A Republican bill with 1 Democratic cosponsor · See all 2 cosponsors
Last activity — Received in the Senate and Read twice and referred to the Committee on Finance.
In the other chamber's committee
Passed one chamber and has been handed to a committee in the other.
The committee decides whether it goes any further, and most bills that reach a committee never leave it. A committee that simply does nothing kills a bill without anyone ever voting against it, so no news from here is usually the news.
Its path through Congress
- Introduced
- Passed House 408–17
- In Senate committee
What this bill would do
This bill is known as the Tax Relief for Fraud Victims Act. It makes changes to the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 regarding personal casualty and theft losses. Specifically, it repeals the limitation on deductions for personal casualty losses. It also provides increased taxpayer relief for theft losses involving fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation. Furthermore, the bill sets deadlines for processing claims and outlines specific effective dates for different provisions.
Yes· 3 of 15
- Scored +4
Would people over 65 be better off under this?
Seniors are frequently targets of fraud and misrepresentation and are more likely to own principal residences.
- Scored +4
Would middle-income households be better off under this?
Broad benefit from the repeal of casualty loss limits and specific fraud victim relief.
- Scored +4
Would retired people be better off under this?
High likelihood of benefiting from fraud-related tax relief and homeowner casualty deductions.
The opposite
- Scored -2
Does this reduce what the federal government owes?
Increasing tax deductions generally reduces government tax revenue, which could marginally increase the deficit.
What Congress actually voted on
One recorded vote has been taken on this bill.
- The House: a fast-track vote, needing two-thirds to pass The House sets aside its normal procedure to move quickly: no amendments, little debate, and a two-thirds bar instead of a simple majority. It is used for measures expected to be uncontroversial, so a bill that fails here failed despite broad expectations that it would not. Passed 408 yes · 17 no
09/15/2026 · Roll call 305 · recorded as “On Motion to Suspend the Rules and Pass, as Amended”
Who it would affect, and how
Potential Positive Impacts for People
-
Repeal of Limitation on Deductions: Section 2(a) repeals paragraph (5) of Section 165(h) of the Internal Revenue Code, which removes the limitation on deductions for personal casualty losses. This could benefit individuals by allowing them to claim greater deductions for personal casualty losses.
-
Relief for Theft Losses Involving Fraud: Section 2(b) allows taxpayers to treat theft losses involving fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation as sustained during the taxable year in which the loss occurs, or gives them the option to treat it as sustained in the year they discover the loss. It also extends the period of limitation for filing credit or refund claims for these losses to at least one year after the loss is discovered, giving people more time to seek relief.
-
Distributions Relating to Theft Losses: Section 2(c) allows individuals to receive distributions related to theft losses involving fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation without certain penalties, and allows them to repay the distributed amount within a 1-year period. It also extends the period of limitation for credit or refund claims regarding taxes on these distributions.
-
Claim Processing Deadline: Section 2(e) requires the Secretary of the Treasury to process claims for specified personal casualty losses or certain theft-related distributions not later than 2 years after the date the claim is filed, which helps ensure timely processing for taxpayers.
-
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 middle-income households be better off under this? — Broad benefit from the repeal of casualty loss limits and specific fraud victim relief. Would retired people be better off under this? — High likelihood of benefiting from fraud-related tax relief and homeowner casualty deductions. Would people over 65 be better off under this? — Seniors are frequently targets of fraud and misrepresentation and are more likely to own principal residences. Would households on low incomes be better off under this? — Tax relief from fraud losses provides crucial financial support to those with fewer assets. Would people in middle age be better off under this? — Likely to benefit from homeowner tax relief and fraud recovery measures. Would billionaires be better off under this? — Able to utilize increased casualty loss deductions. Would high-income households be better off under this? — Can benefit from larger deductions, although the impact is proportionally smaller than for lower incomes. Would people with substantial wealth be better off under this? — Able to utilize increased casualty loss deductions. Would the very wealthiest people be better off under this? — Able to utilize increased casualty loss deductions.
- Social Issues And Justice
- Does this make housing cost less? — Provides tax relief for homeowners suffering from pyrrhotite concrete foundation deterioration. Is this likely to lift people out of poverty? — Offers tax relief to victims of fraud, which can prevent further financial instability. Is this likely to reduce homelessness? — Tax relief for major home structural failures (pyrrhotite) may help homeowners avoid total financial loss.
- Economy And Finance
- Does this cut taxes for middle-income families? — Allows for larger deductions for personal casualty and theft losses, potentially lowering taxable income for middle-class households. Does this give people more protection from unfair business practices? — Provides financial mitigation for victims of fraud, deceit, and misrepresentation. Is this likely to grow the economy? — Provides financial relief to victims of fraud and property damage, slightly increasing their disposable income. Does this reduce what the federal government owes? — Increasing tax deductions generally reduces government tax revenue, which could marginally increase the deficit.
- 9/16/2026
- Received in the Senate and Read twice and referred to the Committee on Finance.
- 9/15/2026
- Motion to reconsider laid on the table Agreed to without objection.
- Passed/agreed to in House: On motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill, as amended Agreed to by the Yeas and Nays: (2/3 required): 408 - 17 (Roll no. 305).
- On motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill, as amended Agreed to by the Yeas and Nays: (2/3 required): 408 - 17 (Roll no. 305). (text: CR H5687-5688)
- Considered as unfinished business. (consideration: CR H5824-5825)
- At the conclusion of debate, the Yeas and Nays were demanded and ordered. Pursuant to the provisions of clause 8, rule XX, the Chair announced that further proceedings on the motion would be postponed.
- DEBATE - The House proceeded with forty minutes of debate on H.R. 9500.
- Considered under suspension of the rules. (consideration: CR H5687-5690)
- Mr. Smith (MO) moved to suspend the rules and pass the bill, as amended.
- 8/10/2026
- 1 Cosponsor added.
- 7/1/2026
- Committee Consideration and Mark-up Session Held
- Ordered to be Reported in the Nature of a Substitute by the Yeas and Nays: 39 - 0.
- 6/29/2026
- Referred to the House Committee on Ways and Means.
- 1 Cosponsor added.
- Introduced in House
One bill Congress.gov lists as related to this one — companions in the other chamber, earlier versions, and bills this one absorbed or was folded into.
Vern BuchananRepublican · Florida
Thomas SuozziDemocrat · New York