59–006 

114TH CONGRESS REPORT " ! HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 2d Session 114–498 

IRS OVERSIGHT WHILE ELIMINATING SPENDING (OWES) 

ACT OF 2016 

APRIL 18, 2016.—Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the State of 

the Union and ordered to be printed 

Mr. BRADY of Texas, from the Committee on Ways and Means, 

submitted the following 

R E P O R T 

together with 

DISSENTING VIEWS 

[To accompany H.R. 4885] 

[Including cost estimate of the Congressional Budget Office] 

The Committee on Ways and Means, to whom was referred the 

bill (H.R. 4885) to require that user fees collected by the Internal 

Revenue Service be deposited into the general fund of the Treasury, having considered the same, report favorably thereon with an 

amendment and recommend that the bill as amended do pass. 

CONTENTS 

Page 

I. SUMMARY AND BACKGROUND ............................................................... 2 

A. Purpose and Summary ..................................................................... 2 

B. Background and Need for Legislation ............................................. 2 

C. Legislative History ............................................................................ 3 

II. EXPLANATION OF THE BILL ................................................................... 3 

III. VOTES OF THE COMMITTEE .................................................................... 4 

IV. BUDGET EFFECTS OF THE BILL ............................................................ 5 

A. Committee Estimate of Budgetary Effects ...................................... 5 

B. Statement Regarding New Budget Authority and Tax Expenditures Budget Authority .................................................................. 5 

C. Cost Estimate Prepared by the Congressional Budget Office ....... 5 

V. OTHER MATTERS TO BE DISCUSSED UNDER THE RULES OF 

THE HOUSE .............................................................................................. 8 

A. Committee Oversight Findings and Recommendations ................. 8 

B. Statement of General Performance Goals and Objectives ............. 8 

C. Information Relating to Unfunded Mandates ................................ 8 

D. Applicability of House Rule XXI 5(b) .............................................. 8 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
2 

1Doing Less with Less: The IRS’s Spending Decisions Harm Taxpayers,’’ Committee on Ways 

and Mean majority staff report; available at: http://waysandmeans.house.gov/wp-content/ 

uploads/2015/07/4.21.15-Tax-Filing-Report.pdf. 2 Ibid. 

E. Tax Complexity Analysis .................................................................. 8 

F. Congressional Earmarks, Limited Tax Benefits, and Limited 

Tariff Benefits ................................................................................. 9 

G. Duplication of Federal Programs ..................................................... 9 

H. Disclosure of Directed Rule Makings .............................................. 9 

VI. CHANGES IN EXISTING LAW MADE BY THE BILL, AS REPORTED 9 

A. Text of Existing Law Amended or Repealed by the Bill, as 

Reported .......................................................................................... 9 

B. Changes in Existing Law Proposed by the Bill, as Reported ........ 10 

VII. DISSENTING VIEWS ................................................................................... 12 

The amendment is as follows: 

Strike all after the enacting clause and insert the following: 

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

This Act may be cited as the ‘‘IRS Oversight While Eliminating Spending (OWES) 

Act of 2016’’. 

SEC. 2. DEPOSIT OF IRS USER FEES INTO GENERAL FUND OF THE TREASURY. 

(a) IN GENERAL.—The second sentence of section 3 of title I of Public Law 103– 

329 (26 U.S.C. 7801 note), under the heading ‘‘ADMINISTRATIVE PROVISIONS-INTERNAL

REVENUE SERVICE’’, is amended by striking ‘‘The Secretary of the Treasury may 

spend’’ and all that follows through ‘‘and thereafter:’’ and inserting the following: 

‘‘Any fees collected pursuant to this section shall be deposited in the general fund 

of the Treasury and shall not be expended by the Internal Revenue Service unless 

provided by an appropriations Act:’’. 

(b) CONFORMING AMENDMENT.—The last proviso of such section is amended by 

striking ‘‘and how they are being expended by the Service’’. 

(c) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendments made by this section shall apply to fees 

collected after the date of the enactment of this Act. 

I. SUMMARY AND BACKGROUND 

A. PURPOSE AND SUMMARY

H.R. 4885, reported by the Committee on Ways and Means, repeals the provision of current law that allows the Internal Revenue 

Service (IRS) to spend user fees collected by the agency without 

Congressional approval or appropriation. The proposal would require that all IRS user fees collected by the agency be deposited 

into the general fund of the Department of the Treasury, and 

therefore be subject to Congressional appropriations. 

