wager (without regard to the manner in which placed) with respect to any intercollegiate athletic event or competition, or (B) who has been employed as an athlete by, and appeared on a roster for, a professional sports franchise with respect to a similar athletic event or competition.
If the number of violations during the applicable period is: The applicable percentage is: 1 5 percent 2 10 percent In excess of 2 20 percent
(B) Exceptions Such term shall not include any instance in which a specified individual— (i) actively participates in a practice session for any intercollegiate athletic event or competition, (ii) appears on a roster for, but does not actively participate in, any intercollegiate athletic event or competition, or (iii) actively participates in any intercollegiate athletic event or competition pursuant to a court order.
All athletic participation violations committed by an eligible educational institution with respect to individuals described in paragraph (3)(A) shall be treated as one such violation to the extent such violations are determined by the Secretary to be derived from the same set of facts and circumstances.
Section 1 names the proposal the Fair Play Enforcement Act.
This Act may be cited as the Fair Play Enforcement Act.
The proposed tax would apply to institutions covered by the existing definition in Internal Revenue Code section 25A(f)(2). The supplied bill does not reproduce that definition.
(1) Eligible educational institution The term eligible educational institution has the meaning given such term in section 25A(f)(2).
An institution would commit a violation when it knowingly allows a covered person to actively participate in an intercollegiate athletic event or competition. The tax would be imposed on the institution for a tax year in which it commits a violation.
There is hereby imposed on any eligible educational institution which commits an athletic participation violation during any taxable year a tax equal to the applicable percentage of the gross athletic receipts of such institution for such taxable year.
The term athletic participation violation means, with respect to any eligible educational institution, any instance in which such institution knowingly allows the active participation of a specified individual in any intercollegiate athletic event or competition.
The covered people would include anyone who has placed any wager on an intercollegiate athletic event or competition, regardless of how the wager was placed. They would also include anyone who has both been employed as an athlete by a professional sports franchise and appeared on its roster for a similar athletic event or competition.
(3) Specified individual The term specified individual means, with respect to any intercollegiate athletic event or competition, any individual— (A) who has placed any wager (without regard to the manner in which placed) with respect to any intercollegiate athletic event or competition, or (B) who has been employed as an athlete by, and appeared on a roster for, a professional sports franchise with respect to a similar athletic event or competition.
The tax would be calculated from the institution’s gross receipts connected with any of its intercollegiate athletic programs for that tax year. The stated base is receipts, rather than profits.
(4) Gross athletic receipts The term gross athletic receipts means, with respect to any eligible educational institution for any taxable year, the gross receipts of such institution for such taxable year which are attributable to, or derived in connection with, any intercollegiate athletic program of such institution.
a tax equal to the applicable percentage of the gross athletic receipts of such institution for such taxable year.
For a tax year with a violation, the rate would depend on the total counted violations during that year and the preceding five tax years: 5 percent for one violation, 10 percent for two, and 20 percent for more than two.
the applicable percentage with respect to any eligible educational institution which commits an athletic participation violation during any taxable year is determined under the following table with respect to the aggregate number of separate athletic participation violations committed by such institution during such taxable year and the preceding 5 taxable years (referred to in such table as the applicable period)
If the number of violations during the applicable period is: The applicable percentage is: 1 5 percent 2 10 percent In excess of 2 20 percent
Practice participation, appearing on a roster without actively competing, and competing pursuant to a court order would not count as violations.
(B) Exceptions Such term shall not include any instance in which a specified individual— (i) actively participates in a practice session for any intercollegiate athletic event or competition, (ii) appears on a roster for, but does not actively participate in, any intercollegiate athletic event or competition, or (iii) actively participates in any intercollegiate athletic event or competition pursuant to a court order.
Multiple wagering-related violations by an institution would have to count as one to the extent the Secretary determines that they arise from the same facts and circumstances. This counting rule expressly applies to the wagering category.
(C) Aggregation rule All athletic participation violations committed by an eligible educational institution with respect to individuals described in paragraph (3)(A) shall be treated as one such violation to the extent such violations are determined by the Secretary to be derived from the same set of facts and circumstances.
(A) who has placed any wager (without regard to the manner in which placed) with respect to any intercollegiate athletic event or competition
The Secretary would be required to issue regulations or other guidance as necessary or appropriate to carry out the new tax provision.
(d) Regulations The Secretary shall prescribe such regulations or other guidance as may be necessary or appropriate to carry out the purposes of this section.
If enacted, the amendments would apply to tax years ending after the enactment date.
(c) Effective date The amendments made by this section shall apply with respect to taxable years ending after the date of the enactment of this Act.
The supplied actions snapshot, updated October 14, 2026, records introduction in the House and referral to the House Committee on Ways and Means on October 6, 2026.
Source snapshot updated 2026-10-14T19:45:41Z. 2026-10-06: Referred to the House Committee on Ways and Means. 2026-10-06: Introduced in House
A closer look
Reviewed version: Introduced in House · 2026-10-06. These findings describe provisions and who may benefit; they are not judgments of waste, corruption, or motive.
This review covers the supplied bill text. “None identified” does not rule out provisions in later versions or accompanying reports and disclosures.
Provisions outside the bill’s main subject, or policy changes attached to appropriations.
None identified in the reviewed text
No unrelated provision or policy rider was identified in the complete supplied introduced text. This conclusion does not establish absence in other versions or accompanying materials.
Spending directed to particular recipients or places outside ordinary competitive or formula-based allocation.
None identified in the reviewed text
No congressionally directed spending for particular recipients or places was identified in the complete supplied introduced text. This conclusion is limited to that version and does not resolve what accompanying materials might contain.
Narrow exceptions, exemptions, or preferential treatment that warrant a closer look.
Findings to examine
The text contains a category-specific exception to counting violations within the main tax policy. This classification does not imply improper purpose.
Institutions with wagering-related violations would receive a special counting treatment: multiple violations must be treated as one to the extent the Secretary finds they arise from the same facts and circumstances. Because tax rates depend on the number of violations, this provides a potentially favorable rate treatment for qualifying institutions. The rule expressly covers the wagering category, rather than the separate professional-athlete category.
(C) Aggregation rule All athletic participation violations committed by an eligible educational institution with respect to individuals described in paragraph (3)(A) shall be treated as one such violation to the extent such violations are determined by the Secretary to be derived from the same set of facts and circumstances.
(A) who has placed any wager (without regard to the manner in which placed) with respect to any intercollegiate athletic event or competition, or (B) who has been employed as an athlete by, and appeared on a roster for, a professional sports franchise with respect to a similar athletic event or competition.
If the number of violations during the applicable period is: The applicable percentage is: 1 5 percent 2 10 percent In excess of 2 20 percent
Full text preserved for this analysis. Legislative record snapshot: Oct 14, 2026. How PlainBill uses AI