A Democratic bill with no cosponsors
Last activity — Referred to the House Committee on Ways and Means.
In committee
Introduced and handed to a committee in the chamber it started in.
The committee holds it, and most bills are never heard from again. A hearing or a committee vote would be news; silence is the usual outcome, and it kills the bill without anyone voting against it.
Its path through Congress
- Introduced
- In Committee
What this bill would do
This bill is called the Scams Tax Relief Act. It changes the Internal Revenue Code of 1986. The bill removes the limitation on deductions for theft losses that involve fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation. It also lets taxpayers take these deductions even if they do not itemize their other deductions. These changes apply to losses sustained after the date the act is enacted.
Yes· 3 of 9
- Scored +6
Would people over 65 be better off under this?
Seniors are frequently targeted by fraud and deceit scams and will benefit directly from the expanded tax relief for theft losses.
- Scored +6
Does this cut taxes for middle-income families?
The bill allows taxpayers to deduct theft losses involving fraud without itemizing, which reduces tax burdens for middle-income households affected by scams.
- Scored +5
Would households on low incomes be better off under this?
Low-income households that are scammed can take advantage of the deduction even if they do not itemize their taxes.
The opposite
No question was scored the opposite.
Who it would affect, and how
Potential Positive Impacts for People
-
Section 2(a) removes the limitation on deductions for theft losses involving fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation. This could help everyday people who have been scammed by letting them write off their losses on their taxes.
-
Section 2(b) allows taxpayers to take these theft loss deductions without regard to whether they itemize other deductions. This makes it easier for regular folks to get tax relief without needing a complex list of itemized deductions.
Potential Negative Impacts for People
- The provided text does not contain any specific sections or provisions that outline negative consequences or burdens for individuals or groups of people.
Groups and Interests Ranking
Every group the model scored this bill for, from -10 to +10. Tap or hover a score for the reason it gave.
- Demographic And Interest Groups
- Would people over 65 be better off under this? — Seniors are frequently targeted by fraud and deceit scams and will benefit directly from the expanded tax relief for theft losses. Would households on low incomes be better off under this? — Low-income households that are scammed can take advantage of the deduction even if they do not itemize their taxes. Would middle-income households be better off under this? — Middle-class households benefit from being able to deduct fraud and theft losses regardless of whether they itemize. Would business owners be better off under this? — Business owners affected by deceit or fraud can write off these losses under the updated Internal Revenue Code provisions. Would people in middle age be better off under this? — Middle-aged adults who experience theft or fraud losses will be able to deduct those losses on their taxes. Would people in their twenties and thirties be better off under this? — Young adults who fall victim to scams can utilize the new non-itemized theft loss deduction to offset financial damage.
- Economy And Finance
- Does this cut taxes for middle-income families? — The bill allows taxpayers to deduct theft losses involving fraud without itemizing, which reduces tax burdens for middle-income households affected by scams. Does this cut taxes for small businesses? — Small business owners who fall victim to fraud or deceit can benefit from the removal of limitations on theft loss deductions.
- Social Issues And Justice
- Is this likely to lift people out of poverty? — By allowing tax deductions for major scam and theft losses without itemizing, it helps individuals recover financially from devastating losses.
- 10/22/2026
- Referred to the House Committee on Ways and Means.
- Introduced in House