Read twice and referred to the Committee on Finance.
The bill strikes paragraph (5) of section 165(h) of the Internal Revenue Code, effectively reinstating the personal casualty loss deduction as it existed before Public Law 115–97. The change is effective for taxable years beginning after December 31, 2017.
Liberals emphasize victim relief and retroactive fairness versus conservative fiscal concerns.
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill is a straightforward, legally specific amendment to the Internal Revenue Code that reinstates the personal casualty loss deduction and establishes an extended filing window for related refund claims.
The bill strikes paragraph (5) of section 165(h) of the Internal Revenue Code, effectively reinstating the personal casualty loss deduction as it existed before Public Law 115–97.
The change is effective for taxable years beginning after December 31, 2017.
It also extends the time to file claims for credit or refund for taxpayers who filed returns before January 1, 2025, permitting refund claims tied to the reinstated personal casualty loss deduction and waiving certain claim limitations, limited only to those casualty-loss-related claims.
Relatively narrow, sympathetic relief but retroactivity and revenue impact reduce chances absent offsets and clear bipartisan support.
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill is a straightforward, legally specific amendment to the Internal Revenue Code that reinstates the personal casualty loss deduction and establishes an extended filing window for related refund claims. The statutory edits and effective dates are clearly specified.
Liberals emphasize victim relief and retroactive fairness versus conservative fiscal concerns.
These are examples from the analysis, not a ranked list of the most-affected groups.
Liberals emphasize victim relief and retroactive fairness versus conservative fiscal concerns.
Likely supportive because the bill restores tax relief for people who suffer losses from crimes, scams, and disasters.
The retroactive effective date and extended refund window are seen as correcting an unfair gap created in 2017 that left many victims without tax relief.
Cautious support: the bill addresses a real gap affecting victims but raises fiscal and administrative concerns.
Would favor targeted guardrails, fiscal offsets, or limits to control cost and complexity.
Likely opposed or skeptical: sympathizes with victims but objects to broad tax-law expansion, retroactive liability, and potential fiscal cost.
Prefers targeted appropriations or state-level solutions instead of reopening a federal deduction.
Reached or meaningfully advanced
Reached or meaningfully advanced
Still ahead
Still ahead
Still ahead
Relatively narrow, sympathetic relief but retroactivity and revenue impact reduce chances absent offsets and clear bipartisan support.
The bill has not accumulated any surfaced votes yet.
Liberals emphasize victim relief and retroactive fairness versus conservative fiscal concerns.
Relatively narrow, sympathetic relief but retroactivity and revenue impact reduce chances absent offsets and clear bipartisan support.
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill is a straightforward, legally specific amendment to the Internal Revenue Code that reinstates the personal casualty loss deduction and establishes an extended filing…
Go beyond the headline summary with full stakeholder mapping, legislative design analysis, passage barriers, and lens-by-lens tradeoff breakdowns.