Referred to the House Committee on Ways and Means.
This bill would add a new Internal Revenue Code section (139M) that excludes “qualified wildfire relief payments” received by individuals from gross income.
Qualified wildfire relief payments are defined as amounts paid to compensate uncompensated losses, expenses, or damages (including additional living expenses, lost wages except employer-paid wages that otherwise would have been paid, personal injury, death, or emotional distress) resulting from a federally declared forest or range fire declared after December 31, 2014.
The provision disallows a duplicate tax benefit (no deduction, credit, or basis increase for amounts excluded) and terminates for amounts received after December 31, 2032.
On content alone, the bill is a narrowly tailored, administrable tax exclusion for wildfire relief with built-in limits (sunset, anti-double-dipping), increasing its chances relative to broad, costly overhauls. However, it still creates a tax expenditure that requires revenue scoring/offsets and faces procedural barriers—especially in the Senate—unless attached to a larger, must-pass or broadly bipartisan bill.
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill is a clear, narrowly focused amendment to the Internal Revenue Code that adds a defined tax exclusion for wildfire-related compensation and includes basic statutory safeguards (e.g., denial of double benefit and a termination date). It integrates cleanly with existing law but omits statutory fiscal disclosure and explicit administrative or reporting directions.
Degree of support: all three personas are broadly supportive, but the progressive expects broader equity and permanence while conservatives emphasize fiscal restraint and fraud prevention.
Degree of support: all three personas are broadly supportive, but the progressive expects broader equity and permanence while conservatives emphasize fiscal restraint and fraud prevention.
A mainstream progressive is likely to view this bill positively as targeted tax relief for individuals harmed by wildfires, because it helps victims keep disaster compensation tax-free and covers a range of harms (including emotional distress and additional living expenses).
They would appreciate the limitation that only uncompensated losses are excluded (so it targets gaps in insurance coverage), but may want stronger safeguards for low-income and marginalized communities that are disproportionately affected by wildfires.
They may also be concerned the provision is temporary and that it does not address underlying prevention, adaptation, or broader climate-driven disaster assistance needs.
A moderate/centrist would generally view this as a narrowly targeted, pragmatic tax relief measure for disaster victims that avoids duplicative federal benefits.
They would like additional fiscal information (CBO score) and would evaluate the bill for clarity and administrative feasibility.
They are likely to like the federal-declaration limitation as a way to constrain scope, but may seek tweaks to prevent unintended consequences and to make the policy fiscally responsible.
A mainstream conservative is likely to view the bill as acceptable targeted tax relief for disaster victims, particularly because it is limited to federally declared wildfire disasters and includes anti-double-benefit measures.
They may be concerned about the revenue impact and generally prefer more limited or temporary federal interventions, but could support the bill as a compassionate, narrow carve-out.
Some conservatives might press for stricter limits or clearer rules to prevent fraud and to ensure it does not expand federal entitlements.
Reached or meaningfully advanced
Reached or meaningfully advanced
Still ahead
Still ahead
Still ahead
On content alone, the bill is a narrowly tailored, administrable tax exclusion for wildfire relief with built-in limits (sunset, anti-double-dipping), increasing its chances relative to broad, costly overhauls. However, it still creates a tax expenditure that requires revenue scoring/offsets and faces procedural barriers—especially in the Senate—unless attached to a larger, must-pass or broadly bipartisan bill.
The bill has not accumulated any surfaced votes yet.
Degree of support: all three personas are broadly supportive, but the progressive expects broader equity and permanence while conservatives…
On content alone, the bill is a narrowly tailored, administrable tax exclusion for wildfire relief with built-in limits (sunset, anti-doubl…
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill is a clear, narrowly focused amendment to the Internal Revenue Code that adds a defined tax exclusion for wildfire-related compensation and includes basic statutory s…
Go beyond the headline summary with full stakeholder mapping, legislative design analysis, passage barriers, and lens-by-lens tradeoff breakdowns.