Read twice and referred to the Committee on Finance.
Amends Internal Revenue Code section 139 to exclude from gross income payments made under State-based catastrophe loss mitigation programs. Qualified payments are amounts paid to property owners to make improvements solely to reduce damage from windstorms, earthquakes, floods, or wildfires.
Equity: liberals worry it favors wealthier homeowners; conservatives emphasize property-owner benefits
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill is a straightforward substantive amendment to the Internal Revenue Code that inserts a new exclusion for State-based catastrophe mitigation payments into §139 and makes necessary conforming text changes and an effective-date rule including retroactive filing allowance.
Amends Internal Revenue Code section 139 to exclude from gross income payments made under State-based catastrophe loss mitigation programs.
Qualified payments are amounts paid to property owners to make improvements solely to reduce damage from windstorms, earthquakes, floods, or wildfires.
The exclusion applies to programs established by States, political subdivisions, joint powers authorities, or certain state-created insurance-market entities; it applies to tax years beginning after December 31, 2021, and allows amended returns.
Narrow, administrable tax exclusion with cross‑cutting disaster resilience appeal, but revenue impact and Senate procedure add friction.
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill is a straightforward substantive amendment to the Internal Revenue Code that inserts a new exclusion for State-based catastrophe mitigation payments into §139 and makes necessary conforming text changes and an effective-date rule including retroactive filing allowance.
Equity: liberals worry it favors wealthier homeowners; conservatives emphasize property-owner benefits
These are examples from the analysis, not a ranked list of the most-affected groups.
Equity: liberals worry it favors wealthier homeowners; conservatives emphasize property-owner benefits
Generally supportive of incentives for disaster resilience and climate adaptation, but concerned about equity and distribution.
Would want protections to ensure low-income and renter households benefit and to avoid regressive tax advantages to wealthier property owners.
Cautiously favorable: it incentivizes mitigation and respects state control, but needs clearer cost estimates and administrative standards.
Supports pragmatic fixes like guidance and safeguards before wide rollout.
Likely supportive because it incentivizes private property protections, emphasizes state-led programs, and reduces future federal disaster costs.
May still seek limits to avoid expanding tax-code preferences unnecessarily.
Reached or meaningfully advanced
Reached or meaningfully advanced
Still ahead
Still ahead
Still ahead
Narrow, administrable tax exclusion with cross‑cutting disaster resilience appeal, but revenue impact and Senate procedure add friction.
The bill has not accumulated any surfaced votes yet.
Equity: liberals worry it favors wealthier homeowners; conservatives emphasize property-owner benefits
Narrow, administrable tax exclusion with cross‑cutting disaster resilience appeal, but revenue impact and Senate procedure add friction.
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill is a straightforward substantive amendment to the Internal Revenue Code that inserts a new exclusion for State-based catastrophe mitigation payments into §139 and mak…
Go beyond the headline summary with full stakeholder mapping, legislative design analysis, passage barriers, and lens-by-lens tradeoff breakdowns.