Referred to the House Committee on Ways and Means.
This bill amends the Internal Revenue Code to raise the adjusted gross income cap for the mortgage insurance premium deduction (appearing to increase the phaseout from $100,000/$50,000 married filing separately to $200,000/$100,000 MFS) and removes the statutory expiration clause to make the deduction permanent. The changes apply to taxable years beginning after December 31, 2025.
Liberals emphasize distributional harms and renter disadvantage.
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill is a concise, narrowly focused substantive tax-law amendment that sets out to raise an income threshold and eliminate a sunset for a mortgage insurance premium deduction.
This bill amends the Internal Revenue Code to raise the adjusted gross income cap for the mortgage insurance premium deduction (appearing to increase the phaseout from $100,000/$50,000 married filing separately to $200,000/$100,000 MFS) and removes the statutory expiration clause to make the deduction permanent.
The changes apply to taxable years beginning after December 31, 2025.
The text removes the clause that previously caused this deduction to expire, and increases the income threshold for eligibility.
Narrow and administrable but imposes revenue costs and lacks offsets; more likely if attached to larger tax or budget legislation.
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill is a concise, narrowly focused substantive tax-law amendment that sets out to raise an income threshold and eliminate a sunset for a mortgage insurance premium deduction. It states its purpose and effective date clearly but contains drafting ambiguities in the amendment language and omits fiscal, transitional, and oversight detail.
Liberals emphasize distributional harms and renter disadvantage.
These are examples from the analysis, not a ranked list of the most-affected groups.
Liberals emphasize distributional harms and renter disadvantage.
Sees the bill as targeted tax relief for homeowners that could help middle-income families with mortgage costs, but would worry it primarily benefits homeowners over renters and may favor higher-income households.
Will want offsets, distributional analysis, and guardrails to prevent regressive effects and housing-price inflation.
Support would be cautious and conditional.
Views the bill as a modest, broadly popular tax change that supports homeownership and simplifies tax planning by making the deduction permanent.
However, concerns about fiscal cost and lack of an official score would prompt requests for offsets or a sunset/review provision.
Support is likely if fiscal impacts are addressed.
Likely favors the bill as pro-homeownership tax relief and a removal of temporary uncertainty in tax law.
Prefers permanent reductions in tax burdens and sees benefits to middle-class families and housing markets.
Some conservatives will nonetheless want attention to fiscal responsibility and prefer offsetting provisions if costs are large.
Reached or meaningfully advanced
Reached or meaningfully advanced
Still ahead
Still ahead
Still ahead
Narrow and administrable but imposes revenue costs and lacks offsets; more likely if attached to larger tax or budget legislation.
The bill has not accumulated any surfaced votes yet.
Liberals emphasize distributional harms and renter disadvantage.
Narrow and administrable but imposes revenue costs and lacks offsets; more likely if attached to larger tax or budget legislation.
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill is a concise, narrowly focused substantive tax-law amendment that sets out to raise an income threshold and eliminate a sunset for a mortgage insurance premium deduct…
Go beyond the headline summary with full stakeholder mapping, legislative design analysis, passage barriers, and lens-by-lens tradeoff breakdowns.