H.J. Res. 142 is a single-clause joint resolution that formally disapproves the District of Columbia’s D.C.
Income and Franchise Tax Conformity and Revision Temporary Amendment Act of 2025 (D.C. Act 26–217).
The resolution cites the Home Rule Act review process and names the local act, the Council’s enactment date (December 20, 2025), and the date the act was transmitted to Congress (December 30, 2025).
Why it matters: the resolution uses Congress’s statutory review mechanism to try to prevent a local D.C. tax law from taking effect. If enacted by both chambers and presented to the President, the joint resolution would operate as the congressional check on D.C. legislation — with practical consequences for how the District aligns its tax code with federal changes, how businesses and residents calculate liabilities, and how the D.C. government plans revenue and administration.
At a Glance
What It Does
The resolution declares Congress’s disapproval of D.C. Act 26–217 under the review authority set out in section 602(c)(1) of the District of Columbia Home Rule Act. It is a single text that, if passed by Congress and enacted, expresses formal congressional rejection of that D.C. law.
Who It Affects
The immediate targets are the District government (Council and D.C. Office of Tax and Revenue), District individual taxpayers and entities subject to the District’s income and franchise taxes, and tax professionals who implement withholding and filing rules for D.C. obligations.
Why It Matters
This is an exercise of Congress’s routine but consequential supervisory power over local D.C. law; it can block local tax changes and thereby shape the relationship between federal and District tax law, create compliance risk for filers and preparers, and affect District revenue projections.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
H.J. Res. 142 does one thing and does it plainly: it states that Congress disapproves the D.C.
Income and Franchise Tax Conformity and Revision Temporary Amendment Act of 2025 (D.C. Act 26–217).
The resolution identifies the local act by number and enactment date, and ties the congressional action to the review mechanism in the Home Rule Act. The text itself is short and contains no alternate policy or replacement language; it operates only as a statement of disapproval with the legal force that a joint resolution carries under the Home Rule Act review process.
Practically, a joint resolution like this is the statutory vehicle Congress uses to nullify or prevent a D.C. law from taking effect during the post-transmittal review window. That means its impact hinges on the federal legislative process: both chambers must pass the resolution and the President must sign it (or Congress must override a veto) for the disapproval to have the binding effect that blocks the D.C. measure.
The resolution does not rewrite D.C. tax law; it simply seeks to stop the local amendment from operating.For administrators and taxpayers, the immediate operational question is timing and effect. The D.C. act is titled as a temporary amendment focused on income and franchise tax conformity and revision; by disapproving it, Congress would prevent whatever conformity or franchise-tax revisions the Council enacted from taking legal effect.
That creates a risk of divergence between federal and District tax rules, possible delays in implementing updated withholding or filing guidance, and uncertainty about returns prepared in expectation of the D.C. changes. The resolution’s short text leaves those implementation details to the follow-on actions of the District and the federal executive branch.
The Five Things You Need to Know
The resolution names and disapproves D.C. Act 26–217, the D.C. Income and Franchise Tax Conformity and Revision Temporary Amendment Act of 2025 (enacted by the Council on December 20, 2025).
It invokes the review authority referenced in section 602(c)(1) of the District of Columbia Home Rule Act as the statutory basis for congressional disapproval.
H.J. Res. 142 contains a single operative clause: Congress disapproves the specified D.C. act; it does not propose alternative text or amendments to District law.
As a joint resolution, it requires passage by both the House and the Senate and presentment to the President to have statutory effect on the District law in question.
The D.C. act at issue was transmitted to Congress on December 30, 2025, triggering the statutory review period to which this resolution responds.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Identification of the D.C. law being disapproved
This provision lists the local act by official title and number (D.C. Act 26–217), records the Council’s enactment date (December 20, 2025), and states that the act was transmitted to Congress pursuant to the Home Rule Act. That specificity matters: the effectiveness of a disapproval resolution turns on accurately identifying the transmitted measure so there is no ambiguity about which local law Congress is rejecting.
Expression of Congressional disapproval
The operative language declares that Congress disapproves the D.C. act. The resolution itself does not modify federal statute or the Home Rule Act; instead, it uses the disapproval mechanism that the Home Rule Act contemplates. Practically, this clause is the legal vehicle Congress exercises to prevent the specified piece of District legislation from operating if the resolution becomes law.
Reference to statutory transmission and review process
The text ties the action to section 602(c)(1) of the Home Rule Act, the statutory posture that governs congressional review of D.C. legislation. That reference both supplies the legal authority for congressional action and signals that normal review procedures — the transmission date, the congressional review window, and the need for a joint resolution — are the mechanics in play. The resolution itself does not alter the timeline or process; it must still navigate ordinary congressional procedures to be effective.
This bill is one of many.
Codify tracks hundreds of bills on Government across all five countries.
Explore Government 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
- District taxpayers and businesses that would have faced higher tax burdens under D.C. Act 26–217: a disapproval preserves existing tax rules in the near term and prevents any increases or adverse conformity provisions the Council adopted from taking effect.
- Tax preparers and payroll processors who would otherwise need to reprogram systems quickly for new D.C. tax rules: blocking the change delays or removes the immediate operational burden of updating withholding tables and software.
- Entities opposing D.C. policy changes (advocacy groups, trade associations) that seek to use congressional review to halt local legislation: the resolution provides a clear, formal mechanism to stop the local act if it aligns with their policy position.
Who Bears the Cost
- The District of Columbia government (Council and D.C. Office of Tax and Revenue): disapproval constrains local policymaking, may force the Council to re-draft proposals, and complicates revenue forecasting tied to the aborted changes.
- Taxpayers and businesses that would have benefited from the conformity or revisions in D.C. Act 26–217: disapproval may deny intended tax relief, credits, or simplifications that the local law would have delivered.
- Compliance officers, payroll vendors, and software providers with investments to implement the now-challenged D.C. changes: they face wasted implementation effort and continuing uncertainty about which rules to follow.
- Federal agencies and congressional staff: processing the joint resolution and managing implications for federal-District interactions consumes legislative and administrative bandwidth.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The bill pits Congress’s statutory supervisory authority over District legislation against the District’s interest in local self-governance and stable fiscal administration: disapproval protects federal oversight and potentially broader policy aims, but it also undermines the District’s ability to set its own tax rules and creates real compliance and revenue uncertainty that the short joint resolution does not resolve.
Two implementation questions are immediate but unresolved in the resolution’s text. First, timing: the joint resolution is a blunt instrument — it declares disapproval but does not address transitional rules.
If the District already began implementing administrative guidance or taxpayers filed returns relying on the local changes, the resolution does not say whether disapproval would apply retroactively, how refunds or assessments are handled, or how to reconcile returns prepared under conflicting authorities. That ambiguity creates practical burdens for tax administrators and filers.
Second, the resolution revives a structural tension between Congress’s plenary authority over the federal district and the District’s home-rule prerogative. Using a joint resolution to block local tax policy is legally established but politically fraught; frequent use risks destabilizing local revenue planning and raises questions about predictability for businesses that factor D.C. law into multi-jurisdiction tax strategies.
The resolution contains no compensating mechanism (no federal guidance, no transitional relief, no replacement tax language), so a successful disapproval merely denies the District’s chosen change without offering an alternative path forward.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.