The bill adds new Internal Revenue Code section 3513 to govern the treatment of errors in payroll-tax filings prepared or filed by third‑party payors. It lets third‑party payors rely on employer certifications unless they had “constructive knowledge” of an error, allocates liability between employers and payors when errors occur, creates a three-part safe harbor for payroll tax credits, and gives the IRS record-request authority over payors.
It also bars the Secretary from delaying processing or initiating an audit solely because a payor filed an erroneous credit claim based on another employer’s certification.
This matters for payroll providers, professional employer organizations (PEOs and CPEOs), tax advisers, and employers that use third‑party payroll services. The bill reduces some retroactive risk for payors but leaves open how courts and the IRS will apply the ambiguous “constructive knowledge” standard and how liability apportionment will work in practice — issues that will drive compliance costs and dispute risk.
At a Glance
What It Does
Adds IRC §3513 to let third‑party payors rely on employer certifications absent constructive knowledge of error, prescribes how liability for payroll‑tax errors is split, sets a three‑part safe harbor for payroll tax credits, and authorizes the IRS to compel records from payors.
Who It Affects
Professional employer organizations (PEOs and certified PEOs), payroll processors and agents described under section 3504, employers that outsource payroll, tax preparers, and the IRS’s compliance and collections operations.
Why It Matters
It reallocates collection risk and creates documentation and verification obligations for payors; the vague ‘‘constructive knowledge’’ test and the safe‑harbor criteria will determine how much risk shifts off payors and how much collection and enforcement burden remains with the IRS and employers.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
The bill creates a new statutory framework for errors in payroll‑tax reporting when someone other than the employer — a payroll vendor, agent, PEO, or CPEO — prepares or files returns. It starts from a simple premise: a third‑party payor can rely on an employer’s certification (a signed representation, attestation, or similar document) unless the payor had constructive knowledge that the certification was wrong.
That reliance power is intended to let payors process returns without running down every employer fact, but it is limited by the constructive‑knowledge concept.
When an error is later discovered, the bill prescribes how to allocate liability. If the payor had constructive knowledge of the error, the employer remains responsible, but the payor is also responsible for the portion of the liability tied to the part of the certification the payor should have known was erroneous.
If the payor lacked constructive knowledge, the employer bears the full liability and the payor is not held liable. The bill defines ‘‘liability’’ to include the underlying tax amount plus interest and penalties.The bill adds a narrow safe harbor for payroll tax credits: a payor will be deemed not to have had constructive knowledge if (1) the employer’s certification states the employer is entitled to the credit, (2) the payor accurately reported the credit based on the employer’s information, and (3) the payor verified the aggregate wages it paid that the employer used to compute the credit before claiming it.
That verification obligation and the three‑part test create a compliance checklist payors must follow to get the safe harbor.On enforcement, the bill prevents the Secretary from delaying processing of a payroll‑tax credit claimed by a payor or from initiating an audit of another employer solely because the credit was claimed by a payor who filed an erroneous return relying on a different employer’s certification. Yet the Secretary can still require a payor to produce any information the IRS could require from the employer.
Finally, the statutory definition of third‑party payor explicitly includes section‑3504 agents, fiduciaries, PEOs, and certified PEOs, and the new rules apply to audits, examinations, and assessments initiated or made after enactment.
The Five Things You Need to Know
The bill adds Internal Revenue Code section 3513 as a standalone rule for third‑party payors of payroll taxes.
A third‑party payor may rely on an employer’s certification unless the payor had ‘‘constructive knowledge’’ (i.e.
knew or should have known) of an error.
If the payor had constructive knowledge, the employer remains responsible and the payor is responsible only for the portion of liability attributable to the part of the certification the payor should have known was wrong; if no constructive knowledge, the employer bears sole responsibility.
For payroll tax credits the bill creates a three‑condition safe harbor: employer certification of entitlement, accurate reporting by the payor based on employer information, and payor verification of aggregate wages before claiming the credit.
The Secretary may compel from a payor any records the IRS could require from the employer, but may not delay processing or initiate an audit of another employer solely because a payor claimed a credit based on a different employer’s erroneous certification.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Reliance on employer certifications
This provision allows a third‑party payor to rely on employer certifications, defined broadly to include representations, attestations, and similar documents, unless the payor had constructive knowledge of an error. Practically, it creates a presumption of reasonable reliance that payroll vendors can cite in disputes, shifting the legal question to whether the payor ‘‘knew or should have known’’ of the error.
