Legislative and Policy Analysis

Section 70120: Limitation on individual deductions for certain state and local taxes, etc

Executive Summary

Section 70120 changes the federal itemized deduction for state and local taxes, commonly called the SALT deduction. It does two things at once: it makes permanent the post-2017 framework that generally disallows individual deductions for certain state and local taxes except up to a capped amount, and it temporarily raises that cap for many taxpayers from $10,000 to $40,000 beginning in tax year 2025.[1]

For tax years 2025 through 2029, most taxpayers who itemize may deduct up to $40,000 in eligible state and local taxes in 2025, with the cap rising by 1 percent each year through 2029. Married taxpayers filing separately receive half of the applicable cap. Beginning in 2030, the cap reverts to $10,000 for most filers and $5,000 for married individuals filing separately.[1]

The higher temporary cap is phased down for higher-income taxpayers. In 2025, the phase-down begins when modified adjusted gross income exceeds $500,000, or $250,000 for married filing separately. The cap is reduced by 30 percent of income above the threshold, but it cannot be reduced below $10,000, or $5,000 for married filing separately.[1]

This is a tax expenditure provision rather than a direct spending program. The financial benefit flows through reduced federal income tax liability for itemizing taxpayers. Public tracking will occur primarily through IRS tax return data, Treasury tax expenditure analysis, Joint Committee on Taxation estimates, and CBO budget scoring, not through USAspending.gov or agency grant reporting.[2]

What Section 70120 Actually Does

Section 70120 amends Internal Revenue Code section 164(b)(6). Under the 2017 tax law framework, individuals generally could not deduct certain state and local taxes except for a capped itemized deduction of $10,000, or $5,000 for married filing separately, for eligible state and local property, income, and sales taxes.[2]

Section 70120 keeps the capped-deduction structure but changes the cap schedule:

The section defines modified adjusted gross income for this purpose as adjusted gross income increased by amounts excluded from gross income under Internal Revenue Code sections 911, 931, or 933.[1]

The Joint Committee on Taxation explains that Section 70120 makes permanent the general disallowance of individual deductions for certain state and local and foreign taxes not paid or accrued in a trade or business or income-producing activity, while increasing the itemized-deduction exception from $10,000 to $40,000 for tax years beginning in calendar year 2025.[2]

A key practical point is that the provision applies only to taxpayers who itemize deductions. Taxpayers who claim the standard deduction do not receive a separate SALT deduction from this section. The IRS has described the 2025 increase as allowing individuals who itemize to claim up to $40,000, or $20,000 if married filing separately, for state and local taxes paid, subject to reduction above the income threshold.[3]

The fiscal effect is a federal tax expenditure. It reduces federal revenue relative to a narrower SALT cap, because eligible taxpayers may deduct more state and local taxes from federal taxable income. The Bipartisan Policy Center estimated that the OBBBA SALT changes would cost around $140 billion over 10 years relative to continuing the TCJA $10,000 SALT cap.[4]

Legislative Mechanism

Section 70120 works by directly amending section 164(b)(6) of the Internal Revenue Code, then adding a new paragraph defining the “applicable limitation amount.”[1]

The mechanism has four main legal components:

1. It removes the scheduled end date for the post-2017 capped SALT framework by striking language that limited the rule to tax years before January 1, 2026.[1]

2. It replaces the fixed $10,000 cap with a variable “applicable limitation amount,” with half that amount applying to married taxpayers filing separately.[1]

3. It creates a temporary higher cap for 2025 through 2029, then restores a $10,000 cap after 2029.[1]

4. It imposes a modified-adjusted-gross-income phase-down for 2025 through 2029, reducing the higher cap by 30 percent of income above the threshold, but preserving a floor of $10,000.[1]

The result is not a simple repeal of the SALT cap. It is a permanent continuation of the capped-deduction structure, with a temporary five-year expansion for many itemizing taxpayers and a higher-income phase-down that limits the benefit for taxpayers above the statutory income threshold.

Section 70120 does not create a new federal grant, loan, rebate, or payment program. It changes how federal taxable income is calculated on individual income tax returns.

Expenditure Tracking and Reporting Protocol

Section 70120 creates a federal tax expenditure. The benefit is delivered through lower federal income tax liability for eligible itemizing taxpayers, not through direct payments from an agency account.

The main tracking and reporting sources are likely to be:

flowchart TD
A[Section 70120] --> B[Code section 164]
B --> C[Taxpayer itemizes]
C --> D[Schedule A claim]
D --> E[IRS processing]
E --> F[Lower tax liability]
E --> G[IRS data]
G --> H[Statistics of Income]
G --> I[Treasury estimates]
G --> J[JCT estimates]
G --> K[CBO scoring]
H --> L[Public data delayed]
I --> M[Aggregated visibility]
J --> M
K --> M

The reporting protocol is indirect. Taxpayers report deductible state and local taxes on their federal income tax returns. IRS systems process the returns and maintain taxpayer-level data. Aggregated information can appear later through IRS Statistics of Income, Treasury tax expenditure publications, JCT revenue estimates, CBO cost estimates, and congressional oversight materials.[2]

Public tracking is likely to be delayed and aggregated. Unlike a grant or procurement program, there will not be a list of awards, recipients, obligations, or outlays on USAspending.gov. The section-specific effect may also be difficult to isolate because the SALT deduction interacts with other tax rules, including standard deduction amounts, itemized deduction limits, alternative minimum tax exposure, taxpayer income, state tax systems, housing costs, and filing status.

Day-to-Day Government Process Changes

For the IRS, Section 70120 requires updates to tax forms, worksheets, instructions, software rules, taxpayer-facing guidance, compliance filters, and potentially withholding guidance. The IRS has already told taxpayers that OBBBA deductions beginning in 2025 may require a new Form W-4 if employees want withholding to reflect the law change during the year.[3]

For taxpayers and preparers, the practical process change is that SALT planning becomes more important for itemizers between 2025 and 2029. Tax software and preparers must determine:

For state and local governments, the provision may indirectly affect taxpayer behavior and political pressure around state taxes, property taxes, and state pass-through entity tax systems. CRS notes that after the 2017 SALT cap, many state and local governments changed tax treatment for pass-through entities and charitable donations to reduce residents’ exposure to the federal cap.[5]

For Congress, JCT, Treasury, and CBO, the section adds another temporary tax parameter that must be modeled for revenue projections, distributional estimates, tax expenditure tables, and future expiration debates.

Effects on Consumers

The consumer impact is concentrated among taxpayers who itemize and pay more than $10,000 in eligible state and local taxes. These are more likely to be households with higher incomes, higher property taxes, high state income taxes, large mortgages, or residence in high-tax jurisdictions.

The largest direct benefit goes to itemizing taxpayers whose eligible state and local taxes exceed $10,000 and whose income is below, or not far above, the phase-down threshold. For those households, the deductible amount may rise from $10,000 to as much as $40,000 in 2025.[1]

The benefit is smaller or nonexistent for:

The provision may reduce federal tax liability for some middle- and upper-income households in high-tax states, but it does not directly reduce state or local taxes themselves. Consumers still pay the state and local taxes; the federal benefit comes from deducting more of those taxes from federal taxable income.

The phase-down creates a marginal-rate planning issue. In 2025, for most filers, the temporary higher cap is reduced by 30 percent of MAGI above $500,000 and reaches the $10,000 floor at $600,000 of MAGI.[2] That means some households near the phase-down range may face unusual incentives around income timing, deductions, filing status, and state tax payments.

Effects on Businesses

Section 70120 is formally an individual income tax provision, but it can still affect businesses indirectly.

For tax preparation firms, payroll advisers, financial planners, and software providers, the section increases demand for tax planning, withholding updates, itemization analysis, and state-tax payment timing advice. The IRS has specifically directed taxpayers to consider withholding updates for OBBBA deduction changes, including the SALT limitation increase.[3]

For pass-through business owners, the effect depends on the interaction between individual SALT deductions and state pass-through entity tax regimes. Many states adopted pass-through entity tax workarounds after the 2017 SALT cap. Iowa State University’s Center for Agricultural Law and Taxation notes that, unlike earlier bills, the enacted Act does not address or seek to limit pass-through entity tax workarounds.[6] That means owners of partnerships and S corporations may continue evaluating whether state pass-through entity tax elections produce better federal outcomes than relying only on the individual SALT cap.

For employers, there is no direct payroll tax change from Section 70120. However, employees who expect a lower federal income tax liability may submit revised Forms W-4, so payroll departments may process more withholding changes.

For real estate and housing markets, the provision may modestly improve after-tax affordability for some itemizing homeowners in high-property-tax areas. The effect is likely concentrated in higher-cost housing markets and high-tax jurisdictions, and it is limited by the temporary 2025–2029 higher cap, the income phase-down, the standard deduction, and the alternative minimum tax.

Environmental and Climate Impact

Environmental and climate direction: minimal, with indirect fiscal and land-use pathways.

Section 70120 does not directly authorize fossil-fuel development, infrastructure construction, mining, logging, roadbuilding, environmental review changes, clean-energy subsidies, pollution-control grants, or conservation spending. Its immediate legal effect is federal income-tax treatment of state and local tax payments by individual taxpayers.[1]

The section does, however, have indirect pathways worth noting.

First, by reducing federal tax liability for some taxpayers in high-tax states and localities, it can soften the federal-tax impact of state and local revenue systems. That may reduce political pressure to cut state and local taxes in some jurisdictions, but the connection to environmental outcomes is indirect and contingent. State and local governments fund a wide range of services, including schools, transportation, water systems, parks, public health, emergency response, and climate resilience. Section 70120 does not require any state or locality to raise, lower, or spend taxes in an environmentally beneficial way.

Second, the homeowner benefit may be somewhat larger in places with high property taxes and high housing values. To the extent the higher cap marginally supports homeownership demand in high-cost areas, there could be indirect land-use effects. These effects are uncertain and likely small compared with zoning, mortgage rates, local housing supply, insurance costs, and regional economic conditions.

Third, because this is a federal revenue-reducing tax expenditure relative to a lower SALT cap, it contributes to broader federal fiscal tradeoffs. If lower federal revenue increases pressure for spending cuts elsewhere, environmental programs could be affected through later budget decisions. That effect is not automatic in Section 70120 itself and depends on future appropriations, reconciliation legislation, and agency budgets.

Existing environmental safeguards remain intact. Section 70120 does not weaken NEPA, permitting, public participation, mitigation, enforcement, environmental justice review, or pollution standards. It also does not rescind climate or environmental funding. The major uncertainty is the scale of indirect fiscal and behavioral effects, not the immediate legal direction of the section.

Environmental justice impacts are also indirect. The direct tax benefit is concentrated among itemizing taxpayers with substantial state and local tax payments, while lower-income renters and non-itemizers generally receive little or no direct benefit. To the extent federal revenue losses create later pressure on public programs, communities with greater reliance on public services could be more exposed. But that is a contingent budget pathway rather than a direct environmental justice rollback in this section.

Impact Summary

Section 70120 is a major individual tax provision that temporarily expands the SALT deduction cap for many itemizing taxpayers while permanently preserving a capped-deduction framework. It raises the cap to $40,000 in 2025, indexes it upward by 1 percent annually through 2029, phases down the higher cap for taxpayers above the modified-adjusted-gross-income threshold, and returns the cap to $10,000 after 2029.[1]

The main winners are itemizing taxpayers with eligible state and local taxes above $10,000 and income below or near the phase-down range. The main non-beneficiaries are standard-deduction filers, lower-tax households, many renters, and taxpayers whose income or alternative minimum tax position limits the value of the deduction.

For government operations, the section creates IRS implementation work rather than agency spending administration. It will be tracked through tax returns, IRS data systems, Treasury and JCT tax expenditure analysis, and CBO scoring, with public visibility delayed and aggregated.

For businesses, the largest effects are on tax preparers, software providers, financial planners, payroll departments handling withholding changes, and pass-through business owners evaluating state pass-through entity tax elections.

The environmental and climate impact is minimal and indirect. The section does not approve environmentally harmful activity or cut environmental safeguards, but it does reduce federal revenue relative to a lower SALT cap and may have contingent fiscal or land-use effects depending on future state, local, and federal decisions.

Key References and Sourcing

[1] Public Law 119-21, “Sec. 70120. Limitation on individual deductions for certain state and local taxes, etc,” statutory text, https://www.govinfo.gov/link/plaw/119/public/21.

[2] Joint Committee on Taxation, “General Explanation Of The Tax Provisions Of Public Law 119–21,” JCS-1-26, May 2026, explanation of Section 70120 and estimated budget effects framework, https://www.jct.gov/publications/2026/jcs-1-26/.

[3] Internal Revenue Service, “How to update withholding to account for tax law changes for 2025,” discussion of increased limitation on itemized deduction for state and local taxes and withholding updates, https://www.irs.gov/forms-pubs/how-to-update-withholding-to-account-for-tax-law-changes-for-2025.

[4] Bipartisan Policy Center, “How Does the 2025 Tax Law Change the SALT Deduction?” estimate of the SALT changes’ 10-year cost relative to continuing TCJA’s $10,000 cap, https://bipartisanpolicy.org/article/how-would-the-2025-house-tax-bill-change-the-salt-deduction/.

[5] Congressional Research Service, “Tax Provisions in P.L. 119-21, the FY2025 Reconciliation Law,” R48611, SALT deduction discussion and state workaround context, https://www.everycrsreport.com/reports/R48611.html.

[6] Iowa State University Center for Agricultural Law and Taxation, “One Big Beautiful Bill Act Implements Significant Tax Package,” discussion of Section 70120 and pass-through entity tax workarounds, https://www.calt.iastate.edu/post/one-big-beautiful-bill-act-implements-significant-tax-package.

---

Created with AI, Will be Polished by Humans, Powered by You.

Join the Conversation Today!

---

Please share how OBBBA Section 70120: Limitation on individual deductions for certain state and local taxes, etc is impacting you, your family, your business, your district and/or your state by telling your story.

Legislative and Policy Analysis

Section 70119: Extension and modification of exclusion from gross income of student loans discharged on account of death or disability

Executive Summary

Section 70119 permanently preserves a targeted federal tax exclusion for certain student loan debt discharged because of death or total and permanent disability, while narrowing the post-2025 tax-free treatment that temporarily applied to a broader set of student loan discharges under the American Rescue Plan Act.[1]

The section amends Internal Revenue Code section 108(f)(5) so that, for discharges after December 31, 2025, qualifying federal and private education loans discharged on account of death or total and permanent disability are not included in gross income.[2] It also adds a taxpayer Social Security number requirement and allows the IRS to treat omission of the required correct Social Security number as a mathematical or clerical error.[3]

The direct consumer effect is protective for borrowers with total and permanent disabilities and for families or estates affected by a borrower’s death. The broader effect is mixed because the section does not continue the temporary 2021 through 2025 rule that excluded many other forms of student loan cancellation from income.[4] The estimated federal fiscal effect is a $386 million ten-year revenue cost.[5]

What Section 70119 Actually Does

Section 70119 rewrites section 108(f)(5) of the Internal Revenue Code. The amended rule excludes from gross income amounts that otherwise would be taxable because a qualifying loan is discharged in whole or in part, if the discharge is connected to death or total and permanent disability.[1]

The provision applies to two broad loan categories:

The section also adds an administrative condition: the taxpayer must include the taxpayer’s Social Security number on the federal income tax return for the year of discharge.[1] The Social Security number must have the meaning used in section 24(h)(7), which generally requires a Social Security number issued by the Social Security Administration in a way that satisfies work-eligible status rules.[2]

The section’s known fiscal effect is a tax expenditure rather than a direct appropriation. The American Council on Education summary of the enacted law reports that the provision costs $386 million over ten years.[5]

The provision is effective for discharges after December 31, 2025.[1]

Legislative Mechanism

Section 70119 uses three statutory mechanisms.

