This week (June 15-19)

Congress: The House and Senate went out of session for last week without addressing The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) reauthorization due June 12, when a temporary 45-day patch runs out.

The Senate next convenes at 3:00 pm on Monday, June 15, with a vote on a judicial nomination at 5:30 p.m. The House is scheduled to be out of session this week.

On Tuesday, June 16 (10 a.m.), the Senate Budget Committee is holding a hearing to consider the nomination of Hal Duncan to be Deputy Director of the Office of Management and Budget.

Last week (June 8-12)

Big picture: President Trump June 10 signed into law a budget reconciliation bill, the Secure America Act (S. 2), to fund the Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and Customs and Border Protection (CBP) agencies separately from the rest of the Department of Homeland Security. Closing the chapter on the Reconciliation 2.0 was intended to give way to a Reconciliation 3.0 bill that some envision would include affordability proposals possibly offset with provisions to combat waste, fraud and abuse in federal safety net programs. Opinions on the outlook for another bill have been mixed. There was some fresh skepticism from the Senate this week, then a directive from President Trump to provide additional defense funding through the potential bill, which has until now has been discussed more by House Republican leaders and committee chairs and more coolly received in the Senate. It was a pivotal week for cryptocurrency tax, at least in the House, where Ways and Means Committee members June 8 introduced a series of bills addressing various elements of the issue — a de minimis rule, mining and staking, charitable donations, wash sales and constructive sales among them — prior to a June 9 hearing on "Digital Asset Taxation." Chairman Jason Smith (R-MO) previously indicated he only wanted to move forward with bipartisan support, and said at the hearing, "Digital asset taxation does not have to turn into a partisan fight." Members from both parties said that congressional inaction on the issue is not acceptable, but support from some Democrats was tepid.

Reconciliation: Defense funding has been one potential element discussed in relation to a third Republican-only bill, to follow last years' "One Big Beautiful Bill Act" (OBBBA) and the now-signed Secure America Act (S. 2) to fund the ICE and CBP agencies. President Trump newly called for a defense funding reconciliation bill that also includes voter ID legislation in a June 10 social media post, saying: "I am hereby calling on Republicans in Congress to IMMEDIATELY advance and pass the forthcoming $350 Billion Reconciliation Bill (Recon 3.0) — which, at the request of our Great Department of War — will include THE SAVE AMERICA ACT as well. No games, no delays, and no weak compromises! Do this ASAP." The new insistence on a third reconciliation bill could help propel the measure that has been discussed more by House Republican leaders and committee chairs and more coolly received in the Senate. There was some fresh skepticism this week from longtime members of the upper chamber. Bloomberg Government reported former Senate Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) as saying at the Appropriations Committee's defense subpanel hearing June 9, "I think it's safe to conclude there will not be another reconciliation bill." Senate Appropriations Chair Susan Collins (R-ME), who is in a competitive re-election race, said she agreed with that assessment. Key Senate moderate Lisa Murkowski (R-AK) has also added her name to the list of skeptical Republicans.

Politico reported on efforts to include health savings account (HSA) provisions and other healthcare items, and said, "On Monday, the Republican Study Committee, a caucus in the House, met with Congressional Budget Office Director Phillip Swagel and Tom Barthold, chief of staff for the Joint Committee on Taxation, to lay the groundwork for a third reconciliation bill." An editorial in the June 12 Wall Street Journal, "Is That All from the GOP Congress?" arguing in favor of another bill before the elections suggested as potential tax items for the package expanding access and contribution limits for HSAs, indexing the capital-gains tax for inflation, and raising or eliminating the cap on the capital-gains exemption on the sale of a primary residence, plus indexing it for inflation. "The $500,000 exemption limit for joint filers is far too small given the inflated appreciation of recent years," the WSJ said. The editorial acknowledged that some members may balk at another bill but argued that Republicans in competitive races "need more accomplishments to talk about."