B. BACKGROUND AND NEED FOR LEGISLATION

The IRS collects user fees for a variety of programs and services, 

including private letter rulings, determinations, installment agreements and other matters. Under current law, the IRS has authority 

to allocate funds from its user-fee account as the agency sees fit, 

without Congressional approval or appropriation. Historically, the 

user-fee account has primarily supported taxpayer services. However, the Subcommittee on Oversight found that in fiscal year 2015 

the IRS deliberately diverted resources away from taxpayer services and towards other agency functions including implementation 

of the Affordable Care Act.1 In fiscal year 2014, the IRS spent $183 

million in user fees on taxpayer services, which was 44 percent of 

the user-fee account.2 In fiscal year 2015, however, the agency 

spent only $49 million on taxpayer services, or 10 percent of the 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
3 

3 Ibid. 

4 Ibid. 

5The Independent Offices Appropriations Act of 1952 (IOAA), 65 Stat. B70, (June 27, 1951). 

See also 31 U.S. Sec. 9701. 6OMB Circular A–25, 58 FR 38142 (July 15, 1993). 

7 A discussion of the IRS practice regarding user fees and a list of actions for which fees are 

charged is included in the Internal Revenue Manual. See ‘‘User Fees,’’ paragraph 1.32.19 IRM, 

available at https://www.irs.gov/irm/part1/irm_01-032-019.html. 8Title I, section 3, Public Law No. 103–329 (September 30, 1995). 

user-fee account.3 That decision amounted to a 73-percent reduction in user fees allocated to taxpayer services, and a 6-percent decrease in total funding for taxpayer assistance. The IRS’ decision 

to divert money in the user-fee account away from taxpayer assistance contributed to a level of taxpayer service that even the IRS 

Commissioner called ‘‘abysmal’’ for 2015.4 H.R. 4885 improves Congressional oversight of the IRS and limits the agency’s ability to 

manipulate its funding. 

C. LEGISLATIVE HISTORY

Background 

H.R. 4885 was introduced on March 23, 2016, and was referred 

to the Committee on Ways and Means. 

Committee action 

The Committee on Ways and Means marked up H.R. 4885, the 

IRS Oversight While Eliminating Spending (OWES) Act, on April 

13, 2016, and ordered the bill, as amended, favorably reported 

(with a quorum being present). 

Committee hearings 

The need for improved taxpayer service and appropriate use of 

funds by the IRS was discussed at an Oversight Subcommittee 

hearing on the 2015 Tax Filing Season (April 22, 2015). 

II. EXPLANATION OF THE BILL 

A. REQUIREMENT THAT USER FEES COLLECTED BY THE INTERNAL

REVENUE SERVICE BE DEPOSITED INTO THE GENERAL FUND OF

THE TREASURY

PRESENT LAW

Federal agencies may establish fees for certain services provided 

by the agencies,5 if the charges are fair, based on the costs to the 

government, the value of the service to the recipient, the public policy or interest served, and other relevant facts. Those policies currently are set by the Office of Management and Budget (‘‘OMB’’).6

The Internal Revenue Service collects user fees for a broad variety 

of services that are of value to the requesting taxpayers, ranging 

from advanced pricing agreements to installment agreements.7

Since 1994, the proceeds of user fees have been available to the Internal Revenue Service to supplement appropriations each fiscal 

year.8

REASONS FOR CHANGE

Review of the IRS budget allocations to customer service reveals 

that the IRS moved discretionary funds it collected as proceeds of 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
4 

user fees away from customer service to fund other aspects of tax 

administration, including implementation of recent legislation. 

Congress believes user fees collected to compensate the IRS for providing certain taxpayer services should be used to provide customer 

service. The Committee believes greater accountability of the IRS 

can be achieved by direct appropriations rather than allowing IRS 

discretionary spending. 

EXPLANATION OF PROVISION

The proceeds of user fees collected by the Internal Revenue Service are no longer available to the agency absent appropriation. All 

such fees must be deposited into the general fund of the Treasury. 

EFFECTIVE DATE

The provision is effective with respect to fees collected after the 

date of enactment. 

