The bill inserts a new Internal Revenue Code section—§139M—that excludes from gross income ‘‘any civil damages, restitution, or other monetary award (including compensatory or statutory damages and restitution imposed in a criminal matter)’’ awarded under 18 U.S.C. §1593 (criminal restitution) or §1595 (civil actions by trafficking victims). The statutory text is narrow in source but broad in form: it covers awards labeled compensatory, statutory, or restitutionary.
This change removes federal income tax liability on money trafficking survivors receive as court-ordered restitution or as civil damages under the federal trafficking statutes, effective for taxable years beginning after enactment. The shift affects tax treatment of settlements, criminal restitution orders, and the administrative interaction between courts, payors, and the IRS — with consequences for survivors, prosecutors, defense counsel, tax preparers, and federal revenue receipts.
At a Glance
What It Does
The bill creates IRC §139M to exclude from gross income monetary awards received under 18 U.S.C. §1593 (restitution ordered in a criminal case) and §1595 (civil damages actions by victims of trafficking). The exclusion specifically mentions compensatory and statutory damages as well as restitution imposed in criminal matters.
Who It Affects
Directly affects trafficking survivors who receive restitution or civil damages under federal trafficking statutes, attorneys who negotiate or litigate those awards, federal prosecutors who secure restitution orders, and tax professionals and the IRS responsible for applying the exclusion. Payors and courts will also face administrative changes when reporting and distributing awards.
Why It Matters
The bill removes a material tax disincentive for survivors to pursue restitution or civil litigation and increases the net recovery available to victims. It also creates new implementation questions for tax reporting, potential interactions with existing exclusions (for example, damages for physical injury), and for federal revenue accounting.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
This bill amends the Internal Revenue Code by adding a new section, §139M, that tells taxpayers and the IRS not to count money awarded to victims of human trafficking under two specific federal statutes as taxable income. One statute, 18 U.S.C. §1593, authorizes courts to order restitution in criminal prosecutions for trafficking; the other, §1595, allows victims to sue civilly and recover damages.
The bill’s language is intentionally broad about the form of awards: it names compensatory damages, statutory damages, and restitution imposed in criminal matters.
Practically, the exclusion applies only to awards that come from those two legal avenues. It does not rewrite other parts of the tax code: the bill inserts the new exclusion before section 140 of the Code and leaves reporting rules and other tax sections untouched.
Because it is tied to the statutory source of the award, the exclusion reaches awards characterized as punitive or statutory only if they arise in a §1595 action or under a §1593 restitution order; awards outside those two channels remain governed by existing tax law.The bill’s effective date limits its reach to taxable years beginning after the date of enactment, so it does not retroactively change treatment of awards already received in earlier tax years. Implementation will depend on IRS guidance—primarily how the IRS instructs payors about information returns, how taxpayers should report excluded amounts on returns, and how the agency will handle disputes where the characterization or source of an award is contested.
The Five Things You Need to Know
The bill adds a new Internal Revenue Code section numbered 139M, placed in Part III of subchapter B of chapter 1 (inserted before section 140).
§139M excludes from gross income ‘‘any civil damages, restitution, or other monetary award (including compensatory or statutory damages and restitution imposed in a criminal matter)’’ awarded under 18 U.S.C. §1593 or §1595.
The statutory coverage is source‑based: the exclusion applies only to amounts awarded pursuant to §1593 restitution orders or §1595 civil actions for trafficking in persons.
The effective date clause limits application to taxable years beginning after the date of enactment; the bill does not make the exclusion retroactive to prior tax years.
The bill does not alter existing information‑reporting provisions or explicitly address interactions with other tax exclusions (for example, §104) or with means‑tested federal benefit eligibility and offsets.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Short title
Designates the Act as the "Human Trafficking Survivor Tax Relief Act." This is a standard caption provision with no operative tax effect, but the short title signals the policy intent that courts and agencies may use when interpreting the statute's purpose.