Cryptocurrency: In conjunction with the Ways and Means hearing, Chairman Smith said the Committee identified as primary issues the fact that digital asset transactions like mining and staking do not fit clearly into existing tax law, digital assets do not receive the tax benefits or the protection from anti-abuse rules available to traditional financial assets, and crypto owners face burdensome tax compliance that hinders using digital assets in ordinary commerce, with the oft-cited example of paying for a cup of coffee generating tax reporting requirements. The questions raised at prior hearings — in a Ways and Means subpanel and at the Senate Finance Committee, in July and October 2025 respectively — were over the need for a de minimis rule to exempt transactions and the tax treatment of mining and staking, including whether awards are taxed upon receipt or new digital assets are akin to self-created property and should be taxed upon disposition.

The bills introduced by Committee Republicans June 8 included:

• The Less Tax Paperwork for Digital Asset Owners Act (H.R. 9178) by Rep. Rudy Yakym (R-IN), to provide a de minimis exclusion of gain or loss on digital assets used to pay a network fee (not available to a trader, broker, or dealer or those with more than 5,000 digital asset transactions in a year) and to exclude gain or loss on stablecoins.
• The Tax Clarity for Mining and Staking Act (H.R. 9175) by Rep. Mike Carey (R-OH), to allow taxpayers to elect deferral of newly minted digital assets from inclusion in gross income, akin to the treatment of self-created property, and allow grantor trusts with digital assets to take staking rewards without risking their tax status.
• The Charitable Deductions for Digital Asset Donations Act (H.R. 9173) by Rep. Mike Kelly (R-PA), to exempt digital asset donations from qualified appraisal requirements if they meet certain criteria.
• The Providing Analogous Rules for Digital Assets Act (H.R. 9176) by Rep. David Kustoff (R-TN), to allow digital assets to qualify for safe harbors that allow foreign persons to more easily invest in US markets, to lend digital assets without triggering a taxable event, and allow digital asset dealers and traders to use mark-to-market accounting.
• The Digital Assets Voluntary Disclosure Program Act (H.R. 9174) by Rep. Aaron Bean (R-FL), to provide a voluntary disclosure program for taxpayers who failed to comply with tax law related to digital assets to come back into compliance.
• The Applying Existing Tax Anti-Abuse Rules to Digital Assets Act (H.R. 9172) by Rep. Jodey Arrington (R-TX), to apply wash sale and constructive sale rules to digital assets.

A major point of contention during the hearing was the potential limitless deferral of staking awards, which Rep. Steven Horsford (D-NV) — who has a separate cryptocurrency bill with Rep. Max Miller (R-OH) — proposed to be limited to five years. Rep. Linda Sánchez (D-CA) also raised this issue. Rep. Brad Schneider (D-IL) criticized Republicans for introducing a new slate of bills rather than take up the bipartisan Miller-Horsford bill, saying, "That's the proposal we should be considering today."

Ranking Member Richard Neal (D-MA) spoke in favor of a bipartisan agreement on the issue but repeated prior comments that there are members who are still unfamiliar with cryptocurrency issues and cited the Committee's history of bipartisan work on retirement policy in saying lawmakers must tread carefully. Some members cited the optics of working on the bill now, with Rep. John Larson (D-CT) questioning whether average Americans would support action on a relatively esoteric issue. Rep. Tom Suozzi (D-NY) said despite his legal training and position in Congress, "I really don't understand cryptocurrency that well."

Stock buyback excise tax: Democrats continue to lay out proposals they may pursue if they come into greater power in the currently all-Republican controlled Washington. Senate Democratic leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY), Finance Committee Ranking Member Ron Wyden (D-OR), and Committee member Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) June 11 introduced a bill to increase the stock buyback excise tax from 1% to 4%. Ranking Member Wyden and former Senator Sherrod Brown (D-OH) — who is running again this year — introduced a similar bill in 2023, and the increase to 4% was also proposed by the Biden administration during that time, with the argument that "stock repurchases are tax-favored relative to dividends as a means of distributing corporate profits" and increasing the excise tax rate "would reduce this disparity."

Senator Schumer said in a floor speech June 11, "Let's not forget, if you are the CEO of a company and you are often measured by your stock price, buybacks raise that stock price. The damn shame of it all is those buybacks don't create a single new job or an investment in workers or an investment in equipment to increase productivity and produce more."

