The bill amends Internal Revenue Code section 139 to exclude from gross income amounts paid under state‑based catastrophe loss mitigation programs when the money is used to make property improvements solely to reduce damage from windstorms, earthquakes, or wildfires. It lists eligible payors (states and state-created entities, including joint powers authorities and state insurer‑of‑last‑resort entities) and mirrors an existing rule preventing excluded payments from increasing the property owner’s tax basis.
The change is immediately relevant to state officials designing mitigation grants, property owners who received state mitigation funds since 2021, and tax professionals handling amended returns: the statute applies to tax years beginning after Dec. 31, 2020 and directs Treasury to permit taxpayers to claim the exclusion retroactively, including by amended return. The provision narrows taxable consequences for mitigation assistance while leaving open important implementation and enforcement questions for both states and the IRS.
At a Glance
What It Does
Amends IRC §139 by adding a new subsection that excludes from gross income payments made under qualifying state catastrophe mitigation programs when the funds are used solely to make improvements that reduce damage from windstorm, earthquake, or wildfire. It also provides that excluded amounts do not increase the property owner’s tax basis and makes the exclusion effective for tax years beginning after Dec. 31, 2020, with retroactive claim authority.
Who It Affects
State governments and their program sponsors (political subdivisions, joint powers authorities, and state‑created insurers of last resort) that deliver mitigation grants; residential and commercial property owners who receive mitigation payments; tax preparers and the IRS (which must process retroactive claims). Insurers and reinsurers may see downstream effects if mitigation reduces claim frequency or severity.
Why It Matters
The bill removes a federal tax disincentive for state mitigation payments, potentially increasing uptake of property‑level resilience measures. The retroactive window creates an immediate compliance workload for taxpayers and the IRS and shifts some fiscal cost to the federal treasury through forgone tax revenue.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
The bill inserts a new subsection into section 139 of the Internal Revenue Code so that certain disaster‑mitigation payments from state programs are not counted as taxable income. It targets state‑based programs—run by states, political subdivisions, joint powers authorities, or state‑created entities charged with ensuring an insurance market of last resort—and limits the tax exclusion to amounts used for property improvements whose sole purpose is reducing damage from windstorms, earthquakes, or wildfires.
A central drafting feature is the phrase “sole purpose,” which constrains eligible expenditures to activities directly aimed at mitigation rather than broader recovery or aesthetic renovations. The bill preserves a rule analogous to an existing subsection (g)(3): taxpayers may exclude the payment from income but cannot increase their tax basis in the property by that excluded amount.
That has implications for future capital gains when the property is sold.Mechanically, the bill applies to tax years beginning after December 31, 2020. Recognizing that many state mitigation programs and grants were already operating, it directs the Treasury Department to provide a way for taxpayers to claim the exclusion retroactively, including by filing amended returns.
The law also makes small structural edits to section 139’s existing cross‑references to incorporate the new category of qualified catastrophe mitigation payments.In practice, states will still need to design programs that document how funds were spent and demonstrate that improvements meet the ‘‘sole purpose’’ standard; taxpayers and preparers will need documentation to substantiate exclusion claims; and the IRS will likely issue guidance about eligible improvements, acceptable documentation, and interaction with other federal disaster assistance and casualty loss provisions.
The Five Things You Need to Know
The new §139(h)(1) identifies eligible payors as: a State (or its political subdivisions/public instrumentalities), a joint powers authority, or a state‑created entity overseeing an insurer‑of‑last‑resort under state insurance oversight.
Qualified payments are limited to amounts used to make property improvements whose stated and demonstrable ‘sole purpose’ is reducing damage from windstorm, earthquake, or wildfire—other perils are excluded.
The bill applies retroactively to tax years beginning after Dec. 31, 2020, and directs Treasury to allow taxpayers to claim the exclusion by amended return.
Excluded mitigation payments do not increase the recipient’s tax basis in the property; rules similar to existing §139(g)(3) apply, potentially raising taxable gain on a later sale.
The bill amends cross‑references inside section 139 to list ‘qualified catastrophe mitigation payments’ alongside other qualified payments, so the exclusion integrates with section 139’s existing framework.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Short title: Disaster Mitigation and Tax Parity Act of 2025
This is the naming provision. It has no operative tax consequence but signals the bill’s policy aim: to create tax parity for state mitigation payments in the Internal Revenue Code.
