Overview
Title
To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to reinstate the exception for de minimis payments by third party settlement organizations with respect to returns relating to payments made in settlement of payment card and third party network transactions, as in effect prior to the enactment of the American Rescue Plan Act, and for other purposes.
ELI5 AI
H.R. 1882 is a bill that wants to make it easier for people who work using apps like Uber or Etsy to report their earnings to the government; it says they only need to tell the government about their earnings if they make more than $20,000 and have over 200 payments in a year.
Summary AI
H.R. 1882, known as the “Saving Gig Economy Taxpayers Act,” aims to modify how certain small payments are reported by third-party settlement organizations, like payment apps or marketplaces, under the Internal Revenue Code of 1986. Specifically, it reinstates the previous thresholds for reporting transactions, requiring reports only if the total amount exceeds $20,000 and involves more than 200 transactions, effectively reversing changes made by the American Rescue Plan Act. The bill also addresses how these smaller transactions interact with backup withholding obligations, applying new rules starting in 2025. This legislation is designed to ease the reporting burden on gig economy workers and platforms by reinstating higher thresholds for mandatory reporting.
Published
Keywords AI
Sources
Bill Statistics
Size
Language
Complexity
AnalysisAI
General Summary of the Bill
The proposed bill, known as the "Saving Gig Economy Taxpayers Act," aims to amend the Internal Revenue Code by reinstating an exception for small, or de minimis, payments made by third-party settlement organizations. This amendment would apply to returns concerning payments made through payment cards and third-party networks, reverting to the regulations in place before the American Rescue Plan Act. Specifically, it would only require reporting of transactions that exceed $20,000 in total or involve more than 200 transactions. The bill also modifies regulations on reporting requirements tied to backup withholding for these payments.
Summary of Significant Issues
One of the principal concerns involves the reinstatement of the exception for de minimis payments without a clear reasoning or justification. This lack of rationale can lead to debates over whether such a change supports fiscal integrity. Additionally, the chosen thresholds of $20,000 in payments and over 200 transactions could be perceived as too lenient, potentially allowing substantial transactions to go unreported, which may impact tax compliance and governmental revenue.
The inclusion of retroactivity in the legislative changes can complicate compliance as businesses and third-party settlement organizations might face challenges adapting to changes that seem to have been back-dated in application. Moreover, the technical language used and the references to specific tax code sections may make understanding and implementing these changes challenging for the general public and even for some tax professionals.
Potential Public Impact
For the public, particularly for those engaged in the gig economy, the bill promises potential relief from burdensome reporting requirements that currently capture even minor transactions. This could simplify their tax reporting processes and potentially alleviate some administrative burdens. However, the broader public concern centers around the potential for tax revenue loss through unreported transactions, which could ripple into reduced public funds for community services and programs.
Impact on Specific Stakeholders
Gig Economy Workers and Small Businesses: The bill could serve as a boon by reducing the volume of paperwork and reporting obligations for individuals making low-volume transactions. It simplifies tax demands by raising the bar before transactions must be reported, thus potentially lowering their taxable income on paper if smaller earnings are not reported.
Government and Tax Authorities: There is a risk of decreased revenue collection for tax authorities, as the thresholds might allow substantial sums to escape oversight. This could challenge the effective collection of taxes and enforcement of compliance, creating gaps that need to be filled by other policy measures or financial oversight efforts.
Third-Party Settlement Organizations: These entities might benefit from reduced administrative burdens and complexities associated with reporting minor transactions. However, the retroactive application of changes could lead to operational challenges as they adapt to the new compliance environment, particularly if they already adjusted processes to meet the American Rescue Plan Act’s previous mandates.
In conclusion, while the "Saving Gig Economy Taxpayers Act" seeks to lighten the load for smaller transactions, it raises substantial questions about fiscal impacts and compliance that stakeholders will need to carefully consider.
Financial Assessment
H.R. 1882, titled the "Saving Gig Economy Taxpayers Act," introduces changes to the reporting requirements for third-party settlement organizations. This legislation primarily addresses the financial thresholds related to transaction reporting, specifically targeting the monetary and transaction count thresholds for these organizations.
Financial Thresholds and Implications
The bill proposes that payments by third-party settlement organizations need to be reported if they exceed $20,000 and involve more than 200 transactions in a calendar year. This represents a rollback of the stricter reporting requirements introduced by the American Rescue Plan Act. The financial reference to $20,000 is significant, as it directly affects the volume of transactions that would require reporting under the IRS guidelines.
These amended thresholds aim to reduce the reporting burden on small and independent gig economy workers and platforms. However, as noted in the identified issues, the threshold of $20,000 and 200 transactions may be perceived as either too high or too lenient. If perceived as too high, it could lead to concerns about tax compliance and unreported income, potentially impacting overall tax revenue.
