The bill
No Tax on Home Sales Act
HR. 4327, 119th Congress — read as touching Real Estate.
Sponsored by
Rep. Greene, Marjorie Taylor [R-GA-14]
ID: G000596
Follow the money
The bill
HR. 4327, 119th Congress — read as touching Real Estate.
The sponsor
Every bill has someone who introduced it. That name is where the paper trail starts.
The money
23 itemised contributions to this sponsor, pulled from FEC filings.
The alignment
This bill's text tracks the "Introduction" section, p. 730-732 of the Mandate for Leadership.
Track this bill's progress through the legislative process
Latest Action
ASSUMING FIRST SPONSORSHIP - Mr. Alford asked unanimous consent that he may hereafter be considered as the first sponsor of H.R. 4327, a bill originally introduced by Representative Greene (GA), for the purpose of adding cosponsors and requesting reprintings pursuant to clause 7 of rule XII. Agreed to without objection.
January 20, 2026
📍 Current Status
Next: The bill will be reviewed by relevant committees who will debate, amend, and vote on it.
1. Introduction: A member of Congress introduces a bill in either the House or Senate.
2. Committee Review: The bill is sent to relevant committees for study, hearings, and revisions.
3. Floor Action: If approved by committee, the bill goes to the full chamber for debate and voting.
4. Other Chamber: If passed, the bill moves to the other chamber (House or Senate) for the same process.
5. Conference: If both chambers pass different versions, a conference committee reconciles the differences.
6. Presidential Action: The President can sign the bill into law, veto it, or take no action.
7. Became Law: If signed (or if Congress overrides a veto), the bill becomes law!
Another masterpiece from the esteemed members of Congress. The "No Tax on Home Sales Act" - because what's a few billion dollars in lost revenue when you can pander to your constituents and line the pockets of your real estate buddies?
**Main Purpose & Objectives:** This bill is a thinly veiled attempt to curry favor with homeowners, particularly those in affluent areas who are likely to benefit from this tax giveaway. The sponsors claim it's about "helping" people by eliminating the dollar limitations on excluding gains from primary residence sales. Yeah, right. It's really about buying votes and fattening up campaign coffers.
**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law:** The bill amends Section 121 of the Internal Revenue Code to eliminate the $250,000 ($500,000 for joint filers) exemption limit on gains from primary residence sales. This means that homeowners can now sell their homes without paying taxes on any profit they make, no matter how large. Because who needs revenue when you can have votes?
**Affected Parties & Stakeholders:** Homeowners, particularly those in high-end markets, will be the primary beneficiaries of this bill. Real estate agents and developers will also see a boost as more people are incentivized to buy and sell homes. And, of course, the politicians who sponsored this bill will reap the rewards of their "generosity" come election time.
**Potential Impact & Implications:** This bill is a fiscal nightmare waiting to happen. By eliminating the exemption limit, the government stands to lose billions in revenue. Who's going to make up for that lost income? You guessed it - the middle class and low-income families who can't afford to play the real estate game. The wealthy will get wealthier, while the rest of us foot the bill.
Diagnosis: This bill is suffering from a severe case of " Politician-itis" - a disease characterized by an insatiable desire for power, votes, and campaign contributions, regardless of the cost to the country. Symptoms include reckless disregard for fiscal responsibility, pandering to special interests, and a complete lack of transparency.
Treatment: A healthy dose of skepticism, a strong stomach, and a willingness to call out these politicians for what they are - self-serving charlatans who care more about their own careers than the well-being of the nation.
Rep. Greene, Marjorie Taylor [R-GA-14]
Congress 119 • 2024 Election Cycle
No PAC contributions found
No committee contributions found
This bill has 7 cosponsors. Below are their top campaign contributors.
ID: O000086
Top Contributors
10
ID: T000490
Top Contributors
10
ID: H001098
Top Contributors
10
ID: A000379
Top Contributors
10
ID: H001102
Top Contributors
10
ID: C001110
Top Contributors
10
ID: M000871
Top Contributors
10
Hub layout: Politicians in center, donors arranged by type in rings around them.
Showing 66 nodes and 38 connections (50 secondary connections hidden)
Total contributions: $218,185
Showing top 20 donors by contribution amount
Which industries are materially affected by specific provisions in this bill. 1 helped.
Section 2 eliminates dollar limitations on the exclusion of gain from sales of principal residences under IRC §121, providing a tax benefit to homeowners and thereby benefiting the real estate industry by potentially increasing home sales and market activity.
This bill shows semantic similarity to the following sections of the Project 2025 policy document.
