Comment from Stinauer, Alex
Alex StinauerOpposeIndividual
Summary: An individual is opposing the proposed remittance transfer tax because it disproportionately affects U.S. military personnel stationed in areas with limited banking infrastructure. They argue that service members are forced to use cash and money orders for necessary expenses and request an explicit exemption for military personnel or transactions in areas without electronic payment access.
Comment on Proposed Remittance Transfer Tax Regulations (Section 4475)
I respectfully oppose the proposed remittance transfer tax under section 4475 due to its disproportionate impact on U.S. military personnel and their families stationed overseas.
Service members frequently operate in environments with limited or unreliable access to banking infrastructure. In many duty locations, cash, money orders, and similar physical instruments are not optional—they are necessary to pay for housing, support dependents, and complete routine transactions where electronic payments are not accepted or feasible.
By imposing a 1 percent tax specifically on these methods, the rule effectively penalizes service members for conditions dictated by their assignments, not personal choice. The exemption for transfers funded by U.S.-issued debit or credit cards does not adequately address this issue, as such options are often unavailable or impractical in these environments.
I urge the Treasury Department and the IRS to revise the rule to include an explicit exemption for U.S. military personnel and their families overseas, or for transactions conducted in areas without reasonable access to electronic payment systems.
Without such relief, the tax imposes an unnecessary and inequitable financial burden on those serving abroad.
Thank you for your consideration.