What the IRS Called “Abuse by Illegal Aliens” Is Really a New Refundable-Credit Status Test

The Administrative Record — What the IRS said. What the record shows.

By Heath Harwell Vo, JD, CPA

The IRS Newsroom announced proposed regulations on August 19, 2026, under the headline “Treasury, IRS proposes rules to protect refundable tax credits from abuse by illegal aliens.” That framing is clean, forceful—and considerably simpler than the rule Treasury actually proposed.

The proposal would apply the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996, commonly called PRWORA, to the refunded portion of four credits: the adoption credit, Child Tax Credit/Additional Child Tax Credit, American Opportunity Tax Credit, and Earned Income Tax Credit. It would add a separate immigration-status test to each credit’s existing tax rules.

That is a meaningful proposed change. It is not yet a final rule. It does not eliminate every refund available to a noncitizen. And “nonqualified alien,” the statutory category used by PRWORA, is not synonymous with “illegal alien.”

Those distinctions determine who may lose a credit, which part may be lost, and when status is tested.

Administrative Record classification: In tension with the record. The proposal’s legal mechanism has substantial support in a 2025 Department of Justice Office of Legal Counsel opinion. But the Newsroom’s broader “abuse by illegal aliens” framing is not established by the proposal’s own data and sweeps more broadly than the population the rule would actually reach.

What the IRS said

IR-2026-93 says the proposed rules would “end the abuse” of refundable credits by “illegal aliens” and quotes Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent saying “the federal law is clear.”

The proposed regulations take a more precise route. Treasury would treat only the portion of the four covered credits that exceeds Chapter 1 income tax liability—after nonrefundable credits—as a “federal public benefit” under PRWORA. A person who is not a citizen, national, or PRWORA “qualified alien” generally could not receive that excess amount.

In plain English, the proposal is about the refunded portion of specified credits, not every dollar that may appear on the refund line of a return.

Withholding and estimated tax payments are the taxpayer’s own prepayments. The proposal does not convert those amounts into federal public benefits. A nonqualified alien could still receive a refund of excess wage withholding or estimated payments. Depending on the credit, the taxpayer may also be able to use the nonrefundable portion to reduce income tax liability.

The tax return has enough moving parts without assigning one word—“refund”—three different legal jobs and hoping nobody notices.

What the proposal would actually do

The rule would create a second eligibility screen:

1. Does the taxpayer satisfy the Internal Revenue Code requirements for the credit?

2. If the credit produces a refunded portion, does the taxpayer satisfy PRWORA’s citizenship or immigration-status requirement on the relevant filing date?

Those tests are related, but they are not interchangeable.

Tax residency under Internal Revenue Code section 7701(b), immigration status, PRWORA qualified-alien status under 8 U.S.C. section 1641, and eligibility for a work-authorized Social Security number are four different concepts.

A person may be lawfully present in the United States, authorized to work, and a resident alien for federal income tax purposes, yet still fall outside PRWORA’s “qualified alien” definition. Congressional Research Service materials explain that the nonqualified category can include lawful nonimmigrants, certain parolees, Temporary Protected Status holders, DACA recipients, and asylum applicants, in addition to people without lawful status.

That is why the Newsroom headline does not accurately describe the entire affected population.

What the record shows about the numbers

Treasury estimates that approximately 49 million tax year 2026 returns will claim at least one covered credit and about 24 million will have a refunded portion. It then estimates that roughly 200,000 to 700,000 of those returns—about 0.8% to 2.8%—will involve nonqualified aliens.

But the proposal candidly says Treasury and the IRS do not have direct data that can precisely identify PRWORA status. The range is built from Social Security Administration information, immigration statistics, and older Department of Homeland Security estimates involving nonimmigrants—a category that includes many people lawfully present on temporary visas.

The projected $700 million to $2.6 billion effect is also not a measured amount of fraud or abuse. Treasury applied an average refunded-credit amount across the broader population to its estimated range of affected returns because it lacks direct dollar data for the affected group.

That makes the estimate useful for understanding possible scale. It does not establish how many unauthorized immigrants claimed the credits, how much they received, or how many claims were fraudulent.

There is a genuine compliance problem. GAO reported fiscal year 2024 improper-payment estimates of 10.7% for the Additional Child Tax Credit, 27.7% for the American Opportunity Tax Credit, and 27.3% for the Earned Income Tax Credit. But an “improper payment” may include insufficiently documented or unverifiable amounts; it is not automatically fraud. GAO identified complexity, statutory design, taxpayer misreporting, and preparer oversight as central issues—not immigration status as the single documented cause.

Credit-by-credit: what practitioners need to separate

Earned Income Tax Credit

The EITC is fully refundable, so the proposal could affect the entire allowed credit. But the Code already imposes significant eligibility rules. The taxpayer generally must be a U.S. citizen or resident alien for the full year, and the taxpayer, spouse, and each qualifying child used in the calculation must have qualifying Social Security numbers by the return due date. An ITIN cannot be used to claim the EITC.