Exclusion for awards under 18 U.S.C. §§1593 and 1595
Adds a standalone tax exclusion specifying that gross income ‘‘shall not include’’ civil damages, restitution, or other monetary awards awarded pursuant to §1593 (criminal restitution) or §1595 (civil actions) of Title 18. The text explicitly lists compensatory and statutory damages and restitution imposed in criminal matters, which broadens the form of covered awards beyond strictly compensatory payments. Because the exclusion is keyed to the legal source (the two federal trafficking statutes), whether a given payment qualifies depends on whether the award was issued under those provisions.
Table of sections updated
Inserts an entry for Sec. 139M into the table of sections for Part III of subchapter B. This is a housekeeping change that integrates the new exclusion into the Code’s table of contents so practitioners and automated legal research tools can locate the provision.
Taxable years affected
States that the amendment applies to taxable years beginning after the date of enactment. This forward‑looking effective date limits the bill’s reach to future awards and prevents retroactive reclassification of awards received in closed tax years, leaving open the ordinary procedures for taxpayers who already paid tax on prior awards (refund claims, amended returns, or litigation).
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
- Trafficking survivors who receive restitution or civil damages: They will not owe federal income tax on awards under 18 U.S.C. §1593 or §1595, increasing their net recovery and reducing the financial burden of litigation or criminal restitution processes.
- Plaintiffs' attorneys and legal aid organizations that represent trafficking victims: The exclusion raises the after‑tax value of settlements and judgments, which can improve settlement leverage and increase the practical benefit of pursuing claims for clients.
- Federal prosecutors and victim‑witness programs: Removing a tax consequence can make restitution orders more meaningful to victims and support the government’s victim‑assistance objectives by ensuring that court‑ordered restitution is not eroded by federal income tax.
- Tax preparers and victim advocacy clinics offering tax help: Clarity that certain awards are excluded simplifies counseling survivors about tax liability and reduces risky tax positions for vulnerable taxpayers.
Who Bears the Cost
- Federal treasury (IRS/Department of the Treasury): The exclusion reduces federal taxable income base to the extent awards would previously have increased receipts, producing some revenue loss; the magnitude depends on award volumes and characterizations.
- IRS administration and compliance units: The agency must issue guidance on reporting, information returns (for example, whether payors should issue Form 1099), and on audits disputing whether particular payments qualify as awards under §1593/§1595, creating short‑term administrative costs.
- Courts and litigants in related cases: Parties and judges may see increased factual litigation over whether a settlement or award truly ‘‘arose under’’ §1595 or §1593, complicating final judgment language, settlement drafts, and adjudication of tax implications.
- Payors and settlement administrators: Entities that make payments (defendants, insurers, or settlement funds) may face additional recordkeeping and potential withholding decisions absent clear IRS rules, adding compliance costs and complexity.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The bill balances two legitimate goals—ensuring trafficking survivors keep the money they are awarded versus preserving the tax base and guarding against opportunistic characterization of payments as trafficking awards—and it does so by privileging the survivor’s net recovery. That choice reduces harm to victims but increases the risk of tax avoidance, heightened litigation over the source and characterization of payments, and administrative burdens for the IRS and courts.
The bill resolves an inequity—taxing awards intended to make victims whole—by tying an exclusion to the statutory source of an award rather than to the nature of injury, but that source‑based approach creates implementation headaches. First, settlements are often structured and labeled for negotiation purposes; whether a settlement payment qualifies depends on whether it is ‘‘awarded in an action under §1595’’ or originated from a §1593 restitution order.
Parties may deliberately draft releases or settlement agreements to invoke or avoid this exclusion, producing additional negotiation points and potential post‑award disputes. The IRS will likely need clear rules about how to treat settlements, allocation language, and payments made outside formal court orders.
Second, the bill is silent about information reporting. Payers commonly issue Form 1099s for settlement payments, and courts or criminal restitution mechanisms may notify the IRS of awards.
The absence of a reporting change raises the risk that excluded amounts are still reported as income, shifting the burden to survivors to exclude them on their returns and creating audit risk for vulnerable taxpayers. Finally, the statute does not address interactions with other federal programs and with state tax regimes; states may or may not follow the federal exclusion, and federal means‑tested benefit programs may treat excluded awards differently for eligibility or offset purposes, producing uneven practical effects for survivors.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.