HB9075, titled the “Tax the Grift Act,” would amend the Internal Revenue Code to impose a 100 percent tax on any payment a taxpayer receives from a qualified settlement fund created by a civil action filed by the President of the United States against the Internal Revenue Service. In practical terms, the bill targets settlement proceeds from a very specific type of lawsuit and would treat those payments as fully taxable under a new Chapter 50B of the tax code.
The bill also specifies that these settlement payments would be excluded from gross income for general income tax purposes, while simultaneously subjecting them to a separate 100 percent tax. It makes conforming changes to the code’s deduction rules and applies the new tax only to amounts received after enactment. The legislation was referred to the House Committee on Ways and Means and, based on the available record, has not yet advanced further.
HB9075 would add a new federal tax provision to Subtitle D of the Internal Revenue Code, creating Chapter 50B and Section 5000E. It would effectively eliminate any net benefit from covered settlement payments by imposing a tax equal to the full amount received, while also excluding those payments from gross income and preventing related deductions. The bill would affect taxpayers who receive distributions from settlement funds arising from a civil action filed by the President against the IRS, and it would be administered as part of the federal income tax system.
The available context suggests the bill is highly targeted and politically charged, with its title and structure indicating a punitive approach toward a narrow class of settlement recipients. There are no committee transcripts or recorded votes showing broader debate, so the public record here does not reflect formal support or opposition beyond the bill’s introduction and referral. The framing implies an intent to discourage or neutralize payments from the specified settlement fund rather than to create a general tax policy change.
The main point of contention is the bill’s unusual 100 percent tax rate on a narrowly defined category of settlement payments, which could be viewed as punitive, retaliatory, or constitutionally or administratively unusual. Supporters would likely argue it prevents windfalls from litigation involving the IRS, while opponents would likely object that it singles out a specific lawsuit and its recipients for extraordinary tax treatment. Because there are no transcripts or votes, the specific positions of members or stakeholders are not documented in the provided record.