HR-9308-119
Referred to the House Committee on Ways and Means.
Sponsored by Randy Weber (R-TX)
What it does
This bill would make two changes to the Internal Revenue Code affecting death benefits paid to survivors of public safety officers. First, it would expand the existing income tax exclusion for public safety officer death benefits to cover all "surviving beneficiaries" — not just "surviving dependents." Second, it would extend the existing income tax exclusion for survivor annuity benefits to include beneficiaries of a deceased officer's life insurance policy or benefit plan, not just the officer's children. Both changes would apply retroactively to tax years beginning after December 31, 2022.
Who benefits
Surviving beneficiaries of public safety officers — including firefighters, police officers, emergency medical technicians, and other covered first responders — who are not legal dependents of the deceased officer. This includes adult children, siblings, parents, domestic partners, close friends, or any other person named as a beneficiary on a life insurance policy or benefit plan. Life insurance beneficiaries who are not the officer's children would also gain access to the annuity tax exclusion. Retroactive application would benefit those who received such payments in tax years 2023 and later.
Who is hurt
The federal government would collect less income tax revenue, indirectly affecting all programs funded by general revenues. Tax preparers and the IRS may face administrative costs associated with processing amended returns for the retroactive period (tax years 2023 onward). Taxpayers who already filed and paid taxes on these benefits would need to file amended returns to claim the benefit, creating a compliance burden for those unaware of the change.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue that the current "surviving dependents" language creates an arbitrary and inequitable distinction — a first responder who names a non-dependent adult child, a domestic partner, or an aging parent as their beneficiary receives worse tax treatment than one whose beneficiary happens to qualify as a dependent. They contend that Congress intended to honor the sacrifice of fallen officers by shielding death benefits from taxation, and that limiting this protection based on dependency status undermines that purpose without any sound policy rationale.
Opponents argue
Opponents argue that expanding tax exclusions narrows the federal revenue base and that the existing "surviving dependents" limitation was a deliberate policy choice to target relief toward those most financially vulnerable after an officer's death. They contend that extending the exclusion to any named beneficiary — regardless of financial need — may direct tax benefits to individuals who are not economically dependent on the deceased officer, making the provision less targeted and more costly than the current law intends.
Constitutional context
This bill amends the Internal Revenue Code under Congress's broad taxing and spending authority (Art. I, §8, cl. 1). The retroactive application to tax years beginning after December 31, 2022, could raise a due process question under the Fifth Amendment, as the Supreme Court has recognized limits on retroactive tax provisions — though courts have generally permitted retroactivity when the period is short and the change is a reduction in tax liability rather than an increase.
Checks and balances
Congress modifies the tax code; the IRS administers and enforces the new exclusion rules; taxpayers may file amended returns for the retroactive period, and courts retain authority to review any due process challenges to the retroactive provisions.
Historical precedent
The Public Safety Officers' Benefits Act (1976) and subsequent amendments to IRC §104 and §101(h) established the original framework for tax-free treatment of public safety officer death benefits; this bill narrows the gap left by those provisions' dependent-only language.