This bill amends the Internal Revenue Code to remove the suspension that, under Public Law 115–97 (the 2017 tax act), curtailed personal casualty and theft loss deductions for most individual taxpayers. Practically, it returns the tax treatment of nonbusiness casualty and theft losses to the pre‑2018 rules and makes that reinstatement effective for taxable years beginning after December 31, 2017.
The bill also creates a limited, targeted extension of the time period to file claims for credit or refund for taxpayers who filed returns before January 1, 2025 and were barred from taking the casualty loss deduction by the suspension. The extension only applies to overpayments attributable to the personal casualty loss deduction and strips a particular limitation in section 6511(b)(2) that could otherwise shorten the refund window.
At a Glance
What It Does
The bill strikes paragraph (5) of section 165(h) of the Internal Revenue Code, effectively reinstating the pre‑2018 rules for personal casualty and theft losses. It makes that change retroactive to taxable years beginning after Dec. 31, 2017. It also extends—and in one respect removes a timing limitation from—the period for filing refund claims tied to those deductions for certain previously filed returns.
Who It Affects
Individual taxpayers who suffered nonbusiness casualty or theft losses (including losses from crimes or scams) since tax year 2018; tax preparers and advisors who will evaluate amended claims; the IRS, which would process additional refund claims and audits; and state tax systems that conform to federal taxable income.
Why It Matters
Reinstating the deduction reopens the possibility of refunds for many victims of theft, fraud, and disasters and restores an income‑based floor (the pre‑2018 $100 per event and 10% of AGI threshold). The refund window and retroactivity create administrative and fiscal consequences for the IRS and Treasury and will prompt substantial compliance activity.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
Since the 2017 tax act, Congress suspended most nonbusiness personal casualty and theft loss deductions, narrowing relief largely to losses attributable to federally declared disasters. This bill reverses that suspension by removing the statutory paragraph that created the suspension, returning the deduction framework to what applied before 2018.
Because the bill’s effective date reaches back to taxable years beginning after December 31, 2017, it would cover tax years starting in 2018 and later.
Under the restored framework, individuals can again deduct personal casualty and theft losses under section 165(a), subject to the pre‑2018 mechanics: each casualty is reduced by a $100 per‑event floor and only the aggregate net personal casualty losses in excess of 10% of adjusted gross income are deductible. That treatment differs from the narrower TCJA approach and matters because it allows certain non‑disaster thefts and losses (for example, losses from scams or burglaries) to reduce taxable income where they previously could not.The bill also gives taxpayers who filed returns before January 1, 2025—and were therefore prevented from claiming the deduction because of the suspension—an extended period to file claims for credit or refund related to those casualty loss deductions.
It accomplishes this by extending the section 6511(a) filing period until the due date (including extensions) for the return for the tax year that includes the enactment date, and by preventing application of section 6511(b)(2) to those claims. The protective language is limited: it applies only to overpayments attributable to the personal casualty loss deduction described in 165(c)(3).Taken together, the substance change and the claims extension mean that a substantial pool of previously ineligible taxpayers could seek amended returns or refund claims.
That prospect raises practical questions about documentation standards for losses from fraud or scams, the IRS’s capacity to process a wave of late claims, and how state tax systems will respond to changes in federal taxable income.
The Five Things You Need to Know
The bill deletes paragraph (5) of IRC section 165(h), which is the statutory provision that suspended most nonbusiness personal casualty and theft loss deductions after 2017.
It makes the repeal retroactive: the change applies to taxable years beginning after December 31, 2017, so it affects tax years starting in 2018 and later.
Under the reinstated rules, personal casualty/theft losses again face the pre‑2018 mechanics: a $100 reduction per casualty and a 10% of AGI floor on deductible net losses.
For taxpayers who filed returns before January 1, 2025 and lost the deduction because of the suspension, the bill extends the 6511(a) period to the filing due date (including extensions) for the return covering the enactment date and bars application of section 6511(b)(2) to those refund claims.
The refund‑window extension is narrowly confined: it applies only to claims tied to overpayments attributable to the personal casualty loss deduction described in IRC section 165(c)(3).