III. VOTES OF THE COMMITTEE 

In compliance with clause 3(b) of rule XIII of the Rules of the 

House of Representatives, the following statement is made concerning the vote of the Committee on Ways and Means in its consideration of H.R. 4885, a bill require that user fees collected by 

the Internal Revenue Service be deposited into the general fund of 

the Treasury. 

The Chairman’s amendment in the nature of a substitute was 

adopted by a voice vote (with a quorum being present). 

The bill, H.R. 4885, as amended, was ordered favorably reported 

to the House of Representatives by a rollcall vote of 24 yeas to 14 

nays (with a quorum being present). 

Representative Yea Nay Present Representative Yea Nay Present 

Mr. Brady .................................. X ......... ............. Mr. Levin .................................. ......... X .............

Mr. Johnson ............................... X ......... ............. Mr. Rangel ............................... ......... X .............

Mr. Nunes ................................. X ......... ............. Mr. McDermott ......................... ......... X .............

Mr. Tiberi .................................. X ......... ............. Mr. Lewis .................................. ......... X .............

Mr. Reichert .............................. X ......... ............. Mr. Neal ................................... ......... X .............

Mr. Boustany ............................. X ......... ............. Mr. Becerra .............................. ......... X .............

Mr. Roskam ............................... X ......... ............. Mr. Doggett .............................. ......... X .............

Mr. Price ................................... X ......... ............. Mr. Thompson .......................... ......... X .............

Mr. Buchanan ........................... X ......... ............. Mr. Larson ................................ ......... X .............

Mr. Smith (NE) .......................... X ......... ............. Mr. Blumenauer ....................... ......... X .............

Ms. Jenkins ............................... X ......... ............. Mr. Kind ................................... ......... X .............

Mr. Paulsen ............................... X ......... ............. Mr. Pascrell .............................. ......... X .............

Mr. Marchant ............................ X ......... ............. Mr. Crowley .............................. ......... ......... .............

Mrs. Black ................................. X ......... ............. Mr. Davis .................................. ......... X .............

Mr. Reed ................................... X ......... ............. Ms. Sanchez ............................. ......... X .............

Mr. Young ................................. X ......... .............

Mr. Kelly .................................... X ......... .............

Mr. Renacci ............................... X ......... .............

Mr. Meehan ............................... X ......... .............

Mrs. Noem ................................. X ......... .............

Mr. Holding ............................... X ......... .............

Mr. Smith (MO) ......................... X ......... .............

Mr. Dold .................................... X ......... .............

Mr. Rice .................................... X ......... .............


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
5 

IV. BUDGET EFFECTS OF THE BILL 

A. COMMITTEE ESTIMATE OF BUDGETARY EFFECTS

In compliance with clause 3(d) of rule XIII of the Rules of the 

House of Representatives, the following statement is made concerning the effects on the budget of the bill, H.R. 4885, as reported. 

The bill, as reported, is estimated to have a negligible effect on 

Federal fiscal year budget receipts for the period 2016–2026. 

Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XIII of the Rules of the House of 

Representatives, the following statement is made by the Joint Committee on Taxation with respect to the provisions of the bill amending the Internal Revenue Code of 1986: The gross budgetary effect 

(before incorporating macroeconomic effects) in any fiscal year is 

less than 0.25 percent of the current projected gross domestic product of the United States for that fiscal year; therefore, the bill is 

not ‘‘major legislation’’ for purposes of requiring that the estimate 

include the budgetary effects of changes in economic output, employment, capital stock and other macroeconomic variables. 

B. STATEMENT REGARDING NEW BUDGET AUTHORITY AND TAX

EXPENDITURES BUDGET AUTHORITY

In compliance with clause 3(c)(2) of rule XIII of the Rules of the 

House of Representatives, the Committee states that the bill involves no new or increased budget authority. The Committee further states that there are no new or increased tax expenditures. 

C. COST ESTIMATE PREPARED BY THE CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET

OFFICE

In compliance with clause 3(c)(3) of rule XIII of the Rules of the 

House of Representatives, requiring a cost estimate prepared by 

the CBO, the following statement by CBO is provided. 

U.S. CONGRESS, CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET OFFICE, Washington, DC, April 18, 2016. 

Hon. KEVIN BRADY, 

Chairman, Committee on Ways and Means, 

House of Representatives, Washington, DC. 

DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: The Congressional Budget Office has prepared the enclosed cost estimate for H.R. 4885, the IRS Oversight 

While Eliminating Spending (OWES) Act of 2016. 

