Referred to the House Committee on Ways and Means.
This bill restores the pre-2018 tax deduction for personal casualty losses by removing the statutory suspension in section 165(h). It applies retroactively to taxable years beginning after December 31, 2017.
Progressives emphasize direct relief to victims; conservatives emphasize fiscal cost.
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill is a narrowly framed statutory amendment that clearly and directly accomplishes its principal objective: removing the suspension of the personal casualty loss deduction and permitting affected taxpayers to file refund claims for prior years.
This bill restores the pre-2018 tax deduction for personal casualty losses by removing the statutory suspension in section 165(h).
It applies retroactively to taxable years beginning after December 31, 2017.
The bill also extends the limitations period so taxpayers who previously filed returns may file claims for credits or refunds tied to the restored personal casualty loss deduction.
Narrow, sympathetic policy but creates retroactive fiscal liability and lacks offsets; success depends on committee prioritization and Senate bargaining.
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill is a narrowly framed statutory amendment that clearly and directly accomplishes its principal objective: removing the suspension of the personal casualty loss deduction and permitting affected taxpayers to file refund claims for prior years. The primary operative text is precise and integrates with specific Internal Revenue Code provisions.
Progressives emphasize direct relief to victims; conservatives emphasize fiscal cost.
These are examples from the analysis, not a ranked list of the most-affected groups.
Progressives emphasize direct relief to victims; conservatives emphasize fiscal cost.
Likely broadly supportive because it restores tax relief for individuals harmed by crimes, scams, or non‑declared disasters.
Sees this as targeted relief for vulnerable taxpayers who suffered economic losses and had no deduction since TCJA.
Concerned about fiscal cost and whether benefits disproportionately help higher‑income filers; may seek safeguards for low‑income claimants.
Cautiously favorable: the bill delivers relief to genuine victims but raises fiscal and administrative questions.
Would weigh benefits to affected taxpayers against revenue impact and IRS workload.
Likely to support with offsets, clear implementation rules, or limits to control costs and abuse.
Mixed to skeptical: supports targeted relief for genuine victims but opposes broad reinstatement that increases deductions and retroactive refunds.
Prefers limited, administrable disaster relief and lower long‑term revenue loss.
Concerned about retroactivity, complexity, and potential for expanded tax complexity.
Reached or meaningfully advanced
Reached or meaningfully advanced
Still ahead
Still ahead
Still ahead
Narrow, sympathetic policy but creates retroactive fiscal liability and lacks offsets; success depends on committee prioritization and Senate bargaining.
The bill has not accumulated any surfaced votes yet.
Progressives emphasize direct relief to victims; conservatives emphasize fiscal cost.
Narrow, sympathetic policy but creates retroactive fiscal liability and lacks offsets; success depends on committee prioritization and Sena…
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill is a narrowly framed statutory amendment that clearly and directly accomplishes its principal objective: removing the suspension of the personal casualty loss deducti…
Go beyond the headline summary with full stakeholder mapping, legislative design analysis, passage barriers, and lens-by-lens tradeoff breakdowns.