SB 1821 adds a new chapter to the Internal Revenue Code that imposes a standalone tax on amounts received by third‑party entities under litigation financing agreements. It targets funding arrangements that create a direct or collateralized interest in settlement or judgment proceeds and applies to funders regardless of domestic or foreign status.
The bill pairs the tax with an aggressive withholding rule that requires named parties or affiliated law firms to deduct a portion of payments to funders at source. It also carves out loan‑style advances and very small financings from coverage and amends existing Code provisions to prevent capital‑gains treatment and double taxation.
For compliance officers, litigators, and funders, the bill substitutes a novel tax‑and‑withholding regime for traditional regulatory tools—raising operational, valuation, and cross‑border enforcement issues that will affect contracts, settlement mechanics, and structuring incentives.
At a Glance
What It Does
The bill imposes a new tax on 'qualified litigation proceeds' received by third‑party funders under defined litigation financing agreements and requires withholding at source by parties or their law firms that control settlement or judgment payments. It excludes loan‑like financings under narrow interest and repayment limits and excludes trivial financings under $10,000.
Who It Affects
Third‑party litigation funders (domestic and foreign), law firms and named parties who must act as withholding agents, pass‑through entities that receive funding proceeds, and insurers or defendants facing litigation financed by third parties. The Treasury and tax administrators are also directly affected by new enforcement and audit work.
Why It Matters
The statute uses the tax code and withholding mechanics to reach litigation finance, rather than state tort or fee regulation. That approach can change commercial behavior quickly (by raising the cost of capital for funders) but also creates compliance burdens, withholding disputes, cross‑border collection issues, and incentives to recharacterize or restructure financings.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
SB 1821 creates a stand‑alone federal tax regime for third‑party litigation financing. It defines a 'covered party' as any non‑attorney third party that provides funds under a written 'litigation financing agreement' that gives the funder a direct or collateral interest in proceeds from a civil action.
The bill then levies a tax on the realized gains, net income, or profit a funder derives from those agreements.
Rather than relying on ordinary income or capital‑gains treatment, the bill puts those proceeds into a separate chapter of the Code and fixes the tax base by excluding qualified litigation proceeds from gross income under the normal income tax chapters. The taxable amount is determined as 'qualified litigation proceeds' and the rate is set as the highest individual tax rate in section 1 plus an additional 3.8 percentage points; partnerships and S corporations are taxed at the entity level.
The measure expressly forbids netting of gains against losses when computing the taxable amount and disallows certain statutory exclusions that might otherwise reduce tax.To ensure collection, the bill imposes a withholding obligation on any 'applicable person'—generally a named party or law firm that entered the financing agreement and controls settlement or judgment funds. That withholding equals 50 percent of the statutory tax rate applied to payments due to the funder.
The statute makes the withholding agent liable for the withheld tax (with an indemnity against payee claims) and provides that amounts withheld are credits to the funder when filing returns. The bill also excludes small financings under $10,000 and arrangements that are economically loans limited to repayment of principal and modest interest from the definition of 'litigation financing agreement.' Finally, the bill amends the capital‑asset definition to exclude litigation financing arrangements from capital‑gains treatment and includes an effective date for taxable years beginning after December 31, 2025.Taken together, the tax, the anti‑netting rule, the capital‑asset carve‑out, and the withholding mechanics form a single package intended to raise revenue and to increase the cost and administrative friction of third‑party litigation funding.
Operationally, parties will need new reporting protocols, valuation practices for realized gains, and settlement clauses that allocate withholding responsibilities and timing.
The Five Things You Need to Know
The bill taxes 'qualified litigation proceeds' received by third‑party funders at a rate equal to the top statutory rate under section 1 plus 3.8 percentage points.
Withholding: the party or law firm that controls settlement or judgment proceeds must withhold 50% of that statutory percentage on payments to a funder and remit it to the IRS.
Exclusions: financings under $10,000 are outside the scope, and arrangements that are true loans limited to principal (and interest capped at the greater of 7% or twice the prior‑year 30‑year Treasury yield) or reimbursement of attorney fees are excluded.
Anti‑netting and sourcing: the taxable 'qualified litigation proceeds' cannot be reduced by ordinary or capital losses and cannot exclude amounts otherwise excludable under IRC sections like 104(a)(2) and 892(a)(1).
Code changes: the bill adds a new Chapter 50B for litigation financing, removes such arrangements from the capital‑asset definition (so they are not capital gains), and inserts a new section that excludes qualified litigation proceeds from gross income under the general income chapters (creating the separate tax base).
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Tax on qualified litigation proceeds
Imposes a tax for each taxable year equal to the 'applicable percentage' of any qualified litigation proceeds received by a covered party. The applicable percentage equals the highest rate under section 1 plus 3.8 percentage points. The provision requires pass‑through entities (partnerships, S corporations, etc.) to have the tax applied at the entity level, which shifts collection and reporting into entity‑level compliance rather than through partners' individual returns.
Definitions and scope—who and what is covered
Defines the critical terms: 'civil action' (broadly), 'covered party' (any non‑attorney third party receiving funding), and 'litigation financing agreement' (written agreements that create a direct or collateral interest in proceeds and include substantially similar instruments). The definition explicitly covers domestic and foreign funders, but excludes trivial financings under $10,000 and loan‑like arrangements that meet strict interest/repayment caps or are between related parties under IRC section 267(b). Practically, this section is the gatekeeper: drafting here determines whether many commercial structures fall inside the tax.