"The effort revives a long-running debate over whether companies have used savings from tax cuts to help reward executives instead of investing in workers … " said a Washington Post story, "Democrats want to target companies that buy back their own stocks," posted on June 11. "The bill is not expected to make progress with Congress under Republican leadership, but the move is part of a larger effort Democrats are waging ahead of the midterms to show they are attuned to people's concerns about affordability and making companies pay their fair share."

'Buy, borrow, die': A Washington Post editorial was critical of the legislation (S. 4662) introduced June 2 by Senator Ruben Gallego (D-AZ) addressing the so-called "buy, borrow, die" tax strategy that other Senate Democrats have previously called attention to. Ranking Member Wyden has previously described the process as involving an ultra-wealthy investor who acquires valuable assets then borrows against that value to generate cash and ultimately avoid tax at death due to stepped-up basis. Senator Gallego's Redistribution of Billions by Instituting New High-income Obligations on Overlooked Debt (ROBINHOOD) Act aims to close the 'borrow' aspect by treating taking out a loan as a realization event, meaning the individual would have to pay taxes on capital gains equal to the loan amount. The provisions of the bill apply to taxpayers who have an income over $100 million and/or assets worth more than $1 billion. The Post editorial said of the "buy, borrow, die" strategy, "There's just one problem: The affluent, by and large, don't avoid taxes with it." It dismissed as "faddish conjecture" the idea that as wealthy people's assets appreciate, giving them unrealized capital gains, instead of selling the assets and paying taxes on the gains they borrow against the value of their assets and then their heirs get the assets and start over at the value when they receive them, so the gains are never taxed. "Rich people are already paying income tax on a large enough portion of their income that borrowing to avoid taxes would be pointless," the editorial said.

Trump Accounts: Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent and First Lady Melania Trump June 11 held an event focus on providing Trump Accounts to children in foster care. "Within the foster care community, these 'Fostering the Future Accounts, powered by Trump Accounts, will advance Mrs. Trump's commitment to helping youth in foster care build a stronger future," the Secretary said. Trump Accounts — established under the OBBBA as tax-free investment accounts for every American child with seed money for many -generally are set to launch on July 4, something that Sec. Bessent told tax-writing committees during hearings last week was a primary focus of the Treasury Department.

The accounts are being heavily promoted by Republicans, along with the OBBBA benefits for no tax on tips and no tax on overtime. A June 11 Semafor report, "Utah Republican runs on Trump Accounts," cited Ways and Means member Blake Moore (R-UT) as heavily campaigning on the Trump Accounts issue as well as "a charitable deduction change he championed in the 2025 Republican-passed tax bill, which incentivizes families that don't itemize to make small donations to their church or charities they support."

Treasury: Assistant Secretary for Tax Policy Ken Kies spoke at the Georgetown Law Institute of International Economic Law and International Tax Policy Forum conference June 12 and said Treasury trusts there will be a faithful implementation of the side-by-side agreement, saying "we feel very good about that" and there isn't any nervousness that there won't be implementation. He said Treasury is as engaged as ever with OECD discussions and wants to be helpful with regard to simplification. Kies reiterated prior comments that "Pillar One is dead" and Treasury's engagement in a constructive dialogue on digital services taxes (DSTs) should in no way be interpreted as picking up where Pillar One left off or reviving Pillar One. He also restated comments made by other officials regarding the corporate alternative minimum tax (CAMT), that Treasury is now drafting regulations to implement the five notices released on the issue and they are expected to be issued in or around February 2027.

Bill introductions: On June 10, Rep. Pat Harrigan (R-NC) introduced the Business Activity Tax Simplification Act, which "updates federal law to account for modern business activity, including digital goods and services, while establishing a uniform national standard for when states may impose business activity taxes on out-of-state companies." Further, the legislation "clarifies that businesses must maintain a meaningful physical presence in a state before being subject to certain state and local business taxes and extends existing federal protections beyond traditional net income taxes to other business activity taxes."