— 698 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise Fundamental Tax Reform. Achieving fundamental tax reform offers the prospect of a dramatic improvement in American living standards and an equally dramatic reduction in tax compliance costs. Lobbyists, lawyers, benefit consul- tants, accountants, and tax preparers would see their incomes decline, however. The federal income tax system heavily taxes capital and corporate income and discourages work, savings, and investment. The public finance literature is clear that a consumption tax would minimize government’s distortion of private economic decisions and thus be the least eco- nomically harmful way to raise federal tax revenues.28 There are several forms that a consumption tax could take, including a national sales tax, a business transfer tax, a Hall–Rabushka flat tax,29 or a cash flow tax.30 Supermajority to Raise Taxes. Treasury should support legislation instituting a three-fifths vote threshold in the U.S. House and the Senate to raise income or corporate tax rates to create a wall of protection for the new rate structure. Many states have implemented such a supermajority vote requirement. Tax Competition. Tax competition between states and countries is a positive force for liberty and limited government.31 The Biden Administration, under the direction of Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen, has pushed for a global minimum corporate tax that would increase taxation and the size of government in the U.S. and around the world. This attempt to “harmonize” global tax rates is an attempt to create a global tax cartel to quash tax competition and to increase the tax burden globally. The U.S. should not outsource its tax policy to international organizations. Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development. The Organi- zation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), in conjunction with the European Union, has long tried to end financial privacy and impose regulations on countries with low (or no) income taxes. In fact, on tax, environmental, corpo- rate governance and employment issues, the OECD has become little more than a taxpayer-funded left-wing think tank and lobbying organization.32 The United States provides about one-fifth of OECD’s funding.33 The U.S. should end its finan- cial support and withdraw from the OECD. TAX ADMINISTRATION The Internal Revenue Service is a poorly managed, utterly unresponsive and increasingly politicized agency, and has been for at least two decades. It is time for meaningful reform to improve the efficiency and fairness of tax administration, better protect taxpayer rights, and achieve greater transparency and accountability. A substantial number of the problems attributed to the IRS are actually a function of congressional action that has made the Internal Revenue Code ridiculously complex, imposed tremendous administrative burdens on both the public and the IRS, and given massive non-tax missions to the IRS. But the culture, administrative practices, and management at the IRS need to change. — 699 — Department of the Treasury Doubling the IRS? The Inflation Reduction Act contains a radical $80 billion expansion of the IRS—enough to double the size of its workforce.34 Unless Congress reverses this policy, the IRS will become much more intrusive and impose still greater costs on the American people. The Biden Administration has also sought to make the tax system’s adminis- trative burden much worse in other ways. For example, it has proposed creating a comprehensive financial account information reporting regime that would apply to all business and personal accounts with more than $600. Banks would be required to collect the taxpayer identification numbers of and file a revised Form 1099-K for all affected payees, as well as provide additional information.35 This massive increase in the scope and breadth of information reporting should be unequivo- cally opposed. Management. The IRS has approximately 81,000 employees.36 Of those, only two are presidential appointments—the Commissioner and the Chief Counsel.37 As a practical matter, it is impossible for these two officials to overcome bureau- cratic inertia and to implement policy changes that the IRS bureaucracy wants to impede. That is why, notwithstanding decades of sound and fury, almost nothing has changed at the IRS. For the IRS to change and become more accountable, more transparent, and better managed, there is a need to increase the number of Presidential appoint- ments subject to Senate confirmation, and not subject to Senate confirmation, at the IRS. At the very least, Congress should ensure that the Deputy Commissioner for Services and Enforcement, the Deputy Commissioner for Operations Support, the National Taxpayer Advocate, the Commissioner of the Wage and Investment Division, the Commissioner of the Large Business and International Division, the Commissioner of the Small Business Self-Employed Division, and the Com- missioner of the Tax Exempt and Government Entities Division are presidential appointees.38 Information Technology. Despite the investment of billions of dollars for at least two decades, IRS information technology (IT) systems remain deficient.39 The IRS inadequately protects taxpayer information, its IT systems do not ade- quately support operations or taxpayer services, and its matching and detection algorithms are antiquated. These problems are not primarily about resources. The IRS has spent approxi- mately $27 billion on IT during the past decade, with $7 billion of that designated as “development, modernization and enhancement.“40 The problem is one of man- agement. The bureaucracy is not up to the task, and neither Congress nor a long line of IRS commissioners has forced changes. A Deputy Commissioner for Operations Support with strong IT management skills should be appointed by the IRS Commissioner or the President (once the position is made a presidential appointment). The various subordinates to the
Policy matches are calculated using semantic similarity between bill summaries and Project 2025 policy text. A score of 60% or higher indicates meaningful thematic overlap. This does not imply direct causation or intent, but highlights areas where legislation aligns with Project 2025 policy objectives.