A pilot requiring Treasury to find tax fraud with AI — bounded at 18 months to two years, with the GAO reporting accuracy
H.R.9501, the AI Tax Integrity Act of 2026, requires the Secretary of the Treasury to establish, within 180 days of enactment, a pilot program using artificial intelligence to identify inaccurate returns. The pilot runs no less than 18 months and no more than two years, after which the Comptroller General reports to Congress within 180 days.
Bill overview (primary data)
- Bill numberH.R. 9501
- TypeHouse Bill
- Congress119th Congress
- Latest actionPlaced on the Union Calendar, Calendar No. 701.（2026-09-08）
Key points
- H.R.9501 requires the Treasury Secretary to establish, within 180 days of enactment, a pilot using AI to identify inaccurate returns.
- Covered categories are identity theft, fraudulent claims for credits, deductions or refunds, and returns improperly prepared by an unidentified third party.
- The pilot runs not less than 18 months and not more than two years.
- Within 180 days of termination the Comptroller General reports the amount detected, the amount recovered and the accuracy of the AI tools.
- The committee ordered it reported 40 to 0; 15 of the 120 bills this site holds as of 2026-09-02 have reached that stage.
1Not going straight to production
Legislation putting AI into government administration comes two ways: building it into the machinery, or trying it first and looking at the result. This bill takes the second, requiring a pilot and a report to Congress. It also brackets the duration from both ends — not less than 18 months, not more than two years — preventing both a trial too short to show anything and one that continues indefinitely.
2What must be reported
- 1Amount detectedAggregate improper refunds or reduced tax liability attributable to fraud detected through the pilot
- 2Amount recoveredAggregate amount recovered by the Government by reason of the pilot
- 3AccuracyThe accuracy of the artificial intelligence tools used in identifying fraudulent returns
- 4Where it goesThe House Committee on Ways and Means and the Senate Committee on Finance, within 180 days of termination
Separating detected from recovered is the practical touch: finding fraud and actually getting the money back are different things. Putting accuracy third says what kind of bill this is. Beyond how much was recovered, it makes the tools be measured on how often they were right — which is what allows asking how many taxpayers were wrongly flagged.
3Including the preparer
The third category of inaccurate return is one improperly prepared by a third party not properly identified on the return. What is targeted is not the taxpayer own fraud but a problem on the side of whoever prepared the filing. Only because a system exists requiring the preparer to be named can returns lacking that be made a detection target.
4Unanimous in committee
The committee ordered it reported in the nature of a substitute, 40 to 0. Of the 120 bills this site holds as of 2026-09-02, 15 have reached the ordered-reported stage while 94 (78 percent) remain referred to committee. Reporting with no votes against suggests a restrained design — pilot and report — is easier to accept.
Why it matters
A legislative pattern of bracketing government AI adoption between a time-limited pilot and a report to Congress. Requiring accuracy alongside recovered amounts is a model for building evaluation wherever AI is used to make determinations.
FAQ
Why bracket the duration from both ends?
Why report accuracy?
Sources (primary)
Source: Congress.gov (Library of Congress; U.S. legislative materials, public domain). Links go to the official site.
- Congress.gov (bill page, original)
- H.R. 9501（119th Congress）