First, it amends Internal Revenue Code section 108(f)(5) by replacing the temporary broader student loan discharge exclusion with a permanent targeted exclusion for death and total and permanent disability discharges.[1] This restores the narrower Tax Cuts and Jobs Act-style death and disability exclusion rather than extending the broader American Rescue Plan Act treatment for many student loan discharges.[2]

Second, it defines eligible loans by cross-reference. A covered loan is either a “student loan” under section 108(f)(2) or a “private education loan” under section 140(a) of the Consumer Credit Protection Act.[3] That means the tax rule depends partly on loan characteristics and partly on the legal reason for discharge.

Third, it gives the IRS a simplified enforcement tool. If the taxpayer omits the correct Social Security number required by section 108(f)(5)(C), the omission is treated as a mathematical or clerical error under section 6213(g)(2).[1] In practice, that can allow the IRS to adjust the return through math-error procedures rather than using the ordinary deficiency process.

Expenditure Tracking and Reporting Protocol

This section creates a federal financial flow through the tax system. The benefit is not paid as a grant, contract, or direct outlay. It operates as foregone federal revenue when a qualifying taxpayer excludes discharged student loan debt from gross income.

The likely tracking sources are IRS return administration, Treasury tax expenditure reporting, Joint Committee on Taxation revenue estimates, Congressional Budget Office budget-effect materials, and aggregate tax data. Public tracking will likely be delayed and aggregated because individual taxpayer return information is confidential and because section-specific tax benefits are not always visible as separate line items in public IRS data.[6]

Relevant reporting and oversight channels include:

flowchart TD
A[Section 70119] --> B[IRS tax rules]
A --> C[Education loan discharge]
C --> D[Borrower or estate return]
D --> E[Gross income exclusion]
D --> F[Social Security number check]
F --> G[IRS math error authority]
E --> H[Treasury revenue effects]
E --> I[JCT estimates]
E --> J[CBO budget materials]
H --> K[Aggregated public visibility]
I --> K
J --> K
G --> L[Taxpayer notice and correction]

The administering agency for the tax exclusion is the Department of the Treasury through the IRS. The Department of Education and loan servicers remain important upstream actors because they administer or document federal loan discharge programs, while private lenders may administer private education loan discharges under loan terms and applicable law.[6] The public will usually see this provision through IRS guidance, tax forms, lender reporting, JCT revenue estimates, CBO budget tables, and practitioner guidance rather than through a dedicated Section 70119 spending dashboard.

A limitation is that the section-specific cost may be difficult to isolate in public tax data. The benefit depends on the number and dollar amount of qualifying discharges, taxpayer filing behavior, lender reporting, and IRS processing. It also interacts with other student loan discharge exclusions that may apply independently, including public service, health professional, closed school, defense-to-repayment, and other specialized rules.[2]

Day-to-Day Government Process Changes

For the IRS, Section 70119 turns post-2025 administration into a narrower eligibility screen. The agency must distinguish death and total and permanent disability discharges from other forms of student loan cancellation, verify whether the taxpayer supplied the required Social Security number, and apply math-error authority when the required correct number is missing.[1]

For the Department of Education, the section does not directly rewrite the discharge standards for federal student loans. The Department still administers total and permanent disability discharge and death discharge processes under education law and program rules.[6] The change is mainly tax-facing: once a discharge occurs, the downstream question becomes whether the resulting discharged amount is excluded from gross income.

For loan servicers and private lenders, the practical process change is mostly compliance coordination. Servicers may need to help borrowers or families understand that a qualifying death or disability discharge remains federally tax-free, while other discharges after 2025 may not be. Private education lenders that discharge debt because of death or disability may also need to coordinate borrower communications, cancellation records, and tax reporting.

For taxpayers, the filing process becomes more important. A qualifying discharge is not enough by itself if the taxpayer fails to include the required Social Security number on the return. That requirement may particularly matter for surviving spouses, estates, disabled borrowers, tax preparers, and families dealing with discharge paperwork during a crisis.

Effects on Consumers

The most direct consumer benefit is for borrowers who become totally and permanently disabled and for families affected by a borrower’s death. Without the exclusion, canceled debt can create taxable income, sometimes described as a “tax bomb,” because the borrower or estate may owe tax on debt that no one actually received as cash.[4]

The section reduces that risk for qualifying death and disability discharges. For a disabled borrower, this can preserve the practical value of the discharge by preventing a new federal income tax bill from replacing the loan bill. For surviving families, it reduces the chance that a discharge caused by death will create an additional tax burden during estate administration or family financial stress.

The consumer impact is not uniformly positive. The section does not extend the broader American Rescue Plan Act exclusion that applied to many student loan discharges from 2021 through 2025 regardless of whether the discharge was connected to death or disability.[2] Borrowers receiving other types of cancellation after 2025 may face federal tax consequences unless another exclusion applies. That distinction matters for borrowers in income-driven repayment, settlement, hardship, school-related, or other cancellation pathways.

Consumers also face a documentation risk. The Social Security number requirement gives the IRS an objective filing condition. If a taxpayer qualifies substantively but files without the required correct number, the IRS may disallow the exclusion through math-error procedures.[1]

Effects on Businesses

The section has limited direct effect on most operating businesses. It does not create a new employer credit, deduction, payroll rule, or procurement program.

The affected business sectors are narrower:

The section may slightly reduce confusion for lenders and servicers by making the death and disability exclusion permanent. But it may increase complexity in another way: post-2025 tax treatment is no longer broadly uniform across student loan cancellation categories. Businesses that advise borrowers, service loans, or prepare returns will need more precise classification of the discharge reason.

Environmental and Climate Impact

The environmental and climate impact is minimal.

Section 70119 is a tax rule for student loan discharges caused by death or total and permanent disability. It does not authorize construction, energy production, mining, transportation infrastructure, public lands activity, pollution-control funding, environmental review changes, or climate-related spending. Its immediate legal effect is limited to federal income tax treatment and IRS administration.

The section does not make environmentally harmful activity easier, cheaper, broader, or faster. It also does not rescind or reduce climate, conservation, environmental justice, clean-energy, resilience, pollution-control, or environmental-monitoring funding. Existing environmental safeguards are not weakened, bypassed, compressed, or expanded by this provision.

Indirect effects are remote. A borrower or family retaining more income after a qualifying discharge could change household consumption at the margin, but that is too attenuated to identify a meaningful greenhouse-gas, air quality, water, habitat, biodiversity, land-use, or environmental justice effect. The section’s cumulative environmental effect is therefore best characterized as minimal.

Impact Summary

Section 70119 is a targeted borrower-protection provision with an important narrowing effect. It permanently protects qualifying death and total and permanent disability student loan discharges from federal income tax, including qualifying private education loans, and it avoids forcing some disabled borrowers or grieving families to treat canceled education debt as taxable income.

At the same time, the section does not preserve the broader temporary 2021 through 2025 tax exclusion for many other student loan discharges. The result is a more limited post-2025 tax shield: death and total and permanent disability discharges remain protected, while other borrowers may again need to analyze whether their cancellation is taxable.

Administratively, the section gives the IRS a clearer eligibility rule and a stronger filing enforcement tool through the Social Security number requirement and math-error authority. Fiscally, the provision is a tax expenditure, with a reported ten-year revenue cost of $386 million. The environmental and climate effect is minimal because the section changes tax treatment for student loan discharges and does not affect environmental programs, energy development, land use, pollution controls, or climate safeguards.

Key References and Sourcing

[1] Public Law 119-21, “SEC. 70119. Extension and modification of exclusion from gross income of student loans discharged on account of death or disability,” https://www.govinfo.gov/link/plaw/119/public/21.

[2] Joint Committee on Taxation, “General Explanation of the Tax Provisions of Public Law 119-21,” discussion of Section 70119 and section 108, https://www.jct.gov/publications/2026/jcs-1-26/.

[3] Legal Information Institute, “26 U.S. Code § 108 – Income from discharge of indebtedness,” codified section 108(f)(5), https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/26/108.

[4] Congressional Research Service, “Tax Provisions in P.L. 119-21, the FY2025 Reconciliation Law,” discussion of Section 70119, https://www.everycrsreport.com/reports/R48611.html.

[5] American Council on Education, “One Big Beautiful Bill Act (H.R. 1),” higher-education summary of Section 70119 and ten-year cost estimate, https://www.acenet.edu/Documents/Summary-One-Big-Beautiful-Bill-Act.pdf.

[6] Federal Student Aid, “How To Qualify and Apply for Total and Permanent Disability Discharge,” https://studentaid.gov/articles/tpd/.

[7] Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, “What happens to my student loans if I die or become disabled?” https://www.consumerfinance.gov/ask-cfpb/what-happens-to-my-student-loans-if-i-die-or-become-disabled-en-595/.

[8] Congressional Budget Office, “Public Law 119-21 Estimate Workbook,” https://www.cbo.gov/system/files/2025-07/61570-pl119-21-2025Recon-CLB.xlsx.

---

Created with AI, Will be Polished by Humans, Powered by You.

Join the Conversation Today!

---

Please share how OBBBA Section 70119: Extension and modification of exclusion from gross income of student loans discharged on account of death or disability is impacting you, your family, your business, your district and/or your state by telling your story.

Legislative and Policy Analysis

Section 70118: Extension of treatment of certain individuals performing services in the Sinai Peninsula and enhancement to include additional areas

Executive Summary

Section 70118 permanently extends combat-zone-equivalent tax treatment for qualifying U.S. Armed Forces members serving in the Sinai Peninsula of Egypt and expands that treatment to qualifying service in Kenya, Mali, Burkina Faso, and Chad.[1] It does this by amending Section 11026 of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act so that these locations are treated as “qualified hazardous duty areas” when at least one U.S. Armed Forces member is entitled to hostile fire or imminent danger special pay for services performed there.[1]

The practical effect is targeted but meaningful: eligible servicemembers in those locations may receive the same tax treatment available for combat-zone service, including exclusion of qualifying combat pay from gross income, related withholding treatment, special rules for tax filing deadlines, and related benefits for certain death, missing-status, and estate-tax situations.[2] The provision takes effect January 1, 2026.[1]

The fiscal effect is small compared with the broader tax title. The Joint Committee on Taxation estimated Section 70118 would reduce federal revenues by about $1 million per year beginning in fiscal year 2026 and by $11 million over fiscal years 2025 through 2034.[3] The benefit is not delivered through a grant or direct appropriation; it operates as a tax expenditure administered through military payroll systems, IRS tax administration, Treasury revenue collections, and congressional revenue-estimating processes.

What Section 70118 Actually Does

Section 70118 makes two core changes.

First, it makes permanent the prior statutory treatment of the Sinai Peninsula of Egypt as a qualified hazardous duty area for specified Internal Revenue Code purposes.[1] Under prior law, the Sinai treatment was tied to an “applicable period,” meaning it was temporary. Section 70118 removes that temporary limitation.[1]

Second, it expands the list of qualified hazardous duty areas to include Kenya, Mali, Burkina Faso, and Chad, in addition to the Sinai Peninsula of Egypt.[1] The designation applies only during periods when any U.S. Armed Forces member is entitled to special pay under 37 U.S.C. 310 for hostile fire or imminent danger duty in that location.[1]

The affected tax provisions include Internal Revenue Code rules concerning surviving-spouse filing status, exclusion of certain combat pay, income taxes of servicemembers who die in combat-zone-related circumstances, estate tax rules for combat-zone-related deaths, wage withholding treatment, communications excise tax treatment, joint returns involving missing-status individuals, and postponed tax deadlines for individuals serving in combat zones.[2]

The tax benefit depends on eligibility. IRS guidance explains that combat-zone tax benefits can apply to service in a statutorily designated qualified hazardous duty area when the servicemember receives hostile fire or imminent danger special pay as certified by the Department of Defense.[4] Department of Defense pay guidance states that hostile fire and imminent danger pay are generally payable at up to $225 per month, with imminent danger pay calculated at $7.50 per day up to the monthly maximum.[5]

Legislative Mechanism

Section 70118 amends Section 11026 of Public Law 115-97, the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act.[1] The section does not create a new chapter of the Internal Revenue Code. Instead, it modifies a statutory note connected to 26 U.S.C. 112, which is the Internal Revenue Code provision governing exclusion of certain combat-zone compensation.[2]

The mechanism is indirect but powerful. It treats listed qualified hazardous duty areas “in the same manner as if” they were combat zones for specified tax purposes.[2] That means the tax code does not need a separate rule for each benefit. Once the qualified hazardous duty area condition is met, existing combat-zone tax rules apply through cross-reference.

The section also removes prior subsections that had limited the Sinai treatment to a temporary period.[1] That conforming amendment matters because it changes the baseline from a time-limited exception to an ongoing statutory designation, subject to the hostile-fire or imminent-danger-pay condition.

In operational terms, the legal trigger has three parts:

1. The servicemember performs services in one of the listed locations.
2. At least one U.S. Armed Forces member is entitled to hostile fire or imminent danger special pay for services performed in that location.
3. The individual satisfies the tax-law and military-pay eligibility requirements for combat-zone-equivalent treatment.[1]

Expenditure Tracking and Reporting Protocol

Section 70118 creates a federal financial flow through reduced tax receipts rather than a direct spending account. The benefit is likely to be tracked through military pay records, Defense Finance and Accounting Service payroll and tax reporting, IRS return processing, Treasury receipt data, Joint Committee on Taxation estimates, and CBO budget baselines. Public visibility is likely to be aggregated rather than clear at the individual section level because the provision affects taxable wages, withholding, refunds, and revenue estimates rather than a stand-alone grant or appropriation.

The relevant administrative chain is likely to include:

• Department of Defense determination or certification of hostile fire or imminent danger pay eligibility;
• service-level personnel and finance offices documenting qualifying service;
• DFAS or equivalent payroll systems excluding eligible pay from taxable wages and issuing corrected wage statements when needed;
• IRS administration through Forms W-2, W-2c, tax returns, refund claims, and combat-zone deadline rules;
• Treasury and IRS receipt reporting;
• JCT and CBO revenue-estimating and budget-effect reporting.

flowchart TD
    A[Section 70118] --> B[Listed duty areas]
    B --> C[Defense pay eligibility]
    C --> D[Military payroll records]
    D --> E[Taxable wages adjusted]
    E --> F[IRS return processing]
    F --> G[Treasury receipts]
    F --> H[Refund claims]
    G --> I[JCT estimates]
    G --> J[CBO baseline]
    D --> K[DFAS wage statements]
    K --> F
    I --> L[Congressional oversight]
    J --> L
    F --> M[Public visibility aggregated]

Because this is a tax provision, USAspending.gov will generally not show the benefit as a separate award or payment stream. The clearest public fiscal source is the JCT revenue estimate, which scored the provision as a $11 million revenue reduction over fiscal years 2025 through 2034.[3] IRS and Treasury data may reflect the broader effects in aggregate tax collections or tax expenditure reporting, but the section-specific amount may be difficult to isolate publicly after enactment.

DFAS guidance for the earlier Sinai treatment illustrates the administrative model: qualifying service can require finance-office substantiation, payroll correction, and issuance of Form W-2c when taxable wages need to be adjusted.[6] For Section 70118 going forward, routine payroll coding should reduce the need for retroactive correction when duty locations and special-pay eligibility are correctly captured at the time of service.

