2 stories credited to Thomson Reuters Tax & Accounting News
Latest story Apr 14, 2026 · on ChamberLight since Apr 2026
A story can appear as several articles (copies of the same piece), so counts of stories and of articles differ.
Scores for Thomson Reuters Tax & Accounting News
Writing quality not enough rated stories yet: 2 of 10. How it is measured
Scores last checked Sep 25, 2026.
Stories ChamberLight collected, by month
Stories credited to Thomson Reuters Tax & Accounting News, by publication date. ChamberLight collects articles that mention the officials it tracks, so this shows its own coverage of this source, not how much the source publishes.
- Stories from Thomson Reuters Tax & Accounting News
- Shaded: ChamberLight collected no stories, or almost none, from any outlet (a gap in its collection, not in the outlet’s publishing)
Show as a table
| Month | Stories | All outlets |
|---|---|---|
| April 2026 | 2 | 4,161 |
| May 2026 | 0 | none collected |
| June 2026 | 0 | none collected |
| July 2026 | 0 | none collected |
| August 2026 | 0 | 1 (collection gap) |
| September 2026 | 0 | 1,320 |
Top topics
Share of this source’s stories tagged with each topic. A story can carry several topics, so the shares do not add up to 100%.
- Taxes2
100% of 2 stories · 5% across all outlets
- Budget/Spending1
50% of 2 stories · 31% across all outlets
- Economy1
50% of 2 stories · 26% across all outlets
- Ethics/Corruption1
50% of 2 stories · 58% across all outlets
- Immigration1
50% of 2 stories · 13% across all outlets
The thin mark on each bar is the topic’s share across all outlets.
Who they cover
Party of the officials these stories are mainly about, across all 4 officials named. A story counts once for each official it is mainly about, so the split is over 4 story–official pairs, from 2 stories.
- Republican75% · 3 pairs
- Democrat25% · 1 pair
Most covered
Stories mainly about each official, and their share of the source’s 2 stories.
Article tone
ChamberLight’s article analysis assigns each story a tone toward the official it covers. It describes the coverage of that official, not Thomson Reuters Tax & Accounting News’s stance, and reader votes do not change it. 2 stories.
- Good Look
- 0 (0%)
- Mixed
- 2 (100%)
- Informational
- 0 (0%)
- Bad Look
- 0 (0%)
Challenges to these scores
No one has challenged a score on this page yet. Anyone can; editors publish every outcome here.
Articles served from tax.thomsonreuters.com
4Are Further Tax Changes Possible in Reconciliation 2.0?
The likelihood of further Republican-backed tax law changes is in flux as GOP leaders pursue a second reconciliation bill — however, the primary aim of that bill is funding the Department of Homeland Security (DHS). The possibility of passing further tax legislation as a follow-up to last year’s One Big Beautiful Bill Act (OBBB) has gone from nearly zero to being “in the equation,” PwC’s Rohit Kumar said during an April 8 briefing. He explained that a dispute over Department of Homeland Security funding has prompted Republican leadership to pursue a budget reconciliation bill, but “there’s a real question mark about whether or not tax is going to be a component.” Just a few weeks ago, the consensus view was that 2026 would be a “pretty slow year for tax,” said Kumar. Following a major tax bill in 2025, many assumed the Tax Code was likely to remain stable for the foreseeable future, he explained. Now, said Kumar, “Congress is having an honest-to-goodness conversation about another reconciliation, which seems extremely likely to happen in one form or another.” But whether tax will find its way into the effort — and if so, what specific tax issues will be addressed — remains unclear. Homeland Security Funding Focus On April 10, Senate Budget Chair Lindsey Graham (R-SC) and Majority Whip John Barrasso (R-WY) met with President Trump about more narrowly tailored reconciliation efforts. “We’re going to have a very specific bill coming out before June 1 that will fund the Border Patrol and ICE for the entire presidency,” Graham told Fox News later that day. “As Budget chairman, I can do this through reconciliation without one Democratic vote,” Graham stressed. And Trump is pushing for