Rep. Cline Introduces Bill to Protect Taxpayers From Eminent Domain Taxes
Washington,
February 25, 2026
Today, Rep. Ben Cline (VA-06), introduced the No Tax on Takings Act, a bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code to spare unsuspecting property owners from paying harsh federal taxes on a sale the government compelled them to make. “Families should never be hit with a federal tax bill after the government forces them to sell their own property,” said Rep. Cline. “When eminent domain is used, property owners are already navigating a difficult process through no fault of their own. The federal government should not increase that burden by taxing a transaction into which they did not voluntarily enter. My bill delivers a simple, commonsense fix to the tax code to ensure Americans are treated fairly and protected from punitive tax consequences when their property is taken.” "When governments force the sale of private property through eminent domain, taxpayers may be subject to a tax liability through no fault of their own. That’s not fair, and the No Tax on Takings Act rightly corrects this problem by amending the Internal Revenue Code to shield unsuspecting property owners from paying punitive federal taxes on a transaction they did not choose. NTU commends Congressman Cline for protecting taxpayers and we look forward to working to see this commonsense legislation signed into law,” said Thomas Aiello, Senior Director of Government Affairs at National Taxpayers Union. “The No Tax on Takings Act aligns with Conservatives for Property Rights’ eminent domain principles. Taxing the compensation paid to a landowner reduces the amount of ‘just compensation’ received. The government compels property owners to sell land they may have had no intention of selling. So, Rep. Cline’s legislation is consistent with the Takings Clause, and CPR supports it,” said James Edwards, Founder and Executive Director at Conservatives for Property Rights. BACKGROUND: Currently, citizens who are compelled to give up their home, business, or land face a “double whammy” since they are:
|