Day-to-Day Government Process Changes

For servicemembers and military finance offices, Section 70118 changes the day-to-day process by making the Sinai treatment permanent and adding four African countries to the qualified hazardous duty area framework. Instead of treating the Sinai as an expiring special case, payroll and tax administrators must maintain it as an ongoing statutory location subject to the hostile-fire or imminent-danger-pay condition.[1]

For the Department of Defense, the key operational issue is accurate location and entitlement coding. The tax benefit depends on special pay under 37 U.S.C. 310, so the military-pay system must correctly identify duty in the relevant location, the qualifying period, and whether hostile fire or imminent danger pay applies.[5]

For DFAS and service finance offices, the provision increases the importance of accurate Leave and Earnings Statement coding, Form W-2 wage treatment, and any Form W-2c corrections. Servicemembers deployed to or assigned in covered locations may need finance-office documentation if their tax records do not properly reflect qualifying service.[6]

For the IRS, the provision affects return processing, amended-return claims, filing-deadline postponements, and taxpayer assistance for servicemembers. IRS guidance already explains that combat-zone tax benefits can apply to statutory qualified hazardous duty areas when the required military-pay condition is satisfied.[4] Section 70118 expands the set of locations that can trigger that pathway.

Effects on Consumers

The main “consumers” affected are servicemembers and military families rather than ordinary civilian purchasers.

For eligible servicemembers, the provision can increase after-tax income by excluding qualifying combat-zone compensation from gross income and by supporting related deadline and filing protections.[2] The value of the benefit depends on pay grade, length of qualifying service, type of pay, filing status, other income, and whether the servicemember is enlisted or an officer.

For families, the provision may reduce tax filing stress during deployment and may preserve tax benefits in severe circumstances involving death, missing status, or delayed filing obligations.[2] It can also improve financial predictability because the Sinai treatment no longer faces a scheduled expiration after 2025.

For taxpayers generally, the effect is a small reduction in federal receipts. JCT estimated the provision at about $11 million over fiscal years 2025 through 2034, which is very small relative to the overall fiscal scale of Public Law 119-21.[3] The cost is broadly borne through the federal revenue system rather than through a direct fee, premium, or consumer price.

Effects on Businesses

Section 70118 has limited direct business impact. It does not create a business deduction, credit, grant, contract authority, procurement preference, or regulatory exemption.

The most direct business-adjacent effects are administrative. Tax-preparation firms, payroll-support contractors, military legal assistance offices, and financial advisers serving military households may need to update guidance for eligible service in the Sinai Peninsula, Kenya, Mali, Burkina Faso, and Chad. Software providers may also need to ensure that military tax modules and combat-zone prompts reflect the updated statutory treatment.

Businesses employing reservists or National Guard members may experience indirect workforce effects when employees are deployed to covered locations, but Section 70118 itself does not change civilian employer obligations under military leave or reemployment law. Its tax effects are centered on federal military compensation and individual tax administration.

Defense contractors operating in the same regions do not receive the combat-zone-equivalent exclusion merely because they are civilians or contractors. The statutory language is tied to individuals performing services as members of the U.S. Armed Forces and to entitlement to hostile fire or imminent danger special pay.[1]

Environmental and Climate Impact

The environmental and climate impact is minimal.

Section 70118 is a military tax-benefit provision. It does not authorize construction, weapons procurement, fossil-fuel leasing, mineral extraction, transportation infrastructure, land transfers, energy subsidies, environmental review changes, or pollution-control rescissions. Its immediate legal effect is to extend and expand tax treatment for qualifying servicemembers in specified hazardous duty locations.

The provision could have indirect effects only if tax treatment modestly affects deployment incentives, retention, or administrative support for U.S. military presence in the listed regions. Even then, the connection to environmental outcomes is attenuated. The section does not itself increase troop levels, authorize operations, expand base infrastructure, waive environmental safeguards, or change overseas environmental compliance rules.

Existing environmental safeguards are not weakened by this section. Any environmental impacts from U.S. operations in the listed countries would arise from separate defense, diplomatic, basing, logistics, or operational decisions rather than from the tax classification created here.

Environmental justice and local community effects are similarly indirect. Communities near military facilities or operations in the listed areas could be affected by broader U.S. military activity, but Section 70118 does not itself approve or fund those activities. The more direct equity issue is tax fairness for servicemembers exposed to comparable danger in locations that had not previously received the same statutory treatment.

Impact Summary

Section 70118 is a narrow military tax provision with a clear beneficiary group: U.S. Armed Forces members serving in specified hazardous duty areas who satisfy the hostile-fire or imminent-danger-pay condition. It permanently preserves Sinai Peninsula treatment and extends similar combat-zone-equivalent tax treatment to Kenya, Mali, Burkina Faso, and Chad.[1]

The federal fiscal impact is small but real: JCT estimated a revenue reduction of about $11 million over fiscal years 2025 through 2034.[3] The benefit is delivered through reduced taxable income, payroll withholding adjustments, IRS processing, and related combat-zone tax rules rather than through direct federal spending.

Consumers are affected mainly through military households, which may see lower tax liability, better filing protections, and clearer treatment during qualifying deployments. Businesses are affected only indirectly, mostly through tax preparation, payroll-support, and military-family advisory services.

The environmental and climate effect is minimal because the section changes tax treatment for military service rather than authorizing operations, construction, extraction, emissions, or environmental review changes. Any environmental or local-community effects from U.S. activities in the listed regions would depend on separate military and diplomatic decisions, not this tax provision.

Key References and Sourcing

[1] GovInfo, “Public Law 119-21, Section 70118,” enacted statutory text for the qualified hazardous duty area amendments and effective date, https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/PLAW-119publ21/html/PLAW-119publ21.htm.

[2] Office of the Law Revision Counsel, “26 U.S.C. 112: Certain combat zone compensation of members of the Armed Forces,” U.S. Code notes describing qualified hazardous duty area treatment for specified Internal Revenue Code provisions, https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?edition=prelim&num=0&req=granuleid%3AUSC-prelim-title26-section112.

[3] Joint Committee on Taxation, “JCX-35-25: Estimated Revenue Effects Relative To The Present Law Baseline Of The Tax Provisions In Title VII – Finance,” revenue estimate for Section 70118, https://www.jct.gov/publications/2025/jcx-35-25/.

[4] Internal Revenue Service, “Combat Zones,” eligibility rules for combat-zone tax benefits and qualified hazardous duty areas, https://www.irs.gov/individuals/military/combat-zones.

[5] Department of Defense Military Compensation, “Hostile Fire/Imminent Danger Pay,” pay rates and special-pay mechanics, https://militarypay.defense.gov/Pay/Special-and-Incentive-Pays/HFP_IDP/.

[6] Defense Finance and Accounting Service, “Combat Zone Tax Exclusion for Sinai, Egypt,” payroll and corrected wage-statement administration for Sinai service, https://www.dfas.mil/MilitaryMembers/taxinfo/CZTE-for-Sinai-Peninsula/.

[7] Congressional Research Service, “Tax Provisions in P.L. 119-21, the FY2025 Reconciliation Law,” summary of Section 70118 and affected Internal Revenue Code provisions, https://www.everycrsreport.com/reports/R48611.html.

---

Created with AI, Will be Polished by Humans, Powered by You.

Join the Conversation Today!

---

Please share how OBBBA Section 70118: Extension of treatment of certain individuals performing services in the Sinai Peninsula and enhancement to include additional areas is impacting you, your family, your business, your district and/or your state by telling your story.

Legislative and Policy Analysis

Section 70117: Extension of rollovers from qualified tuition programs to ABLE accounts permitted

Executive Summary

Section 70117 makes permanent a tax rule that allows limited tax-free rollovers from qualified tuition programs, commonly known as 529 plans, into ABLE accounts for eligible people with disabilities. The section does this by amending Internal Revenue Code section 529(c)(3)(C)(i)(III) to remove the phrase “before January 1, 2026,” so the rollover authority no longer expires after 2025.[1]

The practical effect is narrow but important. Families that saved in a 529 education account may continue moving unused or redirected education savings into an ABLE account for the same beneficiary or a qualifying family member, subject to ABLE contribution limits.[2] ABLE accounts are designed to help eligible individuals with disabilities save for qualified disability expenses such as education, housing, transportation, employment training, assistive technology, health, financial management, legal fees, oversight, and related expenses.[3]

This section does not create a direct appropriation, grant program, or agency spending account. It affects federal revenues through the tax code by preserving tax-free treatment for qualifying rollovers. The financial value for any beneficiary is limited by the ABLE annual contribution cap. For 2026, the gift-tax annual exclusion amount that anchors the ordinary ABLE contribution limit is $19,000.[4] Rollovers from 529 plans to ABLE accounts count toward the annual ABLE contribution limit, so the rollover plus other annual contributions cannot exceed the applicable limit.[5]

What Section 70117 Actually Does

Section 70117 permanently extends an existing tax-favored rollover pathway between two savings systems:

The section contains no stated appropriation, rescission, grant amount, loan authority, credit subsidy, or direct spending line. Its fiscal effect is a tax expenditure effect: qualifying rollovers avoid federal income tax treatment that could otherwise apply to nonqualified 529 distributions. The section-specific budget impact may be difficult to isolate publicly because it is administered through tax reporting and aggregate revenue-estimating systems rather than through a direct federal spending account.

The key financial constraint is the ABLE contribution limit. Internal Revenue Code section 529A ties ordinary annual ABLE contributions to the gift-tax annual exclusion amount, with additional rules for certain working beneficiaries.[10] For tax year 2026, the annual gift exclusion remains $19,000.[11] IRS public guidance states that 529-to-ABLE rollovers count toward the annual ABLE contribution limit and that the rollover plus other ABLE contributions cannot exceed that year’s maximum contribution amount.[12]

Legislative Mechanism

Section 70117 uses a simple strike-through amendment. It amends section 529(c)(3)(C)(i)(III) of the Internal Revenue Code by striking the words “before January 1, 2026,” from the 529 rollover rule.[13] After that deletion, the Code continues to allow a qualifying 529 distribution to be rolled into an ABLE account of the designated beneficiary or a member of the designated beneficiary’s family, while retaining the ABLE contribution-limit cross-reference.[14]

The effective date applies to taxable years beginning after December 31, 2025.[15] That timing matters because, without the amendment, taxpayers and plan administrators would have faced a sunset after 2025. Section 70117 changes the baseline from a temporary rollover option to a permanent planning feature.

The section does not alter all ABLE or 529 rules. It does not eliminate ABLE eligibility requirements, the one-ABLE-account rule, annual contribution limits, state program administration, reporting obligations, qualified disability expense rules, or the possible Medicaid payback rule after the beneficiary’s death.[16] It also does not create a reverse tax-free rollover from an ABLE account into a 529 account.

Expenditure Tracking and Reporting Protocol

Section 70117 does not move federal dollars through a grant, contract, or direct payment system. The relevant financial flow is a tax benefit preserved through the Internal Revenue Code. Tracking is therefore likely to occur through IRS administration, Treasury tax analysis, JCT and CBO revenue estimates, and ABLE program reporting rather than through USAspending.gov as a discrete outlay.

The likely tracking and reporting pathway is:

flowchart TD
A[Statutory tax rule] --> B[529 plan rollover]
B --> C[ABLE program receives funds]
C --> D[Program reports to IRS]
C --> E[Monthly data to SSA]
D --> F[IRS tax administration]
F --> G[Treasury tax analysis]
F --> H[JCT and CBO estimates]
G --> I[Aggregate public visibility]
H --> I
C --> J[Beneficiary statements]
I --> K[Section specific impact hard to isolate]

Likely tracking sources include IRS return information, Forms 1099-Q or related 529 reporting where applicable, ABLE program reporting to Treasury and beneficiaries, monthly electronic ABLE balance and distribution reporting to the Social Security Administration, Treasury tax expenditure materials, JCT revenue estimates, and CBO budget effects.[17] Public visibility is likely to be aggregated and delayed. Individual rollover data is protected tax information, and section-specific revenue effects may not be separately visible if estimates are grouped with other ABLE or 529 provisions.

For oversight purposes, Congress can request JCT or Treasury analysis, IRS can issue administrative guidance, and federal agencies can use ABLE reporting data to monitor contribution limits and program compliance. State ABLE programs and 529 plan administrators remain the operational front line because they process transfers, enforce program rules, issue statements, and coordinate tax reporting.

Day-to-Day Government Process Changes

For the IRS and Treasury, Section 70117 reduces the need to administer a sunset transition after 2025. Instead of preparing taxpayers, state programs, and administrators for expiration of 529-to-ABLE rollover authority, agencies can treat the rollover as a continuing feature of the tax code.

For state 529 programs and ABLE programs, the change supports continuity in forms, disclosure materials, transfer procedures, customer service scripts, and compliance systems. Program administrators still need to track whether the recipient ABLE account belongs to the 529 designated beneficiary or a qualifying family member, whether the receiving account is an eligible ABLE account, and whether the transfer causes the ABLE annual contribution limit to be exceeded.

For Social Security-related administration, ABLE reporting remains relevant because account balances and distributions can affect means-tested benefit administration. Section 529A requires monthly electronic statements to the Commissioner of Social Security on relevant ABLE distributions and balances.[18] Section 70117 does not add a new Social Security reporting channel, but continued 529-to-ABLE rollovers may increase the practical importance of accurate account-balance reporting.

Effects on Consumers

The consumer impact is positive for eligible individuals with disabilities and families that have unused or less-needed 529 funds. A child or adult who becomes disabled, does not use all education savings, or has family education savings better suited to disability-related expenses can continue using a tax-favored rollover path into an ABLE account.

The section may help families avoid a bad choice between leaving funds in a 529 account that no longer fits the beneficiary’s needs or taking a nonqualified 529 distribution that could trigger tax consequences. By preserving the rollover, the section gives families more flexibility to support disability-related housing, transportation, health, assistive technology, employment support, education, legal, and financial-management costs through an ABLE account.[19]

The limits are important. Rollovers count toward the annual ABLE contribution cap, so this is not an unlimited transfer mechanism.[20] Consumers also need to consider state ABLE program rules, investment fees, Medicaid payback rules, means-tested benefit interactions, and whether keeping assets in a 529 account, changing the 529 beneficiary, rolling over to another 529, using a Roth IRA rollover where separately permitted, or transferring to ABLE is the best option.

The section is most useful for households that already have 529 savings. It provides less direct help to families without disposable income to save, and it does not itself increase cash assistance, disability benefits, Medicaid coverage, housing support, or education funding.

Effects on Businesses

The business impact is limited and mostly administrative or advisory. State-sponsored 529 plans, state ABLE programs, financial institutions, plan recordkeepers, payroll and benefits providers, disability-planning professionals, tax preparers, estate planners, and financial advisers may see continued demand for rollover guidance.

The section does not impose a broad new business tax, mandate, procurement requirement, or employer compliance regime. However, businesses that administer 529 or ABLE platforms must keep systems aligned with permanent rollover authority, annual contribution limits, tax reporting, beneficiary relationship rules, and customer disclosures.

For advisory firms and tax professionals, the permanence of the rule may make long-term planning easier. Families can consider a 529-to-ABLE rollover as part of disability, education, estate, and benefits planning without the uncertainty of a year-end 2025 sunset.

Environmental and Climate Impact

The environmental and climate impact is minimal. Section 70117 changes the tax treatment of rollovers between education savings accounts and disability savings accounts. It does not authorize construction, fossil-fuel leasing, mining, roadbuilding, land transfers, energy development, procurement, environmental permitting changes, pollution-control funding, conservation funding, or climate-related spending.

The immediate legal effect is a tax-code continuation. What the section makes easier is household financial planning for disability-related expenses. Later implementation depends on families choosing to transfer funds and state programs processing those transfers.

There is no meaningful direct greenhouse-gas, air pollution, water quality, habitat, public lands, biodiversity, or climate-resilience pathway. Indirect environmental effects are likely too remote to assess because ABLE withdrawals can be used for a wide range of qualified disability expenses. Existing environmental safeguards are not weakened, bypassed, narrowed, or accelerated by this section.