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Short title
Assigns the Act the short title 'Tax Relief for Victims of Crimes, Scams, and Disasters Act.' This is a stylistic heading; it does not change any tax rules but signals legislative intent to target relief at individuals harmed by theft, fraud, or disasters.
Reinstates pre‑TCJA personal casualty and theft loss deduction
Strikes paragraph (5) of IRC section 165(h). Paragraph (5) is the text added by Public Law 115–97 that effectively suspended nonbusiness personal casualty/theft deductions for taxable years beginning in 2018–2025 except in specified disaster cases. Removing that paragraph restores the prior statutory structure that governed such losses. Practically, taxpayers can again claim nonbusiness casualty and theft losses under section 165(a) subject to the pre‑2018 per‑event and AGI floor rules.
Retroactive effective date
Makes the amendment effective for taxable years beginning after December 31, 2017. That retroactivity means the statute change reaches back to tax year 2018 and therefore can create entitlement to refunds for years already filed. Retroactive tax changes increase the universe of potentially affected returns and create a need for guidance on amended return procedure and documentation standards for past years.
Extends filing period for refund claims and overrides 6511(b)(2)
Provides that for taxpayers who filed returns for taxable years ending before January 1, 2025 and who were barred from claiming the deduction because of the suspension, the limitation period under section 6511(a) for filing a claim for credit or refund is extended until the normal due date (including extensions) for the return of tax for the year that includes the date of enactment. It also states that section 6511(b)(2) shall not apply to those claims. The practical effect is a new window to seek refunds tied to the reinstated deduction even for older returns, plus removal of a secondary timing cutoff that might otherwise narrow eligibility.
Limitation to personal casualty loss claims
Clarifies that the extension in subsection (a) applies only to claims to the extent they relate to an overpayment attributable to the deduction under section 165(a) for personal casualty losses described in section 165(c)(3). This restricts the relief: business casualty losses and other unrelated refund claims are not covered by the extended filing window.
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
- Individual victims of theft, scams, burglaries, or other nonbusiness casualty events since 2018 — they can potentially deduct qualified losses under the reinstated pre‑2018 rules and may file claims for refunds for years already filed.
- Taxpayers whose state tax systems conform to federal taxable income — reinstatement may lower state taxable income where states automatically follow federal rules.
- Tax attorneys and preparers — they gain new advisory and representation opportunities advising clients on amended returns, refund claims, and audits tied to casualty losses.
Who Bears the Cost
- The IRS and Treasury — the agency faces a likely increase in amended returns and refund claims, higher processing workload, expanded audit exposure, and potential cash outlays to satisfy successful claims.
- Federal budget (revenue) — retroactive refunds and reduced future tax receipts for affected years create revenue loss that would need to be offset elsewhere or increase deficits absent scoring adjustments.
- State governments that decouple from federal changes — if states do not conform automatically, their tax bases and administrative rules must be adjusted, creating complexity and potential revenue shifts.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The central dilemma is whether retroactive tax relief for victims justifies the administrative, fiscal, and evidentiary costs it imposes: the bill restores an important benefit to individuals harmed by theft, scams, or disasters, but doing so retroactively and opening a broad refund window risks a heavy operational burden on the IRS and potential revenue loss, while also creating difficult proof problems for claims of fraud‑related losses.
The bill reconciles two legitimate aims—restoring tax relief to victims and protecting the integrity of the tax system—by reinstating the deduction while limiting the refund extension to claims tied to personal casualty losses. But it leaves open several operational and interpretive questions.
The retroactive effective date invites a wave of amended returns that the IRS must process without additional appropriation language, and that activity could strain service and enforcement resources. The measure also omits any requirement or guidance on documentation standards for losses from fraud or scams, which are often harder to substantiate than physical casualty losses and will therefore raise evidentiary and audit issues.
Another unresolved area is interaction with insurance recoveries and other reimbursements. Pre‑2018 rules already reduced deductible losses by insurance proceeds and required specific timing rules for when a loss is recognized; applying those mechanics to old years—some with settled insurance claims or third‑party recoveries—complicates claim preparation and IRS review.
Finally, the bill narrowly limits the statute‑of‑limitations extension to returns filed before January 1, 2025 and to losses described in section 165(c)(3), leaving questions about taxpayers who filed after that date or whose losses straddle business/personal lines.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.