PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Received in the Senate and Read twice and referred to the Committee on Finance.
Congressional Research Service
Version 53 · Passed House · Sep 15, 2026
Protecting Taxpayers from Ghost Preparers Act
This bill limits the amount of time the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) has to assess taxes related to fraudulent or false federal tax returns where there is no intent by the taxpayer to evade taxes.
As background, the IRS generally has three years from the date that a tax return is filed (statute of limitations) to assess taxes owed by the taxpayer for the tax year. However, if a false or fraudulent tax return is filed with the intent to evade tax (fraud exception), then the IRS may assess taxes at any time. In Murrin v. Commissioner the U.S. Tax Court held (and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit affirmed) that the fraud exception applies when a tax return preparer places false or fraudulent entries on a tax return without the taxpayer’s knowledge. In contrast, the U.S. Court of Federal Claims held in BASR Partnership v. Commissioner that the fraud exception only applies if the taxpayer intends to evade taxes.
The bill limits the fraud exception to cases in which the taxpayer intends to evade taxes.
People & committees
Rep. Malliotakis, Nicole [R-NY-11] · R–NY
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 H5686)
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. 9499.
Considered under suspension of the rules. (consideration: CR H5686-5687)
Mr. Smith (MO) moved to suspend the rules and pass the bill, as amended.
Placed on the Union Calendar, Calendar No. 705.
Reported (Amended) by the Committee on Ways and Means. H. Rept. 119-806.
Reported (Amended) by the Committee on Ways and Means. H. Rept. 119-806.
Ordered to be Reported in the Nature of a Substitute by the Yeas and Nays: 40 - 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.9499 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.9499 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.9499 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.9499 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.