Referred to the House Committee on Ways and Means.
This bill (Protecting Homeowners from Disaster Act of 2025) amends the Internal Revenue Code to repeal the limitation on deductions for personal casualty losses. The repeal applies to losses sustained in taxable years beginning after December 31, 2024.
Disagreement over fiscal cost versus household relief
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill is a focused substantive revision to the Internal Revenue Code with a clear and specific mechanism (striking paragraph (5) of section 165(h)) and a defined effective date.
This bill (Protecting Homeowners from Disaster Act of 2025) amends the Internal Revenue Code to repeal the limitation on deductions for personal casualty losses.
The repeal applies to losses sustained in taxable years beginning after December 31, 2024.
The text simply strikes paragraph (5) of section 165(h) without adding offsets or additional eligibility rules.
Technically simple and constituency-friendly but creates uncompensated revenue loss and lacks compromise features, reducing enactment chances.
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill is a focused substantive revision to the Internal Revenue Code with a clear and specific mechanism (striking paragraph (5) of section 165(h)) and a defined effective date. It lacks ancillary detail on fiscal effects, transitional rules, administrative guidance, and safeguards against edge cases.
Disagreement over fiscal cost versus household relief
These are examples from the analysis, not a ranked list of the most-affected groups.
Disagreement over fiscal cost versus household relief
Likely supportive because it restores tax relief for individuals who suffer casualty losses, aiding recovery after disasters.
Views this as a federal role to help households rebuild and protect vulnerable people from catastrophic financial loss.
Mixed to somewhat supportive: appreciates disaster relief for households but worries about fiscal cost and potential abuse.
Would seek narrow targeting, clear definitions, or budgetary offsets before strong endorsement.
Likely opposed because it expands tax deductions, reducing revenues and increasing federal tax code complexity.
Prefers private insurance, state response, or targeted emergency aid over broad deductions.
Reached or meaningfully advanced
Reached or meaningfully advanced
Still ahead
Still ahead
Still ahead
Technically simple and constituency-friendly but creates uncompensated revenue loss and lacks compromise features, reducing enactment chances.
The bill has not accumulated any surfaced votes yet.
Disagreement over fiscal cost versus household relief
Technically simple and constituency-friendly but creates uncompensated revenue loss and lacks compromise features, reducing enactment chanc…
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill is a focused substantive revision to the Internal Revenue Code with a clear and specific mechanism (striking paragraph (5) of section 165(h)) and a defined effective…
Go beyond the headline summary with full stakeholder mapping, legislative design analysis, passage barriers, and lens-by-lens tradeoff breakdowns.