Environmental justice impacts are also minimal in the environmental sense. The section may have disability-equity benefits by preserving a savings tool for eligible individuals with disabilities, but that is a social and financial access issue rather than an environmental justice mechanism tied to pollution exposure, land use, or climate risk.

Impact Summary

Section 70117 is a narrow but meaningful tax-planning provision. It permanently preserves the ability to move limited funds from a 529 qualified tuition program into an ABLE account for the same beneficiary or a qualifying family member, subject to ABLE contribution limits. The main beneficiaries are eligible individuals with disabilities and families that have 529 balances that may be better used for disability-related expenses than for education expenses.

The fiscal effect is not a direct federal spending program. It is a tax expenditure administered through IRS and Treasury systems, with public visibility likely to be aggregated and difficult to isolate at the section level. The most concrete financial constraint is the ABLE annual contribution framework, including the $19,000 annual gift exclusion amount for 2026.

The environmental and climate effect is minimal because the section does not fund, authorize, accelerate, or restrict environmentally significant activity. It does not weaken environmental safeguards or change permitting, extraction, emissions, conservation, or resilience policy.

Key References and Sourcing

[1] Senate Budget Committee, “H.R. 1 text PDF,” Section 70117, https://www.budget.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/the_one_big_beautiful_bill_act.pdf.

[2] Cornell Legal Information Institute, “26 U.S.C. § 529,” subsection 529(c)(3)(C)(i)(III), https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/26/529.

[3] Cornell Legal Information Institute, “26 U.S.C. § 529A,” qualified disability expenses definition in subsection 529A(e)(5), https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/26/529A.

[4] IRS, “IRS releases tax inflation adjustments for tax year 2026, including amendments from the One Big Beautiful Bill,” annual exclusion for gifts, https://www.irs.gov/newsroom/irs-releases-tax-inflation-adjustments-for-tax-year-2026-including-amendments-from-the-one-big-beautiful-bill.

[5] IRS, “ABLE savings accounts and other tax benefits for persons with disabilities,” rollovers and transfers from Section 529 plans, https://www.irs.gov/newsroom/able-savings-accounts-and-other-tax-benefits-for-persons-with-disabilities.

[6] IRS, “Topic No. 313, Qualified tuition programs,” definition of qualified tuition program, https://www.irs.gov/taxtopics/tc313.

[7] Cornell Legal Information Institute, “26 U.S.C. § 529A,” qualified ABLE program and ABLE account definitions, https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/26/529A.

[8] Federal Register, “Guidance Under Section 529A: Qualified ABLE Programs,” discussion of TCJA’s temporary 529-to-ABLE rollover rule, https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2020/11/19/2020-22144/guidance-under-section-529a-qualified-able-programs.

[9] Senate Budget Committee, “H.R. 1 text PDF,” Section 70117 effective date, https://www.budget.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/the_one_big_beautiful_bill_act.pdf.

[10] Cornell Legal Information Institute, “26 U.S.C. § 529A,” contribution limits in subsection 529A(b)(2), https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/26/529A.

[11] IRS, “IRS releases tax inflation adjustments for tax year 2026, including amendments from the One Big Beautiful Bill,” annual exclusion for gifts, https://www.irs.gov/newsroom/irs-releases-tax-inflation-adjustments-for-tax-year-2026-including-amendments-from-the-one-big-beautiful-bill.

[12] IRS, “ABLE savings accounts and other tax benefits for persons with disabilities,” 529 rollover contribution-limit explanation, https://www.irs.gov/newsroom/able-savings-accounts-and-other-tax-benefits-for-persons-with-disabilities.

[13] Senate Budget Committee, “H.R. 1 text PDF,” Section 70117(a), https://www.budget.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/the_one_big_beautiful_bill_act.pdf.

[14] Cornell Legal Information Institute, “26 U.S.C. § 529,” current text of subsection 529(c)(3)(C)(i)(III), https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/26/529.

[15] Senate Budget Committee, “H.R. 1 text PDF,” Section 70117(b), https://www.budget.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/the_one_big_beautiful_bill_act.pdf.

[16] Cornell Legal Information Institute, “26 U.S.C. § 529A,” ABLE account program rules and transfer-to-state rule, https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/26/529A.

[17] Cornell Legal Information Institute, “26 U.S.C. § 529A,” reporting provisions in subsection 529A(d); Federal Register, “Guidance Under Section 529A: Qualified ABLE Programs,” https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/26/529A and https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2020/11/19/2020-22144/guidance-under-section-529a-qualified-able-programs.

[18] Cornell Legal Information Institute, “26 U.S.C. § 529A,” monthly electronic distribution statements to the Commissioner of Social Security, https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/26/529A.

[19] Cornell Legal Information Institute, “26 U.S.C. § 529A,” qualified disability expenses definition, https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/26/529A.

[20] IRS, “ABLE savings accounts and other tax benefits for persons with disabilities,” rollover limit example and annual contribution treatment, https://www.irs.gov/newsroom/able-savings-accounts-and-other-tax-benefits-for-persons-with-disabilities.

---

Created with AI, Will be Polished by Humans, Powered by You.

Join the Conversation Today!

---

Please share how OBBBA Section 70117: Extension of rollovers from qualified tuition programs to ABLE accounts permitted is impacting you, your family, your business, your district and/or your state by telling your story.

Legislative and Policy Analysis

Section 70116: Extension and enhancement of savers credit allowed for ABLE contributions

Executive Summary

Section 70116 permanently preserves a federal tax credit pathway for certain people with disabilities who contribute to their own ABLE accounts. It amends Internal Revenue Code section 25B so that an eligible individual’s qualified ABLE contribution can continue to count for the Saver’s Credit after the prior temporary ABLE rule would otherwise have expired.[1]

The section also changes how the Saver’s Credit works after 2026. For taxable years beginning before January 1, 2027, the credit can still apply to traditional retirement savings contributions, elective deferrals, certain deferred compensation contributions, voluntary employee contributions to qualified retirement plans, and eligible ABLE contributions. Beginning with taxable years after 2026, Section 70116 narrows the section 25B credit base so that the remaining Saver’s Credit under that section applies to ABLE account contributions made by the designated beneficiary.[1]

The section increases the per-person contribution amount that can be counted for the credit from $2,000 to $2,100 for taxable years beginning after December 31, 2026.[1] Because the Saver’s Credit rate can be 50 percent, 20 percent, or 10 percent depending on adjusted gross income and filing status, the practical maximum credit for one eligible individual rises from $1,000 to $1,050; for a married couple filing jointly where both spouses qualify and each has eligible contributions, the maximum can rise from $2,000 to $2,100.[2]

The Joint Committee on Taxation estimated Section 70116 at an $8 million federal revenue loss over fiscal years 2025 through 2034, with annual effects generally listed at less than $1 million or $1 million per year.[3] This is a small tax expenditure in federal budget terms, but it matters to a narrow group: lower- and moderate-income ABLE beneficiaries who have enough tax liability to benefit from a nonrefundable credit.

What Section 70116 Actually Does

Section 70116 modifies the definition of “qualified retirement savings contributions” in Internal Revenue Code section 25B(d)(1). As rewritten, the term includes contributions made by an eligible individual during the taxable year to the ABLE account of which that individual is the designated beneficiary.[1]

The section also includes a transition rule. For taxable years beginning before January 1, 2027, the same definition continues to include familiar retirement savings categories, including IRA contributions, elective deferrals, certain governmental deferred compensation deferrals, and voluntary employee contributions to qualified retirement plans.[1] After that point, Section 70116 leaves the section 25B Saver’s Credit focused on ABLE account contributions by the beneficiary, while the separate SECURE 2.0 retirement “Saver’s Match” framework is addressed outside this section.[4]

Section 70116 also repeals paragraph (1) of section 103(e) of the SECURE 2.0 Act of 2022 and instructs that the Internal Revenue Code be applied and administered as though that paragraph had never been enacted.[1] In plain language, this prevents the prior SECURE 2.0 transition language from displacing the ABLE-related credit structure that Section 70116 preserves.

The major quantifiable federal fiscal effect is the revenue loss from allowing eligible credits against federal income tax.

This section does not create a direct grant, cash payment, refundable credit, or new ABLE account program. It changes federal income tax liability for eligible claimants. The benefit is therefore limited by the taxpayer’s eligibility, income, contribution amount, filing status, and tax liability.

Legislative Mechanism

Section 70116 works through amendments to Internal Revenue Code section 25B, the retirement savings contributions credit. The legal mechanism is a tax-code definitional change, not a new spending account.

The section has three main operative parts:

1. It rewrites section 25B(d)(1) so that qualified ABLE contributions by a designated beneficiary count as qualified retirement savings contributions for credit purposes.[1]

2. It preserves pre-2027 treatment for retirement-related contributions while creating a post-2026 structure in which the section 25B credit is focused on ABLE beneficiary contributions.[1]

3. It increases the statutory contribution cap in section 25B(a) from $2,000 to $2,100, effective for taxable years beginning after December 31, 2026.[1]

The section’s effective dates are split. The extension and SECURE 2.0 coordination amendments apply to taxable years ending after December 31, 2025. The increase from $2,000 to $2,100 applies to taxable years beginning after December 31, 2026.[1]

The section is best understood together with the adjacent ABLE provisions. Section 70115 addresses ABLE contribution limits, and Section 70117 addresses rollovers from qualified tuition programs to ABLE accounts. Section 70116 is narrower: it focuses on the federal income tax credit for eligible beneficiary contributions to ABLE accounts.

Expenditure Tracking and Reporting Protocol

Section 70116 creates a tax expenditure rather than a direct appropriation. The financial benefit does not move through a grant account, contract award, reimbursement stream, or agency payment program. It is administered through federal income tax filing and IRS return processing.

The likely tracking sources are IRS tax administration data, Form 8880 filings, Treasury tax expenditure estimates, Joint Committee on Taxation revenue estimates, Congressional Budget Office budget effects, and aggregate IRS Statistics of Income data if the IRS reports the relevant credit categories with enough detail.[2][3][5] Public visibility is likely to be delayed and aggregated. Individual claims are protected tax return information, and public data may not isolate Section 70116 separately from broader Saver’s Credit or ABLE-related reporting.

flowchart TD
    A[Section 70116] --> B[Internal Revenue Code section 25B]
    B --> C[ABLE beneficiary contribution]
    C --> D[Tax return claim]
    D --> E[IRS Form 8880]
    E --> F[IRS processing]
    F --> G[Lower tax liability]
    F --> H[Treasury revenue data]
    F --> I[IRS statistics]
    H --> J[JCT estimates]
    H --> K[CBO budget effects]
    I --> L[Public aggregate data]
    J --> M[Congress oversight]
    K --> M
    L --> N[Delayed visibility]

The reporting protocol is tax-return based. The taxpayer claims the credit on the federal income tax return, using Form 8880 and Schedule 3 where applicable.[2][5] The IRS processes the claim, applies eligibility and mathematical checks, and reflects the result in tax liability. Treasury and JCT can estimate revenue effects, while Congress can review the aggregate fiscal impact through revenue tables and oversight materials.[3]

Because the credit is nonrefundable, the federal financial effect is a reduction in receipts rather than an outlay to taxpayers who owe no tax. That makes the benefit less visible than a grant or payment program and less accessible to eligible ABLE beneficiaries with little or no federal income tax liability.

Day-to-Day Government Process Changes

For the IRS, Section 70116 requires updates to forms, instructions, tax software schemas, publications, taxpayer guidance, return-processing rules, and compliance filters. Form 8880 is the central filing mechanism for the Saver’s Credit, and IRS materials already identify ABLE contributions by designated beneficiaries as potentially eligible for the credit.[2][5]

The IRS must also manage the post-2026 distinction between ABLE contributions and other savings contributions under section 25B. Starting with 2027 tax returns, Form 8880 is expected to be used for the Saver’s Credit for ABLE account contributions, while retirement savings contributions move into the separate Saver’s Match implementation structure.[5] That transition will require clear taxpayer-facing instructions because the phrase “Saver’s Credit” has historically been associated with retirement contributions as well as ABLE contributions.

For Treasury and congressional scorekeepers, the section requires revenue-estimate tracking rather than outlay tracking. JCT estimated the provision as an $8 million revenue loss over the 2025–2034 budget window.[3] That figure is small enough that some annual amounts are below standard table rounding thresholds, which means public estimates may show bracketed or rounded values rather than precise annual totals.

For state ABLE programs, the section may require updated outreach materials rather than direct federal compliance obligations. ABLE programs and disability-service organizations will likely need to explain that the federal benefit belongs to the designated beneficiary making the contribution, not automatically to parents, relatives, trustees, or other contributors.

Effects on Consumers

The consumers most directly affected are eligible ABLE account designated beneficiaries who make contributions to their own ABLE accounts and satisfy the Saver’s Credit eligibility rules. IRS guidance describes the Saver’s Credit as available to eligible individuals who are at least 18, are not claimed as dependents, are not students, meet income requirements, and make eligible contributions, including ABLE contributions where the taxpayer is the designated beneficiary.[2]

For those beneficiaries, Section 70116 can modestly reduce federal income tax liability. The value depends on the applicable credit percentage, the amount contributed, and whether the taxpayer has enough tax liability to use a nonrefundable credit. The increase from a $2,000 to a $2,100 countable contribution base raises the maximum single-person credit by $50 at the 50 percent rate.[1][2]

The section is positive for eligible ABLE beneficiaries who work, save, file returns, and owe federal income tax. It is less useful for very low-income beneficiaries who have no income tax liability. Because the credit is nonrefundable, it cannot by itself generate a refund beyond reducing tax owed to zero.[2]

The consumer-facing complexity is significant. A beneficiary may need to understand ABLE eligibility, contribution limits, income limits, student and dependent rules, Form 8880, and the interaction between ABLE savings and public benefit rules. The policy benefit may therefore depend heavily on outreach by tax preparers, disability advocates, state ABLE programs, and IRS guidance.

Effects on Businesses

Section 70116 has limited direct business impact. It does not impose a new employer mandate, wage-reporting requirement, payroll tax rule, procurement requirement, or direct business tax credit.

The most relevant business effects are indirect. Tax preparers, tax software companies, payroll-adjacent benefit platforms, financial planners, and ABLE program administrators will need to update systems and client materials. Employers that provide disability-focused financial wellness information may also need to update employee-facing guidance, especially for workers who are ABLE beneficiaries.

Businesses that administer retirement plans may see some confusion during the transition from the existing Saver’s Credit to the SECURE 2.0 Saver’s Match structure for retirement contributions. Section 70116 preserves an ABLE-focused credit under section 25B while the retirement contribution pathway changes after 2026. That distinction matters for tax software, benefits education, and compliance communications.

For financial institutions and ABLE program managers, the section may modestly encourage beneficiary-owned ABLE contributions, but the revenue estimate suggests the aggregate effect is small.[3]

Environmental and Climate Impact

The environmental and climate impact is minimal. Section 70116 changes an individual income tax credit for eligible ABLE account contributions. It does not directly authorize construction, land use, energy development, extraction, transportation infrastructure, pollution control, environmental permitting, federal procurement, or environmental grant funding.

The immediate legal effect is a tax-code change that preserves and enhances a savings incentive for certain people with disabilities. The reasonably foreseeable implementation effect is additional IRS administration and modest taxpayer behavior change, not a material change in emissions, land disturbance, water quality, habitat, biodiversity, public lands, or climate resilience.

