PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Referred to the House Committee on Ways and Means.
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in House · Feb 7, 2025
Endowment Accountability Act
This bill increases the excise tax on the net investment income of certain private university and college endowments. The bill also expands the number of endowments subject to the excise tax by lowering the endowment asset amount per-student threshold.
Under current law, certain private universities and colleges with 500 or more tuition-paying students (of which more than 50% are located in the United States) and endowments that are at least $500,000 per student (per-student threshold) pay an excise tax in the amount of 1.4% on the net investment income from such endowments.
The bill increases the amount of the excise tax to 10% of the net investment income from such university and college endowments and lowers the per-student threshold to $200,000.
People & committees
Rep. Lawler, Michael [R-NY-17] · R–NY
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: Mar 31, 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.1128 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.1128 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.1128 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.1128 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 · 2025-02-07 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 proposed Endowment Accountability Act would increase the tax rate on investment income of covered private colleges and universities from 1.4% to 10%. It would also lower the assets-per-student threshold used to determine coverage from $500,000 to $200,000. Both changes would apply to tax years beginning after enactment.
This Act may be cited as the Endowment Accountability Act.
Excise tax based on investment income of private colleges and universities (a) Increase in rate of tax Section 4968(a) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended by striking 1.4 percent and inserting 10 percent.
(b) Lowering asset per student threshold for definition of applicable educational institution Section 4968(b)(1)(D) of such Code is amended by striking $500,000 and inserting $200,000. (c) Effective date The amendments made by this section shall apply to taxable years beginning after the date of the enactment of this Act.
Section 2(a) would replace the 1.4% tax rate in Internal Revenue Code section 4968(a) with a 10% rate. The section concerns a tax on investment income, rather than a tax on the total value of an institution's assets.
Excise tax based on investment income of private colleges and universities (a) Increase in rate of tax Section 4968(a) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended by striking 1.4 percent and inserting 10 percent.
Section 2(b) would lower the assets-per-student threshold in the definition of a covered educational institution from $500,000 to $200,000. This changes one part of the coverage definition; the bill does not reproduce the other eligibility rules.
(b) Lowering asset per student threshold for definition of applicable educational institution Section 4968(b)(1)(D) of such Code is amended by striking $500,000 and inserting $200,000.
Both proposed amendments would take effect for tax years beginning after the bill becomes law. The effective date depends on enactment, rather than a fixed calendar date.
(c) Effective date The amendments made by this section shall apply to taxable years beginning after the date of the enactment of this Act.
The supplied official-actions snapshot, updated March 31, 2026, records introduction in the House and referral to the House Committee on Ways and Means on February 7, 2025.
Source snapshot updated 2026-03-31T14:52:11Z. 2025-02-07: Referred to the House Committee on Ways and Means. 2025-02-07: Introduced in House
A closer look
Reviewed version: Introduced in House · 2025-02-07. 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 change attached to appropriations was identified in the complete supplied introduced text. This conclusion does not cover 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 does not establish the absence of earmarks in other versions or accompanying materials.
Narrow exceptions, exemptions, or preferential treatment that warrant a closer look.
None identified in the reviewed text
No materially narrow carve-out, special exemption, or preferential treatment was identified in the complete supplied introduced text. This conclusion is limited to that version and does not assess exceptions in existing law that the bundle does not reproduce.
Full text preserved for this analysis. Legislative record snapshot: Mar 31, 2026. How PlainBill uses AI