This bill inserts a new section into the Internal Revenue Code that disallows deductions for certain payments made to foreign persons for labor or services when the benefit of those services is directed to consumers in the United States. It targets a broad range of payments — premiums, fees, royalties, service charges and similar amounts — paid in the course of a trade or business.
The practical effect is to raise the after‑tax cost of sourcing work offshore for transactions that serve U.S. customers, while pushing taxpayers and the Treasury into a new compliance exercise over how to identify, allocate, and document the portion of cross‑border payments that are “U.S.‑directed.” That creates immediate tax‑planning and operational questions for multinational companies, third‑party service providers, and tax administrators.
At a Glance
What It Does
The bill adds IRC section 280I, which bars deductions for payments to foreign persons that compensate labor or services whose benefit is directed (directly or indirectly) to U.S. consumers. Mixed payments are pro‑rated to the U.S. portion.
Who It Affects
U.S. businesses that contract with foreign vendors or independent contractors to provide services to U.S. customers, offshore service suppliers, tax advisers, and the IRS (which must write implementing regulations).
Why It Matters
By removing the tax deduction, the bill reduces the tax advantage of outsourcing work abroad for U.S.‑facing services, alters transfer‑pricing and cost allocation incentives, and creates new recordkeeping and documentation obligations that will matter to compliance teams.
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 standalone tax rule that denies a deduction for payments that meet a three‑part test: the payment is made in the course of a trade or business, it is paid to a non‑U.S. person, and it compensates labor or services the benefit of which is directed to consumers located in the United States. Congress chose a benefits‑focused trigger rather than tethering the rule to the physical location of the worker, which captures a range of modern cross‑border arrangements such as remote digital services, call centers, and outsourced back‑office functions.
Where a payment to a foreign person covers services that serve both U.S. and non‑U.S. consumers, the bill requires prorating: the outsourcing‑disallowed amount equals the payment multiplied by a fraction measuring the portion of services directed to U.S. consumers. That arithmetic puts the allocation burden on taxpayers and opens immediate questions about reliable metrics for ‘‘amount of labor or services’’—hours, transactions, lines of code, seats served, or some other basis the Treasury will need to specify.The statute also defines ‘‘foreign person’’ to exclude corporations and partnerships organized under the laws of a U.S. possession, which carves out territorial affiliates in Guam, Puerto Rico, and other possessions.
Finally, the Secretary of the Treasury is directed to issue regulations and guidance to prevent avoidance or abuse, explicitly including measures addressing transfer pricing maneuvers. The bill applies prospectively to payments made after December 31, 2025, in taxable years ending after that date.
The Five Things You Need to Know
The bill adds a new Internal Revenue Code section (280I) that disallows deductions for certain payments to foreign persons.
An ‘‘outsourcing payment’’ requires three elements: made in the course of a trade or business; paid to a foreign person; and connected to labor or services whose benefit is directed to U.S. consumers.
When a payment covers services for both U.S. and non‑U.S. consumers, the disallowed portion is calculated by multiplying the payment by the fraction of services directed to U.S. consumers.
The statutory definition of foreign person excludes corporations and partnerships organized under the laws of a United States possession (i.e.
territorial entities are treated differently).
The Secretary must issue implementing regulations to curb avoidance (explicitly mentioning transfer pricing), and the rule applies to payments made after December 31, 2025, for taxable years ending after that date.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Flat denial of deduction for covered payments
This provision is the operative command: taxpayers may not claim a deduction for any payment that meets the bill’s outsourcing‑payment definition. Practically, that changes taxable income calculations for affected payors, increasing taxable profits unless taxpayers restructure payments or qualify for exceptions elsewhere in the Code. The item sits in Part IX of Subchapter B, the section of the Code that collects various specific disallowances, which signals Congress intends it as a targeted, categorical rule rather than a general anti‑avoidance principle.
Three‑part definition of outsourcing payment
This subsection lists the elemental tests: the payment must arise in a trade or business, be made to a foreign person, and relate to labor or services whose benefit is directed to U.S. consumers. Each element has practical consequences: the ‘‘trade or business’’ limitation narrows application to commercial activity (excluding purely personal payments), the ‘‘foreign person’’ prong imports residence/status analysis, and the ‘‘directed benefit’’ prong focuses application on where recipients of services are located or served rather than the worker’s physical location.
