H.R. 5366House bill · 119th CongressSigned into lawTaxation

Doug LaMalfa Federal Disaster Tax Relief Certainty Act

Sponsored byW. Gregory SteubeR-FL-17Introduced Sep 15, 2025Full text on congress.gov ↗

Latest action (Sep 11, 2026) — Signed by President.

What it does

Congressional Research Service, Sep 11, 2026

This act extends the federal tax deduction for qualified disaster-related personal casualty losses and the exclusion from gross income of qualified wildfire relief payments.

Under current law, unreimbursed personal casualty losses arising in a qualified disaster area (qualified disaster-related personal casualty losses) are deductible (as an itemized tax deduction or as part of the standard tax deduction) if such losses exceed $500 per casualty. A qualified disaster area is an area with respect to which a major disaster has been declared during the period beginning in 2020 and ending 60 days after July 4, 2025, if the incident period begins on or after December 28, 2019, and on or before July 4, 2025.

The act extends the federal tax deduction for qualified disaster-related personal casualty losses by defining a qualified disaster area as an area with respect to which a major disaster has been declared if the incident period begins on or after December 28, 2019, and before January 1, 2027.

The act provides that the exclusion from gross income of qualified wildfire relief payments applies to such payments attributable to forest or range fires declared a federal disaster after 2014 and before 2027, regardless of when such payments are received. (Currently, qualified wildfire relief payments attributable to forest or range fires declared a federal disaster after 2014 and received after 2019 and before 2026 may be excluded from gross income.)

The act also provides statutory authority for several related tax rules.

Face Value

as enrolled
100Narrow

How much of this bill its name accounts for.

  • Every bill starts at100
  • Nothing counted against it: one area of law, and short enough that length doesn't register.

Face Value measures reach, not honesty. A big bill can be accurately named, and a low score is not an accusation — it means the contents reach further than any short title could describe. Count it yourself ↗ How this is worked out

Who lobbied on this

1 organization

These organizations told Congress, in their own quarterly disclosures, that they were lobbying on this bill.

  • “…the understanding of how the public receives, interprets, and responds to and values hurricane forecasts and warnings, and for other purposes. H.R.5366 - To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to codify and extend the rules for personal casualty losses arising from major disasters and the…” filing ↗

Most filings say only that an organization lobbied on a bill, not which side it took — where that's the case we say so rather than guessing. Quotes are verbatim from the filing. How this is built.

Discussion

8 comments

Sign in to join the discussion and put your vote on the record.

Sort
8
leona.nakamuraDemoIL-12voted Nay26d ago
In favour. The transparency provisions alone justify it, and they're the hardest part to undo later.
3
birch_ledgerDemoLA-226d ago
You're right about the drafting, but that's fixable in conference. Killing it means starting over next Congress.
7
river_readerDemoIL-10voted Nay25d ago
Voting no on process rather than substance. This hasn't had a hearing I can find, which is a lot of reach for a bill nobody has questioned in public. I'd want the cost estimate before I'd defend either position.
6
nadia.hartleyDemoNV-2voted Yea26d ago
The summary reads clearly enough, but the enforcement mechanism is doing all the work and it's the part with the least detail. I'd want the cost estimate before I'd defend either position.
3
harborlightDemoCA-40voted Nay24d ago
Against, and not because the goal is wrong. It stacks a new process on top of two that already don't talk to each other. That's a drafting question rather than a political one.
1
cascade_kaiDemoIN-6voted Yea24d ago
The pilot-programme framing is the part I'd watch. Pilots have a way of becoming permanent at the next reauthorisation. The floor version may not be this version, which is the usual problem.
1
delta_dawn_laDemoHI-2voted Yea25d ago
My hesitation is the absence of a sunset. Authorities that never expire never get re-examined either. Someone closer to this than me should say whether that's right.
3
river_readerDemoIL-10voted Nay25d ago
Agreed on substance, disagreed on timing. Doing this badly now makes doing it well later harder.
Your position on H.R. 5366No positions yet