PolicyBrief
S. 1436
119th CongressApr 10th 2025
Why Does the IRS Need Guns Act
IN COMMITTEE

This bill prohibits the IRS from purchasing or possessing firearms and ammunition, transfers current IRS law enforcement functions to the Department of Justice, and mandates the sale of existing IRS firearms and ammunition.

Joni Ernst
R

Joni Ernst

Senator

IA

LEGISLATION

IRS Must Sell All Guns and Transfer Criminal Tax Investigations to DOJ Within 120 Days

This bill, aptly named the “Why Does the IRS Need Guns Act,” is a major structural shakeup that aims to strip the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) of its law enforcement capabilities. Essentially, it bans the IRS from buying or holding firearms and ammunition, forces the transfer of its criminal investigation division to the Department of Justice (DOJ), and requires the agency to sell off its entire existing inventory of guns and bullets.

Disarming the Tax Man

Starting 120 days after enactment, the IRS Commissioner cannot use any appropriated funds to purchase, receive, or store any firearms or ammunition (SEC. 3). This is a hard stop on the IRS maintaining any armed presence. Furthermore, all existing IRS firearms and ammunition must be transferred to the General Services Administration (GSA) within that same 120-day window (SEC. 4). This isn't just a paper transfer; it’s a full inventory handover.

Once the GSA gets the gear, they have 30 days to start the sale process (SEC. 5). The firearms must be sold or auctioned off to licensed dealers, while the ammunition can be auctioned directly to the general public. Here’s the kicker for the budget hawks: all the money generated from these sales goes straight into the Treasury’s general fund, earmarked solely for reducing the national deficit. So, the IRS is effectively raising cash for the government by selling off its guns.

Shifting the Tax Crime Beat to the DOJ

The most significant change in this bill involves criminal investigations (SEC. 6). Currently, the IRS Criminal Investigation Division (CID) handles federal tax crime enforcement—think complex fraud, money laundering, and tax evasion. This bill mandates that 90 days after enactment, the Attorney General (AG) takes over the administration and enforcement of all criminal aspects of internal revenue laws. This means all authority shifts from the Treasury Secretary to the AG.

This isn’t just a change in management; the bill requires a complete transfer of the entire IRS Criminal Investigation Division (CID)—including all personnel, functions, and assets—over to the DOJ. The one caveat is that the CID must remain a separate, distinct unit within the DOJ’s Criminal Division. For the agents and analysts currently working in the CID, this means a massive organizational shift, trading one federal department for another. While their jobs remain the same—investigating tax crimes—their institutional home and chain of command completely change.

What This Means in the Real World

For most taxpayers, this bill won't change how you file your 1040, but it fundamentally alters who investigates you if you cheat. Having the CID move to the DOJ centralizes all federal criminal tax enforcement under the Attorney General. The potential benefit here is clearer jurisdictional lines, consolidating law enforcement in one place. However, it also raises questions about institutional knowledge. The CID has deep, specialized expertise in complex financial crimes that are unique to tax law. Shifting that entire unit and its assets could potentially complicate or slow down ongoing investigations during the transition period.

Furthermore, removing the IRS’s ability to maintain arms (SEC. 3) could impact operational security for the agents who remain in the field, even those focused on non-criminal enforcement, during the transfer. While the CID is moving, the IRS still handles sensitive enforcement actions. This bill is a clear statement about limiting the scope of the IRS to purely civil tax administration, but the practical challenge lies in ensuring that the transfer of complex criminal enforcement powers to the DOJ is seamless and doesn't create gaps in the government’s ability to prosecute serious financial crimes.