Adds §139(h): Exclusion for state catastrophe mitigation payments
The bill inserts a new subsection into IRC §139 that excludes from gross income payments made under qualifying state‑based catastrophe loss mitigation programs. The provision specifies eligible payors (state entities, joint powers authorities, and state‑created insurers‑of‑last‑resort) and narrowly defines a ‘qualified catastrophe mitigation payment’ as money used to make property improvements solely to reduce damage from windstorm, earthquake, or wildfire. This is the operative change that creates the federal tax exclusion for those grants or payments.
No increase in tax basis for excluded payments
The subsection adds that rules similar to §139(g)(3) apply, meaning taxpayers who exclude these mitigation payments cannot increase their property’s tax basis by the excluded amount. Practically, that prevents double tax benefit—tax‑free cash plus a higher basis that would reduce future taxable gains—but it also means recipients may have larger capital gains tax later when they sell the property.
Conforming edits to section 139 cross‑references
Two small textual changes insert ‘qualified catastrophe mitigation payments’ into existing cross‑references in §139(d) and §139(i) so that other parts of the statute recognize the new category. These edits preserve internal consistency of section 139 and ensure the new exclusion is treated alongside other defined qualified payments.
Effective date and retroactivity
The bill makes the amendment apply to taxable years beginning after December 31, 2020, and expressly requires Treasury to provide a mechanism—such as accepting amended returns—for taxpayers to claim the exclusion retroactively. That creates immediate administrative obligations for the IRS and exposes prior‑year recipients to a potential refund or adjustment process.
This bill is one of many.
Codify tracks hundreds of bills on Finance across all five countries.
Explore Finance in Codify Search →Who Benefits and Who Bears the Cost
Every bill creates winners and losers. Here's who stands to gain and who bears the cost.
Who Benefits
- Property owners in disaster‑prone states who received state mitigation grants: They can exclude those payments from federal taxable income, improving the after‑tax value of mitigation investments.
- State governments and joint powers authorities running mitigation programs: The federal exclusion removes a tax barrier that may increase program uptake and justify state spending on resilience measures.
- Low‑ and moderate‑income homeowners who receive means‑tested mitigation assistance: Making these payments tax‑free preserves limited funds for physical upgrades rather than leaving recipients with a tax bill.
- Insurers and reinsurers (indirectly): Increased property hardening may reduce claim frequency or severity over time, improving loss ratios and market stability.
Who Bears the Cost
- The U.S. Treasury/federal taxpayers: Excluding payments from taxable income reduces federal revenue relative to treating them as taxable compensation.
- State program administrators: States must structure programs to document ‘sole purpose’ mitigation, maintain records, and certify eligible expenditures to enable taxpayers to claim the exclusion.
- The IRS and tax preparers: Treasury must issue guidance and process retroactive amended returns, increasing administrative workload and compliance costs.
- Future sellers or owners of improved property: Because excluded payments do not increase basis, sellers may face higher taxable gains on disposition than they would if the payments increased basis.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The bill pits two legitimate goals against each other: encouraging property‑level disaster mitigation by removing federal tax friction versus protecting federal revenue and preventing tax‑sheltering or abuse; the line between incentivizing resilience and creating untargeted, retroactive tax exclusions depends on how narrowly ‘sole purpose’ and qualifying spend are interpreted and enforced.
Two implementation frictions stand out. First, the statutory test—payments used for the ‘sole purpose’ of reducing damage—creates interpretive challenges.
Many mitigation projects produce multiple benefits (e.g., energy efficiency upgrades combined with wind‑resistant roofing); determining when a payment is genuinely for a single purpose will require clear IRS guidance and recordkeeping requirements from states. Absent precise rules, taxpayers may either over‑claim or shy away from using combined interventions.
Second, the retroactive effective date and the no‑basis‑increase rule pull in opposite directions. Allowing amended returns gives taxpayers relief for past payments, but the basis rule means that relief could produce a future tax cost on sale.
That trade‑off alters the economic calculus for long‑term investment in resilience and may complicate cost‑benefit analyses for homeowners and commercial property owners. Finally, the statute is silent on interaction with other federal disaster aid and casualty‑loss deductions, so Treasury guidance will need to address potential double‑counting or ineligibility where federal disaster assistance also applies.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.