Taxpayer Advocate could hire counsel

Summary#

The National Taxpayer Advocate Enhancement Act of 2025 would amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986; it would not create a separate agency. Its stated goal is to align the law with the 1998 Congress’s intent that the National Taxpayer Advocate be able to hire and consult counsel. The bill has not become law; it was introduced and referred to the Senate Finance Committee.

  • It would authorize the National Taxpayer Advocate to appoint counsel in the Office of the Taxpayer Advocate.
  • That counsel would report directly to the National Taxpayer Advocate or a delegate.
  • A related wording change would refer to “any employee of the Office of the Taxpayer Advocate,” rather than an employee of a local taxpayer advocate’s office. The available text does not show the surrounding rule, so its practical effect is unclear.
  • The changes would take effect as if they had been part of the 1998 law.

What it means for you#

  • Taxpayers: The bill would not directly change tax rates, tax bills, eligibility for benefits, or the process for resolving an individual tax problem. It would change the Advocate’s authority to appoint counsel.
  • National Taxpayer Advocate’s office: The Advocate would have authority to appoint counsel to work in the office and report directly to the Advocate or a delegate. The bill does not require an appointment.
  • Taxpayers seeking help from the office: The bill does not create a new application, review, appeal, or service process.

Money#

No publicly available information on the cost.

  • The authority to appoint counsel could involve staffing costs if used, but the bill gives no estimate and does not specify funding for the appointments.

What is unclear#

  • The supplied materials do not include the current text of the amended Internal Revenue Code provision, so I could not verify how the bill changes current law beyond the wording shown.
  • The bill does not specify the counsel’s duties, qualifications, number of positions, or budget.
  • Without the surrounding text of the provision changed by the conforming amendment, its effect on existing rules is unclear.
  • The bill says its changes take effect as if included in the 1998 law, but does not explain what practical consequences that date would have.

Case for#

  • The bill appears intended to address a gap between the 1998 law’s stated intent and the authority described in this bill.
  • Giving the Advocate authority to appoint counsel who report directly to the Advocate or a delegate could provide legal advice within the office.
  • The bill places that authority in an existing office rather than creating a separate organization.

Case against#

  • The bill does not set limits or details for the counsel’s role, qualifications, or number of appointments.
  • The cost of using the new authority is unknown.
  • The bill does not explain the practical effect of making the changes effective as if they were part of the 1998 law.