Existing environmental safeguards are not weakened, bypassed, accelerated, or narrowed by this section. There is no obvious environmental justice harm pathway. To the extent the section has a public-welfare effect, it is social and economic rather than environmental: it may modestly improve after-tax resources for some lower- and moderate-income people with disabilities who can contribute to ABLE accounts and use a nonrefundable credit.

The main uncertainty is whether improved ABLE savings capacity has downstream quality-of-life effects that indirectly affect transportation, housing, or care choices for individual beneficiaries. Those effects are too attenuated and individualized to characterize as a meaningful environmental or climate impact.

Impact Summary

Section 70116 is a narrow, disability-savings tax provision. It permanently preserves the ability of eligible ABLE account designated beneficiaries to claim the Saver’s Credit for their own ABLE contributions and increases the countable contribution amount from $2,000 to $2,100 beginning after 2026.[1]

The fiscal impact is small in federal budget terms. JCT estimated an $8 million revenue loss over fiscal years 2025 through 2034.[3] The practical benefit is also targeted: the provision helps eligible ABLE beneficiaries who contribute to their accounts and have enough federal income tax liability to use a nonrefundable credit.

The consumer impact is positive but limited. The section can modestly lower taxes for some working or tax-liable people with disabilities, but it does little for eligible beneficiaries with no income tax liability. The business impact is mostly administrative for tax software providers, preparers, ABLE program administrators, and financial advisors. The environmental and climate impact is minimal because the section affects tax filing and disability savings rather than physical development, pollution, energy, land use, or environmental safeguards.

Key References and Sourcing

[1] GovInfo, “H.R. 1 — One Big Beautiful Bill Act, Enrolled Bill,” Section 70116, https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/BILLS-119hr1enr/html/BILLS-119hr1enr.htm.

[2] Internal Revenue Service, “Retirement Savings Contributions Credit (Saver’s Credit),” eligibility, contribution categories, credit rates, and nonrefundability, https://www.irs.gov/retirement-plans/plan-participant-employee/retirement-savings-contributions-credit-savers-credit.

[3] Joint Committee on Taxation, “JCX-35-25, Estimated Revenue Effects Relative to the Present Law Baseline of the Tax Provisions in Title VII — Finance,” Section 70116 estimate, https://www.jct.gov/publications/2025/jcx-35-25/.

[4] Public Law 117-328, SECURE 2.0 Act of 2022, section 103, Saver’s Match framework referenced by Section 70116’s coordination amendment, https://www.congress.gov/117/plaws/publ328/PLAW-117publ328.pdf.

[5] Internal Revenue Service, “Form 8880, Credit for Qualified Retirement Savings Contributions,” filing mechanism and ABLE-related implementation notes, https://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/f8880.pdf.

[6] Internal Revenue Service, “ABLE accounts — tax benefit for people with disabilities,” ABLE account tax background and TCJA-era ABLE provisions, https://www.irs.gov/government-entities/federal-state-local-governments/able-accounts-tax-benefit-for-people-with-disabilities.

---

Created with AI, Will be Polished by Humans, Powered by You.

Join the Conversation Today!

---

Please share how OBBBA Section 70116: Extension and enhancement of savers credit allowed for ABLE contributions is impacting you, your family, your business, your district and/or your state by telling your story.

Legislative and Policy Analysis

Section 70115: Extension and enhancement of increased limitation on contributions to ABLE accounts

Executive Summary

Section 70115 permanently extends and modestly enhances the higher contribution limits for Achieving a Better Life Experience accounts, commonly called ABLE accounts. ABLE accounts are tax-advantaged savings accounts under Internal Revenue Code section 529A for eligible people with disabilities. They allow money to be saved and spent for qualified disability expenses without the same benefit-disqualifying effect that ordinary savings can have under means-tested programs.[1]

The section does two things. First, it removes the scheduled January 1, 2026 sunset for the temporary “ABLE to Work” additional contribution rule. Second, it changes the inflation adjustment for the base annual contribution limit by linking the section 529A limit to section 2503(b) with a modified inflation calculation, effectively preserving and slightly enhancing the inflation-indexed base contribution amount for ABLE accounts after 2025.[2]

This is a tax-preference provision rather than a direct appropriation. It does not create a grant program or direct federal payment stream. The federal fiscal effect is tracked mainly through tax administration and revenue-estimating channels. The Joint Committee on Taxation estimated Section 70115 as reducing federal revenues by about $6 million over fiscal years 2025 through 2034, with several early-year effects below $500,000.[3]

For consumers, the impact is generally positive for eligible people with disabilities who have earned income or support networks able to contribute more to an ABLE account. It can increase financial flexibility for disability-related housing, transportation, health, assistive technology, education, employment support, and other qualified expenses.[4] The benefit is less meaningful for people with disabilities who have little disposable income, no earned income, unstable benefits, or limited access to state ABLE programs.

Environmental and climate impacts are minimal. The section changes household savings and tax rules for disability-related accounts. It does not fund, authorize, accelerate, or restrict energy, transportation, land-use, industrial, conservation, or pollution-control activity.

What Section 70115 Actually Does

Section 70115 amends Internal Revenue Code section 529A(b)(2)(B), which governs the annual contribution limit for qualified ABLE programs.[2] ABLE accounts already have a base annual contribution limit tied to the annual federal gift tax exclusion under section 2503(b). For 2025, the IRS listed the regular ABLE contribution limit as $19,000.[5]

The section modifies that framework in two ways:

The additional contribution rule is especially important for working beneficiaries. Under IRS guidance for 2025, certain employed ABLE beneficiaries may contribute an additional amount equal to the beneficiary’s compensation for the year, up to a capped poverty-line amount. For 2025, IRS listed that additional amount as $15,650 for residents of the continental United States, $19,550 for Alaska, and $17,990 for Hawaii.[5]

Section 70115 applies generally to contributions made after December 31, 2025. The modified inflation-adjustment amendment applies to taxable years beginning after December 31, 2025.[2]

This section does not appropriate money. Its budgetary effect is a tax expenditure or revenue loss. JCT estimated the Section 70115 revenue effect at about negative $6 million over fiscal years 2025 through 2034.[3]

Legislative Mechanism

Section 70115 is a targeted amendment to the Internal Revenue Code. It does not create a new program; it changes the tax rules for an existing type of state-administered qualified ABLE program.

The legislative mechanism is:

1. Amend section 529A(b)(2)(B)(i) to alter the inflation-adjustment cross-reference for the base annual contribution limit.
2. Amend section 529A(b)(2)(B)(ii) to remove the scheduled January 1, 2026 expiration date for the additional contribution rule.
3. Apply the general contribution amendment to contributions made after December 31, 2025.
4. Apply the modified inflation adjustment to taxable years beginning after December 31, 2025.[2]

ABLE programs remain state-administered qualified programs, but the federal tax code determines the tax-favored treatment. Contributions are not federally deductible, but distributions are tax-free when used for qualified disability expenses.[4] The section therefore works by changing the ceiling on tax-preferred saving rather than by paying federal benefits directly.

Expenditure Tracking and Reporting Protocol

Section 70115 creates no direct appropriation, grant, contract, loan, or payment account. Its federal fiscal effect is a reduction in receipts. That means tracking is likely to occur through tax administration and budget-estimating systems rather than through Treasury outlay accounts or USAspending.gov award records.

The likely tracking sources are:

Because this is a tax provision, the public will usually not be able to trace the fiscal effect account-by-account. The provision-specific score is visible in JCT estimates, but actual taxpayer use will be more aggregated and may be difficult to isolate from general ABLE account participation, investment growth, state program data, and related OBBBA ABLE changes in Sections 70116 and 70117.[3]

flowchart TD
    A[Section 70115] --> B[Tax code change]
    B --> C[IRS administration]
    B --> D[State ABLE programs]
    C --> E[Tax returns and forms]
    C --> F[Treasury estimates]
    C --> G[JCT revenue estimates]
    D --> H[Account contributions]
    D --> I[Program reporting]
    E --> J[Aggregated public data]
    F --> J
    G --> K[Congressional scorekeeping]
    I --> L[State level visibility]
    J --> M[Limited public detail]
    K --> M
    L --> M

The key limitation is that Section 70115’s real-world usage may be difficult to separate from broader ABLE policy changes. Public estimates can show the scored federal revenue effect, but they may not show which households used the higher limit, how much of the additional saving came from beneficiary wages, or whether additional savings changed long-term public benefit participation.

Day-to-Day Government Process Changes

For the IRS and Treasury, Section 70115 mainly requires continued administration of rules that would otherwise have expired. The IRS must continue to apply the additional contribution rule for eligible employed ABLE beneficiaries after 2025, interpret the modified inflation adjustment, and maintain guidance for taxpayers, account administrators, and state ABLE programs.[2]

For state ABLE programs, the practical change is operational continuity. Programs can keep accepting additional “ABLE to Work” contributions from qualifying employed beneficiaries, subject to compensation, poverty-line, and retirement-plan contribution restrictions. Program administrators may need to update disclosure documents, contribution-limit calculators, payroll-deduction systems, online contribution portals, and excess-contribution safeguards.

For SSA and other benefits administrators, the section does not rewrite the basic public-benefit treatment of ABLE accounts. SSA guidance generally disregards up to and including $100,000 in an ABLE account for SSI resource purposes, while balances above that threshold can suspend SSI if they cause the recipient to exceed the SSI resource limit; Medicaid can continue if the person remains otherwise eligible.[6] Higher contribution capacity may make these rules more practically relevant for working beneficiaries who can accumulate larger balances.

Effects on Consumers

The consumer impact is generally positive but uneven.

For eligible people with disabilities who work, Section 70115 can increase the ability to save earned income in a tax-advantaged account without immediately undermining access to key means-tested benefits. That matters because ordinary savings can collide with strict resource limits, especially for SSI recipients. ABLE accounts help reduce that problem by allowing qualified savings to be used for disability-related needs.[6]

Potential consumer benefits include:

The section can support disability-related financial independence, but it is not a substitute for adequate income, Medicaid, SSI, housing assistance, personal care services, or health coverage. It helps most when a beneficiary has earnings, family support, or other contributors able to fund the account.

Effects on Businesses

The direct business impact is modest. Section 70115 does not impose a broad employer mandate and does not create a new business tax credit. Its strongest business relevance is for employers that support workers with disabilities through payroll deduction, financial wellness benefits, disability inclusion programs, or benefits counseling.

Employers may see several practical effects:

The provision may support labor-force attachment for some workers with disabilities by making it easier to save wages without immediately sacrificing benefit eligibility. That effect is positive but likely limited by wage levels, eligibility rules, and whether employers and counselors help workers understand the rules.

Environmental and Climate Impact

The environmental and climate impact is minimal.

Section 70115 changes tax-preferred savings rules for disability-related ABLE accounts. It does not directly authorize physical development, fossil-fuel activity, mining, infrastructure construction, transportation expansion, pollution-control changes, environmental permitting, conservation funding, or climate-resilience spending.

The immediate legal effect is a tax-code change. The reasonably foreseeable implementation effect is increased or stabilized use of ABLE accounts by eligible beneficiaries, especially working beneficiaries. The contingent effect is that some beneficiaries may use additional ABLE savings for housing, transportation, assistive technology, health, education, or employment-related expenses.[4]

There is no meaningful direct greenhouse-gas, air-pollution, water-quality, habitat, biodiversity, public-lands, or climate-resilience pathway. Existing environmental safeguards are not weakened, bypassed, compressed, or expanded. Environmental justice effects are also minimal in the environmental-law sense, although the disability-equity effects are more meaningful because the section can improve financial flexibility for some people with disabilities.

Impact Summary

Section 70115 is a narrow but meaningful disability-savings tax provision. It makes the higher ABLE contribution framework more durable after 2025, including the additional contribution rule for eligible working beneficiaries. The fiscal effect is small compared with major tax provisions: JCT estimated about a $6 million federal revenue loss over fiscal years 2025 through 2034.[3]

The strongest practical impact is on consumers with disabilities who can save wages or receive contributions into ABLE accounts. It can improve financial resilience, reduce the penalty for saving, and make disability-related planning more predictable. The weakest point is distributional: people with the lowest incomes may benefit the least because the additional contribution rule is tied to earnings and capacity to save.

The business impact is limited but positive for payroll providers, ABLE program managers, financial advisors, and employers that support workers with disabilities. Government agencies mostly face continuity and guidance-update tasks rather than a major new administrative system.

The environmental and climate effect is minimal because the section affects tax-favored savings accounts, not environmental regulation, public lands, energy development, pollution control, or climate funding.

Key References and Sourcing

[1] 26 U.S.C. § 529A, “Qualified ABLE programs,” statutory framework for ABLE accounts, https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?req=%28title%3A26+section%3A529a+edition%3Aprelim%29.

[2] Public Law 119-21, “Sec. 70115. Extension and enhancement of increased limitation on contributions to ABLE accounts,” statutory amendments and effective dates, https://www.govinfo.gov/link/plaw/119/public/21.

[3] Joint Committee on Taxation, “JCX-35-25, Estimated Revenue Effects Relative to the Present Law Baseline of the Tax Provisions in Title VII – Finance,” provision-level estimate for Section 70115, https://www.jct.gov/getattachment/eb21dc77-6439-4fc3-8f5d-fc23a8c377e0/x-35-25.pdf.

[4] IRS, “ABLE accounts – Tax benefit for people with disabilities,” explanation of tax-advantaged ABLE accounts and tax-free distributions for qualified disability expenses, https://www.irs.gov/government-entities/federal-state-local-governments/able-accounts-tax-benefit-for-people-with-disabilities.

[5] IRS, “ABLE savings accounts and other tax benefits for persons with disabilities,” 2025 ABLE contribution limits and additional contribution amounts for employed beneficiaries, https://www.irs.gov/newsroom/able-savings-accounts-and-other-tax-benefits-for-persons-with-disabilities.

[6] Social Security Administration, “Spotlight on Achieving A Better Life Experience (ABLE) Accounts,” SSI and Medicaid treatment of ABLE account balances, https://www.ssa.gov/ssi/spotlights/spot-able.html.

[7] Federal Register, “Guidance Under Section 529A: Qualified ABLE Programs,” Treasury and IRS final regulations and administrative framework for ABLE programs, https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2020/11/19/2020-22144/guidance-under-section-529a-qualified-able-programs.

---

Created with AI, Will be Polished by Humans, Powered by You.

Join the Conversation Today!

---

Please share how OBBBA Section 70115: Extension and enhancement of increased limitation on contributions to ABLE accounts is impacting you, your family, your business, your district and/or your state by telling your story.

Legislative and Policy Analysis

Section 70114: Extension and modification of limitation on wagering losses

Executive Summary

Section 70114 changes the federal income-tax treatment of gambling and wagering losses beginning with taxable years after December 31, 2025. Before this change, taxpayers generally could deduct gambling losses only up to gambling winnings, and recreational gamblers generally had to itemize to claim the deduction.[1] Section 70114 adds a further limit: only 90 percent of wagering losses may be deducted, and that deduction still cannot exceed wagering gains.[2]

The practical result is that a taxpayer can owe federal income tax even when the taxpayer broke even or lost money from gambling during the year. For example, a taxpayer with $100,000 in wagering gains and $100,000 in wagering losses could previously offset the gains with losses if the taxpayer met the applicable deduction rules. Under Section 70114, only $90,000 of the $100,000 loss amount is deductible, leaving $10,000 of taxable wagering income despite no net economic profit.[2]

This section also makes permanent the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act treatment that treats professional gambling-related business deductions as part of “losses from wagering transactions.”[3] That means professional gamblers cannot avoid the wagering-loss cap by separately deducting business expenses such as travel, lodging, tournament fees, or other ordinary and necessary expenses tied to wagering activity.[3]

The Joint Committee on Taxation estimated the Senate version of this provision as a revenue-raising tax provision, with outside summaries of JCT materials identifying an estimated revenue gain of about $1.1 billion over the budget window.[4] The fiscal effect is not an appropriation or spending program; it is a tax-base expansion administered through the Internal Revenue Code, IRS forms, taxpayer reporting, withholding and information-reporting systems, audits, Treasury revenue estimates, and congressional budget scoring.

