S.J. Res. 102 is a joint resolution that formally disapproves the District of Columbia Council’s enactment of the "D.C.
Income and Franchise Tax Conformity and Revision Temporary Amendment Act of 2025" (D.C. Act A26–0217).
The resolution cites the submission of that Act to Congress under section 602(c)(1) of the District of Columbia Home Rule Act and states Congress’ disapproval of the Council’s action.
Why it matters: if both chambers of Congress pass this resolution and the President signs it, the District law described in the resolution would be nullified and could not take effect. That outcome would directly affect D.C. taxpayers, employers, tax practitioners, and the District’s tax administration by freezing the prior tax rules in place and complicating tax filing, planning, and administrative processes tied to conformity with federal tax law.
At a Glance
What It Does
The resolution disapproves a specific D.C. Council act (A26–0217) that was transmitted to Congress under the Home Rule Act. It relies on Congress’s review authority under section 602(c)(1) and, if enacted, would prevent the D.C. enactment from taking effect.
Who It Affects
Directly affected parties include District taxpayers and employers subject to D.C. income and franchise taxes, the D.C. Office of Tax and Revenue and other local tax administrators, tax preparers and payroll providers, and entities that expected to rely on whatever conformity or revisions A26–0217 would implement.
Why It Matters
The resolution is a concrete use of congressional oversight over District lawmaking and creates operational risk for any entity that was preparing for the tax changes in A26–0217 — particularly businesses and tax software vendors that plan around conformity to federal tax code updates.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
This joint resolution targets a District of Columbia law that the D.C. Council enacted on December 20, 2025 and formally sent to Congress under the Home Rule Act.
Under that federal statute, certain D.C. laws are subject to congressional review after transmission; S.J. Res. 102 exercises the remedy available to Congress during that review period by declaring disapproval of the identified D.C. act.
The resolution itself is short and narrowly framed: it names the local act, cites the Home Rule Act submission, and states that Congress disapproves.
The practical legal effect, if the resolution becomes law, is to block the D.C. act from taking effect. For local tax law that typically means the pre-existing statute remains operative and any changes the Council intended to implement — for example, updates tying D.C. tax rules to changes in the federal Internal Revenue Code or alterations to franchise tax rules — would not be available to taxpayers or administrators.
That outcome can create immediate questions about which rules apply for particular tax years, what tax forms and guidance the D.C. Office of Tax and Revenue must issue, and how to handle returns and withholdings that taxpayers or employers already adjusted in anticipation of the local law.The resolution does not itself explain the policy reasons for disapproval or identify which specific provisions in A26–0217 are objectionable.
It also does not amend federal or D.C. tax law in any substantive way; its sole operative function is disapproval of the D.C. Council’s action.
Because the text in Congress is a standard disapproval resolution, downstream effects depend on the timing of enactment, any transitional rules the District adopts in response, and whether affected taxpayers receive administrative relief or guidance from the D.C. Office of Tax and Revenue to manage any sudden reversal of expected law changes.
The Five Things You Need to Know
S.J. Res. 102 disapproves the "D.C. Income and Franchise Tax Conformity and Revision Temporary Amendment Act of 2025" (D.C. Act A26–0217).
The resolution invokes the review pathway in section 602(c)(1) of the District of Columbia Home Rule Act, under which certain D.C. laws are transmitted to Congress for review.
If both Houses of Congress pass the resolution and the President signs it, the named D.C. act would be prevented from taking effect and the prior local tax rules would remain in force.
Senator Rick Scott introduced the resolution on January 27, 2026, and it was referred to the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs.
The resolution contains no explanatory findings about A26–0217’s substance; it is a procedural disapproval that does not itself alter federal tax law or specify transitional implementation steps for D.C.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Statement of disapproval and identification of the local act
This opening identifies the purpose: Congress disapproves the D.C. Council’s action. It names the local enactment precisely (A26–0217) and gives the official title used by the Council. For practitioners, the important detail is the exact statutory label — the resolution targets that specific municipal instrument rather than a broader category of D.C. tax measures.
Single operative sentence that disapproves the Council action
The operative language is concise: a single clause declares congressional disapproval of the named Act. There are no implementing provisions, exceptions, or qualifications. That means the resolution’s only legal effect — if enacted — is to nullify the listed D.C. act under the review authority established by the Home Rule Act; it does not propose a federal substitute or transitional regime.
Cites section 602(c)(1) as the submission authority
The resolution expressly notes that D.C. Act A26–0217 was transmitted to Congress under section 602(c)(1) of the Home Rule Act. That citation pinpoints the statutory review process being used: the Home Rule Act authorizes Congress to consider and, within the statutory review period, disapprove local laws. Legal advisors should read the referenced provision together with House and Senate rules governing joint resolutions to understand procedural timelines and the vote path required for enactment.
Introduced in Senate and committee referral
The document records sponsor information (Sen. Rick Scott), the introduction date (January 27, 2026), and committee referral (Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs). Those procedural facts matter for stakeholders tracking the resolution’s progress and potential amendments or hearings, though the text contains no amendment options or implementing details to be negotiated in committee.
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
- D.C. taxpayers and residents opposed to the changes in A26–0217 — they retain the pre-existing tax rules if Congress enacts the resolution, avoiding whatever increases or compliance changes the local act would have imposed.
- Businesses and tax-preparation firms that would have faced new compliance costs under the Council’s Act — blocking the Act preserves current filing and payroll processes and delays the need to update systems.
- Entities that rely on federal conformity timing — taxpayers who prefer the District not to adopt recent federal tax-code changes immediately may benefit from the status quo preserved by disapproval.
Who Bears the Cost
- District of Columbia government and the D.C. Council — disapproval overrides a locally enacted law and curtails local legislative autonomy, potentially frustrating locally elected policymakers and their policy agendas.
- D.C. Office of Tax and Revenue and local administrators — immediate administrative burdens arise from reverting or halting implementation plans, issuing guidance, and answering taxpayer questions without a clear transitional framework.
- Taxpayers and employers who had already begun adjusting to the expected changes — those entities face compliance uncertainty, potential rework of filings or payroll systems, and legal ambiguity about which tax year rules apply.
- Tax software vendors and payroll providers — these vendors may incur additional costs to roll back or postpone software changes and support customers through increased helpdesk activity.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The central dilemma is between Congress’s statutory authority to review and disapprove District laws — intended as a federal check — and the District’s interest in local self-government and predictable tax administration; the resolution achieves the former by negating a local tax change but does so without offering procedural or substantive guidance to manage the real-world administrative and compliance costs of that negation.
The resolution is procedurally simple but practically consequential. It exercises Congress’s statutory review power without explaining the substantive objections to the local law; that absence creates an evidentiary gap for anyone trying to evaluate the policy merits of disapproval.
Practically, the most immediate implementation problems are timing and transition: because S.J. Res. 102 contains no transitional rules, stakeholders must rely on the D.C. government or guidance from the D.C.
Office of Tax and Revenue to manage reversals or freezes of implementation plans. If the District had already taken administrative steps or taxpayers filed under assumptions the Council’s Act would take effect, those steps could require correction.
There is also a governance trade-off embedded here. The Home Rule Act gives Congress a review mechanism to safeguard federal interests, but frequent use of disapproval resolutions raises predictable friction around local self-governance, administrative predictability, and democratic accountability.
Finally, because the joint resolution does not actually state which provisions of A26–0217 are objectionable, courts, administrators, and stakeholders lack a clear record to guide any legal challenges or to anticipate future legislative fixes by the District or Congress.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.