this year’s reconciliation bill to be completed on an even more accelerated timeline than the OBBB. “I am calling for the Bill to be done no later than June 1st, and on my desk,” Trump posted on April 10 after meeting with Barrasso and Graham. “The Department cannot wait any longer for full funding,” he added. “The protracted dispute over funding the Department of Homeland Security has caused House and Senate Republicans as recently as, like in the last 10 days, to sort of formally commit to what has been, frankly, sort of just chatter amongst rank-and-file,” Kumar explained. He added that providing the funding via reconciliation “hadn’t really fully been embraced in a bicameral way” until very recently. However, ending the DHS funding dispute via reconciliation — a special legislative process that allows certain budget-related bills to pass the Senate with a simple majority — has now been endorsed by Senate leaders and Trump. Tax Provision Potential Even though DHS funding is the “origination story” of the potential second reconciliation bill, said Kumar, tax writers have already signaled their intent to be involved. Kumar noted that House Ways and Means Committee Chair Jason Smith (R-MO) has indicated he’d like tax policy to “have a seat at the table” in a reconciliation effort. The key indicator of whether tax will appear in a reconciliation is the budget resolution, the blueprint document required before a reconciliation bill can proceed. If the taxwriting committees receive an instruction in that resolution, then tax legislation is in play, Kumar explained. If they do not, tax is “out of the equation” due to procedural rules. Deloitte Tax’s Mark Roman, who until recently was Ways and Means staff director and oversaw the development and negotiation of the OBBB, seemed hesitant about what tax provisions could make it into Reconciliation 2.0. Roman, speaking during an April 9 Deloitte briefing, noted the OBBB is called “big” for a reason. “I personally don’t see a long list of things that got left behind,” he said. Roman did highlight a few topics that dropped out of OBBB that some Republicans may want to pursue. Those include a more generous IRC § 199A qualified business income deduction, Earned Income Tax Credit reforms, and further university endowment tax reforms. But none of those are “drivers” of a reconciliation bill, in Roman’s view. EY’s Courtney Connell, who until recently served as Senate Finance Committee chief tax counsel, added to that list items that “fell out” due to the Byrd rule – which prohibits using reconciliation to enact provisions that do not have a revenue impact. Other possible changes include OBBB provisions that require a “tweak” due to the limited drafting time last year, said Connell, speaking at the Deloitte briefing. Bipartisan Tax Reform Efforts Even if tax makes it into Reconciliation 2.0, Kumar said that’s unlikely to derail ongoing bipartisan tax reform efforts. While partisan exercises can create “poison in the water” for bipartisan talks, Kumar contends this year’s reconciliation effort will have a much smaller impact than the 2025 tax bill. Ongoing bipartisan efforts include the Taxpayer Assistance and Service Act, a large tax administration package forwarded by Senate Finance Committee leaders. Connell also identified crypto and Taiwan tax relief as other bipartisan targets. Kumar added that any bipartisan proposals were always more likely to be considered toward the end of the year, during the “lame duck” session after the November elections — months after Trump’s June 1 reconciliation target date. Kumar believes this year’s reconciliation effort is “unlikely to significantly disrupt those bipartisan conversations.” Take your tax and accounting research to the next level with Checkpoint Edge and CoCounsel. Get instant access to AI-assisted research, expert-approved answers, and cutting-edge tools like Advisory Maps and State Charts. Try it today and transform the way you work! Subscribe now and discover a smarter way to find answers. The post Are Further Tax Changes Possible in Reconciliation 2.0? appeared first on Thomson Reuters Tax & Accounting News.
Are Further Tax Changes Possible in Reconciliation 2.0?
