Read twice and referred to the Committee on Finance.
This bill amends Internal Revenue Code section 56A(c)(13) to allow intangible drilling and development costs (expenses under section 263(c)) to be taken into account when computing adjusted financial statement income, and requires disregarding certain depletion and depreciation amounts on the taxpayer's applicable financial statement. The change applies to taxable years beginning after December 31, 2025.
Progressives see a fossil-fuel subsidy; conservatives see energy-supporting tax correction.
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill is a narrowly tailored substantive amendment to the Internal Revenue Code that is specific and well-integrated into the existing statutory framework but omits fiscal acknowledgment, oversight, and explicit treatment of edge cases.
This bill amends Internal Revenue Code section 56A(c)(13) to allow intangible drilling and development costs (expenses under section 263(c)) to be taken into account when computing adjusted financial statement income, and requires disregarding certain depletion and depreciation amounts on the taxpayer's applicable financial statement.
The change applies to taxable years beginning after December 31, 2025.
Narrow, technical pro‑energy tax change has supporters but lacks offsets and broad bipartisan appeal; easier if bundled into larger tax/energy legislation.
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill is a narrowly tailored substantive amendment to the Internal Revenue Code that is specific and well-integrated into the existing statutory framework but omits fiscal acknowledgment, oversight, and explicit treatment of edge cases.
Progressives see a fossil-fuel subsidy; conservatives see energy-supporting tax correction.
These are examples from the analysis, not a ranked list of the most-affected groups.
Progressives see a fossil-fuel subsidy; conservatives see energy-supporting tax correction.
Likely viewed as a targeted tax change that benefits oil and gas producers by letting them count drilling costs for adjusted financial statement income.
Viewed skeptically because it appears to ease tax treatment for fossil-fuel activities without offsets or climate safeguards.
Sees a narrow technical tax change aimed at the energy sector that could improve investment incentives, but wants clarity on revenue effects and broader policy tradeoffs.
Would seek fiscal offsets or time-limited scope before firm support.
Likely supportive as it reduces tax burdens on domestic energy producers and encourages domestic production.
Views the change as correcting an unfavorable tax/book mismatch and promoting energy independence.
Reached or meaningfully advanced
Reached or meaningfully advanced
Still ahead
Still ahead
Still ahead
Narrow, technical pro‑energy tax change has supporters but lacks offsets and broad bipartisan appeal; easier if bundled into larger tax/energy legislation.
The bill has not accumulated any surfaced votes yet.
Progressives see a fossil-fuel subsidy; conservatives see energy-supporting tax correction.
Narrow, technical pro‑energy tax change has supporters but lacks offsets and broad bipartisan appeal; easier if bundled into larger tax/ene…
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill is a narrowly tailored substantive amendment to the Internal Revenue Code that is specific and well-integrated into the existing statutory framework but omits fiscal…
Go beyond the headline summary with full stakeholder mapping, legislative design analysis, passage barriers, and lens-by-lens tradeoff breakdowns.