What Section 70114 Actually Does

Section 70114 amends Internal Revenue Code section 165(d), the Code provision governing losses from wagering transactions.[1] It does two main things.

First, it imposes a 90 percent deduction limit. The amended rule allows a deduction equal to 90 percent of wagering losses during the taxable year, but only to the extent of wagering gains during that same taxable year.[2] This preserves the older rule that gambling losses cannot be used to shelter wages, investment income, retirement income, business income unrelated to wagering, or other non-gambling income, while adding a new haircut to otherwise allowable wagering-loss deductions.

Second, it makes permanent the rule that “losses from wagering transactions” include deductions otherwise allowable under chapter 1 of the Internal Revenue Code that are incurred in carrying on wagering transactions.[3] That is most important for professional gamblers. Before the TCJA, litigation and tax practice allowed some professional gambling expenses to be treated differently from losing bets. The TCJA narrowed that treatment temporarily. Section 70114 extends and modifies that limitation permanently.[3]

The section has no direct appropriation, rescission, grant, loan, or federal payment amount. Its major quantified budget value is the estimated federal revenue gain from limiting deductions. Public summaries of JCT scoring identify that amount as approximately $1.1 billion.[4]

For consumers, the clearest effect is “phantom income” taxation. A person who wins and loses the same amount over a year can still have taxable gambling income because the law disallows 10 percent of the losses. For professional gamblers, the effect can be sharper because business expenses connected to wagering activity are included in the loss limitation.[3]

Legislative Mechanism

The legislative mechanism is a direct amendment to Internal Revenue Code section 165(d). Section 165 generally governs deductions for losses. Section 165(d) is the special rule for wagering losses.[1]

The revised mechanism works in this order:

1. The taxpayer reports wagering gains as income.
2. The taxpayer identifies wagering losses and wagering-related deductions.
3. The allowable deduction is reduced to 90 percent of the loss amount.
4. The resulting deduction remains capped by wagering gains.
5. Any excess loss or disallowed amount does not offset other income.
6. The taxpayer’s taxable income may include gambling income even when net gambling profit is zero or negative.

The IRS has already reflected the statutory change in proposed regulations, explaining that Section 70114 amended section 165(d) to limit the deduction to 90 percent of wagering losses during the taxable year and only to the extent of wagering gains during that year.[2] The IRS proposal also applies the same concept to combined wagering gains and losses of spouses filing a joint return.[2]

This is not a discretionary agency program. The IRS must administer the amended Code rule through forms, instructions, examination guidance, taxpayer assistance, return processing, and enforcement.

Expenditure Tracking and Reporting Protocol

Section 70114 involves a federal financial flow because it changes federal revenue collection through the income-tax system. It does not create a direct spending account. The relevant tracking sources are therefore tax-administration and revenue-estimating systems rather than grant, contract, or outlay databases.

The primary administering agency is the Internal Revenue Service within the Department of the Treasury. The relevant legal account is not a spending account but the individual and business income-tax base under the Internal Revenue Code. Public tracking is likely to be aggregated and difficult to isolate at the section-specific taxpayer level. The budget effect may be visible in JCT and CBO estimates, Treasury tax-administration materials, IRS Statistics of Income aggregates, and IRS enforcement or filing-season guidance, but not as a separate award, grant, or payment line in USAspending.gov.

flowchart TD
  A[Section 70114] --> B[Internal Revenue Code]
  B --> C[IRS administration]
  C --> D[Taxpayer returns]
  C --> E[Forms and guidance]
  D --> F[Treasury receipts]
  D --> G[IRS compliance review]
  F --> H[Treasury reporting]
  F --> I[JCT estimates]
  F --> J[CBO budget effects]
  G --> K[Audits and enforcement]
  H --> L[Aggregated public visibility]
  I --> L
  J --> L
  K --> M[Limited taxpayer level visibility]

The reporting protocol is distributed across several channels. Taxpayers report gambling income and deductions on annual federal income-tax returns. Payers may issue information returns for certain gambling winnings, depending on the type and amount of winnings. The IRS processes returns, compares taxpayer reporting with information returns, and may examine returns with large or inconsistent gambling income and loss claims. Treasury receives the revenue effects as part of general federal receipts. JCT and CBO estimate the provision’s budget impact for congressional scoring. Public visibility is strongest at the aggregate estimate level and weakest at the taxpayer-specific level because return information is confidential.

Section-specific effects may be difficult to isolate in public data because the provision changes the calculation of taxable income inside millions of potential individual or business returns. IRS Statistics of Income data may show gambling-related income or deduction patterns in aggregate, but it generally will not provide a clean, public, section-by-section revenue ledger for Section 70114.

Day-to-Day Government Process Changes

For the IRS, Section 70114 requires updates to tax forms, instructions, publications, return-processing rules, examination filters, and taxpayer guidance. The agency must make clear that losses are not merely capped at winnings; they are also reduced to 90 percent before the allowable deduction is calculated.[2]

For return processing, the change creates a new compliance point. IRS systems and tax software must distinguish between reported gambling winnings, reported gambling losses, and the reduced deductible amount. A return claiming a full 100 percent offset of wagering income with equal wagering losses for a post-2025 taxable year may require correction, rejection, or examination.

For taxpayer assistance, the rule is likely to create confusion because many taxpayers understand the older rule as “you can deduct gambling losses up to gambling winnings.” That statement is now incomplete. The newer rule is closer to: gambling losses may be deductible only if the taxpayer qualifies to claim them, only up to wagering gains, and only at 90 percent of the loss amount.[2]

For enforcement, the section may increase the importance of recordkeeping. IRS Topic 419 already tells taxpayers that gambling losses may be deducted only if they itemize and keep records of winnings and losses.[5] Section 70114 makes the recordkeeping issue more consequential because taxpayers must calculate the reduced allowable loss amount and cannot simply net wins and losses.

Effects on Consumers

The consumer impact is negative for gamblers who have significant losses relative to winnings. The section increases taxable income for many taxpayers who previously could offset all gambling winnings with equal or greater gambling losses, assuming they otherwise qualified for the deduction.

The most affected consumers include:

The rule can be especially harsh because gambling income is reported gross while losses are deducted separately. A taxpayer who has $10,000 of winnings and $10,000 of losses may think there is no income. Under the new rule, only $9,000 of losses is deductible, leaving $1,000 of taxable income if the taxpayer can claim the deduction.[2] If the taxpayer does not itemize, the effective result may be worse because the taxpayer may report winnings without receiving a separate itemized loss benefit.[5]

The section may also affect behavior. Some taxpayers may gamble less, keep better records, seek professional tax preparation, or shift toward informal or illegal markets if they perceive the legal tax treatment as disconnected from net economic income. Those behavioral effects are uncertain, but the incentive problem is real: the tax base can exceed actual gambling profit.

Effects on Businesses

The business impact is mixed but mostly negative for professional gamblers and potentially negative for legal gambling operators.

For professional gamblers, Section 70114 raises the tax cost of operating a gambling business. Professional gamblers may still report gambling activity on a business schedule where appropriate, but the rule treats wagering-related business deductions as part of the wagering-loss limitation.[3] That means expenses such as travel, lodging, tournament fees, research tools, subscriptions, data services, and other gambling-related costs may not produce the same tax benefit as ordinary business expenses in other industries.

For casinos, sportsbooks, racetracks, poker rooms, fantasy sports platforms, and online wagering businesses, the section does not directly impose a new business tax. However, it may reduce legal-market participation among high-volume bettors or professional players if the tax treatment makes legal gambling less economically viable. That could reduce handle, tournament participation, wagering liquidity, or ancillary spending at casinos and racing venues. The effect will depend on how many gamblers are tax-sensitive, how well platforms communicate tax reporting obligations, and whether Congress later revises the rule.

Tax-preparation businesses may see increased demand from taxpayers with gambling income. Gaming businesses may also face more customer-service questions about Forms W-2G, withholding, annual win-loss statements, and recordkeeping. Those statements may help taxpayers reconstruct activity, but they do not override the statutory requirement to report income and calculate allowable deductions correctly.

Environmental and Climate Impact

The environmental and climate impact is minimal and indirect. Section 70114 is a tax-base provision governing the deductibility of wagering losses. It does not directly authorize construction, extraction, land use, pollution, energy development, transportation infrastructure, permitting changes, environmental-review changes, or federal environmental spending.

The immediate legal effect is a change in income-tax liability for gambling activity. The reasonably foreseeable implementation effects involve IRS administration, taxpayer compliance, tax software, and gambling-industry recordkeeping. Those processes have no meaningful direct environmental pathway.

There are small indirect pathways, but they are too attenuated to characterize the section as environmentally positive or negative. If the rule reduces some gambling activity, it could marginally reduce travel to casinos, racetracks, or tournaments. If it shifts activity toward online wagering, it could marginally change data-center and payment-processing demand. If it pushes some activity into informal markets, environmental effects would still be remote and not reliably measurable from the statute itself.

Existing environmental safeguards are not weakened, bypassed, compressed, or expanded by this section. There is also no clear environmental-justice mechanism. Local communities around casinos or racetracks could experience economic effects if consumer behavior changes, but those are economic and tax effects rather than direct pollution, climate, habitat, water, or land-use effects.

Impact Summary

Section 70114 is a revenue-raising tax change that makes gambling-loss deductions less generous. It keeps the gain cap, adds a 90 percent loss haircut, and makes permanent the rule that professional gambling-related deductions are treated as wagering losses for purposes of the limitation.[2][3]

The most important practical consequence is that taxpayers can owe tax on gambling income even when they broke even or lost money economically. This affects consumers directly and professional gamblers more structurally because their business expenses can be swept into the same limitation.

For government operations, the section shifts work to IRS administration, forms, guidance, return processing, compliance checks, and taxpayer education. For public fiscal tracking, the effect will appear mainly through aggregate revenue estimates and tax data, not through a standalone spending account.

The environmental and climate impact is minimal and indirect because the section changes tax treatment of wagering losses rather than environmental funding, permitting, energy production, land use, transportation, or pollution controls.

Key References and Sourcing

[1] Public Law 119-21, “One Big Beautiful Bill Act,” Section 70114, amendment to Internal Revenue Code section 165(d), https://www.congress.gov/119/plaws/publ21/PLAW-119publ21.pdf.

[2] Internal Revenue Service, “Internal Revenue Bulletin: 2026-19,” discussion and proposed regulation under section 165(d), https://www.irs.gov/irb/2026-19_IRB.

[3] Congressional Research Service, “Tax Provisions in P.L. 119-21, the FY2025 Reconciliation Law,” discussion of Section 70114 and professional gamblers, https://www.everycrsreport.com/reports/R48611.html.

[4] Joint Committee on Taxation, “JCX-35-25, Estimated Revenue Effects Relative To The Present Law Baseline Of The Tax Provisions In ‘Title VII – Finance’ Of The Substitute Legislation As Passed By The Senate,” https://www.jct.gov/publications/2025/jcx-35-25/.

[5] Internal Revenue Service, “Topic No. 419, Gambling Income and Losses,” taxpayer reporting, itemizing, and recordkeeping guidance, https://www.irs.gov/taxtopics/tc419.

---

Created with AI, Will be Polished by Humans, Powered by You.

Join the Conversation Today!

---

Please share how OBBBA Section 70114: Extension and modification of limitation on wagering losses is impacting you, your family, your business, your district and/or your state by telling your story.

Legislative and Policy Analysis

Section 70113: Extension and modification of limitation on deduction and exclusion for moving expenses

Executive Summary

Section 70113 permanently continues the post-2017 limitation on moving-expense tax benefits for most taxpayers, while expanding the remaining exception beyond active-duty Armed Forces members to include certain employees and new appointees of the intelligence community who must relocate because of a change in assignment.[1]

In practical terms, most civilian workers, self-employed individuals, and employer relocation programs continue to face taxable treatment for moving reimbursements and no above-the-line deduction for unreimbursed moving costs. The main new relief is targeted: qualifying intelligence community personnel receive treatment similar to active-duty military personnel for covered moving expenses beginning with taxable years after December 31, 2025.[1]

The Joint Committee on Taxation estimated this provision would reduce federal revenues by $852 million over fiscal years 2025 through 2034, measured relative to the Senate current-policy baseline.[2] The fiscal effect is a tax expenditure rather than a direct appropriation: money does not flow through a grant or spending account, but through lower income and payroll tax collections for qualifying excluded reimbursements and deductions.

What Section 70113 Actually Does

Section 70113 changes the tax treatment of moving expenses under Internal Revenue Code sections 217 and 132. Under section 217, moving expenses historically could qualify as an above-the-line deduction when the taxpayer moved for work and met statutory distance and work-time tests. Under section 132, employer reimbursements for qualified moving expenses historically could be excluded from an employee’s gross income and wages if the expenses would have been deductible under section 217.[3]

The Tax Cuts and Jobs Act suspended those benefits for most taxpayers for taxable years 2018 through 2025, while preserving special treatment for active-duty Armed Forces members moving under military orders incident to a permanent change of station.[1] Section 70113 makes the limitation permanent after 2025 and adds a targeted exception for intelligence community employees or new appointees who relocate because of a change in assignment.[1]

The provision is effective for taxable years beginning after December 31, 2025.[1]

Legislative Mechanism

Section 70113 works by amending the Internal Revenue Code rather than creating a new spending program. The key legal mechanism is a permanent change to the limitation language in section 217(k) and the related exclusion rule in section 132(g).

For deductions, amended section 217(k) provides that section 217 does not apply to taxable years beginning after December 31, 2017, except for individuals covered by the Armed Forces rule in section 217(g), and it treats qualifying intelligence community employees or new appointees who relocate because of assignment changes in the same manner as individuals covered by section 217(g).[4]

For employer reimbursements, amended section 132(g)(2) provides that the qualified moving expense reimbursement exclusion does not apply after 2017 except for active-duty Armed Forces members moving under military orders incident to permanent change of station and qualifying intelligence community employees or new appointees moving because of required assignment-related relocation.[5]

The mechanism therefore has three simultaneous effects:

1. It permanently denies the moving-expense deduction for most taxpayers.
2. It permanently denies the exclusion from income and wages for most employer-paid moving reimbursements.
3. It preserves and expands a narrow national-security workforce exception.

Expenditure Tracking and Reporting Protocol

Section 70113 creates a federal financial effect through tax administration rather than direct spending. There is no new appropriation, grant account, procurement account, or agency transfer. The fiscal impact appears through reduced federal receipts when eligible taxpayers deduct moving expenses or exclude qualified moving expense reimbursements from income and wages.

Likely tracking sources include IRS return processing, employer wage reporting, Treasury tax-expenditure analysis, Joint Committee on Taxation revenue estimates, and CBO budget scoring. The public visibility of the section-specific effect is likely aggregated and difficult to isolate. Individual taxpayer claims are protected return information, and public datasets generally will not show a clean, section-by-section breakdown of moving-expense exclusions by employer, agency, or relocation event.

flowchart TD
    A[Section 70113] --> B[IRS administration]
    A --> C[Employer payroll reporting]
    B --> D[Individual returns]
    C --> E[Wage and withholding data]
    D --> F[Treasury tax analysis]
    E --> F
    F --> G[JCT revenue estimates]
    F --> H[CBO budget baseline]
    G --> I[Public fiscal score]
    H --> I
    B --> J[IRS guidance and forms]
    J --> K[Taxpayer compliance]
    I --> L[Aggregated visibility]

The IRS is the primary administrator because taxpayers and employers apply the amended Code rules on returns, wage statements, payroll systems, and reimbursement policies. Employers that reimburse nonqualifying civilian moving expenses generally must treat those reimbursements as taxable wages. Qualifying Armed Forces and intelligence community moves may remain excludable when statutory requirements are met.[6]

JCT estimated the revenue effect in millions of dollars by fiscal year, with a total 2025 through 2034 effect of negative $852 million.[2] That estimate is the clearest section-specific public fiscal tracking source. After enactment, however, ongoing public tracking will likely be less precise because the tax effects are embedded in broader IRS, Treasury, and budget-estimating systems.

