H.R. 9500House bill · 119th CongressIn the SenateTaxation

Tax Relief for Fraud Victims Act

Sponsored byMax L. MillerR-OH-7Introduced Jun 29, 2026Full text on congress.gov ↗

Latest action (Sep 16, 2026) — Received in the Senate and Read twice and on Finance.

What it does

Congressional Research Service, Jun 29, 2026

This bill expands the federal tax deduction for personal casualty and theft losses by eliminating certain limits, including the requirement that such losses arise from certain disasters. The bill also extends the tax refund deadline and modifies certain retirement plan rules related to certain fraud losses.

The bill repeals the limit on the federal tax deduction for personal casualty losses (not attributable to a trade, business, or transaction entered into for profit) that allows such losses only if arising from a federal or state declared disaster or to the extent that such losses offset personal casualty gains.

The bill allows taxpayers to elect to claim a tax deduction for losses arising from a theft involving fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation in the tax year such losses occur (rather than in the tax year discovered). Further, the bill extends the deadline for a refund claim related to a tax deduction for such losses to no less than one year after the date on which the losses are discovered and eliminates certain restrictions on the amount of such refund.

For early distributions from a qualified retirement plan arising from a theft loss involving fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation for which a tax deduction is allowed, the bill

waives the 10% penalty,extends the deadline for filing a refund claim and eliminates certain restrictions on the amount of such refund, andallows one year (beginning on the day after the theft loss is discovered) to repay such early distributions.

Face Value

as introduced
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

What Congress did

1 recorded
  • On , as Amendeddecisive vote

    House · Sep 15, 2026

    A fast-track vote: no amendments, short debate, and two thirds needed to pass. Used for bills expected to be uncontroversial.

    408 – 17

    Passed

    Every vote →

Discussion

4 comments

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

Sort
5
wxriveraDemoMN-4voted Yea22d ago
2 sections is worth knowing before anyone argues about the title. Whatever this is, it isn't small.
2
publiclandsfanDemoNC-11voted Yea22d 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. None of that is settled by the summary.
1
tomas.delgadoDemoVA-422d ago
That's true of almost every bill though, isn't it? At some point the objection stops being about this one.
2
imogen.ferreiraDemoMA-7voted Yea22d ago
The cost estimate assumes full compliance, and full compliance never happens. That gap is where these things go wrong. The same objection applied to the last version and went unanswered.
Your position on H.R. 9500No positions yet