PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Received in the Senate and Read twice and referred to the Committee on Finance.
Congressional Research Service
Version 07 · Reported to House · Jan 7, 2026
Taxpayer Notification and Privacy Act
This bill expands the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) notice requirements for contacting a third party (e.g., employer or bank) for information related to a taxpayer’s federal tax liability and the rights of the taxpayer in such situation. (Conditions and exceptions apply.)
Currently, the IRS must notify a taxpayer at least 45 days in advance of a time period during which the IRS intends to contact a third party for information related to the taxpayer’s tax liability but is not required to specify what information is being sought.
The bill requires the IRS to specify in a notice to a taxpayer each item of information sought from a third party when (1) the IRS has not previously requested such information from the taxpayer, and (2) the taxpayer can reasonably provide such information. This requirement does not apply if the IRS determines such third-party information is necessary.
Further, under the bill, a taxpayer is allowed no less than 45 days (or more if requested by the taxpayer and deemed reasonable) to respond before the IRS contacts such third party.
People & committees
Rep. Steube, W. Gregory [R-FL-17] · R–FL
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Received in the Senate and Read twice and referred to the Committee on Finance.
Motion to reconsider laid on the table Agreed to without objection.
On motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill, as amended Agreed to by voice vote. (text: CR H3106)
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)
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.
Placed on the Union Calendar, Calendar No. 372.
Reported (Amended) by the Committee on Ways and Means. H. Rept. 119-427.
Reported (Amended) by the Committee on Ways and Means. H. Rept. 119-427.
Ordered to be Reported in the Nature of a Substitute (Amended) by the Yeas and Nays: 41 - 0.
Committee Consideration and Mark-up Session Held
Referred to the House Committee on Ways and Means.
Introduced in House
Introduced in House
Primary sources
Text links open the official source. We currently store references to these documents.
Source last updated: Sep 19, 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.6495 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.6495 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.6495 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.6495 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.