Day-to-Day Government Process Changes

For the IRS, the section continues the post-TCJA rule that most taxpayers cannot claim moving-expense deductions, while adding intelligence community eligibility to guidance, forms, instructions, and compliance systems. IRS Topic No. 455 describes moving-expense eligibility for members of the Armed Forces and the intelligence community, including how qualified taxpayers report moving expenses on Form 3903 and related individual income tax returns.[6]

For payroll administration, federal and private employers must continue treating most moving reimbursements as taxable wages unless the employee falls within a statutory exception. That affects payroll withholding, W-2 reporting, relocation-benefit design, and internal human-resources guidance.

For intelligence community agencies, the section creates a tax-relevant classification question: whether the employee or new appointee is part of the intelligence community and whether the move is pursuant to a change in assignment requiring relocation. That can require coordination among agency human-resources offices, payroll offices, relocation administrators, and employees preparing tax returns.

For the Department of Defense, the section largely preserves existing special rules for active-duty permanent-change-of-station moves. The main operational change is not to military administration, but to the broader tax system’s recognition of a similar exception for intelligence community relocation.

Effects on Consumers

The main consumer impact is on workers and households who move for employment. Most civilian workers continue to bear moving costs with no above-the-line federal deduction and generally must include employer moving reimbursements in taxable income. That can make job-related relocation more expensive, especially for workers who receive relocation assistance but face higher income and payroll tax liability because the reimbursement is taxable.

The effect is uneven. Higher-income workers may be more likely to receive employer relocation packages, while lower- and middle-income workers may face out-of-pocket moving costs without employer reimbursement. In both cases, the section keeps the tax code from offsetting most civilian relocation expenses.

Military families retain special treatment for qualifying permanent-change-of-station moves. Intelligence community employees and new appointees gain similar treatment when they relocate because of qualifying assignment changes. For those households, the section can reduce the tax burden associated with required moves and partially recognize that relocation may be a condition of public service rather than a voluntary consumer choice.

Effects on Businesses

Businesses can still pay relocation benefits, but for most employees those benefits remain taxable compensation. That increases the gross-up problem: employers that want the employee to be made whole may need to pay additional taxable compensation to offset the employee’s tax liability. Employers that do not gross up may offer a benefit that is worth less to the employee after tax.

The section may therefore affect recruiting and mobility decisions. Employers competing for specialized workers across regions may face higher relocation-program costs or reduced employee willingness to relocate. Smaller businesses may be less able to absorb relocation gross-ups than larger employers with established mobility programs.

Payroll and benefits administrators also must maintain systems that distinguish taxable from nontaxable moving reimbursements. For most private-sector employers, the rule is relatively simple: moving reimbursements are taxable. Complexity increases for federal agencies and contractors interacting with military or intelligence community personnel, where eligibility may turn on statutory status and assignment-related relocation requirements.

Environmental and Climate Impact

The environmental and climate impact is minimal. Section 70113 changes federal tax treatment of moving expenses and employer reimbursements; it does not directly fund transportation infrastructure, alter land-use rules, expand fossil-fuel activity, reduce environmental safeguards, or rescind climate or conservation funding.

The immediate legal effect is tax-based: most moving expenses remain nondeductible and most employer reimbursements remain taxable, while qualifying military and intelligence community moves receive special treatment. The reasonably foreseeable implementation effects are administrative and household-finance related, not environmental.

There may be small indirect effects on relocation behavior, commuting patterns, housing choices, or employer mobility programs, but those effects are too diffuse to characterize as a meaningful climate or environmental pathway. Existing environmental safeguards are not weakened, bypassed, compressed, or altered by this section. Environmental justice effects are also minimal because the provision does not directly change pollution exposure, public health protections, infrastructure siting, or community environmental review.

Impact Summary

Section 70113 is a tax-base and workforce-mobility provision. It permanently keeps the moving-expense deduction and employer-reimbursement exclusion unavailable for most taxpayers, while preserving the active-duty military exception and adding a targeted intelligence community exception.

For most civilian workers, the section continues a tax disadvantage for job-related moves. For employers, it keeps relocation benefits administratively taxable and potentially more expensive to gross up. For military and intelligence community households, it provides or preserves relief where relocation is tied to government assignment needs.

The federal fiscal impact is a tax expenditure, not direct spending. JCT estimated a $852 million revenue reduction over fiscal years 2025 through 2034, with public tracking likely available mainly through aggregated revenue estimates rather than transaction-level spending records.[2]

The environmental and climate effect is minimal because the section does not materially change environmental regulation, clean-energy funding, fossil-fuel development, pollution control, land use, transportation infrastructure, or public environmental oversight.

Key References and Sourcing

[1] Joint Committee on Taxation, “General Explanation Of The Tax Provisions Of Public Law 119–21,” explanation of Section 70113 and effective date, https://www.jct.gov/getattachment/16f5eded-d2f9-425e-80a2-83a930056c38/s-1-26.pdf.

[2] Joint Committee on Taxation, “Estimated Revenue Effects Relative To A Current Policy Baseline Of Tax Provisions Contained In A Senate Substitute To Provide Reconciliation Of The Fiscal Year 2025 Budget,” JCX-29-25, Section 70113 revenue estimate, https://www.jct.gov/getattachment/458c3a40-4258-4d78-8026-f01076714895/x-29-25.pdf.

[3] Joint Committee on Taxation, “General Explanation Of The Tax Provisions Of Public Law 119–21,” present-law discussion of moving-expense deductions and qualified moving expense reimbursements, https://www.jct.gov/getattachment/16f5eded-d2f9-425e-80a2-83a930056c38/s-1-26.pdf.

[4] Legal Information Institute, “26 U.S. Code § 217 – Moving expenses,” amended section 217(k), https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/26/217.

[5] Office of the Law Revision Counsel, “26 USC 132: Certain fringe benefits,” amended section 132(g), https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?req=%28title%3A26+section%3A132+edition%3Aprelim%29.

[6] Internal Revenue Service, “Topic no. 455, Moving expenses for members of the Armed Forces and the Intelligence Community,” IRS guidance on eligibility and reporting, https://www.irs.gov/taxtopics/tc455.

---

Created with AI, Will be Polished by Humans, Powered by You.

Join the Conversation Today!

---

Please share how OBBBA Section 70113: Extension and modification of limitation on deduction and exclusion for moving expenses is impacting you, your family, your business, your district and/or your state by telling your story.

Legislative and Policy Analysis

Section 70112: Extension and modification of qualified transportation fringe benefits

Executive Summary

Section 70112 changes the federal tax treatment of qualified transportation fringe benefits under Internal Revenue Code section 132(f). It does two main things. First, it permanently removes the qualified bicycle commuting reimbursement exclusion from the list of tax-free qualified transportation fringe benefits. Second, it modifies the inflation adjustment for the remaining transportation fringe benefit limits by changing the inflation base year from 1998 to 1997, which modestly increases the inflation-adjusted monthly exclusion limits for transit passes, commuter highway vehicle transportation, and qualified parking beginning with taxable years after December 31, 2025.[1]

The practical effect is mixed. Employees lose the scheduled return of a tax-free bicycle commuting reimbursement, which had previously allowed up to $20 per month before its temporary suspension under the 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act. At the same time, employees using employer-provided transit, vanpool, or qualified parking benefits receive a slightly higher tax-free monthly limit. For 2026, IRS Publication 15-B lists the monthly exclusion for qualified parking at $340 and the monthly exclusion for commuter highway vehicle transportation and transit passes at $340.[2]

The Joint Committee on Taxation estimated Section 70112 as a federal revenue loss of $2.124 billion over fiscal years 2025 through 2034, including $145 million in off-budget effects.[3] That revenue loss reflects the broader tax exclusion for the remaining commuter benefits after the inflation adjustment, partially offset by repeal of the bicycle reimbursement exclusion.

What Section 70112 Actually Does

Section 70112 amends Internal Revenue Code section 132(f), which governs qualified transportation fringe benefits. Under section 132(f), employers may provide certain commuting benefits to employees on a tax-free basis, including transportation in a commuter highway vehicle, transit passes, and qualified parking.[4]

The section removes bicycle commuting reimbursements from the qualified transportation fringe benefit structure. Specifically, it strikes the bicycle reimbursement category from section 132(f), removes the related monthly dollar limitation, removes the bicycle reimbursement definition, and removes the now-obsolete temporary suspension language.[1]

It also changes the inflation adjustment rule in section 132(f)(6)(A) by replacing the base year “1998” with “1997.”[1] This technical change gives the remaining transportation fringe benefit limits one additional year of inflation adjustment. The result is a slightly higher monthly exclusion limit for the remaining benefits than would apply under the prior formula.

The section applies to taxable years beginning after December 31, 2025.[1]

Legislative Mechanism

Section 70112 works by directly amending the Internal Revenue Code rather than creating a new grant program, appropriation, or agency-administered transportation program.

The mechanics are narrow but important:

1. It deletes the bicycle commuting reimbursement category from section 132(f)(1).
2. It deletes the separate bicycle reimbursement dollar limitation from section 132(f)(2).
3. It removes cross-references that treated bicycle reimbursements differently from other qualified transportation fringe benefits.
4. It deletes the statutory definition of “qualified bicycle commuting reimbursement.”
5. It deletes the temporary suspension paragraph that had applied to bicycle reimbursements under the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act.
6. It changes the inflation adjustment base year for the remaining transportation fringe limits from 1998 to 1997.
7. It coordinates section 274 by removing bicycle-specific language from the deduction-disallowance provision for transportation fringe benefits.[1]

This is a tax-expenditure provision. It changes how much compensation may be excluded from employees’ taxable wages and how employers administer commuter benefit programs through payroll and benefits systems. It does not directly appropriate funds or create a direct payment program.

Expenditure Tracking and Reporting Protocol

Section 70112 affects federal finances through the tax system. The federal “expenditure” is not a direct outlay to a transit agency, parking operator, employer, or employee. It is a reduction in federal receipts because eligible compensation is excluded from taxable wages, and because the modified inflation formula increases the amount that may be excluded for remaining qualified transportation benefits.[3]

The main tracking sources are likely to be tax-estimating and tax-administration channels rather than USAspending.gov or federal grant databases. The IRS administers the income and employment tax treatment through employer payroll reporting, withholding systems, Forms W-2, employment tax returns, audits, guidance, and publications. Treasury and JCT estimate tax expenditure and revenue effects. CBO may incorporate the revenue effects into broader budget estimates. Public visibility is likely to be aggregated rather than section-specific because individual employer commuter benefit usage is generally not reported in a public, program-specific dataset.

flowchart TD
    A[Section 70112] --> B[Code section 132]
    A --> C[Code section 274]
    B --> D[Employer benefit plans]
    D --> E[Payroll exclusions]
    E --> F[Employee taxable wages]
    E --> G[Employment tax reporting]
    G --> H[IRS administration]
    H --> I[Treasury receipts]
    H --> J[IRS guidance]
    I --> K[JCT estimates]
    I --> L[CBO budget effects]
    I --> M[Treasury tax data]
    K --> N[Public revenue tables]
    L --> N
    M --> O[Aggregated public data]
    N --> P[Clear estimate]
    O --> Q[Limited detail]

The reporting protocol is therefore indirect:

Because this is a tax exclusion rather than a spending account, Section 70112 will generally not be visible in USAspending.gov, FPDS, SAM.gov, grant reporting systems, or agency award-level data. The clearest public section-specific number is the JCT revenue estimate. The clearest annual administrative figure is the IRS-published monthly exclusion limit.

Day-to-Day Government Process Changes

For the IRS and Treasury, the day-to-day changes are administrative and guidance-oriented. The IRS must reflect the statutory change in employer guidance, fringe benefit publications, payroll-tax instructions, and possibly future forms or instructions. Employers and payroll vendors will rely on those annual limits and definitions when configuring commuter benefit deductions and reimbursements.

The most visible administrative change is that bicycle commuting reimbursements no longer return as a tax-free qualified transportation fringe after 2025. Employers may still choose to reimburse bicycle commuting costs, but those reimbursements would not receive the section 132(f) tax-free treatment and would generally need to be handled as taxable compensation unless another tax rule applies.[5]

For transit, vanpool, and parking benefits, administration continues in familiar form. Employers can maintain pre-tax commuter benefit programs, and payroll systems will apply the updated monthly exclusion limits. The changed inflation base year means payroll and benefits systems must use the new limit, but it does not create a new eligibility test or new agency approval process.

Effects on Consumers

The consumer impact depends on commute mode.

Employees who use transit passes, commuter highway vehicle transportation, or qualified parking may benefit from a slightly higher monthly tax-free exclusion limit. In 2026, the IRS lists the monthly exclusion for qualified parking and for commuter highway vehicle transportation and transit passes at $340.[2] Employees with monthly commuting expenses near or above the cap may be able to exclude more wages from income and employment taxes than under the prior formula.

Employees who bicycle to work lose the scheduled return of a specific tax-free bicycle commuting reimbursement. Before its TCJA suspension, the bicycle reimbursement exclusion was up to $20 per month. Section 70112 makes that exclusion unavailable going forward rather than allowing it to return after 2025.[5] For workers who commute by bicycle and whose employers would have offered the benefit, the change reduces the federal tax preference for bicycling relative to the pre-TCJA baseline.

The benefit is also uneven by geography and employer participation. Workers benefit only if their employer offers or facilitates qualified transportation benefits. Urban and suburban employees with access to transit, vanpools, or paid parking are more likely to see practical effects than remote workers or employees whose employers do not offer commuter benefit programs.

Effects on Businesses

For businesses, Section 70112 mostly affects payroll administration, employee benefit design, and tax planning.

Employers that already offer qualified transportation benefits will need to update plan materials, payroll systems, and employee communications to reflect the post-2025 rules. Transit, commuter highway vehicle, and parking benefits remain available within the monthly exclusion cap, while bicycle reimbursements are removed from the tax-free qualified transportation fringe structure.

The higher inflation-adjusted cap can modestly increase the value of employer commuter programs. Employees may be able to exclude more pre-tax wages for eligible transit, vanpool, or parking expenses, and employers may see payroll-tax effects when taxable wages are reduced. JCT’s off-budget estimate indicates that payroll-tax effects are part of the fiscal impact.[3]

For employers that offered or planned to offer bicycle commuting reimbursements, Section 70112 removes the specialized tax-free treatment. Those employers can still support bike commuting as a workplace policy, but the reimbursement would not operate as a section 132(f) qualified transportation fringe. Businesses seeking to encourage bicycle commuting may need to use taxable reimbursements, wellness or sustainability programs, facilities such as bike parking and showers, or local incentive programs instead.

Environmental and Climate Impact

The environmental and climate impact is mixed, modest in scale, and dependent on employer and commuter behavior.

The positive side is that Section 70112 modestly increases the tax-free limit for transit passes and commuter highway vehicle transportation. To the extent the higher cap increases use of public transit or vanpooling, it can support lower per-passenger emissions, reduced congestion, and lower local air pollution compared with single-occupancy vehicle commuting. That effect is indirect because the section changes tax treatment rather than funding transit service or requiring mode shifts.

