PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Received in the Senate and Read twice and referred to the Committee on Finance.
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in House · Jun 29, 2026
Taxpayer Advocate Participation Act
This bill authorizes the National Taxpayer Advocate to appear as amicus curiae and submit amicus briefs in a U.S. court in cases involving federal tax law.
Further, the bill requires federal courts to permit such appearances. (An amicus curiae is a person or group that is not a party in a court case but has an interest in the case and may be permitted to submit a brief, known as an amicus brief, to the court in relation to the case.) Under the bill, the National Taxpayer Advocate may present the views of the National Taxpayer Advocate in such a case only with respect to an issue which may broadly affect certain rights of taxpayers.
As background, the National Taxpayer Advocate leads the Taxpayer Advocate Service, which is an independent organization within the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) responsible for helping taxpayers resolve problems with the IRS. The National Taxpayer Advocate is also responsible for proposing administrative and legislative changes to mitigate such problems. Under current law, the National Taxpayer Advocate is not authorized to appear as amicus curiae or submit amicus briefs in cases involving federal tax law.
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 H5685)
Passed/agreed to in House: On motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill, as amended Agreed to by voice vote.
DEBATE - The House proceeded with forty minutes of debate on H.R. 9498.
Considered under suspension of the rules. (consideration: CR H5685-5686)
Mr. Smith (MO) moved to suspend the rules and pass the bill, as amended.
Placed on the Union Calendar, Calendar No. 699.
Reported (Amended) by the Committee on Ways and Means. H. Rept. 119-799.
Reported (Amended) by the Committee on Ways and Means. H. Rept. 119-799.
Ordered to be Reported in the Nature of a Substitute by the Yeas and Nays: 39 - 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.
No related bills are listed in this snapshot. This does not establish whether the proposal has appeared in earlier Congresses.
Source last updated: Oct 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.9498 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.9498 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.9498 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.9498 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.