Proration rule for mixed‑use payments
Where a single payment covers services that benefit both U.S. and non‑U.S. consumers, the statute requires taxpayers to prorate the disallowed portion using a fraction whose numerator measures labor/services aimed at U.S. consumers and whose denominator measures total labor/services covered by the payment. That creates an evidentiary and methodological requirement: taxpayers must adopt and support an allocation method (time, units, transactions, or other metrics) that quantifies the U.S. share.
Foreign‑person carve‑out and anti‑avoidance authority for Treasury
The bill excludes corporations and partnerships organized under the laws of U.S. possessions from the ‘‘foreign person’’ label, which preserves a tax distinction for territorial affiliates. It also directs the Secretary to issue regulations and other guidance to prevent avoidance, explicitly flagging transfer pricing arrangements; that language authorizes adjustments to tax characterizations, documentation requirements, safe harbors, and anti‑abuse rules to counteract routing or re‑labeling schemes.
Technical placement in the Code and prospective application
The bill amends the Part IX table of sections to list the new §280I and sets a clear effective date: it applies to payments made after December 31, 2025, in taxable years ending after that date. Because the change is prospective, taxpayers will need to assess ongoing contracts, invoicing timing, and the potential to restructure arrangements before the effective period; existing tax years that end before the date are not affected.
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
- U.S.-based service providers and vendors: Reducing the tax advantage of foreign suppliers can improve the price competitiveness of domestic firms supplying comparable labor and services to U.S. customers.
- Federal Treasury / potentially higher tax revenues: Disallowing deductions increases taxable income for affected payors, which may raise federal receipts relative to the status quo.
- Entities organized under U.S. possession law: Corporations and partnerships in U.S. possessions are explicitly excluded from the ‘‘foreign person’’ definition and therefore avoid the deduction denial, preserving their tax treatment.
- Onshoring advisors and compliance vendors: Firms that help companies reshape supply chains, document allocations, or comply with new regs will find demand for their services.
- U.S. employees in service sectors: If some firms respond by shifting work onshore, domestic workers in affected industries could see increased business—though that is an indirect effect, not a guaranteed outcome.
Who Bears the Cost
- U.S. companies that rely on foreign contractors or vendors: These payors face higher after‑tax costs because previously deductible expenses become non‑deductible for the U.S. tax base.
- Foreign service providers selling services to U.S. consumers: A reduced tax advantage for buyers can depress demand for offshore providers and shift commercial bargaining leverage.
- Multinational tax and finance teams: Corporations must quantify U.S.‑directed service shares, revise transfer‑pricing approaches, and support new documentation, increasing compliance time and expense.
- The IRS and Treasury: Implementing the statute will require drafting detailed rules, auditing allocation claims, and policing avoidance—consuming agency resources and raising administrative complexity.
- Smaller businesses with cross‑border vendors: Firms without sophisticated tax departments will still need to allocate payments and may face disproportionate compliance costs or conservative tax positions that increase their tax bills.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The central dilemma is between protecting the U.S. tax base by eliminating a deductible tax benefit for payments that serve U.S. customers, and the cost of doing so: complex allocation rules, increased compliance and administrative burdens, and potential distortions to commercial and entity‑location decisions that the bill itself does not resolve.
The bill resolves a targeted policy objective—removing a tax benefit tied to outsourcing to non‑U.S. persons—but leaves significant implementation questions that will determine its real‑world effect. The statute’s key operational hinge is the ‘‘benefit directed to consumers located in the United States’’ standard; for many modern services that are digitally delivered or routed through global platforms, tracing the ‘‘consumer’’ and quantifying the portion of services serving U.S. customers will be difficult.
The required proration invites disputes over methodology (hours versus transactions versus economic value) and creates room for aggressive allocation or conservative taxpayer choices that complicate enforcement.
The Treasury’s regulatory authority is broad but not prescriptive: the Secretary can write rules to block avoidance and address transfer pricing games, but complex multi‑jurisdictional business models and tax treaties could limit administrability and raise international legal questions. The possession exclusion reduces harm to territorial affiliates but also creates a potential relocation incentive for certain legal entities.
Finally, because the denial is on the deduction side rather than imposing a direct withholding or excise, enforcement will rely heavily on corporate reporting and IRS audit resources—areas already strained—so compliance outcomes may vary across firms and sectors.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.