Referred to the House Committee on Ways and Means.
Amends Internal Revenue Code section 198(h) to update which environmental remediation costs may be expensed. The amendment preserves expensing for costs incurred before January 1, 2025 and for costs incurred after December 31, 2028, with the change effective for expenditures paid or incurred after December 31, 2024.
All personas support cleanup, but disagree on fiscal cost and federal role.
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill is a focused statutory amendment to the Internal Revenue Code intended to modify the temporal applicability of the expensing rule in section 198(h), and it provides a direct amendment and an effective date sufficient to effect a change in law.
Amends Internal Revenue Code section 198(h) to update which environmental remediation costs may be expensed.
The amendment preserves expensing for costs incurred before January 1, 2025 and for costs incurred after December 31, 2028, with the change effective for expenditures paid or incurred after December 31, 2024.
Narrow, low-controversy provision has plausible path if included in a broader tax extenders package; standalone passage less likely, and drafting ambiguity hurts prospects.
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill is a focused statutory amendment to the Internal Revenue Code intended to modify the temporal applicability of the expensing rule in section 198(h), and it provides a direct amendment and an effective date sufficient to effect a change in law.
All personas support cleanup, but disagree on fiscal cost and federal role.
These are examples from the analysis, not a ranked list of the most-affected groups.
All personas support cleanup, but disagree on fiscal cost and federal role.
Generally supportive of tax incentives that speed brownfields cleanup and advance environmental justice, but concerned about the apparent 2025–2028 lapse and lack of targeting.
Would expect stronger protections for affected communities and labor standards.
Views bill as a targeted, pro-development tax incentive that can be useful if fiscally justified.
Concerned about the timing gap, budgetary cost, and need for CBO scoring and clear implementation rules.
Mixed; favors market-based incentives that reduce regulatory barriers and spur redevelopment, but wary of ongoing tax expenditures and expanded federal intervention.
Concerned about fiscal cost and federal overreach into local remediation decisions.
Reached or meaningfully advanced
Reached or meaningfully advanced
Still ahead
Still ahead
Still ahead
Narrow, low-controversy provision has plausible path if included in a broader tax extenders package; standalone passage less likely, and drafting ambiguity hurts prospects.
The bill has not accumulated any surfaced votes yet.
All personas support cleanup, but disagree on fiscal cost and federal role.
Narrow, low-controversy provision has plausible path if included in a broader tax extenders package; standalone passage less likely, and dr…
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill is a focused statutory amendment to the Internal Revenue Code intended to modify the temporal applicability of the expensing rule in section 198(h), and it provides a…
Go beyond the headline summary with full stakeholder mapping, legislative design analysis, passage barriers, and lens-by-lens tradeoff breakdowns.