The likelihood of further Republican-backed tax law changes is in flux as GOP leaders pursue a second reconciliation bill — however, the primary aim of that bill is funding the Department of Homeland Security (DHS). The possibility of passing further tax legislation as a follow-up to last year’s One Big Beautiful Bill Act (OBBB) has gone from nearly zero to being “in the equation,” PwC’s Rohit Kumar said during an April 8 briefing. He explained that a dispute over Department of Homeland Security funding has prompted Republican leadership to pursue a budget reconciliation bill, but “there’s a real question mark about whether or not tax is going to be a component.” Just a few weeks ago, the consensus view was that 2026 would be a “pretty slow year for tax,” said Kumar. Following a major tax bill in 2025, many assumed the Tax Code was likely to remain stable for the foreseeable future, he explained. Now, said Kumar, “Congress is having an honest-to-goodness conversation about another reconciliation, which seems extremely likely to happen in one form or another.” But whether tax will find its way into the effort — and if so, what specific tax issues will be addressed — remains unclear. Homeland Security Funding Focus On April 10, Senate Budget Chair Lindsey Graham (R-SC) and Majority Whip John Barrasso (R-WY) met with President Trump about more narrowly tailored reconciliation efforts. “We’re going to have a very specific bill coming out before June 1 that will fund the Border Patrol and ICE for the entire presidency,” Graham told Fox News later that day. “As Budget chairman, I can do this through reconciliation without one Democratic vote,” Graham stressed. And Trump is pushing for this year’s reconciliation bill to be completed on an even more accelerated timeline than the OBBB. “I am calling for the Bill to be done no later than June 1st, and on my desk,” Trump posted on April 10 after meeting with Barrasso and Graham. “The Department cannot wait any longer for full funding,” he added. “The protracted dispute over funding the Department of Homeland Security has caused House and Senate Republicans as recently as, like in the last 10 days, to sort of formally commit to what has been, frankly, sort of just chatter amongst rank-and-file,” Kumar explained. He added that providing the funding via reconciliation “hadn’t really fully been embraced in a bicameral way” until very recently. However, ending the DHS funding dispute via reconciliation — a special legislative process that allows certain budget-related bills to pass the Senate with a simple majority — has now been endorsed by Senate leaders and Trump. Tax Provision Potential Even though DHS funding is the “origination story” of the potential second reconciliation bill, said Kumar, tax writers have already signaled their intent to be involved. Kumar noted that House Ways and Means Committee Chair Jason Smith (R-MO) has indicated he’d like tax policy to “have a seat at the table” in a reconciliation effort. The key indicator of whether tax will appear in a reconciliation is the budget resolution, the blueprint document required before a reconciliation bill can proceed. If the taxwriting committees receive an instruction in that resolution, then tax legislation is in play, Kumar explained. If they do not, tax is “out of the equation” due to procedural rules. Deloitte Tax’s Mark Roman, who until recently was Ways and Means staff director and oversaw the development and negotiation of the OBBB, seemed hesitant about what tax provisions could make it into Reconciliation 2.0. Roman, speaking during an April 9 Deloitte briefing, noted the OBBB is called “big” for a reason. “I personally don’t see a long list of things that got left behind,” he said. Roman did highlight a few topics that dropped out of OBBB that some Republicans may want to pursue. Those include a more generous IRC § 199A qualified business income deduction, Earned Income Tax Credit reforms, and further university endowment tax reforms. But none of those are “drivers” of a reconciliation bill, in Roman’s view. EY’s Courtney Connell, who until recently served as Senate Finance Committee chief tax counsel, added to that list items that “fell out” due to the Byrd rule – which prohibits using reconciliation to enact provisions that do not have a revenue impact. Other possible changes include OBBB provisions that require a “tweak” due to the limited drafting time last year, said Connell, speaking at the Deloitte briefing. Bipartisan Tax Reform Efforts Even if tax makes it into Reconciliation 2.0, Kumar said that’s unlikely to derail ongoing bipartisan tax reform efforts. While partisan exercises can create “poison in the water” for bipartisan talks, Kumar contends this year’s reconciliation effort will have a much smaller impact than the 2025 tax bill. Ongoing bipartisan efforts include the Taxpayer Assistance and Service Act, a large tax administration package forwarded by Senate Finance Committee leaders. Connell also identified crypto and Taiwan tax relief as other bipartisan targets. Kumar added that any bipartisan proposals were always more likely to be considered toward the end of the year, during the “lame duck” session after the November elections — months after Trump’s June 1 reconciliation target date. Kumar believes this year’s reconciliation effort is “unlikely to significantly disrupt those bipartisan conversations.” Take your tax and accounting research to the next level with Checkpoint Edge and CoCounsel. Get instant access to AI-assisted research, expert-approved answers, and cutting-edge tools like Advisory Maps and State Charts. Try it today and transform the way you work! Subscribe now and discover a smarter way to find answers. The post Are Further Tax Changes Possible in Reconciliation 2.0? appeared first on Thomson Reuters Tax & Accounting News.