PRWORA would add another inquiry. A taxpayer may satisfy the tax-residency and SSN rules yet fail the proposed qualified-alien test. Conversely, having an ITIN says nothing by itself about whether someone is lawfully present; it is a tax-processing number, not an immigration classification.

Child Tax Credit and Additional Child Tax Credit

The proposal affects the refunded layer—the Additional Child Tax Credit—not the nonrefundable Child Tax Credit or the $500 Credit for Other Dependents.

For tax year 2026, the Child Tax Credit can be up to $2,200 per qualifying child, with up to $1,700 potentially refundable. Current law separately requires a work-eligible SSN for the qualifying child and, on a joint return, for at least one spouse. The other spouse may have an SSN or ITIN. The child must also satisfy the Code’s relationship, age, residency, support, dependency, and citizenship-or-residency requirements.

Under the proposal, one spouse on a joint return being a citizen, national, or qualified alien would generally be enough for the PRWORA screen. That means many mixed-status married couples would not be disqualified merely because the spouses have different statuses.

American Opportunity Tax Credit

The AOTC can be worth up to $2,500 per eligible student, with up to $1,000 potentially refundable. Only that refundable portion would be covered by the proposal.

The credit already has filing-status, student, expense, income, and identification-number rules. A nonresident alien is generally barred unless a valid section 6013(g) or (h) election provides resident treatment. Beginning with tax years after 2025, work-eligible SSN requirements also apply.

A section 6013 election can create resident treatment and require a joint return reporting worldwide income. It does not transform the spouse into a PRWORA qualified alien.

Adoption credit

Beginning in tax year 2025, a portion of the adoption credit became refundable. For 2026, up to $5,120 may be refundable. The proposal would deny that refunded portion to a nonqualified-alien claimant while leaving the nonrefundable portion subject to the existing Code rules.

This portion of the proposal deserves particular attention because the 2025 OLC opinion did not specifically analyze the adoption credit. Treasury extends the same reasoning by analogy to adoption-assistance benefits.

Premium Tax Credit

The Premium Tax Credit is not covered by this proposal. Treasury explains that later, credit-specific health-insurance provisions supersede PRWORA for this purpose. The Saver’s Match is also reserved for separate guidance.

Practitioners should resist turning a four-credit proposal into a universal rule for all refundable credits. Tax law already produces enough accidental folklore without our assistance.

The filing date may become outcome-determinative

The proposal would test status on the date the taxpayer first files a return—original, amended, late, or early—claiming a covered credit.

If a taxpayer first claims the credit before obtaining qualifying status, a later amendment after status improves generally would not cure the claim. But if the taxpayer first claims it on an amended return after becoming qualified, the later filing date would control.

That makes filing sequence a substantive eligibility issue, not merely an administrative detail. Practitioners will need contemporaneous documentation of both the tax-identification requirements and the taxpayer’s PRWORA status on the first claim date.

Is the law really “clear”?

The 2025 OLC opinion concludes that the refundable portions of certain credits are federal public benefits under PRWORA. That is serious legal support for Treasury’s proposal.

It is not the whole administrative history. Treasury and the IRS did not treat tax benefits as PRWORA public benefits before 2018. A 2011 IRS position said refundable credits were not federal public benefits, and a 2020 OLC opinion called the newer interpretation a reasonable—not exclusive—reading. The 2025 opinion calls it the best reading after Loper Bright while acknowledging counterarguments.

No court decision identified in the proposal settles the issue. “Supported by a current OLC interpretation” is accurate. “The federal law has always been unambiguous” is harder to square with the government’s own interpretive history.

What practitioners should do now

This is a proposed rule, scheduled for publication in the Federal Register on August 20, 2026. It is not currently effective. The stated applicability date is for tax years ending on or after the date final regulations are published, so the final rule’s timing will matter.

For now:

• Do not assume “noncitizen” means “ineligible.”

• Do not assume an ITIN proves unlawful presence—or that a work-authorized SSN proves PRWORA-qualified status.

• Analyze tax residency, filing status, SSN or ITIN rules, dependent and student requirements, and PRWORA status separately.

• Identify which portion of the credit is refundable and which remains available to offset tax.

• Document status on the date the covered credit is first claimed.

• Watch the final regulations before applying the proposal to an actual return.

The correct headline for the practitioner file is not “noncitizens lose refunds.” It is: “a proposed second status test may limit the refunded portion of four credits, and the details are credit-specific.” Less dramatic, certainly. More useful, absolutely.

Contact us if a noncitizen, mixed-status couple, or international taxpayer needs a careful review of refundable-credit eligibility or filing options under the current rules and the proposal.

We left the IRS. You're welcome.

This article is general educational information and is not legal or tax advice for any particular taxpayer. The regulations discussed are proposed and may change before they become final.