“is amended by striking "No deduction" and inserting "Except in the case of an expense described in subsection (e)(8) or (n)(2)(C), no deduction".”
The section strikes the words No deduction at the start of section 274(o) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as added by section 13304 of Public Law 115-97, and inserts words carving out an expense described in subsection (e)(8) or (n)(2)(C).
What the document actually says
“is amended by striking "No deduction" and inserting "Except in the case of an expense described in subsection (e)(8) or (n)(2)(C), no deduction".”
That sentence, in plain words
Two words are taken out of a tax rule. Longer wording is put in. It names two kinds of cost that escape the bar.
What this is about
The bar normally blocks the deduction. The new wording opens two doors. What each of them covers sits elsewhere in the tax code.
No action is recorded against this proposal. That is not evidence that none has been taken, and nobody has yet read it against the record. See what the tracker does not yet cover.
Provide for reconciliation pursuant to title II of H. Con. Res. 14, Public Law 119-21, sec. 70305, 139 Stat. 197 (2025). https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/PLAW-119publ21/html/PLAW-119publ21.htm
This page
“Two kinds of expense are carved out of the denial,” Provide for reconciliation pursuant to title II of H. Con. Res. 14, section 70305, Sec. 70305. Read the Mandate, https://readthemandate.org/pl-119-21/proposal/sec70305-exception/ (retrieved August 26, 2026).
Cite the document when the claim is about what the document says. Cite this page when the indexing, the wording or the record of what has happened is what is being relied on.
How to Read This Page
The quotation is the document's own words, exactly as printed, and we check the page
number against the Act itself before publishing. The paragraph underneath is our summary,
not the document's words. So is the plain English version, which is why it sits beside the
quotation rather than replacing it.