If you wish further details on this estimate, we will be pleased 

to provide them. The CBO staff contact is Matthew Pickford. 

Sincerely, 

KEITH HALL. 

Enclosure. 

H.R. 4885—IRS Oversight While Eliminating Spending (OWES) 

Act of 2016 

Summary: Under current law, the Internal Revenue Service 

(IRS) is authorized to establish or increase fees for some of its services and to spend those fees without further appropriation. H.R. 

4885 would amend current law to require that the spending of 

those user fees would be subject to annual appropriation. 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
6 

CBO estimates that enacting H.R. 4885 would reduce direct 

spending by $3.4 billion over the 2017–2026 period; therefore payas-you-go procedures apply. Enacting the bill would not affect revenues. CBO also estimates that implementing the bill would increase the need for appropriations for the IRS by $3.4 billion over 

the 2017–2026 period. 

CBO estimates that enacting the legislation would not increase 

net direct spending or on-budget deficits in any of the four consecutive 10-year periods beginning in 2027. 

The staff of the Joint Committee on Taxation (JCT) has determined that H.R. 4885 contains no intergovernmental or private-sector mandates as defined in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

(UMRA). 

Estimated cost to the Federal Government: The estimated budgetary effect of H.R. 4885 is shown in the following table. The costs 

of this legislation fall within budget function 800 (general government). 

By fiscal year, in millions of dollars— 

2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2017–2021 2017–2026 

DECREASE IN DIRECT SPENDING 

Estimated 

Budget 

Authority ...... ¥350 ¥350 ¥350 ¥350 ¥350 ¥350 ¥350 ¥350 ¥350 ¥350 ¥1,750 ¥3,500 

Estimated 

Outlays ¥301 ¥336 ¥350 ¥350 ¥350 ¥350 ¥350 ¥350 ¥350 ¥350 ¥1,687 ¥3,437 

INCREASE IN SPENDING SUBJECT TO APPROPRIATION 

Estimated 

Authorization 

Level .. 350 350 350 350 350 350 350 350 350 350 1,750 3,500 

Estimated 

Outlays 301 336 350 350 350 350 350 350 350 350 1,687 3,437 

Basis of estimate: For this estimate, CBO assumes that the bill 

will be enacted in late calendar year 2016, the necessary amounts 

will be appropriated each year, and spending will follow historical 

patterns for the IRS. 

H.R. 4885 would terminate the authority of the IRS to spend 

user fees without appropriation action. Based on information from 

the IRS, CBO estimates that enacting the bill would reduce direct 

spending by about $3.4 billion over the 2017–2026 period. 

Because CBO expects that the operating expenses for the IRS 

would remain the same under the bill, CBO estimates that implementing the bill would cost $3.4 billion over the 2017–2026 period, 

assuming appropriation of the estimated amounts. 

Pay-As-You-Go considerations: The Statutory Pay-As-You-Go Act 

of 2010 establishes budget-reporting and enforcement procedures 

for legislation affecting direct spending or revenues. The net 

changes in outlays that are subject to those pay-as-you-go procedures are shown in the following table. 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
7 

CBO ESTIMATE OF PAY-AS-YOU-GO EFFECTS FOR H.R. 4885, AS ORDERED REPORTED BY THE HOUSE COMMITTEE ON WAYS AND MEANS ON APRIL 13, 2016 

By fiscal year, in millions of dollars— 

2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2016– 2021 2016– 2026 

NET DECREASE (¥) IN THE DEFICIT 

Statutory Pay-As-You-Go Impact ............................................................................................... 0 ¥301 ¥336 ¥350 ¥350 ¥350 ¥350 ¥350 ¥350 ¥350 ¥350 ¥1,687 ¥3,437 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
8 

Increase in long-term direct spending and deficits: CBO estimates that enacting the legislation would not increase net direct 

spending or on-budget deficits in any of the four consecutive 10- 

year periods beginning in 2027. 

Intergovernmental and private-sector impact: JCT has determined that H.R. 4885 contains no intergovernmental or private-sector mandates as defined UMRA. 

Estimate prepared by: Federal Costs: Matthew Pickford, Intergovernmental and Private-Sector Impact: The staff of the Joint 

Committee on Taxation. 

Estimate approved by: H. Samuel Papenfuss, Deputy Assistant 

Director for Budget Analysis. 

