H.R. 1940 (119th)Bill Overview

Tanning Tax Repeal Act of 2025

Taxation|Taxation
Cosponsors
Support
Republican
Introduced
Mar 6, 2025
Discussions
Bill Text
Current stageCommittee

Referred to the House Committee on Ways and Means.

Introduced
Committee
Floor
President
Law
Congressional Activities
01 · The brief
Plain-English summaryWhat this bill actually does

The bill repeals the federal excise tax on indoor tanning services by striking Chapter 49 from Subtitle D of the Internal Revenue Code. The repeal would apply to tanning services performed after the law's enactment.

Why people may split

Public-health deterrence versus small-business relief

Watch point

Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill is a narrowly targeted and mechanically clear repeal of a specific excise tax provision.

The bill repeals the federal excise tax on indoor tanning services by striking Chapter 49 from Subtitle D of the Internal Revenue Code.

The repeal would apply to tanning services performed after the law's enactment.

No replacement revenue source or offsets are included in the text.

Passage35/100

Narrow and administratively simple, but modest revenue loss, no offsets, and higher Senate hurdles lower overall prospects unless bundled in larger legislation.

CredibilityPartially aligned

Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill is a narrowly targeted and mechanically clear repeal of a specific excise tax provision. The statutory amendment is explicit and the effective date is stated, which makes the primary legal change straightforward to implement in statute.

Contention70/100

Public-health deterrence versus small-business relief

02 · What it does

Who stands to gain, and who may push back.

Likely benefits vs burdens50% / 50%
ConsumersFederal agencies

These are examples from the analysis, not a ranked list of the most-affected groups.

Likely helped
  • ConsumersLowers prices for indoor tanning customers, potentially increasing consumer demand.
  • Potential benefitReduces compliance and administrative costs for tanning salons and tax filers.
  • Potential benefitSupports tanning industry jobs and small-business revenues by removing a sales burden.
Likely burdened
  • Federal agenciesReduces federal excise tax revenue, potentially increasing deficits or reducing funding for programs.
  • Potential burdenLowers the price barrier to indoor tanning, likely increasing usage and related health risks.
  • Potential burdenCould raise future public and private healthcare costs due to increased skin cancer incidence.
03 · Why people split

Why the argument around this bill splits.

Public-health deterrence versus small-business relief
Progressive25%

Likely skeptical.

While sympathetic to small businesses, this persona worries about public health and lost federal revenue.

They view the tanning tax as a deterrent to a harmful activity and a modest revenue source.

Likely resistant
Centrist50%

Mixed view.

Appreciates small-business and simplification arguments but worries about fiscal impact and precedent.

Would look for offsets or a limited, well-explained rationale before full support.

Split reaction
Conservative90%

Generally supportive.

Sees the repeal as pro-growth, pro-small business, and a rollback of an unnecessary, targeted tax.

Prefers tax relief and lighter federal intervention.

Leans supportive
04 · Can it pass?

The path through Congress.

Introduced

Reached or meaningfully advanced

Committee

Reached or meaningfully advanced

Floor

Still ahead

President

Still ahead

Law

Still ahead

Passage likelihood35/100

Narrow and administratively simple, but modest revenue loss, no offsets, and higher Senate hurdles lower overall prospects unless bundled in larger legislation.

Scope and complexity
24%
Scopenarrow
24%
Complexitylow
Why this could stall
  • No CBO score or revenue estimate included
  • Unknown level of bipartisan support in either chamber
05 · Recent votes

Recent votes on the bill.

No vote history yet

The bill has not accumulated any surfaced votes yet.

06 · Go deeper

Go deeper than the headline read.

Included on this page

Public-health deterrence versus small-business relief

Narrow and administratively simple, but modest revenue loss, no offsets, and higher Senate hurdles lower overall prospects unless bundled i…

Unlocked analysis

Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill is a narrowly targeted and mechanically clear repeal of a specific excise tax provision. The statutory amendment is explicit and the effective date is stated, which m…

Go beyond the headline summary with full stakeholder mapping, legislative design analysis, passage barriers, and lens-by-lens tradeoff breakdowns.

Perspective breakdownsPassage barriersLegislative design reviewStakeholder impact map
Open full analysis