Referred to the House Committee on Ways and Means.
The bill amends Internal Revenue Code section 139 to exclude from gross income amounts paid to property owners under state-based catastrophe loss mitigation programs. Qualified payments are those used solely to reduce windstorm, earthquake, or wildfire damage, made by state entities or state-regulated entities.
Progressives emphasize equity and renter exclusion concerns
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill clearly creates a targeted modification to the Internal Revenue Code to exclude State-based catastrophe mitigation payments from gross income and includes basic statutory drafting (new subsection, definition, conforming amendments, effective date, and retroactivity authority).
The bill amends Internal Revenue Code section 139 to exclude from gross income amounts paid to property owners under state-based catastrophe loss mitigation programs.
Qualified payments are those used solely to reduce windstorm, earthquake, or wildfire damage, made by state entities or state-regulated entities.
The exclusion does not increase the property's tax basis and applies retroactively for taxable years after December 31, 2020, with allowance for amended returns.
Administrable, narrow, and bipartisan-ready, but revenue loss and need for broader Senate agreement limit chances unless bundled into larger package.
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill clearly creates a targeted modification to the Internal Revenue Code to exclude State-based catastrophe mitigation payments from gross income and includes basic statutory drafting (new subsection, definition, conforming amendments, effective date, and retroactivity authority).
Progressives emphasize equity and renter exclusion concerns
These are examples from the analysis, not a ranked list of the most-affected groups.
Progressives emphasize equity and renter exclusion concerns
Likely supportive of incentives that reduce disaster harm and protect vulnerable communities, while noting equity and targeting gaps.
Would want assurance that benefits reach low-income and marginalized homeowners, and that renters and uninsured households are not left out.
Generally favorable as a pragmatic, limited tax exclusion to encourage mitigation and reduce disaster costs, but wants cost estimates and administrative safeguards.
Sees value in state flexibility but seeks transparency and anti-fraud measures.
Cautiously supportive because it empowers state programs and promotes private property protection, but concerned about any federal tax expenditure and potential benefits to higher-income property owners.
Prefers minimal federal intrusion and fiscal restraint.
Reached or meaningfully advanced
Reached or meaningfully advanced
Still ahead
Still ahead
Still ahead
Administrable, narrow, and bipartisan-ready, but revenue loss and need for broader Senate agreement limit chances unless bundled into larger package.
The bill has not accumulated any surfaced votes yet.
Progressives emphasize equity and renter exclusion concerns
Administrable, narrow, and bipartisan-ready, but revenue loss and need for broader Senate agreement limit chances unless bundled into large…
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill clearly creates a targeted modification to the Internal Revenue Code to exclude State-based catastrophe mitigation payments from gross income and includes basic statu…
Go beyond the headline summary with full stakeholder mapping, legislative design analysis, passage barriers, and lens-by-lens tradeoff breakdowns.