House 5595 Requiring Excise for Migrant Income Transfers Act” or the “REMIT Act.

Requiring Excise for Migrant Income Transfers Act” or the “REMIT Act.

Bill Summary

What the REMIT Act does, in plain terms, is dramatically raise and restructure a federal excise tax on money people in the United States send abroad through money transmitters and similar services. It raises the stated tax rate on remittance transfers from 1 percent to 15 percent, then carves out a path to avoid or later recover the tax for U.S. citizens and U.S. nationals—provided the transfer is done through a provider that agrees to verify citizenship/national status under Treasury rules, or the sender follows specific steps to certify and report their intent to claim a refund later. Everyone else—lawful permanent residents, other legal non‑citizens, and undocumented immigrants—would face the full 15 percent unless Congress later creates more exceptions.

The bill’s core change is the 15 percent rate in section 4475(a). That is a very large increase relative to typical remittance fees in the marketplace and would instantly make formal, regulated remittance channels far more expensive for many senders. To blunt effects on U.S. citizens and nationals, the bill creates two relief mechanisms. First, it exempts transfers made by “verified United States senders” when they use a “qualified remittance transfer provider.” A provider becomes “qualified” by entering a written agreement with the Treasury to verify citizenship/national status using procedures the Secretary sets. If a citizen or national is verified at the point of sale with a qualified provider, the 15 percent excise simply does not apply to that transfer.

Second, the bill adds a new refundable income tax credit (new section 36C) equal to the remittance excise taxes paid by a citizen or national during the tax year. But there are important strings attached. To claim the refund, the taxpayer must include Social Security numbers (and a spouse’s if married), prove they actually paid the excise, and show that at the time of the transfer they gave the provider a specific certification and information (name, address, SSN) signaling intent to claim the credit. That means a citizen who pays the excise through a non‑qualified provider cannot simply discover the credit later at tax time and get their money back unless they had provided the required certification and information at the point of transfer. The credit is refundable, so it can be paid even if the individual owes no income tax.

Pros

  • Creates a refundable credit to avoid permanent over-taxation of U.S. citizens and nationals who inadvertently pay the excise, mitigating some harm to citizens.
  • Mandates provider reporting and taxpayer statements, which can improve transparency, consumer documentation, and IRS oversight of a historically opaque transaction stream.
  • Anti‑conduit provisions and clear reporting can deter abusive avoidance structures by large actors and ensure more consistent compliance.
  • If revenues materialize, they could be steered to social investments; Democrats could negotiate offsets or expansions to safety‑net programs.
  • By requiring Treasury‑approved verification procedures, the bill could standardize KYC/identity practices across providers and potentially raise consumer protection baselines.
  • Targets remittance outflows often associated with unauthorized work, creating a financial disincentive to illegal immigration and encouraging earnings to be spent domestically.
  • Raises significant revenue without increasing income tax rates, while shielding U.S. citizens and nationals through an up‑front exemption and a refundable credit backstop.
  • Leverages private‑sector providers to verify eligibility and report data, strengthening enforcement and reducing fraud opportunities.
  • Anti‑conduit language and structured reporting close obvious loopholes and make avoidance more difficult.
  • Creates a competitive advantage for compliant, qualified providers and encourages market standardization around Treasury‑approved verification practices.

Cons

  • The 15 percent rate is extremely high and disproportionately burdens low‑income immigrant workers and their families abroad, making the tax highly regressive and punitive.
  • It draws a bright line by citizenship/national status, excluding lawful permanent residents and other legal non‑citizens from relief. That raises equity and potential constitutional concerns and invites discrimination in service delivery.
  • Likely to push remittances into informal, unregulated channels (cash couriers, informal networks, some crypto rails), undermining financial inclusion, AML/CFT goals, and consumer protection.
  • Large new data collection (names, addresses, SSNs, transfer amounts) creates privacy and data‑security risks and could chill legitimate transfers, including to support relatives’ basic needs.
  • Administrative burdens and verification requirements may cause providers to deny service or impose intrusive documentation checks, creating profiling risks for people who “look foreign.”
  • Potential foreign policy repercussions in countries reliant on U.S. remittances; could strain relations and hinder humanitarian relief flows after disasters.
  • Complex refund requirements (pre‑certification and provider reporting) mean many eligible citizens may never recover taxes paid, especially those with limited tax filing capacity.
  • Drafting issues (e.g., 6050AA/6050BB mismatch) hint at rushed policy‑making and implementation risks.
  • A 15 percent levy is a large new excise tax that conflicts with general GOP low‑tax principles and could be framed as a broad tax increase on transactions.
  • Compliance mandates will impose substantial costs on small money transmitters and community providers, potentially consolidating the market in favor of big players.
  • High rates can backfire by pushing activity underground, shrinking the taxable base and undermining the revenue case; enforcement may get costlier and less effective.
  • Risk of political backlash from immigrant and diaspora communities (including many Republican‑leaning small business owners), as well as allies abroad who see this as punitive.
  • Complex verification and refund mechanics add red tape for citizens who use non‑qualified providers; the requirement to pre‑certify intent to claim the credit could trap unwary citizens into losing refunds.
  • Possible legal challenges (alienage discrimination, administrative law overreach) and diplomatic retaliation could complicate implementation and invite costly litigation.

This bill was introduced on September 26, 2025 in the House.

View on Congress.gov:
https://www.congress.gov/bill/119th-congress/house-bill/5595

  • Referred to the House Committee on Ways and Means.

    H11100

  • Introduced in House

    Intro-H

  • Introduced in House

    1000

This bill has not yet been enacted into law.

BILL IMAGE

Sponsors

Policy Area: Taxation