Allocation and definition of liability
These subsections set the allocation rules for tax, interest, and penalties. If the payor had constructive knowledge, liability is split: the employer remains liable, and the payor is liable only for the portion attributable to the certification component where it had constructive knowledge. If the payor lacked constructive knowledge, the employer bears full liability. The statutory definition of ‘‘liability’’ covers the tax due plus associated interest and penalties, so allocation affects assessments and collection exposure.
Limits on IRS action and record retention authority
Subsection (d) prevents the Secretary from delaying processing of a payroll tax credit or initiating an audit of an employer solely because the credit was claimed by a payor that filed an erroneous return relying on another employer’s certification — a procedural protection for payors and the employers whose credits are processed. Subsection (e) balances that protection by giving the IRS explicit authority to require a payor to provide any information the IRS could require from the employer, which preserves investigatory reach but increases documentation burdens on payors.
Constructive‑knowledge standard and payroll‑credit safe harbor
This subsection defines ‘‘constructive knowledge’’ as knowing or should‑have‑known, then narrows it for payroll tax credits with a three‑part safe harbor: the employer must certify entitlement, the payor must accurately report the credit per employer information, and the payor must verify aggregate wages it paid that the employer used to compute the credit. The safe harbor creates an actionable compliance checklist but leaves open how intensive the ‘‘verification’’ step must be.
Who counts as a third‑party payor and scope of application
Section (g) names the covered payors — fiduciaries and agents under section 3504, professional employer organizations, and certified PEOs — clarifying the industry scope. The effective‑date clause limits the new rules to audits, examinations, and assessments initiated or made after enactment, so prior assessments are unaffected but future compliance and enforcement actions will follow the new allocation rules.
This bill is one of many.
Codify tracks hundreds of bills on Finance across all five countries.
Explore Finance in Codify Search →Who Benefits and Who Bears the Cost
Every bill creates winners and losers. Here's who stands to gain and who bears the cost.
Who Benefits
- PEOs and payroll processors — Gain a statutory reliance defense and a narrowly defined path to avoid retroactive liability for returns or credits they filed in good faith, reducing some post‑audit collection risk.
- Employers using third‑party payors — Benefit from clearer allocation rules that, in cases where the payor lacked constructive knowledge, place primary collection responsibility on the employer rather than exposing the payor to full liability.
- Small employers claiming payroll tax credits — Stand to see faster processing of credits because the bill bars the IRS from delaying processing solely due to payor‑filed errors, improving cash‑flow predictability.
Who Bears the Cost
- Third‑party payors and PEOs — Face new verification and recordkeeping requirements to qualify for safe harbor and may still bear partial liability when the constructive‑knowledge standard is met, increasing compliance costs and potential legal exposure.
- The IRS — Loses a procedural lever to pause processing or open audits based solely on payor filings and may encounter more complex apportionment disputes, raising administrative and collection challenges.
- Employers — Remain liable for taxes, interest, and penalties in most scenarios and must ensure their certifications are accurate since employer attestations still trigger primary responsibility.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The core dilemma is protecting third‑party payors from open‑ended retroactive liability so they will continue to service employers versus preserving the IRS’s ability to detect, assess, and collect payroll taxes and deter fraud; the outcome rests on how broadly ‘‘constructive knowledge’’ and the safe‑harbor verification requirement are interpreted and enforced.
The bill tightens certain risks and loosens others. ‘‘Constructive knowledge’’ is inherently fact‑intensive and undefined beyond ‘‘knew or should have known;’’ resolving what a payor should have known will rely on later IRS guidance, audits, and litigation. That uncertainty forces providers either to adopt conservative verification practices (raising compliance costs) or to accept litigation risk.
The safe harbor for payroll tax credits mitigates some risk but is narrowly drawn and centers on a verification step whose scope is unspecified — is a payroll register check sufficient, or must the payor obtain employer‑level supporting documents? Absent regulatory detail, the safe harbor may offer limited protection.
Another tension arises from the bill’s procedural constraint on the Secretary: preventing delays and audit initiation ‘‘solely because’’ a payor claimed a credit reduces administrative friction but also restricts an important fraud‑detection tool. The IRS retains record‑compulsion authority, but compelling documents after a credit posts may be less effective than pre‑screening.
Finally, the bill’s apportionment approach (payor liable only for the portion tied to parts of a certification it should have known were wrong) sounds granular but creates practical disputes over how to attribute particular tax amounts to discrete parts of a certification, complicating assessments and collections.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.