Latest action: Read twice and referred to the Committee on Finance.
Referred to one or more standing committees for review, hearings, and possible markup.
Specific committees not parsed from action data.
The committee may hold hearings, amend the bill, or let it die without action.
Next: Reported
Full chamber floor — Speaker / Majority Leader controls scheduling
Bill aims to give Tax Court judges the same pay and benefits as federal judges.
The problem
Tax Court judges currently earn less than other federal judges despite similar responsibilities. This pay gap may make it hard to recruit and keep qualified judges.
The proposal
The bill would increase Tax Court judge compensation to match federal district court judge pay and benefits, improving recruitment and retention of qualified judicial staff.
The impact
Tax Court judges would receive higher pay. Taxpayers would fund increased judicial salaries. The federal budget would see increased expenses for court operations.
Higher pay helps recruit experienced lawyers to become Tax Court judges. This improves the quality of judges deciding tax cases. Better judges may make fairer decisions.
Judges earning competitive salaries are less likely to leave for private law jobs. Stable judges build expertise and experience over time. This saves money on training new judges.
Tax Court judges handle complex financial cases similar to district court judges. Equal pay reflects equal work and responsibility. This recognizes the importance of the Tax Court.
Experienced judges who stay longer resolve cases more efficiently. This reduces delays in tax disputes for individuals and businesses. Quicker decisions save time and money for all parties.
Raising judge salaries costs taxpayer money that could fund other programs. The government must pay higher salaries to all Tax Court judges. Budget deficits may increase unless other spending is cut.
Pay differences might not be the main reason judges leave. Other factors like workload or stress matter too. Spending money on salaries alone may not fix retention issues.
Other federal courts might demand similar pay raises afterward. This could create a chain reaction of salary increases across the judiciary. Future budget costs could grow significantly.
Without the full bill text, it's unclear what specific salary increases are proposed. The exact costs and implementation details remain unknown. Congress and public lack complete information for evaluation.
Generated by AI from the bill text. Not a prediction and not legal or policy advice. The percentage is the model's own rating of each item — self-reported, and not a measure of how accurate it is.
Loading map…
Loading...
0 citizens have already voted
Free · No spam · See how your representatives voted
Be the first to weigh in
Your vote starts the conversation
How citizen engagement works
Citizens vote & comment
Public opinion data is aggregated and updated in real time.
Patterns become visible
Representatives can see constituent sentiment broken down by district.
Your voice on the record
Contact your rep directly — one constituent call can shift a staffer's priority list.
Research shows that constituent contacts — especially calls — are among the most effective ways to influence a legislator's position on active bills.
Other bills in this policy area
HR 10730
Healthy Communities Act of 2026
HR 5349
TAS Act
HR 9496
End Tax Penalties on American Hostages Act
HR 997
National Taxpayer Advocate Enhancement Act of 2025
Individual contributions, grouped by employer · FEC
No donor data found for current cycle
Itemized individual contributions via FEC, grouped by the employer each contributor self-reported. Companies and unions cannot contribute to federal candidates from their treasuries, so these totals are money from people who work at an employer — never from the organization itself. They are campaign contributions covering a full election cycle and are not connected to this bill.
Senate LDA lobbying disclosures
Couldn't load lobbying disclosures right now.