Overview
Title
To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to limit the use of artificial intelligence at the Internal Revenue Service and to require tax investigations and examinations of taxpayers to be initiated by staff investigators.
ELI5 AI
The "No AI Audits Act" is a bill that says people at the IRS must start tax check-ups, not computers, and any computer help has to be clear about how it works.
Summary AI
H.R. 7694, also known as the "No AI Audits Act," aims to restrict the use of artificial intelligence (AI) in the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) for audits and investigations. The bill proposes that any AI-based methods used by the IRS must be transparent and explainable, adhering to standards set by the National Institute of Standards and Technology. It further mandates that tax investigations be initiated only by IRS staff investigators, not solely by automated systems. Additionally, the Comptroller General is tasked with auditing and reporting on the IRS's use of AI, including evaluating any negative impacts on taxpayer rights.
Published
Keywords AI
Sources
Bill Statistics
Size
Language
Complexity
AnalysisAI
Summary of the Bill
H.R. 7694, known as the "No AI Audits Act," aims to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to restrict the use of artificial intelligence (AI) by the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) for initiating audits and investigations. The bill requires that any IRS investigations must be commenced by human staff members rather than AI. It also mandates that before AI can be used in audit processes, it must comply with "explainability principles" established by the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST). Additionally, the Comptroller General is tasked with auditing and reporting on the IRS's AI usage, including its impact on taxpayer rights.
Significant Issues
Several noteworthy issues arise from this bill. Firstly, the requirement for AI to adhere to "explainability principles" is not clearly defined within the bill, potentially leading to confusion about what these principles entail and how compliance is measured. This ambiguity could result in legal challenges or hinder the effective implementation of AI technologies.
Moreover, the bill treats IRS guidance on using AI for audits as rulemaking under section 553 of title 5, which is a complex process usually reserved for significant regulatory actions. This could complicate the public's understanding and generate potential legal disputes due to perceived regulatory overreach.
The responsibility for initiating investigations is shifted solely to human IRS investigators, which could slow down audits and increase the administrative burden on the agency. This change may impact the efficiency of IRS operations without providing clear benefits.
Public Impact
For the general public, this bill intends to safeguard taxpayer rights by ensuring that decisions to audit are made by IRS staff, rather than automated systems, potentially reducing errors associated with machine judgments. However, taxpayers may still face delays in audit processes due to the increased workload on IRS staff, possibly affecting the speed at which audits are resolved.
The stipulation that AI systems must meet specific explainability criteria before deployment could reasonably ensure that taxpayers understand why they are selected for audits. Conversely, the lack of clarity surrounding these criteria may exacerbate the public's uncertainty regarding AI's role in tax audits.
Impact on Stakeholders
For IRS staff and management, the bill implies a significant shift in workload. By requiring human initiation of audits, the IRS may encounter logistical challenges and resource constraints, potentially necessitating additional hiring and training.
Taxpayer advocacy groups may view the bill positively, as it aligns with efforts to protect taxpayer rights and push back against automated decision-making systems that could inadvertently affect taxpayers' financial situations without transparent justification.
On the technology side, companies developing AI for governmental use might face new hurdles due to the explainability requirements, affecting potential contracts with the IRS. This could spur innovation to develop more transparent AI systems but also discourage investment in certain AI applications due to regulatory uncertainty.
Overall, while the bill aims to protect taxpayer rights and maintain human oversight in audit processes, it must navigate several practical and legal challenges to ensure its measures are implemented efficiently and effectively.
Issues
The use of 'explainability principles for artificial intelligence' in Section 2(a)(5)(B) lacks specific definition, which may result in ambiguous compliance requirements and legal challenges.
Section 2(a)(5)(A) treats IRS guidance on AI usage as rule making under section 553 of title 5, which could complicate implementation and be misunderstood by the public, leading to potential legal disputes.
The bill requires an audit by the Comptroller General in Section 2(b) to provide a cost-benefit analysis without defining metrics for evaluating adverse effects on taxpayer rights, potentially introducing subjectivity and inconsistency in the evaluation process.
Section 2(c) mandates that tax investigations must be initiated by IRS staff members, which may cause delays, increase workload, and reduce efficiency without clear justification, leading to administrative and financial burdens.
The 'Short title' section does not clearly convey the bill's scope or implications, leading to potential public misunderstanding about the intent and reach of the 'No AI Audits Act'.
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 section specifies that the official name of the Act is the “No AI Audits Act.”
2. Limits on the use of artificial intelligence by Internal Revenue Service Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
The proposed bill section introduces limitations on the IRS's use of artificial intelligence for audits or investigations, requiring explainability standards and detailed documentation of IRS staff involved in the initiation. It also mandates a report from the Comptroller General on the IRS’s use of AI, including its impact on taxpayer rights.