The bill would terminate the United States–People’s Republic of China Income Tax Convention if the People’s Liberation Army initiates an armed attack against Taiwan. The Secretary of the Treasury would send written notice to China within 30 days after the President notifies the nation of such an attack.
The President must then provide formal notification of the termination to four congressional committees: Senate Foreign Relations and Finance, and House Foreign Affairs and Ways and Means. The act codifies a unilateral U.S. action designed to leverage cross-border tax policy in crisis signaling and deterrence.
At a Glance
What It Does
The bill creates a trigger to terminate the US–China income tax treaty if China attacks Taiwan. It requires the Treasury Secretary to notify China within 30 days of the President’s armed-attack determination, and it requires presidential notification to four key congressional committees.
Who It Affects
Directly affected are U.S. taxpayers and cross-border businesses that rely on the treaty for tax coordination, the Treasury and IRS for treaty administration, diplomatic channels, and congressional committees that oversee tax and foreign policy.
Why It Matters
It signals a concrete tax-policy consequence to deter aggression in the Taiwan context and provides a formalized process for ending treaty-based tax coordination with China, with oversight that ensures legislative awareness.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
The bill establishes a clear, crisis-driven mechanism to end the tax treaty with China if China’s military acts against Taiwan. The termination is not automatic; it is conditioned on the President’s determination of an armed attack against Taiwan and is executed via formal written notices.
The Secretary of the Treasury must notify China through diplomatic channels within 30 days after that presidential determination, using the Article 28 framework in the 1984 treaty. The President is also required to provide notification of this termination to four congressional committees—Senate Foreign Relations, Senate Finance, House Foreign Affairs, and House Ways and Means—to ensure oversight and timing alignment with U.S. policy objectives.
The measure is narrowly targeted to the tax treaty linkage, leaving other bilateral economic or security arrangements intact, and it frames the termination as a deterrent and a signaling tool in a crisis scenario.
The Five Things You Need to Know
The bill terminates the US–China Income Tax Convention if the PLA initiates an armed attack against Taiwan.
The Secretary of the Treasury must notify China within 30 days after the President’s armed-attack determination.
Termination is based on Article 28 of the 1984 Beijing convention.
Presidential termination notices must be delivered to four congressional committees: Senate Foreign Relations, Senate Finance, House Foreign Affairs, and House Ways and Means.
The act formalizes a unilateral U.S. tax policy action tied to national-security considerations.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Short Title
This section designates the act as the No Tax Treaties for Foreign Aggressors Act of 2025, signaling the purpose and scope of the bill. It anchors the policy choice in a formal name that will travel with the statute if enacted.
Conditional Termination of the United States–People’s Republic of China Income Tax Convention
This section lays out the trigger and the process for terminating the treaty. If the President determines that the People’s Liberation Army has initiated an armed attack against Taiwan, the Secretary of the Treasury must provide written notice to the PRC within 30 days. The termination proceeds under the treaty’s Article 28 procedures, with the President required to notify four congressional committees about the action. The mechanism creates a clear, time-bound sequence from crisis recognition to formal diplomatic notice and legislative oversight.
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
- Secretary of the Treasury and IRS officials who administer and implement treaty termination and the related tax policy adjustments.
- Members and staff of the Senate Committee on Finance and the House Committee on Ways and Means who gain oversight over fiscal and international tax policy actions.
- National-security policymakers and diplomats who favor a deterrence posture by tying international taxation to security dynamics involving Taiwan.
- Policy researchers and think tanks focused on international taxation and security policy, who gain concrete case material for deterrence messaging and fiscal policy design.
Who Bears the Cost
- U.S. taxpayers and multinational entities with cross-border income who potentially face higher effective taxation or disrupted tax planning due to the loss of treaty-based protections.
- U.S. businesses with significant China exposure that relied on the treaty for tax efficiency or dispute resolution mechanisms.
- Tax professionals and accounting firms who must adapt to abrupt changes in cross-border tax compliance and planning.
- Potentially higher administrative burdens on U.S. Treasury and IRS to implement and audit post-termination tax arrangements.
- Chinese entities and cross-border partners who lose treaty-based tax coordination with the United States, implying broader economic and financial frictions.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The central tension is between using tax policy as a deterrent in a security crisis and the potential economic disruption and double-taxation risk that could follow a treaty termination. On one side, termination provides a strong signaling mechanism to dissuade aggressive moves against Taiwan; on the other, it risks unintended tax consequences for businesses and individuals, as well as broader economic frictions with China and potential spillovers into financial markets.
The bill creates a stark, binary choice: either maintain a long-standing tax treaty framework, or terminate it in a crisis scenario to signal deterrence. The intended effect is to provide the United States with a clear, unilateral fiscal consequence in response to aggression toward Taiwan.
However, the text leaves several questions unresolved. It does not specify transitional tax rules that would apply immediately after termination, leaving open how existing income allocations, withholding, and transfer pricing would be adjusted in the interim.
It also does not address whether other tax treaties or information-sharing arrangements would be affected or how the termination would interact with domestic tax law and enforcement resources. These ambiguities could complicate compliance for taxpayers and create enforcement challenges for government agencies in a rapid crisis.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.