PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Referred to the Committee on Ways and Means, and in addition to the Committee on Financial Services, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in House · Apr 6, 2017
Tax Refund Protection Act of 2017
This bill amends the Internal Revenue Code to direct the Department of the Treasury to establish a program to license or certify and regulate tax return preparers. The program must require tax return preparers to: (1) demonstrate good character, good reputation, necessary qualifications, and competency; (2) pay a reasonable fee for licensing or certification; and (3) make certain disclosures regarding fees charged and the average amount of time expected to receive a tax refund.
Treasury may take enforcement actions against a tax return preparer who is incompetent, disreputable, violates regulations, or misleads or threatens a consumer.
Showing the opening paragraphs of the official summary.
The bill also amends the Consumer Financial Protection Act of 2010 to require the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) to regulate refund anticipation payment arrangements. A refund anticipation payment arrangement is an arrangement under which, in exchange for tax preparation services, a taxpayer agrees to pay a fee or interest upon receipt of a tax refund to a preparer or lender either by: (1) requesting the federal government to deposit a tax refund, or a portion of the refund, into an account; or (2) directly paying the preparer or lender.
The CFPB shall require tax return preparers offering a refund anticipation payment arrangement to provide a disclosure statement to a consumer about the arrangement and shall promulgate regulations that require preparers to comply with the disclosure requirements of the Truth in Lending Act.
Finally, the bill allows an income tax refund requested on a tax return prepared by an income tax preparer to be split between the preparer and the taxpayer and prohibits the treatment of such a split as disreputable conduct merely because the taxpayer requested such split.
People & committees
Rep. Bonamici, Suzanne [D-OR-1] · D–OR
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Referred to the Committee on Ways and Means, and in addition to the Committee on Financial Services, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
Referred to the Committee on Ways and Means, and in addition to the Committee on Financial Services, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
Referred to the Committee on Ways and Means, and in addition to the Committee on Financial Services, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
Introduced in House
Introduced in House
Primary sources
Text links open the official source. We currently store references to these documents.
Source last updated: Aug 11, 2025. 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.1996 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.1996 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.1996 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.1996 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.