A joint resolution disapproving the action of the District of Columbia Council in approving the D.C. Income and Franchise Tax Conformity and Revision Temporary Amendment Act of 2025.
- Bill Number
- S.J.Res. 102
- Origin Chamber
- Senate
- Congress
- 119th Congress, Session 2
- Policy Area
- Taxation
- Status
- Introduced
- Latest Action
- 2026-02-04: Placed on Senate Legislative Calendar under General Orders. Calendar No. 314.
- Last Updated
- 2026-02-05T11:56:25Z
AI-Generated Summary
Purpose
This joint resolution (S.J. Res. 102) aims to disapprove and block a temporary law passed by the District of Columbia (D.C.) Council. Specifically, it targets the "D.C. Income and Franchise Tax Conformity and Revision Temporary Amendment Act of 2025," which was enacted by the D.C. Council on December 20, 2025, and sent to Congress for review. The resolution exercises Congress's authority under the D.C. Home Rule Act to override local D.C. legislation within 30 days of transmission.
Key Provisions
- Disapproval Clause: Congress formally disapproves the entire D.C. Act (identified as D.C. Act A26-0217), preventing it from taking effect.
- Legislative Process: Introduced in the Senate on January 27, 2026, by Senator Rick Scott of Florida and co-sponsors; read twice and referred to the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs; reported without amendment on February 4, 2026.
- No additional provisions are included; the resolution is solely focused on rejection.
Significant Changes to Existing Law
- This resolution does not introduce new federal laws but nullifies the specified D.C. temporary act before it can become permanent.
- It maintains the status quo on D.C.'s income tax (personal taxes on earnings) and franchise tax (business taxes on privileges to operate in D.C.), blocking any proposed conformity (alignment with federal tax code changes) or revisions (updates to rates, deductions, or rules) outlined in the D.C. Act.
- Under the D.C. Home Rule Act of 1973, which grants limited self-governance to D.C., Congress retains veto power over local laws, and this resolution enforces that oversight.
Potential Impacts
- On Government Agencies: The D.C. government, including its tax office (Office of Tax and Revenue), would be unable to implement the blocked changes, potentially delaying revenue collection or adjustments tied to federal tax updates (e.g., inflation adjustments or new deductions).
- On Citizens and Businesses: D.C. residents and workers could face unchanged tax rules, avoiding potential rate hikes or new filing requirements but also missing out on any tax relief or simplifications in the D.C. Act. Local businesses might continue under existing franchise tax structures, affecting their costs and compliance.
- On International Relations: No direct impact, as this is a domestic tax matter limited to U.S. federal-D.C. relations.
- Broader effects could include short-term budget strains for D.C. if the act aimed to boost revenue, or preserved federal alignment if conformity was the goal.
Main Stakeholders Affected
- D.C. Residents and Taxpayers: Directly impacted by unaltered personal income tax rules.
- D.C. Businesses: Affected by unchanged franchise taxes, which could influence operational costs and investment decisions.
- D.C. Council and Local Government: Loses authority on this tax policy, potentially limiting fiscal flexibility.
- U.S. Congress: Asserts oversight role, with sponsors (primarily Republican senators) signaling opposition to D.C.'s tax proposals.
- Federal Agencies: Indirectly involved through tax conformity (e.g., IRS for federal code alignment), but no major operational changes.
Notable Legal, Constitutional, or Political Implications
- Legal: Reinforces the D.C. Home Rule Act's section 602(c)(1), which requires congressional review of D.C. laws and allows disapproval by joint resolution. If passed, this would invalidate the temporary act without needing presidential signature (as a disapproval measure).
- Constitutional: Highlights D.C.'s unique status under the U.S. Constitution (Article I, Section 8), where Congress has plenary power over the district, limiting full home rule despite the 1973 Act. No direct constitutional challenge is raised here.
- Political: Demonstrates partisan dynamics, as the resolution is sponsored by Republican senators, potentially reflecting broader tensions over D.C. autonomy (e.g., debates on statehood or federal intervention). It could set a precedent for future congressional vetoes on local D.C. fiscal policies, influencing relations between federal and local leaders.
This summary was generated by AI and may contain inaccuracies. Refer to the official source document for the authoritative text.
Sponsor
Cosponsors (8)
Sen. Blackburn, Marsha [R-TN], Sen. Ernst, Joni [R-IA], Sen. Marshall, Roger [R-KS], Sen. Mullin, Markwayne [R-OK], Sen. Cramer, Kevin [R-ND], Sen. Moreno, Bernie [R-OH], Sen. Schmitt, Eric [R-MO], Sen. Moody, Ashley [R-FL]
Recent Actions
- 2026-02-04: Placed on Senate Legislative Calendar under General Orders. Calendar No. 314.
- 2026-02-04: Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs. Reported by Senator Paul without amendment. Without written report.
- 2026-02-04: Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs. Reported by Senator Paul without amendment. Without written report.
- 2026-02-04: Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs. Ordered to be reported without amendment favorably.
- 2026-01-27: Read twice and referred to the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs.
- 2026-01-27: Introduced in Senate
Bill Versions
- Disapproving the action of the District of Columbia Council in approving the D.C. Income and Franchise Tax Conformity and Revision Temporary Amendment Act of 2025. — issued 2026-01-27 — PDF (2 pages)
- Disapproving the action of the District of Columbia Council in approving the D.C. Income and Franchise Tax Conformity and Revision Temporary Amendment Act of 2025. — issued 2026-02-04 — PDF (4 pages)