Withholding, liability, and credits
Creates a withholding regime that requires any 'applicable person' (generally a named party or law firm that entered the financing agreement) who controls settlement proceeds to deduct and withhold tax equal to 50% of the statutory tax percentage on payments to the funder. The section makes the withholding agent liable for remittance and provides that withheld amounts are credits to the recipient. It also addresses failure to withhold—interest and penalties still apply—and provides that refunds tied to overwithholding go to the withholding agent unless the tax was actually paid by the payor. This design leverages settlement payors as enforcement points but exposes payors and firms to collection risk and indemnity claims.
Remove litigation financing proceeds from capital‑gains treatment
Adds litigation financing arrangements and related proceeds to the list of items not treated as capital assets. The clear intent is to prevent funders from characterizing returns as capital gains (and obtaining preferential tax rates). For funders and their counsel, this change removes a familiar structuring route and forces returns into the separate Chapter 50B tax regime.
Exclusion from gross income under general income chapters
Inserts a new provision declaring that 'gross income shall not include any qualified litigation proceeds.' On its face this prevents double taxation in the general income tax chapters and signals that the bill establishes a distinct tax base under Chapter 50B. That separation complicates filing and accounting—taxpayers will need to reconcile Chapter 50B computations alongside ordinary returns and will face the anti‑netting rule when determining taxable proceeds.
Code table updates and applicability
Updates cross‑references and the table of chapters/sections to add Chapter 50B and the new section in Part III, and makes the amendments effective for taxable years beginning after December 31, 2025. The delayed effective date gives market participants a narrow window to redesign agreements and to consider restructuring options before the tax applies.
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 explicit goal—and immediate beneficiary—is increased federal revenue and a new enforcement lever via withholding that targets a previously hard‑to‑tax capital source.
- Defendants and insurers facing financed claims: By raising the effective cost of capital for funders, the statute may chill some third‑party financing and thus reduce the volume of heavily‑funded, contingent litigation.
- Litigants using small or loan‑like advances: The $10,000 de minimis exemption and loan‑style carve‑outs preserve access to very small or true loan financings, protecting straightforward cash‑flow advances that meet the statutory caps.
- Tax administrators and enforcement units: The bill centralizes a revenue stream and gives the IRS a bright withholding point at settlement, improving collectability compared with chasing offshore funders post‑payment.
Who Bears the Cost
- Third‑party litigation funders (domestic and foreign): They face a new, separate tax on realized returns, restricted loss offsetting, and the operational need to file and defend Chapter 50B positions; foreign funders are explicitly brought into scope.
- Named parties and law firms serving as withholding agents: Parties who control proceeds—and their counsel—must implement withholding, face liability for remittance, and handle refunds or disputes, adding transactional friction and settlement complexity.
- Pass‑through entities and their partners: The bill applies the tax at the entity level for partnerships and S corporations, altering partner‑level timing and possibly forcing changes to operating agreements and allocation language.
- Plaintiffs relying on non‑loan financing: If funders pass the tax cost back to plaintiffs (via higher price or reduced funding availability), plaintiffs with meritorious but low‑value claims could see capital dry up and access to representation shrink.
- Settlement administrators and escrow agents: These intermediaries will need new procedures to identify covered financings, apply withholding rules, and document remittances—raising administrative costs and legal exposure.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
SB 1821 pits two legitimate aims against one another: deterring or taxing allegedly 'predatory' third‑party funders to protect defendants and capture revenue, versus preserving access to financing for meritorious plaintiffs and avoiding heavy compliance and settlement disruption; using a tax‑driven approach raises difficult measurement, withholding, and cross‑border enforcement trade‑offs that can chill legitimate funding while leaving aggressive structuring paths open.
The bill bundles taxation and withholding as a single enforcement package; that creates a number of operational and legal tensions. First, the definition of 'litigation financing agreement' is intentionally broad and includes 'substantially similar' instruments, which risks sweeping in merchant cash advances, portfolio hedges, or contracts with indirect ties to litigation proceeds.
That breadth invites aggressive structuring to convert returns into excluded loan‑like payments or to rely on related‑party exceptions under section 267(b).
Second, the bill's anti‑netting rule and the carve‑out from capital‑gains treatment remove familiar loss‑offset and preferential‑rate mechanics for funders. That can substantially raise effective taxation on volatile portfolios of litigation positions and will complicate valuation: pinpointing 'realized gains' on staggered settlements, portfolio sales, or variations in contingent fee splits is administratively hard and susceptible to dispute.
Third, the 50% withholding on the computed tax rate creates a blunt collection tool that could over‑withhold at settlement, producing liquidity stress for funders and knock‑on pressure to renegotiate or compress settlement payments. Reconciliation through returns mitigates that, but only after cash flow friction occurs.
Finally, the bill reaches foreign entities but relies largely on U.S. withholding agents to collect. That design may capture many transactions, yet enforcement against purely offshore structures that avoid U.S. payors will be difficult.
It also raises cross‑border constitutional and treaty questions about source and nexus, and creates incentives for funders to route investments through related parties or to recast deals as loans or insurance products to escape the tax. The net effect could be a patchwork of avoidance strategies and litigation over characterization, which may blunt the bill's intended deterrent effect while leaving compliance costs high.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.