PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Read twice and referred to the Committee on Finance.
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in Senate · Apr 14, 2015
Tax Refund Protection Act of 2015
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: (1) require that the tax return preparer demonstrate good character, good reputation, necessary qualifications to enable the preparer to provide valuable service as a tax return preparer, and competency; (2) require preparers to make certain disclosures relating to fees charged for tax preparation and the average amount of time expected to receive a tax refund; and (3) authorize Treasury to take enforcement action against a tax return preparer for incompetency or wrongdoing.
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 defined as 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 a direct payment to a preparer or lender or by direct deposit to a designated account. The CFPB shall require tax return preparers 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. A certified public accountant who is offering to perform customary and usual accounting activities is exempted from such regulation.
Showing the opening paragraphs of the official summary.
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
Sen. Booker, Cory A. [D-NJ] · D–NJ
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Read twice and referred to the Committee on Finance.
Introduced in Senate
Primary sources
Text links open the official source. We currently store references to these documents.
Source last updated: Aug 12, 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 S.935 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 S.935 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 S.935 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 S.935 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.