Bipartisan Bill Targets Tax-Free Corporate Mergers
Senators Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI) and Josh Hawley (R-MO) introduced bipartisan legislation March 25 that would end tax-free treatment for many large corporate mergers and certain related transfers, targeting deals the lawmakers say help consolidate corporate power. The legislation is titled the Stop Subsidizing Giant Mergers Act (S. 4185). Bill Would Limit Nonrecognition for Large-Corporation Deals The bill would amend two tax provisions to deny tax-free treatment to mergers and related transfers involving large corporations. Under the proposed amendment to IRC § 368, certain transactions would not qualify as tax-free reorganizations if they involve the acquisition of another corporation’s stock or assets and the combined average annual gross receipts of the acquiring and acquired corporations for the prior three tax years exceed $500 million. It would amend IRC § 351 so that the general nonrecognition rule in § 351(a) would not apply to a transfer of property by two or more corporate transferors if their combined average annual gross receipts for the prior three tax years exceed $500 million. The legislation carves out exceptions for internal restructurings and smaller businesses. The new limit would not apply when one corporation controls the other before and after the transaction, when another corporation controls both parties, or when either party meets the gross receipts test of IRC § 448(c)(1). The IRC § 351 amendment includes similar exceptions. While the bill would apply to transfers after enactment, beginning after 2026, the $500 million threshold would be adjusted for inflation. Treasury would be authorized to issue regulations to prevent companies from circumventing the new rules through a series of related transactions carried out as parts of a unitary plan. Current Law Allows Tax-Free Reorganizations The bill targets rules that currently allow corporations to complete acquisitions without immediately recognizing gain on appreciated assets. Under IRC § 368, a reorganization includes statutory mergers or consolidations, some stock-for-stock acquisitions, acquisitions of substantially all of another corporation’s properties in exchange for voting stock, and some asset transfers. Under IRC § 351, no gain or loss is recognized when one or more persons transfer property to a corporation solely in exchange for stock if those transferors immediately control the corporation. According to an accompanying press release, these rules allow large corporations to structure deals so that appreciation in the target firm’s stock or assets goes untaxed at the time of the transaction. While the tax is deferred rather than forgiven, “in practice the corporation and its shareholders may escape tax forever.” That tax-free structure has become a common feature of the largest corporate deals. Between 2007 and 2021, up to 40% of the aggregate value of all U.S. mergers was structured on a tax-free basis, and in 2021, more than half of mergers valued at more than $1 billion were tax-free. Examples include Facebook’s $19 billion acquisition of WhatsApp, ExxonMobil’s $59.5 billion acquisition of Pioneer Natural Resources, and Capital One’s $35 billion acquisition of Discover. Policy Rationale Whitehouse and Hawley framed the bill as a response to consolidation’s effects on households and market competition, arguing that taxpayers should not be asked to subsidize the very deals that drive up prices. “Families who get stuck paying higher prices because of anti-competitive mega-mergers should not also have to subsidize them with their tax dollars,” Whitehouse said. Hawley added that Congress should pass the bill “to protect families and make large companies pay their own way.” The senators noted that the volume of large mergers reported to federal antitrust agencies has nearly doubled over the past decade. They also cited a 2020 American Economic Liberties Project report finding that corporate consolidation costs the average American household $5,000 a year in lost purchasing power, and linked concentration to higher consumer prices, lower wages, and reduced business dynamism. Whitehouse first introduced a version of the bill in 2024 with then-Senator J.D. Vance. For more on § 368 corporate reorganization, see Checkpoint’s Federal Tax Coordinator 2d ¶ F-2000. For § 351 transfers to controlled corporations, see 2d ¶ F-1000. Take your tax and accounting research to the next level with Checkpoint Edge and CoCounsel. Get instant access to AI-assisted research, expert-approved answers, and cutting-edge tools like Advisory Maps and State Charts. Try it today and transform the way you work! Subscribe now and discover a smarter way to find answers. The post Bipartisan Bill Targets Tax-Free Corporate Mergers appeared first on Thomson Reuters Tax & Accounting News.
