HR-8917-119
Referred to the House Committee on Ways and Means.
Sponsored by Jodey Arrington (R-TX)
What it does
This bill would amend Section 225(c)(1) of the Internal Revenue Code, which defines "qualified overtime compensation" for the overtime tax deduction. It would keep the existing Fair Labor Standards Act overtime definition and add certain Border Patrol agent pay: supplemental pay, premium pay, and overtime under 5 U.S.C. 5542(g), counted to the extent it exceeds the agent's basic pay rate computed without 5 U.S.C. 5550. Hazardous duty pay under 5 U.S.C. 5550(c)(3) would be excluded. The change would apply to taxable years beginning after December 31, 2025.
Who benefits
Border Patrol agents who receive the covered supplemental, premium, and overtime pay, who may owe less federal income tax on those amounts. Their households would also benefit. Federal law enforcement recruiting and retention might indirectly benefit if after-tax pay becomes more attractive.
Who is hurt
Federal taxpayers generally, because the Treasury would collect less revenue, with the size depending on how many agents qualify and how much pay is covered. Other federal employees and workers in similar high-overtime jobs whose pay is not covered might see the change as unequal treatment. The IRS and employing agencies might face added administrative work in separating covered from non-covered pay.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue that Border Patrol agents' pay is structured under special federal statutes, not the Fair Labor Standards Act, so the existing overtime deduction may leave out much of their extra-hours pay. They contend the bill treats agents the same as other overtime workers and recognizes the long, irregular hours the job demands, which could help agencies keep experienced agents.
Opponents argue
Opponents argue that the bill singles out one federal occupation for a tax benefit, adding complexity and unequal treatment compared with other law enforcement and federal employees who also work long hours. They contend it would reduce federal revenue without offsetting costs, and that pay-related retention concerns are better handled through agency pay and appropriations than through the tax code.
Constitutional context
Congress's power to tax and spend under Article I, Section 8, Clause 1 covers deductions like this one, and the bill raises no clear constitutional question. As a revenue measure it would need to originate in the House, which it did; the uniformity requirement applies to duties and excises and has not been read to bar occupation-specific deductions.
Checks and balances
Congress would define the deduction's scope and the Treasury and IRS would administer it, with no new executive authority created; the President's signature or veto and ordinary judicial review of tax disputes remain the checks.
Historical precedent
The bill amends Section 225 of the Internal Revenue Code, the overtime deduction enacted in 2025, by widening its definition of qualifying pay for one occupation.