- 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.
Tanning Tax Repeal Act of 2025
Referred to the House Committee on Ways and Means.
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.
Public-health deterrence versus small-business relief
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.
Narrow and administratively simple, but modest revenue loss, no offsets, and higher Senate hurdles lower overall prospects unless bundled in larger legislation.
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.
Public-health deterrence versus small-business relief
Who stands to gain, and who may push back.
These are examples from the analysis, not a ranked list of the most-affected groups.
- 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.
Why the argument around this bill splits.
Public-health deterrence versus small-business relief
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.
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.
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.
The path through Congress.
Reached or meaningfully advanced
Reached or meaningfully advanced
Still ahead
Still ahead
Still ahead
Narrow and administratively simple, but modest revenue loss, no offsets, and higher Senate hurdles lower overall prospects unless bundled in larger legislation.
- No CBO score or revenue estimate included
- Unknown level of bipartisan support in either chamber
Recent votes on the bill.
No vote history yet
The bill has not accumulated any surfaced votes yet.
Go deeper than the headline read.
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…
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.