The negative side is that Section 70112 permanently removes the qualified bicycle commuting reimbursement exclusion. Bicycle commuting has direct environmental and public-health advantages: it produces no tailpipe emissions, reduces vehicle miles traveled when it substitutes for car trips, and can reduce demand for parking and road capacity. Removing the scheduled return of the bicycle exclusion weakens a targeted federal tax incentive for a low-emission commute mode.

The parking component also complicates the environmental assessment. Qualified parking remains tax-preferred and receives the same inflation-adjusted cap increase as transit and commuter highway vehicle benefits. Tax-favored parking can encourage driving where employees use the exclusion for parking rather than transit or vanpooling. The environmental direction therefore depends on the mix of benefits used: transit and vanpool usage can reduce emissions, while parking subsidies can reinforce car commuting.

Existing environmental safeguards are not directly changed. Section 70112 does not amend NEPA, transportation permitting, air quality standards, transit funding formulas, or local transportation planning rules. The main environmental pathway is behavioral and fiscal: it changes relative after-tax commuting costs. Environmental justice effects are plausible but indirect. Workers with access to employer commuter benefits, reliable transit, and payroll-based pre-tax programs benefit more than workers in low-wage, part-time, rural, or informal jobs where such benefits are less likely to be offered. Communities affected by congestion and vehicle pollution may see benefits if transit and vanpool use increases, but continued tax-preferred parking can work in the opposite direction.

Impact Summary

Section 70112 is a targeted tax-benefit change. It permanently eliminates the tax-free qualified bicycle commuting reimbursement while slightly increasing the inflation-adjusted cap for transit, commuter highway vehicle, and qualified parking benefits. The section is estimated to reduce federal revenue by $2.124 billion over fiscal years 2025 through 2034.[3]

For workers, the provision helps those who use employer-sponsored transit, vanpool, or parking benefits near the monthly cap, but it harms bicycle commuters who would otherwise have regained a tax-free reimbursement after 2025. For employers, it is mostly a payroll and benefits administration change. For federal tracking, the impact will be visible through IRS guidance and JCT revenue estimates, not through direct spending databases.

The environmental and climate effects are mixed. The section modestly strengthens the tax preference for transit and vanpooling, which can reduce emissions when it shifts commuters away from single-occupancy driving. But it also permanently removes the bicycle commuting exclusion and continues to subsidize qualified parking, which can weaken incentives for the lowest-emission commute options and may reinforce car commuting where parking benefits dominate.

Key References and Sourcing

[1] Public Law 119-21, “SEC. 70112. Extension and modification of qualified transportation fringe benefits,” statutory amendments to 26 U.S.C. §§ 132 and 274, https://www.govinfo.gov/link/plaw/119/public/21.

[2] Internal Revenue Service, “Publication 15-B, Employer’s Tax Guide to Fringe Benefits,” 2026 qualified parking and commuter transportation monthly exclusion limits, https://www.irs.gov/publications/p15b.

[3] Joint Committee on Taxation, “Estimated Revenue Effects Relative to the Current Policy Baseline of the Tax Provisions in Title VII – Finance,” JCX-34-25, July 1, 2025, https://www.jct.gov/getattachment/8207b8cc-23dd-4b44-adba-772ac34dcfc1/x-34-25.pdf.

[4] Legal Information Institute, Cornell Law School, “26 U.S. Code § 132 – Certain fringe benefits,” qualified transportation fringe definitions, https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/26/132.

[5] Congressional Research Service, “Tax Provisions in P.L. 119-21, the FY2025 Reconciliation Act,” discussion of Section 70112 and pre-TCJA bicycle reimbursement treatment, https://www.everycrsreport.com/reports/R48611.html.

[6] Senate Committee on Finance, “Section-by-Section Summary, Title VII,” Section 70112 current law and provision summary, https://www.finance.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/finance_committee_section-by-section_title_vii3.pdf.

---

Created with AI, Will be Polished by Humans, Powered by You.

Join the Conversation Today!

---

Please share how OBBBA Section 70112: Extension and modification of qualified transportation fringe benefits is impacting you, your family, your business, your district and/or your state by telling your story.

Legislative and Policy Analysis

Section 70111: Limitation on tax benefit of itemized deductions

Executive Summary

Section 70111 rewrites Internal Revenue Code section 68 for tax years beginning after December 31, 2025. It replaces the older overall limitation on itemized deductions with a new formula that reduces itemized deductions for taxpayers whose income reaches the 37 percent tax bracket.[1]

The practical effect is that taxpayers in the top bracket generally cannot receive the full 37-cent tax benefit from each dollar of itemized deductions. Instead, the section reduces otherwise allowable itemized deductions by 2/37 of the lesser of either the taxpayer’s itemized deductions or the amount of income above the start of the 37 percent bracket.[1] For affected taxpayers, that generally limits the federal tax value of itemized deductions to 35 percent on the portion subject to the limitation.

This is a tax-expenditure provision, not a direct spending program. It does not appropriate funds, create grants, or authorize payments. The fiscal effect appears through federal revenue. The Joint Committee on Taxation estimated the provision would increase revenues by $34.380 billion over fiscal years 2025 through 2034 relative to a current-policy baseline, but would reduce revenues by $255.515 billion over the same period relative to a present-law baseline.[2][3] The difference reflects whether the baseline assumes the prior temporary tax rules expire or continue.

The section primarily affects high-income taxpayers who itemize deductions, including deductions for state and local taxes, mortgage interest, charitable giving, medical expenses, and other itemized deductions that remain allowable after separate limitations. It also expressly coordinates with the qualified business income deduction so that section 199A is computed without regard to the new section 68 limitation.[1]

What Section 70111 Actually Does

Section 70111 amends Code section 68 to impose a new limitation on itemized deductions for individuals. For taxable years beginning after December 31, 2025, otherwise allowable itemized deductions are reduced by 2/37 of the lesser of:

The provision applies after other limits on itemized deductions.[1] That sequencing matters. For example, if another provision already limits a deduction, section 70111 applies only after that separate limit has been applied.

For tax year 2026, IRS inflation-adjustment guidance states that the top 37 percent rate begins at income greater than $640,600 for single filers and greater than $768,700 for married couples filing jointly.[4] Taxpayers below the 37 percent bracket generally are not directly affected by the new section 68 formula because the formula turns on income above the start of that bracket.

The section also amends section 199A so that the qualified business income deduction is computed without regard to section 68. That means the new itemized-deduction limitation does not reduce the section 199A calculation itself, even though it may still affect the taxpayer’s broader taxable-income calculation.[1]

The provision contains no direct appropriation, no grant amount, no loan authority, and no agency transfer. Its dollar impact is through tax revenue rather than direct federal spending.

Legislative Mechanism

Section 70111 operates by replacing the text of Code section 68. Before the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act period, section 68 was associated with the “Pease” limitation, which reduced itemized deductions for higher-income taxpayers. The TCJA suspended that limitation for tax years 2018 through 2025. Section 70111 installs a new section 68 limitation for years beginning after December 31, 2025.[1]

The mechanism is formula-based rather than category-specific. It does not directly repeal charitable deductions, mortgage-interest deductions, state-and-local-tax deductions, or medical deductions. Instead, it reduces the aggregate amount of itemized deductions for taxpayers whose income reaches the top bracket.

The provision also includes a coordination rule: section 68 is applied after all other limitations on itemized deductions.[1] That makes section 70111 a final-stage limitation after deduction-specific rules have already done their work.

Expenditure Tracking and Reporting Protocol

Section 70111 is tracked as a federal tax expenditure and revenue effect, not as an outlay account. There is no separate Treasury account from which money is disbursed and no grant or procurement award to follow through USAspending.gov.

The practical tracking pathway runs through IRS return administration, Treasury and IRS tax-data systems, JCT revenue estimates, CBO budget scoring, and aggregate tax-expenditure reporting. Public visibility is likely to be aggregated and delayed. Individual taxpayer effects will be reflected on returns, but section-specific public data may be difficult to isolate because itemized deductions, income levels, and rate-bracket effects are generally reported in aggregate statistical releases rather than as a real-time public program account.

flowchart TD
A[Section 70111] --> B[IRS return rules]
B --> C[Taxpayer itemized returns]
C --> D[IRS processing]
D --> E[Treasury revenue collections]
D --> F[Statistics of Income]
A --> G[JCT estimates]
A --> H[CBO budget estimates]
F --> I[Public aggregate data]
G --> J[Congressional scoring]
H --> J
E --> K[Federal receipts]
I --> L[Delayed visibility]
J --> L
K --> L

The relevant reporting sources are likely to include IRS forms and instructions, IRS Statistics of Income tables, Treasury tax expenditure materials, JCT revenue estimates, CBO budget estimates, and congressional oversight materials. The provision’s effect will not be clearly visible in award-level spending systems because it changes tax liability rather than authorizing spending.

Day-to-Day Government Process Changes

For the IRS, Section 70111 requires implementation through tax forms, worksheets, instructions, return-processing logic, taxpayer guidance, and potentially regulations or notices. The IRS must ensure that affected taxpayers apply the new formula after other itemized-deduction limitations and before final tax liability is determined.

For Treasury and JCT analysts, the section requires revenue modeling of a high-income itemizer limitation. The model must account for taxpayer filing status, income above the 37 percent bracket threshold, the composition of itemized deductions, behavioral responses, and interactions with other provisions, including charitable-deduction changes and the state-and-local-tax deduction rules.

For taxpayers and preparers, the day-to-day change is a new calculation layer. High-income itemizers will need to model whether deductions that previously generated a 37 percent marginal federal tax benefit now produce a 35 percent benefit for affected dollars. Tax software will need to apply the limitation automatically, but tax planning for charitable giving, mortgage interest, state and local taxes, and timing of deductions may change.

Effects on Consumers

The direct consumer impact is concentrated among high-income households that itemize. Most taxpayers take the standard deduction and will not directly experience this limitation. The IRS announced that the 2026 standard deduction is $32,200 for married couples filing jointly, $16,100 for single filers and married individuals filing separately, and $24,150 for heads of household, which reinforces that many households will not itemize.[4]

For affected taxpayers, the section reduces the marginal federal tax benefit of itemized deductions once the limitation applies. A taxpayer in the 37 percent bracket may see the effective benefit of itemized deductions capped at 35 cents per dollar for the relevant portion. That can affect decisions about charitable contributions, mortgage borrowing, state-tax planning, and timing of deductible expenses.

The provision may indirectly affect nonprofit consumers and service recipients if reduced tax incentives lead some high-income donors to reduce or retime charitable giving. That effect is not automatic for every donor, but the incentive direction is downward for itemized deductions taken by top-bracket taxpayers.

Effects on Businesses

Section 70111 is primarily an individual income tax provision, but it can affect businesses indirectly.

Tax-preparation firms, financial planners, charitable-giving advisors, estate planners, and wealth-management firms will need to incorporate the new limitation into planning models. High-income clients may seek advice on bunching deductions, charitable vehicles, timing large gifts, or managing income around the 37 percent bracket threshold.

Businesses organized as pass-throughs may have owners who are affected as individual taxpayers. However, Section 70111 specifically provides that the qualified business income deduction under section 199A is computed without regard to section 68.[1] That coordination limits direct interference with the section 199A calculation, even though owners’ overall individual tax outcomes may still change.

Nonprofit organizations may face indirect business-model effects if high-income donors respond to the lower marginal tax value of deductible giving. The effect will vary by donor motivation, income level, and the interaction with other charitable-deduction provisions.

Environmental and Climate Impact

The environmental and climate impact is minimal to indirect.

Section 70111 does not directly authorize fossil-fuel extraction, infrastructure construction, permitting shortcuts, emissions changes, land disturbance, or rescission of climate funding. It changes individual income-tax calculations for high-income itemizers. There is no direct environmental regulatory rollback and no direct environmental spending cut in this section.

The main indirect pathway is through charitable and philanthropic behavior. Because charitable contributions are among the itemized deductions affected by the limitation, the section may reduce the marginal federal tax incentive for some high-income taxpayers to donate. That could indirectly affect environmental, conservation, climate, public-health, or environmental-justice nonprofits that rely on major gifts. The direction of that indirect effect is potentially negative for affected nonprofit funding, but the magnitude depends on donor behavior and the mix of charitable organizations supported.

Existing environmental safeguards remain intact. The section does not amend NEPA, the Clean Air Act, the Clean Water Act, Endangered Species Act procedures, permitting rules, agency enforcement powers, or environmental-review timelines. Any environmental effect is downstream and fiscal, not regulatory.

For environmental justice and local communities, the plausible concern is indirect: if reduced charitable incentives lower support for community-based environmental organizations, local monitoring, resilience, legal assistance, or pollution-response work could be affected. That risk is contingent and difficult to isolate from broader tax and nonprofit-funding changes.

Impact Summary

Section 70111 creates a new top-bracket limitation on the tax value of itemized deductions. It is aimed at high-income taxpayers who itemize, not at standard-deduction filers.

The fiscal impact depends heavily on the baseline. Relative to a current-policy baseline, JCT estimated a $34.380 billion revenue gain over fiscal years 2025 through 2034. Relative to a present-law baseline, JCT estimated a $255.515 billion revenue loss over the same period.[2][3]

Consumers most affected are high-income households with large itemized deductions. Businesses most affected are tax-preparation, financial-planning, wealth-management, and nonprofit fundraising sectors. Pass-through business owners may be affected at the individual level, but the section preserves the section 199A calculation by applying it without regard to section 68.

The environmental and climate effect is minimal and indirect. The section does not weaken environmental safeguards or authorize environmentally harmful activity, but it may modestly reduce the tax incentive for some high-income charitable giving, including gifts to environmental, conservation, climate, public-health, and environmental-justice organizations.

Key References and Sourcing

[1] GovInfo, “Public Law 119-21,” Section 70111, amendments to Internal Revenue Code sections 68 and 199A, https://www.govinfo.gov/link/plaw/119/public/21.

[2] Joint Committee on Taxation, “Estimated Revenue Effects Relative To A Current Policy Baseline Of Tax Provisions Contained In A Senate Substitute To Provide Reconciliation Of The Fiscal Year 2025 Budget,” JCX-29-25, June 21, 2025, https://www.jct.gov/publications/2025/jcx-29-25/.

[3] Joint Committee on Taxation, “Estimated Revenue Effects Relative To The Present Law Baseline Of The Tax Provisions In ‘Title VII – Finance’ Of The Substitute Legislation As Passed By The Senate To Provide For Reconciliation Of The Fiscal Year 2025 Budget,” JCX-35-25, July 1, 2025, https://www.jct.gov/publications/2025/jcx-35-25/.

[4] Internal Revenue Service, “IRS releases tax inflation adjustments for tax year 2026, including amendments from the One, Big, Beautiful Bill,” October 9, 2025, https://www.irs.gov/newsroom/irs-releases-tax-inflation-adjustments-for-tax-year-2026-including-amendments-from-the-one-big-beautiful-bill.

[5] Congressional Budget Office, “Estimated Budgetary Effects of Public Law 119-21, to Provide for Reconciliation Pursuant to Title II of H. Con. Res. 14, Relative to CBO’s January 2025 Baseline,” July 21, 2025, https://www.cbo.gov/publication/61570.

[6] Legal Information Institute, Cornell Law School, “26 U.S. Code § 68 – Overall limitation on itemized deductions,” https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/26/68.

---

Created with AI, Will be Polished by Humans, Powered by You.

Join the Conversation Today!

---

Please share how OBBBA Section 70111: Limitation on tax benefit of itemized deductions is impacting you, your family, your business, your district and/or your state by telling your story.