V. OTHER MATTERS TO BE DISCUSSED UNDER THE 

RULES OF THE HOUSE 

A. COMMITTEE OVERSIGHT FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

With respect to clause 3(c)(1) of rule XIII of the Rules of the 

House of Representatives (relating to oversight findings), the Committee advises that it was as a result of the Committee’s review of 

the provisions of H.R. 4885 that the Committee concluded that it 

is appropriate to report the bill, as amended, favorably to the 

House of Representatives with the recommendation that the bill do 

pass. 

B. STATEMENT OF GENERAL PERFORMANCE GOALS AND OBJECTIVES

With respect to clause 3(c)(4) of rule XIII of the Rules of the 

House of Representatives, the Committee advises that the bill contains no measure that authorizes funding, so no statement of general performance goals and objectives for which any measure authorizes funding is required. 

C. INFORMATION RELATING TO UNFUNDED MANDATES

This information is provided in accordance with section 423 of 

the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. No. 104–4). 

The Committee has determined that the bill contains no unfunded mandate on the private sector, nor does it impose a Federal 

intergovernmental mandate on State, local, or tribal governments. 

D. APPLICABILITY OF HOUSE RULE XXI 5(b) 

Rule XXI 5(b) of the Rules of the House of Representatives provides, in part, that ‘‘A bill or joint resolution, amendment, or conference report carrying a Federal income tax rate increase may not 

be considered as passed or agreed to unless so determined by a 

vote of not less than three-fifths of the Members voting, a quorum 

being present.’’ The Committee has carefully reviewed the bill and 

states that the bill does not involve any Federal income tax rate 

increases within the meaning of the rule. 

E. TAX COMPLEXITY ANALYSIS

Section 4022(b) of the Internal Revenue Service Restructuring 

and Reform Act of 1998 (‘‘IRS Reform Act’’) requires the staff of the 

Joint Committee on Taxation (in consultation with the Internal 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
9 

Revenue Service and the Treasury Department) to provide a tax 

complexity analysis. The complexity analysis is required for all legislation reported by the Senate Committee on Finance, the House 

Committee on Ways and Means, or any committee of conference if 

the legislation includes a provision that directly or indirectly 

amends the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 and has widespread applicability to individuals or small businesses. 

Pursuant to clause 3(h)(1) of rule XIII of the Rules of the House 

of Representatives, the staff of the Joint Committee on Taxation 

has determined that a complexity analysis is not required under 

section 4022(b) of the IRS Reform Act because the bill contains no 

provisions that amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 and that 

have ‘‘widespread applicability’’ to individuals or small businesses, 

within the meaning of the rule. 

F. CONGRESSIONAL EARMARKS, LIMITED TAX BENEFITS, AND

LIMITED TARIFF BENEFITS

With respect to clause 9 of rule XXI of the Rules of the House 

of Representatives, the Committee has carefully reviewed the provisions of the bill and states that the provisions of the bill do not 

contain any congressional earmarks, limited tax benefits, or limited 

tariff benefits within the meaning of the rule. 

G. DUPLICATION OF FEDERAL PROGRAMS

In compliance with Sec. 3(g)(2) of H. Res. 5 (114th Congress), the 

Committee states that no provision of the bill establishes or reauthorizes: (1) a program of the Federal Government known to be duplicative of another Federal program, (2) a program included in any 

report from the Government Accountability Office to Congress pursuant to section 21 of Public Law 111–139, or (3) a program related 

to a program identified in the most recent Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance, published pursuant to the Federal Program Information Act (Public Law 95–220, as amended by Public Law 98– 

169). 

H. DISCLOSURE OF DIRECTED RULE MAKINGS

In compliance with Sec. 3(i) of H. Res. 5 (114th Congress), the 

following statement is made concerning directed rule makings: The 

Committee estimates that the bill requires no directed rule makings within the meaning of such section. 

