The New Plan to End Surprise Taxes on Social Security Back Pay: What to Know

(Image credit: Getty Images)

Taxes on Social Security benefits have been controversial for decades. Many retirees understandably argue that they already paid into the system and so should not face taxes on their Social Security checks at all.

That argument is now back in the spotlight, raising new questions about fairness — especially when those taxes kick in under technical rules.

The issue traces back to the Social Security Fairness Act (SSFA), signed into law by former President Joe Biden early last year. As Kiplinger reported, the law repealed provisions that had reduced or wiped out benefits for millions of public-sector workers whose careers included jobs not covered by Social Security taxes.

From just $107.88 $24.99 for Kiplinger Personal Finance

Become a smarter, better informed investor. Subscribe from just ~~$107.88~~ $24.99, plus get up to 4 Special Issues

CLICK FOR FREE ISSUE

https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/flexiimages/y99mlvgqmn1763972420.png

Sign up for Kiplinger’s Free Newsletters

Profit and prosper with the best of expert advice on investing, taxes, retirement, personal finance and more - straight to your e-mail.

Profit and prosper with the best of expert advice - straight to your e-mail.

The wrinkle? While the repeal led to long-awaited lump-sum payments for many retirees, it also brought an unintended twist: higher-than-expected tax bills for the very people the SSFA was meant to help.

A potential solution? Enter the No Tax on Restored Benefits Act. The bipartisan proposal wouldn’t end taxes on Social Security benefits altogether. But supporters say it would finally fix the unintended tax hit for retirees who are only now receiving benefits they earned years ago.

Here's more of what you need to know.

Enacted on January 5, 2025, the Social Security Fairness Act repealed two provisions that had long reduced or eliminated Social Security benefits for public-sector workers. whose jobs weren’t covered by Social Security taxes. Those are the Windfall Elimination Provision (WEP) and the Government Pension Offset (GPO).

Because the repeal was made retroactive to Jan. 1, 2024, the Social Security Administration (SSA) recalculated benefits and began issuing one-time lump-sum retroactive payments in 2025. The SSA sent payments to people whose checks had been reduced in years past.

In many cases, that resulted in large lump-sum payments issued in 2025, representing benefits that should have been paid gradually over many prior years.

Here’s where the tax problem comes in. Under current IRS rules, Social Security benefits, including retroactive payments, are taxable in the year they are received.

That means a retiree who got a large catch-up payment in 2025 must include it as income on their 2025 federal tax return (filing now in tax season 2026), even though the money reflects benefits earned over a much longer period.
For some retirees, that one-time spike can push them into a higher federal income tax bracket, increase the share of Social Security subject to tax, or trigger higher Medicare premiums down the line — perhaps without any real change in their underlying financial situation.

What the No Tax on Restored Benefits Act would (and wouldn’t) do

To address that issue, Rep. Lance Gooden (R-Texas) introduced the No Tax on Restored Benefits Act in early February. The bill would amend the tax code to exclude retroactive Social Security payments tied specifically to the repeal of WEP and GPO from federal taxable income.

In a release announcing the legislation, Gooden framed the change as a correction, not a giveaway, saying:

“Our public-sector retirees worked their whole lives to serve and improve our communities. The No Tax on Restored Benefits Act guarantees that they keep every dollar of the benefits they have rightfully earned.”

Democratic lawmakers backing the bill agree that the tax outcome was never intended when Congress moved to restore benefits.

Rep. Chellie Pingree (D-Maine), a cosponsor, said in a statement that the Social Security Fairness Act was meant to correct benefit inequities, not create new financial stress for retirees.

“The Social Security Fairness Act was never intended to saddle widows, low-income seniors, and dedicated public servants with an unexpected tax bill,” Pingree said, adding that the new proposal “fairly addresses the problem that arose.”

Some advocacy groups, including the Texas Retired Teachers Association, the International Association of Chiefs of Police, the National Association of Police Organizations, and the National Fraternal Order of Police, have reportedly echoed that concern.

A major timing issue is that some retirees are discovering the tax impact only when they sit down to file this tax season. That, as some policymakers note, is long after the lump-sum payment has likely already been spent on routine living costs.

But it's important to appreciate that the proposal is intentionally narrow. For example, it doesn't change how Social Security benefits are taxed overall, change benefit formulas, or affect Social Security trust fund operations.

Instead, the bill focuses on the timing mismatch created when years of underpaid benefits arrive all at once.

So, essentially, if passed, the legislation would:

Exclude from taxable income retroactive WEP- and GPO-related payments some retirees received in 2025
Apply to the 2025 tax year (returns being filed now during the 2026 tax season)
Not change the current Social Security tax rules for ongoing monthly benefits

That distinction matters because proposals to eliminate taxes on Social Security have been circulating for years. (Despite some assertions to the contrary regarding the 2025 Trump/GOP tax and spending bill, the elimination of taxes on Social Security entirely is a separate and larger policy debate that remains politically contentious and unresolved.)

Who would be impacted?

The legislation would primarily affect retirees who received retroactive Social Security payments in 2025 because their benefits were recalculated after the repeal of WEP and GPO.

That group includes:

Teachers and school administrators
Firefighters and police officers
Certain federal civil service retirees
Workers with employment histories tied to non-covered or foreign social security systems

As of July of last year, the Social Security Administration (SSA) reported having sent more than 3 million payments totalling $17 billion to eligible recipients.

For now, affected taxpayers must follow existing IRS rules and report retroactive payments as income on their 2025 returns. The bill has been introduced and referred to the U.S. House Ways and Means Committee.

If the proposal becomes law, it could allow affected retirees to reduce their 2025 taxable income. (Though the exact rules and guidance for that would have to come through IRS implementation.)

But remember: Whatever happens, this proposal doesn’t change how Social Security is taxed in general. Up to 85% of your benefits can be subject to federal income tax, depending on your income, and some states still tax Social Security.

But…for retirees caught in the middle of a major policy fix and a longstanding tax rule, it could mean the difference between a restored benefit and a surprise bill from the IRS.

Kelley R. Taylor is the senior tax editor at Kiplinger.com, where she breaks down federal and state tax rules and news to help readers navigate their finances with confidence. A corporate attorney and business journalist with more than 20 years of experience, Kelley has helped taxpayers make sense of shifting U.S. tax law and policy from the Affordable Care Act (ACA) and the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (TCJA), to SECURE 2.0, the Inflation Reduction Act, and most recently, the 2025 “Big, Beautiful Bill.” She has covered issues ranging from partnerships, carried interest, compensation and benefits, and tax‑exempt organizations to RMDs, capital gains taxes, and energy tax credits. Her award‑winning work has been featured in numerous national and specialty publications.