S.3372 adds a new section to the Internal Revenue Code—section 139M—that excludes from gross income amounts an individual receives as ‘qualified wildfire relief payments.’ The exclusion covers compensation for losses, additional living expenses, lost wages (with a specific employer‑paid wages carve‑out), personal injury, death, and emotional distress, but only to the extent those losses aren’t already covered by insurance or other sources.
The bill also prevents duplicative tax benefits by denying deductions or credits for expenditures covered by an excluded payment and by prohibiting basis increases tied to excluded amounts. The rule applies to amounts received after December 31, 2025, and the definition of covered disasters reaches back to federally declared forest or range fire disasters declared after December 31, 2014.
At a Glance
What It Does
The bill creates IRC §139M to exclude from gross income qualified wildfire relief payments received by or on behalf of an individual, defined as compensation for wildfire‑related losses and expenses that are not otherwise compensated. It bars a taxpayer from claiming deductions, credits, or basis increases for amounts excluded under the new section.
Who It Affects
Individual disaster victims who receive cash or other compensation from charities, governments, insurers, or private parties for wildfire losses; payors and tax preparers who must categorize and report those payments; and the Treasury, which will see revenue effects from the exclusion and denial rules.
Why It Matters
This creates an explicit tax‑free pathway for wildfire relief payments, clarifies what relief counts as non‑taxable, and reduces the risk of inadvertent double tax benefits—filling a gap left by existing disaster‑related rules and shifting compliance questions to payors and the IRS.
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 freshly written IRC section—139M—that removes certain wildfire relief payments from a recipient’s taxable income. The exclusion applies when an individual receives compensation for losses, extra living costs, lost wages (subject to a carve‑out described below), physical injury, death, or emotional distress caused by a ‘qualified wildfire disaster.’ Importantly, the payment must make the individual whole only for amounts not covered by insurance or other compensation; the statute ties the exclusion to net shortfalls.
‘Qualified wildfire disaster’ borrows the federally declared disaster concept and limits covered events to forest or range fires declared after December 31, 2014. The exclusion reaches amounts paid directly to an individual and amounts paid on an individual’s behalf, so relief routed through a third party—whether a charity, government program, or another payer—can qualify as non‑taxable to the recipient.
The text explicitly excludes from the definition of qualifying lost‑wage relief any payment that is an employer’s wage payment that the employer would otherwise have paid.To prevent a taxpayer from receiving a double tax advantage, the bill disallows any tax deduction or credit for expenditures that are compensated by an excluded payment and prevents any increase in a property’s basis that would otherwise result from an excluded amount. The statute’s effective date applies to amounts received after December 31, 2025, so the exclusion is forward‑looking for receipts but can cover payments tied to disasters declared back to the end of 2014.
The Five Things You Need to Know
The bill creates IRC §139M and excludes from gross income ‘qualified wildfire relief payments’ received by or on behalf of an individual.
A qualified wildfire relief payment covers compensation for losses, additional living expenses, lost wages (with a carve‑out for employer‑paid wages that would otherwise have been paid), personal injury, death, and emotional distress.
The exclusion applies only to losses that are not compensated by insurance or otherwise—payments that simply substitute for an insured recovery are excluded from the exclusion.
Section 139M defines ‘qualified wildfire disaster’ as a federally declared disaster caused by a forest or range fire declared after December 31, 2014.
The bill denies any deduction or credit for expenditures covered by an excluded payment and prohibits a basis increase tied to such excluded amounts; it applies to amounts received after December 31, 2025.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Short title
Provides the Act’s short title, the 'Protect Innocent Victims of Taxation After Fire Extension Act.' This is a caption only and creates no substantive tax rule; it signals the bill’s policy aim to make disaster relief tax‑free for recipients.
Defines and excludes qualified wildfire relief payments
Drafts the operative tax rule: gross income does not include qualified wildfire relief payments received by or on behalf of an individual. The provision sets three core limits: (1) it enumerates covered types of compensation (living expenses, lost wages, injury, death, emotional distress); (2) it conditions relief on being uncompensated by insurance or other sources; and (3) it narrows 'lost wages' to exclude employer‑paid substitute wage payments. Practically, taxpayers and payors will need to determine both the character of a payment and whether it merely replaces an insured or otherwise compensated loss.
Updates the table of sections
Adds an entry for the new section in the Internal Revenue Code table of sections. This is a housekeeping change so practitioners can cite the new section easily in tax references and guidance.
Applies the changes to amounts received after Dec. 31, 2025
Limits the statutory exclusion to receipts after December 31, 2025. Although the disaster definition reaches back to 2014, the effective date means only payments actually received after the cutoff are excluded. That timing creates scenarios where relief tied to earlier disasters will qualify only if paid after the effective date, which affects relief program design and retroactive payments.
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
- Individuals displaced or harmed by federally declared forest or range fires: They receive certain relief payments tax‑free, increasing the net help they get from charities, governments, or private aid.
- Nonprofit and government relief programs that disburse cash or vouchers: Recipients face less tax friction, which can make cash grants more effective and simplify charitable objectives.
- Taxpayers receiving third‑party payments on their behalf: Because the statute covers amounts paid 'on behalf of' an individual, beneficiaries of third‑party settlement payments or direct vendor payments (housing, relocation) can qualify for the exclusion.
Who Bears the Cost
- Federal treasury: The exclusion reduces taxable income bases and will reduce federal receipts to the extent the excluded payments would otherwise have been taxable.
- Payors and tax preparers: Organizations that make relief payments will need to classify payments, verify insurance offsets, and potentially provide substantiation or reporting to recipients and the IRS.
- IRS and Treasury: The agencies will face administrative burdens developing guidance, forms, and reporting rules to implement the exclusion and enforce the denial‑of‑double‑benefit provisions.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The bill balances two legitimate goals—maximizing net relief to wildfire victims by removing tax barriers, and preserving the tax base and anti‑double‑benefit rules—but the line between a genuine uncompensated loss and a payment that merely supplants insurance or taxable employer compensation is porous, creating hard administrative choices and potential unfairness depending on how payors structure relief.
The bill’s core drafting leaves open several practical and legal questions that will determine how much relief is actually tax‑free. First, the statute excludes amounts only ‘to the extent’ losses are not compensated by insurance or otherwise, but it doesn’t define the mechanics for offset: does a later insurance recovery require amendment of a recipient’s return, or does the excluded amount remain tax‑free if the payment was made in good faith?
That creates compliance exposure for recipients and uncertainty for payors considering advance grants.
Second, the parenthetical carving out employer‑paid wages from the lost‑wages definition introduces ambiguity. It appears intended to keep ordinary wage replacement paid through payroll taxable as wages, but the text does not specify whether employer‑funded disaster relief that supplements wage loss qualifies.
Payors and courts will need to decide whether employer‑administered relief is a taxable benefit or a tax‑free disaster payment. Finally, the bill’s denial of deductions and basis increases creates an administrative rule to avoid double benefits, but it may produce awkward outcomes for capital repairs paid with excluded funds; practitioners will need IRS guidance on matching principles and proof standards.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.