Retroactivity Concerns
Another financial aspect is the retroactive application of the amendment, which would take effect as if included in section 9674 of the American Rescue Plan Act. This retroactivity can complicate accounting for businesses and individuals by requiring them to adjust to past transactions under new rules. Retroactive changes can lead to confusion and potentially significant financial impacts for those who have already complied with prior laws.
Interaction with Backup Withholding
The bill also discusses the application of the de minimis rule to backup withholding. Section 3 specifies that payments in settlement of third-party network transactions will only be considered reportable if they exceed the same thresholds of $20,000 and 200 transactions. The rule includes an exception for previous years' reportable transactions, adding complexity to compliance. This could increase the administrative burden on businesses in maintaining comprehensive and accurate records.
Technical Language and Understanding
The bill's technical language and its references to sections of the Internal Revenue Code might be challenging for the general public and even some tax professionals. The use of terms like "third-party settlement organizations" without clarification could obscure the financial implications for those trying to understand their obligations under the law.
Overall, H.R. 1882 aims to alleviate reporting burdens on gig workers while maintaining a balance between administrative ease and tax compliance. However, its financial references, particularly the $20,000 and 200 transactions thresholds, raise concerns about potential gaps in tax revenue and the increased complexity of compliance due to retroactive and detailed legislative requirements.
Issues
The reinstatement of the exception for de minimis payments (Section 2) may not provide a clear rationale for why this change is necessary or beneficial. Without a strong justification, it could lead to concerns about whether this is a sound fiscal decision.
The monetary ($20,000) and transaction count (200) thresholds specified in Section 2 could be perceived as either too high or too lenient, potentially allowing significant transactions to go unreported. This may raise concerns about tax compliance and revenue implications.
The change proposed in Section 2 implies retroactivity by stating it takes effect as if included in section 9674 of the American Rescue Plan Act. Retroactive laws can have legal implications or cause confusion about compliance timeframes, affecting affected parties.
Section 3's application of the de minimis rule introduces complexity in record-keeping and compliance for businesses involved in third party network transactions, especially with the clause regarding exceptions based on prior year reportable transactions.
The highly technical language and detailed cross-references to the Internal Revenue Code in Sections 2 and 3 may make it difficult for the general public and even some tax professionals to understand the bill's implications without additional guidance.
The language referencing 'third party settlement organizations' in both Sections 2 and 3 may be overly technical and could benefit from clarification or a definition section, as this would help lay readers understand the scope and potential impact.
Sections
Sections are presented as they are annotated in the original legislative text. Any missing headers, numbers, or non-consecutive order is due to the original text.
1. Short title Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
The first section of the bill specifies its title, which is the “Saving Gig Economy Taxpayers Act.”
2. Reinstatement of exception for de minimis payments as in effect prior to enactment of American Rescue Plan Act Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
The section modifies the tax law to require third party settlement organizations to report payments from network transactions only if the transactions total more than $20,000 and include over 200 payments, reverting to rules similar to those before the American Rescue Plan Act. The changes will be applied retroactively as if they were part of the original Act.
Money References
- In general.—Section 6050W(e) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended to read as follows: “(e) Exception for de minimis payments by third party settlement organizations.—A third party settlement organization shall be required to report any information under subsection (a) with respect to third party network transactions of any participating payee only if— “(1) the amount which would otherwise be reported under subsection (a)(2) with respect to such transactions exceeds $20,000, and “(2) the aggregate number of such transactions exceeds 200.”. (b) Effective date.—The amendment made by this section shall take effect as if included in section 9674 of the American Rescue Plan Act.
3. Application of de minimis rule for third party network transactions to backup withholding Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
The section amends the Internal Revenue Code to clarify that payments from third party network transactions must be reported for tax purposes only if they exceed certain transaction or dollar amount thresholds in a given year. However, this rule does not apply if similar payments were already reportable in the previous year. The changes will take effect starting in calendar years after December 31, 2024.
Money References
- In general.—Section 3406(b) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended by adding at the end the following new paragraph: “(8) OTHER REPORTABLE PAYMENTS INCLUDE PAYMENTS IN SETTLEMENT OF THIRD PARTY NETWORK TRANSACTIONS ONLY WHERE AGGREGATE TRANSACTIONS EXCEED REPORTING THRESHOLD FOR THE CALENDAR YEAR.— “(A) IN GENERAL.—Any payment in settlement of a third party network transaction required to be shown on a return required under section 6050W which is made during any calendar year shall be treated as a reportable payment only if— “(i) the aggregate number of transactions with respect to the participating payee during such calendar year exceeds the number of transactions specified in section 6050W(e)(2), and “(ii) the aggregate amount of transactions with respect to the participating payee during such calendar year exceeds the dollar amount specified in section 6050W(e)(1) at the time of such payment.