Bipartisan Bill Targets Tax-Free Corporate Mergers
Senators Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI) and Josh Hawley (R-MO) introduced bipartisan legislation March 25 that would end tax-free treatment for many large corporate mergers and certain related transfers, targeting deals the lawmakers say help consolidate corporate power. The legislation is titled the Stop Subsidizing Giant Mergers Act (S. 4185). Bill Would Limit Nonrecognition for Large-Corporation Deals The bill would amend two tax provisions to deny tax-free treatment to mergers and related transfers involving large corporations. Under the proposed amendment to IRC § 368, certain transactions would not qualify as tax-free reorganizations if they involve the acquisition of another corporation’s stock or assets and the combined average annual gross receipts of the acquiring and acquired corporations for the prior three tax years exceed $500 million. It would amend IRC § 351 so that the general nonrecognition rule in § 351(a) would not apply to a transfer of property by two or more corporate transferors if their combined average annual gross receipts for the prior three tax years exceed $500 million. The legislation carves out exceptions for internal restructurings and smaller businesses. The new limit would not apply when one corporation controls the other before and after the transaction, when another corporation controls both parties, or when either party meets the gross receipts test of IRC § 448(c)(1). The IRC § 351 amendment includes similar exceptions. While the bill would apply to transfers after enactment, beginning after 2026, the $500 million threshold would be adjusted for inflation. Treasury would be authorized to issue regulations to prevent companies from circumventing the new rules through a series of related transactions carried out as parts of a unitary plan. Current Law Allows Tax-Free Reorganizations The bill targets rules that currently allow corporations to complete acquisitions without immediately recognizing gain on appreciated assets. Under IRC § 368, a reorganization includes statutory mergers or consolidations, some stock-for-stock acquisitions, acquisitions of substantially all of another corporation’s properties in exchange for voting stock, and some asset transfers. Under IRC § 351, no gain or loss is recognized when one or more persons transfer property to a corporation solely in exchange for stock if those transferors immediately control the corporation. According to an accompanying press release, these rules allow large corporations to structure deals so that appreciation in the target firm’s stock or assets goes untaxed at the time of the transaction. While the tax is deferred rather than forgiven, “in practice the corporation and its shareholders may escape tax forever.” That tax-free structure has become a common feature of the largest corporate deals. Between 2007 and 2021, up to 40% of the aggregate value of all U.S. mergers was structured on a tax-free basis, and in 2021, more than half of mergers valued at more than $1 billion were tax-free. Examples include Facebook’s $19 billion acquisition of WhatsApp, ExxonMobil’s $59.5 billion acquisition of Pioneer Natural Resources, and Capital One’s $35 billion acquisition of Discover. Policy Rationale Whitehouse and Hawley framed the bill as a response to consolidation’s effects on households and market competition, arguing that taxpayers should not be asked to subsidize the very deals that drive up prices. “Families who get stuck paying higher prices because of anti-competitive mega-mergers should not also have to subsidize them with their tax dollars,” Whitehouse said. Hawley added that Congress should pass the bill “to protect families and make large companies pay their own way.” The senators noted that the volume of large mergers reported to federal antitrust agencies has nearly doubled over the past decade. They also cited a 2020 American Economic Liberties Project report finding that corporate consolidation costs the average American household $5,000 a year in lost purchasing power, and linked concentration to higher consumer prices, lower wages, and reduced business dynamism. Whitehouse first introduced a version of the bill in 2024 with then-Senator J.D. Vance. For more on § 368 corporate reorganization, see Checkpoint’s Federal Tax Coordinator 2d ¶ F-2000. For § 351 transfers to controlled corporations, see 2d ¶ F-1000. Take your tax and accounting research to the next level with Checkpoint Edge and CoCounsel. Get instant access to AI-assisted research, expert-approved answers, and cutting-edge tools like Advisory Maps and State Charts. Try it today and transform the way you work! Subscribe now and discover a smarter way to find answers. The post Bipartisan Bill Targets Tax-Free Corporate Mergers appeared first on Thomson Reuters Tax & Accounting News.