A tax-season formality could soon carry real legal weight for millions of families that claim the government’s largest refundable credits. Under a rule proposed by the Treasury Department and the Internal Revenue Service, anyone seeking the refundable portion of the child tax credit, the earned income tax credit, the adoption credit or the American Opportunity college credit would have to declare, under penalty of perjury, that they are a U.S. citizen, national or qualified legal resident. The proposal was unveiled on August 19 and would take effect only after it is finalized, meaning nothing changes for the current filing season.
What the proposed rule would require
The regulation, published in the Federal Register as REG-119882-25, treats the refunded part of those four credits as a “federal public benefit” under the 1996 welfare-reform law known as PRWORA. That classification is the legal hinge: benefits covered by PRWORA are generally restricted to citizens, U.S. nationals and qualified aliens, a category that includes lawful permanent residents, refugees, asylees and certain other groups. To receive a refund from an affected credit, a taxpayer would have to qualify on the date the return first claiming the credit is filed, and would have to certify that status on the return itself under penalty of perjury.
The attestation is the enforcement mechanism. A false statement on a signed federal return is already a crime, and by making eligibility an explicit sworn declaration rather than an assumption buried in the instructions, the government gives itself a cleaner basis to deny the refund and to pursue penalties. For joint filers there is a narrower test: only one spouse would need to be a citizen, national or qualified alien for the couple to claim the refunded amount.
Free retirement updates: Social Security and Medicare change every year, and nobody sends you a memo. Our free Retirement Shield newsletter breaks down what changed and what to do. Get it free in your inbox.
Which credits and which dollars are in scope
The four credits named in the proposal are among the most widely claimed on individual returns, and each has a refundable component that can put cash in a filer’s pocket even when no tax is owed. Only that refundable portion is targeted. The nonrefundable part of a credit, which can reduce a tax bill to zero but not below, is not affected by the citizenship test. In practice, that distinction matters most to lower-income households and families with children, because the refundable slice is precisely the part designed to function as a payment rather than a simple offset. The Treasury Department framed the change as closing access it says the refundable credits were never meant to extend to people without qualifying immigration status.
A simple example shows why the line between the two parts is the whole story. If a family qualifies for a child credit but owes little or no income tax, most of the credit’s value reaches them as a refund rather than as a reduction of tax owed, and it is that refunded slice the attestation would gate. A higher-earning household that uses the same credit mainly to lower a tax bill would feel the change far less, because the nonrefundable portion that offsets tax is left untouched.
By the government’s own math, the reach is substantial. Treasury and the IRS estimate that nearly one million people would lose eligibility for the refunded amounts, and that the federal government would avoid roughly $3 billion in payments as a result. Those figures are projections attached to a proposal, not a settled accounting, and the final numbers would depend on how the rule is written after public comment.
Why nothing changes yet, and what comes next
A proposed regulation is not law. It carries no force until the agency reviews public feedback and issues a final rule, and the timeline is deliberately open. The proposal sets a public hearing for October 14, 2026, with requests to speak and topic outlines due by October 5, giving affected taxpayers, advocates and preparers a formal window to weigh in before anything is locked in. Until a final rule appears, filers claiming these credits face no new attestation requirement.
The distance between a proposal and a binding rule is exactly where retirees and families should be careful about the headlines. Advertisements and social-media posts that describe the citizenship attestation as an existing requirement, or that pressure someone to “reconfirm” eligibility through an unofficial portal, would be running ahead of the law and are a classic setup for a scam. The only authoritative descriptions of what is changing, and when, sit on the Federal Register and IRS websites, and any real change will be announced there first rather than by phone, text or email.
What affected filers can do while the rule is pending
Because nothing takes effect until a final rule is issued, there is no action a taxpayer must take right now and no new form to sign for the current season. The more useful preparation is documentary. Citizens, nationals and qualified aliens who claim these credits generally already hold the records that would support an attestation, whether a Social Security card, a passport, a certificate of naturalization, or the immigration paperwork that establishes qualified-alien status, and keeping those where they can be found makes a future certification routine rather than stressful. Mixed-status households have the most riding on the fine print, since the proposal’s joint-return rule turns on at least one spouse holding qualifying status, and the way dependents are counted could decide whether a family keeps the refundable child credit at all.
The proposal also opens a formal channel for pushback. Anyone who wants to influence the final language can submit a written comment through the federal rulemaking process the notice describes, and the October hearing gives preparers, advocacy groups and affected filers a chance to raise real-world problems before the rule is settled. Comments that identify concrete administrative burdens, such as proof-of-status disputes or delays for lawful residents whose documents are slow to arrive, tend to carry more weight than blanket opposition, because an agency must respond to substantive objections when it finalizes a rule.
This article was researched and drafted with the assistance of AI and reviewed by The Financial Wire editorial team.
More Financial Reading
- How many CDs can you park at 1 bank? FDIC rules you must know
- The ideal retirement withdrawal rate so your savings actually last
Warren Cohen is a finance writer based in Phoenix, Arizona, covering personal finance topics including credit, banking, and beginner investing. He earned his degree in business administration from Arizona State University and began his career working in consumer finance, where he gained direct experience with lending and credit systems. He now writes for personal finance websites and fintech platforms, focusing on clear, practical content that helps readers make informed financial decisions.
