A Republican bill with 10 Republican cosponsors · See all 10 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, titled the "No Tax on Takings Act," proposes an amendment to the Internal Revenue Code of 1986. It aims to exclude gain from gross income when property located in the United States is converted due to the exercise of eminent domain. This exclusion also covers property sold or exchanged under the threat or imminence of eminent domain. The act specifies that Section 1033 will not apply to these specific conversions. Taxpayers have the option to elect not to use this exclusion. These changes would apply to conversions in taxable years ending after the Act is enacted.
Yes· 3 of 12
- Scored +5
Does this cut the tax on profits from selling investments?
The bill effectively reduces the tax burden on capital gains realized through property conversion via eminent domain.
- Scored +4
Would farmers be better off under this?
Farmers whose land is frequently subject to eminent domain for infrastructure will see improved financial outcomes.
- Scored +3
Would high-income households be better off under this?
High-income property owners can utilize this exclusion to mitigate significant tax liabilities from eminent domain.
The opposite
- Scored -1
Does this reduce what the federal government owes?
By excluding certain gains from gross income, the bill may slightly reduce federal tax revenue.
Who it would affect, and how
Potential Positive Impacts for People
-
Tax Exclusion on Property Conversion: Gross income would not include gains from the conversion of property in the U.S. due to eminent domain, including property sold or exchanged under the threat of such action (Section 2(a)). This could benefit property owners by preventing them from paying taxes on gains resulting from the government's exercise of eminent domain.
-
Flexibility for Taxpayers: Taxpayers have the choice to elect not to claim the exclusion (Section 2(a)(c)). This provides individuals with control over whether they want to apply this specific rule to their conversion.
Potential Negative Impacts for People
- No specific negative impacts are explicitly detailed in the text provided.
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 farmers be better off under this? — Farmers whose land is frequently subject to eminent domain for infrastructure will see improved financial outcomes. Would billionaires be better off under this? — Extremely wealthy individuals with significant real estate holdings benefit from the reduction in capital gains taxation. Would business owners be better off under this? — Business owners whose land is taken by the government will see improved net returns. Would high-income households be better off under this? — High-income property owners can utilize this exclusion to mitigate significant tax liabilities from eminent domain. Would people with substantial wealth be better off under this? — The bill offers a substantial tax advantage for wealthy individuals with property subject to eminent domain. Would people in rural areas be better off under this? — Rural residents with large land holdings are more likely to encounter eminent domain and benefit from this tax relief. Would the very wealthiest people be better off under this? — Large property holdings subject to eminent domain will benefit from the exclusion of gains. Would middle-income households be better off under this? — The tax exclusion may provide significant financial relief to middle-class property owners.
- Economy And Finance
- Does this cut the tax on profits from selling investments? — The bill effectively reduces the tax burden on capital gains realized through property conversion via eminent domain. Does this make it easier to run a small business? — Small business owners whose property is taken by eminent domain will receive greater after-tax value. Does this cut taxes for middle-income families? — The bill provides tax relief for property owners facing eminent domain, which may benefit middle-class property owners. Does this cut taxes for small businesses? — Property owners operating small businesses may benefit from the exclusion of gains from gross income due to eminent domain. Does this reduce what the federal government owes? — By excluding certain gains from gross income, the bill may slightly reduce federal tax revenue.
- 9/2/2026
- 1 Cosponsor added.
- 7/14/2026
- 1 Cosponsor added.
- 4/15/2026
- 1 Cosponsor added.
- 4/6/2026
- 2 Cosponsors added.
- 3/4/2026
- 1 Cosponsor added.
- 2/25/2026
- Referred to the House Committee on Ways and Means.
- 4 Cosponsors added.
- Introduced in House
Sheri BiggsRepublican · South Carolina
James ComerRepublican · Kentucky
Charles FleischmannRepublican · Tennessee
Craig GoldmanRepublican · Texas
Jeff HurdRepublican · Colorado
Tracey MannRepublican · Kansas
Barry MooreRepublican · Alabama
Andrew OglesRepublican · Tennessee
Scott PerryRepublican · Pennsylvania
Michael RulliRepublican · Ohio