A Democratic bill with 4 Democratic cosponsors · See all 4 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, known as the "Stop Subsidizing Private Jets of 2026," aims to change the Internal Revenue Code of 1986. It seeks to prevent people from claiming deductions for certain costs related to private planes. The bill targets expenses used to purchase, maintain, or operate fixed-wing aircraft. However, certain types of aircraft and specific business services are excluded from these restrictions. The changes would take effect for amounts paid or incurred after December 31, 2025.
Yes· 3 of 8
- Scored +7
Does this raise taxes on the highest earners?
The bill increases taxes on high earners by disallowing deductions for the purchase, maintenance, and operation of fixed-wing aircraft.
- Scored +5
Does this raise the taxes companies pay?
The bill effectively increases taxes on corporations that use private jets for purposes not listed in the exemptions.
- Scored +5
Would farmers be better off under this?
The bill explicitly exempts aircraft used for agricultural purposes.
The opposite
- Scored -8
Would people with substantial wealth be better off under this?
Wealthy individuals will lose the ability to deduct aircraft purchase and maintenance expenses.
- Scored -7
Would high-income households be better off under this?
High-income households that use private aircraft will lose significant tax deductions.
- Scored -4
Would business owners be better off under this?
Business owners using private jets for non-exempt purposes will face higher costs due to lost deductions.
Who it would affect, and how
Potential Positive Impacts for People
-
Protection for specific industries: The bill does not apply to aircraft used to transport property, or those modified for agriculture, firefighting, or emergency medical purposes (Section 2(a)(2)(A)). This ensures that essential services can continue without losing their tax deductions.
-
Support for specialized aviation businesses: Businesses providing aeronautics instruction, skydiving services, scheduled air transportation available to the public, or sightseeing flights are exempt (Section 2(a)(2)(B)). This allows these specific service providers to continue their current tax treatment.
Potential Negative Impacts for People
-
Loss of tax deductions for aircraft owners: The bill would disallow deductions for amounts paid to purchase, maintain, or operate fixed-wing aircraft (Section 2(a)(2)). This could create a financial burden for individuals or businesses that use private planes for purposes not listed in the exceptions.
-
Removal of depreciation benefits: The bill specifically includes the disallowance of any deduction for depreciation or amortization of these aircraft (Section 2(a)(2)). This means owners would no longer be able to write off the decreasing value of their aircraft over time.
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.
- Economy And Finance
- Does this raise taxes on the highest earners? — The bill increases taxes on high earners by disallowing deductions for the purchase, maintenance, and operation of fixed-wing aircraft. Does this raise the taxes companies pay? — The bill effectively increases taxes on corporations that use private jets for purposes not listed in the exemptions. Does this make the government pay for what it commits to? — The bill increases federal revenue by eliminating certain tax deductions. Does this reduce what the federal government owes? — By eliminating deductions, the bill increases federal revenue which can help reduce the deficit.
- Demographic And Interest Groups
- Would farmers be better off under this? — The bill explicitly exempts aircraft used for agricultural purposes. Would households on low incomes be better off under this? — The removal of subsidies for luxury private jet use may indirectly benefit low-income households through increased federal revenue. Would middle-income households be better off under this? — The bill targets luxury expenditures rather than middle-class economic activity. Would people with substantial wealth be better off under this? — Wealthy individuals will lose the ability to deduct aircraft purchase and maintenance expenses. Would high-income households be better off under this? — High-income households that use private aircraft will lose significant tax deductions. Would business owners be better off under this? — Business owners using private jets for non-exempt purposes will face higher costs due to lost deductions.
- Environment Energy And Infrastructure
- Does this cut the pollution that drives climate change? — Reducing the use of private jets via tax disincentives may lead to a reduction in carbon emissions.
- 7/23/2026
- 1 Cosponsor added.
- 6/22/2026
- 1 Cosponsor added.
- 4/30/2026
- Referred to the House Committee on Ways and Means.
- 2 Cosponsors added.
- Introduced in House
Zoe LofgrenDemocrat · California
Greg LandsmanDemocrat · Ohio
James McGovernDemocrat · Massachusetts
Kristen McDonald RivetDemocrat · Michigan