Read twice and referred to the Committee on Finance.
This bill amends the Internal Revenue Code to treat notes, bonds, debentures, and other indebtedness held by certain defined "applicable insurance companies" as non-capital assets. It also extends the allowed carryover period for capital losses incurred by those applicable insurance companies from five taxable years to ten.
Progressives emphasize revenue loss and corporate preference concerns.
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill is a targeted statutory amendment to the Internal Revenue Code that clearly identifies specific sections to change and sets effective dates, but it provides minimal policy framing, contains some awkward drafting that could create interpretive uncertainty, and omits fiscal, anti‑abuse, and accountability scaffolding.
This bill amends the Internal Revenue Code to treat notes, bonds, debentures, and other indebtedness held by certain defined "applicable insurance companies" as non-capital assets.
It also extends the allowed carryover period for capital losses incurred by those applicable insurance companies from five taxable years to ten.
The bill defines which insurance companies qualify and excludes certain types (e.g., specified electing companies, certain foreign insurers, and organizations under section 833).
Narrow, technical bill with potential revenue effects; plausible if folded into larger tax or industry package, weak as standalone legislation.
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill is a targeted statutory amendment to the Internal Revenue Code that clearly identifies specific sections to change and sets effective dates, but it provides minimal policy framing, contains some awkward drafting that could create interpretive uncertainty, and omits fiscal, anti‑abuse, and accountability scaffolding.
Progressives emphasize revenue loss and corporate preference concerns.
These are examples from the analysis, not a ranked list of the most-affected groups.
Progressives emphasize revenue loss and corporate preference concerns.
Likely skeptical; views the bill as creating a tax preference for insurance companies.
Concern will focus on reducing corporate tax burdens and potential regressive impacts without clear offsets.
Cautiously open but wants details; sees technical tax alignment potential but worries about fiscal cost and unintended consequences.
Would weigh actuarial and market stability benefits against budgetary impact.
Generally supportive; sees the bill as pro-business tax reform that reduces mismatches and supports the insurance sector's financial stability.
Prefers limited, sector-targeted tax relief.
Reached or meaningfully advanced
Reached or meaningfully advanced
Still ahead
Still ahead
Still ahead
Narrow, technical bill with potential revenue effects; plausible if folded into larger tax or industry package, weak as standalone legislation.
The bill has not accumulated any surfaced votes yet.
Progressives emphasize revenue loss and corporate preference concerns.
Narrow, technical bill with potential revenue effects; plausible if folded into larger tax or industry package, weak as standalone legislat…
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill is a targeted statutory amendment to the Internal Revenue Code that clearly identifies specific sections to change and sets effective dates, but it provides minimal p…
Go beyond the headline summary with full stakeholder mapping, legislative design analysis, passage barriers, and lens-by-lens tradeoff breakdowns.