Referred to the House Committee on Ways and Means.
The bill amends Internal Revenue Code section 56A(c)(13) to ensure intangible drilling and development costs (expenses under section 263(c)) are taken into account when computing adjusted financial statement income. It also adjusts rules about disregarding depreciation and depletion amounts shown on a taxpayer’s applicable financial statement with respect to such costs.
Liberals emphasize climate and revenue harms; conservatives emphasize energy and jobs.
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill is a focused substantive amendment to the Internal Revenue Code that precisely targets the computation of adjusted financial statement income to include intangible drilling and development costs and sets a clear effective date.
The bill amends Internal Revenue Code section 56A(c)(13) to ensure intangible drilling and development costs (expenses under section 263(c)) are taken into account when computing adjusted financial statement income.
It also adjusts rules about disregarding depreciation and depletion amounts shown on a taxpayer’s applicable financial statement with respect to such costs.
The change applies to taxable years beginning after December 31, 2025.
Technically narrow and administrable but reduces revenue, benefits a specific industry, and lacks offsets or sunset.
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill is a focused substantive amendment to the Internal Revenue Code that precisely targets the computation of adjusted financial statement income to include intangible drilling and development costs and sets a clear effective date.
Liberals emphasize climate and revenue harms; conservatives emphasize energy and jobs.
These are examples from the analysis, not a ranked list of the most-affected groups.
Liberals emphasize climate and revenue harms; conservatives emphasize energy and jobs.
Likely views the bill as a tax change that privileges oil and gas companies by expanding deductible treatment of drilling costs.
Sees the measure as a fossil-fuel subsidy that may increase emissions and reduce federal revenue.
Would call for tighter limits, offsets, or rejection on climate and equity grounds.
Views the bill as a targeted tax-code technical change benefiting the oil and gas sector, with plausible economic and administrative effects but uncertain fiscal cost.
Weighs energy security and regional economic concerns against revenue and climate tradeoffs.
Would seek score from CBO and possible offsets or a sunset.
Likely supportive as a pro-energy, pro-business tax correction that boosts domestic oil and gas competitiveness.
Sees the change as reducing tax distortions and supporting jobs and energy security.
Prefers minimal restrictions or offsets that would negate the benefit.
Reached or meaningfully advanced
Reached or meaningfully advanced
Still ahead
Still ahead
Still ahead
Technically narrow and administrable but reduces revenue, benefits a specific industry, and lacks offsets or sunset.
The bill has not accumulated any surfaced votes yet.
Liberals emphasize climate and revenue harms; conservatives emphasize energy and jobs.
Technically narrow and administrable but reduces revenue, benefits a specific industry, and lacks offsets or sunset.
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill is a focused substantive amendment to the Internal Revenue Code that precisely targets the computation of adjusted financial statement income to include intangible dr…
Go beyond the headline summary with full stakeholder mapping, legislative design analysis, passage barriers, and lens-by-lens tradeoff breakdowns.