VI. CHANGES IN EXISTING LAW MADE BY THE BILL, AS 

REPORTED 

A. TEXT OF EXISTING LAW AMENDED OR REPEALED BY THE BILL, AS

REPORTED

In compliance with clause 3(e)(1)(A) of rule XIII of the Rules of 

the House of Representatives, the text of each section proposed to 

be amended or repealed by the bill, as reported, is shown below: 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
10 

CHANGES IN EXISTING LAW MADE BY THE BILL, AS REPORTED

In compliance with clause 3(e)(1)(A) of rule XIII of the Rules of 

the House of Representatives, the text of each section proposed to 

be amended or repealed by the bill, as reported, is shown below: 

TREASURY, POSTAL SERVICE AND GENERAL 

GOVERNMENT APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 1995 

(Public Law 103–329) 

* * * * * * * 

TITLE I—DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY 

* * * * * * * 

INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE

* * * * * * * 

ADMINISTRATIVE PROVISIONS—INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE

SEC. 3. The Secretary of the Treasury may establish new fees or 

raise existing fees for services provided by the Internal Revenue 

Service to increase receipts, where such fees are authorized by another law. The Secretary of the Treasury may spend the new or increased fee receipts to supplement appropriations made available 

to the Internal Revenue Service appropriations accounts in fiscal 

years 1995 and thereafter: Provided, That the Secretary shall base 

such fees on the costs of providing specified services to persons paying such fees: Provided further, That the Secretary shall provide 

quarterly reports to the Congress on the collection of such fees and 

how they are being expended by the Service. 

* * * * * * * 

B. CHANGES IN EXISTING LAW PROPOSED BY THE BILL, AS REPORTED

In compliance with clause 3(e)(1)(B) of rule XIII of the Rules of 

the House of Representatives, changes in existing law proposed by 

the bill, as reported, are shown as follows (existing law proposed 

to be omitted is enclosed in black brackets, new matter is printed 

in italic, existing law in which no change is proposed is shown in 

roman): 

CHANGES IN EXISTING LAW MADE BY THE BILL, AS REPORTED

In compliance with clause 3(e)(1)(B) of rule XIII of the Rules of 

the House of Representatives, changes in existing law proposed by 

the bill, as reported, are shown as follows (existing law proposed 

to be omitted is enclosed in black brackets, new matter is printed 

in italic, and existing law in which no change is proposed is shown 

in roman): 

TREASURY, POSTAL SERVICE AND GENERAL 

GOVERNMENT APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 1995 

(Public Law 103 329) 

* * * * * * * 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
11 

TITLE I—DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY 

* * * * * * * 

INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE

* * * * * * * 

ADMINISTRATIVE PROVISIONS—INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE

SEC. 3. The Secretary of the Treasury may establish new fees or 

raise existing fees for services provided by the Internal Revenue 

Service to increase receipts, where such fees are authorized by another law. øThe Secretary of the Treasury may spend the new or 

increased fee receipts to supplement appropriations made available 

to the Internal Revenue Service appropriations accounts in fiscal 

years 1995 and thereafter:¿ Any fees collected pursuant to this section shall be deposited in the general fund of the Treasury and shall 

not be expended by the Internal Revenue Service unless provided by 

an appropriations Act: Provided, That the Secretary shall base such 

fees on the costs of providing specified services to persons paying 

such fees: Provided further, That the Secretary shall provide quarterly reports to the Congress on the collection of such fees øand 

how they are being expended by the Service¿. 

* * * * * * * 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
(12) 

VII. DISSENTING VIEWS 

We oppose H.R. 4885, the IRS Oversight While Eliminating 

Spending (OWES) Act of 2016, which would eliminate the ability 

of the IRS to supplement its annual funding appropriation with 

user fees. The IRS charges user fees for a variety of services that 

it provides to the public, such as providing tax transcripts to verify 

income for consumer loans. IRS user fee collections annually range 

from $400 to $500 million, and represent around 4% of IRS’s annual budget. H.R. 4885 would instead require that IRS place its 

user fee income in the Treasury general fund and would prohibit 

IRS from spending any of that income without express Congressional authorization. 

We oppose H.R. 4885 because it is a disguised budget cut for the 

IRS. The Majority has cut over $1 billion from the IRS since 2010. 

As a result, the agency has been forced to cut 12,000 full-time jobs, 

has reduced employee training, and has delayed critical upgrades 

to information technology. The agency is auditing fewer taxpayers—the current audit rate of less than 1% of taxpayers is the 

lowest level in a decade. 

We object to this dangerous level of underfunding for a critical 

government agency; and, we oppose H.R. 4885 because it represents an additional 4% budget cut annually for an agency that 

is already underfunded. 

SANDER M. LEVIN, 

Ranking Member. 

Æ 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS