This bill adds Chapter 50B to the Internal Revenue Code to impose a targeted federal tax on “qualified litigation proceeds” received by third‑party funders that finance civil claims. The tax equals the highest rate imposed under section 1 for the year plus 3.8 percentage points; for partnerships, S corporations, and other pass‑throughs the tax is applied at the entity level.
The statute also prescribes a harsh withholding duty: any named party or affiliated law firm that controls settlement or judgment proceeds must withhold an amount equal to 50 percent of the applicable tax percentage on payments to the funder.
The measure defines “litigation financing agreements” broadly, covers domestic and foreign funders (including sovereign wealth funds), and carves out limited exceptions (agreements under $10,000 and loan‑style arrangements that meet specified interest and repayment limits). It also amends capital‑gain and gross‑income rules—removing litigation financing proceeds from the definition of a capital asset and excluding them from gross income—while simultaneously creating the standalone Chapter 50B tax.
Compliance, withholding mechanics, and cross‑border enforcement are the practical flashpoints that will matter to funders, law firms, insurers, and tax counsel.
At a Glance
What It Does
Creates Chapter 50B to levy a tax on profits that third‑party entities receive from litigation finance arrangements and requires a 50% withholding at source on payments to those entities. The applicable tax rate is the highest section 1 rate for the year plus 3.8 percentage points, and pass‑through entities are taxed at the entity level.
Who It Affects
Third‑party litigation funders (domestic and foreign, including sovereign wealth funds), law firms and named parties that handle settlement or judgment proceeds (these become withholding agents), pass‑through entities that fund or receive litigation proceeds, and insurers or defendants that disburse proceeds.
Why It Matters
It creates a novel, targeted federal revenue tool aimed at litigation finance profits, shifts substantial compliance and withholding obligations onto parties and counsel, and narrows the tax character of litigation receipts—potentially changing pricing, deal structures, and the economics of third‑party funding.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
The bill builds a new, self‑standing tax regime for litigation finance. It taxes the realized gains or profit that a third‑party funder receives when litigation it financed resolves, and it defines the taxable base as “qualified litigation proceeds.” The drafters make the rate formula explicit: funder receipts are taxed at the highest marginal rate in section 1 plus an additional 3.8 percentage points, and for partnerships and S corporations the tax is levied at the entity level instead of flowing through to owners.
Where the bill departs from ordinary income taxation is important. It amends section 1221 to exclude litigation financing arrangements and their proceeds from the capital‑asset rules and adds a new section to exclude qualified litigation proceeds from gross income.
At the same time, Chapter 50B creates a distinct tax on those same proceeds, which appears intended to funnel taxation through the new chapter rather than ordinary income or capital‑gains treatment.The operational backbone is the withholding regime. Any named party or law firm that controls proceeds and entered into a litigation financing agreement must withhold 50 percent of the applicable tax percentage from payments to the funder.
The bill makes the withholding agent liable for the tax, indemnified against claims for amounts paid, and provides that withheld amounts are credited to the recipient’s return. Refunds of overwithheld tax generally go to the withholding agent unless the tax was actually paid by the recipient.The definitions are broad.
A “litigation financing agreement” covers written contracts where a third party funds a case and takes a direct or collateralized interest in proceeds—settlement, verdict, or judgment—including structured contracts (options, swaps, forwards) that the Secretary deems substantially similar. There are narrowly drawn exceptions: funding under $10,000 per action is out; arrangements that are essentially loans limited to principal repayment, principal plus capped interest (the greater of 7% or twice the prior year’s 30‑year Treasury yield), or fee reimbursement are not treated as covered financing; and related‑party arrangements under section 267(b) are excluded.
The bill is effective for taxable years beginning after December 31, 2025.
The Five Things You Need to Know
The tax equals the highest marginal income tax rate under section 1 for the taxable year plus 3.8 percentage points (applied at the entity level for pass‑throughs).
The bill requires a withholding agent (a named party or affiliated law firm that controls proceeds) to deduct and withhold 50% of the applicable tax percentage from payments to the funder.
The definition of litigation financing covers written agreements granting a direct or collateralized interest in litigation proceeds and extends to contracts substantially similar (options, swaps, forwards); domestic and foreign funders (including sovereign wealth funds) are covered.
Qualified litigation proceeds may not be reduced by ordinary or capital losses (anti‑netting) and amounts normally excluded under section 104(a)(2) or 892(a)(1) may not be excluded from realized gain when computing the measure of proceeds.
The bill excludes small‑dollar financings (total funding < $10,000) and treats bona fide loan‑style repayments (principal, and principal plus limited interest capped at the greater of 7% or twice last year’s 30‑year Treasury yield) and attorney‑fee reimbursements as exceptions.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Tax on qualified litigation proceeds
This section imposes the Chapter 50B tax: for each taxable year a covered party owes a tax equal to the applicable percentage of any qualified litigation proceeds received. The applicable percentage calculation is mechanical—the highest section 1 rate for the year plus 3.8 percentage points—so taxable exposure rises and falls with statutory marginal rates and is explicitly elevated above ordinary top rates by the added 3.8 points. For pass‑through entities, the statute applies at the entity level, which alters how partners or S corporation shareholders experience the tax (the entity, not owners, bears the Chapter 50B liability).
Definitions of covered parties and covered contracts
This long definitions section determines scope. A “covered party” is any third party (individual or entity, domestic or foreign) that receives funds under a litigation financing agreement and is not the representing attorney. A “litigation financing agreement” is broadly drafted to capture written funding deals that create direct or collateral interests in proceeds and explicitly includes complex instruments the Treasury deems substantially similar. The bill also lists clear carve‑outs: small financings under $10,000; transactions that function as limited loans (principal or principal plus capped interest, or attorney‑fee reimbursement); and related‑party arrangements under section 267(b). These definitional choices drive who pays the Chapter 50B tax and what deals remain exempt.
Withholding, agent liability, and credits
This section shifts collection risk to private actors. Any ‘applicable person’—defined as a named party in the case or a law firm affiliated with the action who entered into the financing agreement—must withhold 50% of the applicable tax percentage from payments to the third‑party funder. The statute makes withholding agents liable for the withheld tax but indemnifies them against payee claims; withheld amounts are treated as credits against the recipient’s Chapter 50B liability. Overpayments and refunds default to the withholding agent unless the recipient actually paid the tax, a drafting choice that prioritizes collection certainty over recipient control of refunds.
Exclude litigation finance arrangements from capital‑asset rules
The bill amends section 1221 to state that financial arrangements created by litigation financing—or proceeds derived from them—are not capital assets. That prevents funders from claiming capital‑gain treatment for litigation receipts. Practically, it removes a tax minimization pathway where funders or investors would seek favorable capital gains rates for returns tied to litigation outcomes.
Remove qualified litigation proceeds from gross income; effective date and housekeeping
Section 139J provides that gross income shall not include qualified litigation proceeds as defined in Chapter 50B. Combined with the new Chapter tax, this appears to confine taxation of these receipts to the Chapter 50B regime rather than ordinary income or capital gains frameworks. The bill also makes clerical updates to chapter tables, adjusts references for withholding, and sets the effective date for taxable years beginning after December 31, 2025.
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
- Federal Treasury — the new tax and withholding regime create a dedicated revenue stream derived from litigation finance receipts that otherwise might escape equivalent taxation.
- Competitors and traditional law‑firm financing models — funders that structure deals as permitted loan‑style arrangements or avoid agreements above the $10,000 threshold may gain a competitive advantage over third‑party investors that cannot or will not restructure.
- Small claimants and very low‑dollar litigants — the explicit exemption for financings under $10,000 preserves micro‑funding and avoids imposing the new tax on de minimis consumer arrangements.
Who Bears the Cost
- Third‑party litigation funders (domestic and foreign) — they face a new, elevated tax rate on realized profits and loss of capital‑gains treatment, shrinking after‑tax returns and changing underwriting and pricing.
- Named parties and law firms acting as withholding agents — firms that control proceeds must build withholding systems, face liability for failures, and may oversee contested refunds or credits.
- Defendants, insurers and other disbursing parties — organizations that handle settlement or judgment distributions will need controls to identify financed matters and apply withholding, adding operational and legal costs.
- Pass‑through entities used by funders — the entity‑level tax treatment removes pass‑through reporting advantages and can complicate investor tax planning.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The central dilemma is whether to suppress commercial litigation funding that critics call predatory by imposing a punitive, targeted tax—and thereby reduce the supply of third‑party capital—or to preserve access to justice for plaintiffs who rely on outside capital to bring meritorious claims; the bill solves one problem (discouraging wealthy funders) while risking another (chilling legitimate funding and creating complex enforcement burdens for courts, law firms, and cross‑border actors).
The bill creates several implementation puzzles. First, it simultaneously excludes qualified litigation proceeds from gross income (new section 139J) and subjects those proceeds to a new Chapter 50B tax.
The drafters likely intend Chapter 50B to be the exclusive tax regime for these receipts, but the interaction with other code provisions, tax credits, and international tax rules will invite litigation and require Treasury guidance. Second, the withholding design shifts collection onto parties and counsel who may lack the practical ability or information to identify funded matters, particularly where funders are foreign or where funding relationships are confidential.
That increases the risk of erroneous withholding, disputes over indemnities, and administrative friction in settlements.
A second set of tradeoffs involves definitional breadth and circumvention risk. The statute reaches a wide range of instruments and lets the Secretary sweep in “substantially similar” contracts, but it also leaves open paths to recharacterize deals as loans or reimbursements to escape the regime, especially because the loan exception sets an interest‑rate ceiling tied to past Treasury yields.
Finally, the anti‑netting rule (prohibiting offset of losses against gains) and the bar on excluding amounts under section 104(a)(2) and 892(a)(1) can result in taxable measures out of step with economic reality: a funder that funds many losing cases but realizes intermittent gains could face tax without readily available offsets, complicating cash‑flow and capital requirements for the industry.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.