H.R. 9626

H.R. 9626: To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to eliminate the State and local tax deduction marriage penalty.

Introduced Josh Gottheimer (D) HOUSE_BILL — 119th Congress
Plain English Summary

H.R. 9626 aims to amend the Internal Revenue Code to eliminate the marriage penalty associated with the State and Local Tax (SALT) deduction. This means that married couples would be able to deduct state and local taxes from their federal taxable income without facing a disadvantage compared to single filers, potentially leading to tax savings for many households.

Positive Media Summary

Supporters of H.R. 9626 have praised the bill for addressing the marriage penalty in the SALT deduction, arguing that it promotes fairness in the tax system and provides financial relief to married couples. Advocates believe this change could encourage marriage and strengthen family units by alleviating some tax burdens.

Negative Media Summary

Critics of H.R. 9626 argue that eliminating the marriage penalty for the SALT deduction could disproportionately benefit higher-income households, potentially leading to a loss of revenue for state and local governments. Some opponents also express concern that this change could complicate the tax code further and exacerbate existing inequities in the tax system.

Conflict of Interest Analysis Deep Analysis
3/10
Risk Level
Low
Total Donations
$0
PAC Percentage
0%
Policy Area
Taxation

The analysis of H.R. 9626, which aims to amend the Internal Revenue Code to eliminate the State and local tax deduction marriage penalty, shows no direct industry overlaps between the bill's subject matter and the sponsor, Josh Gottheimer's, top donor industries. While there is lobbying activity in the policy area, the total amounts from these lobbying efforts do not indicate a significant financial influence directly related to the bill. The highest contributions come from the American Concrete Institute ($80,000) and Anne Pramaggiore ($60,000), but these do not correlate with the tax deduction changes proposed in the bill. Therefore, the risk of conflict of interest appears to be low, as the financial interests of the donors do not align with the legislative intent of the bill.

Lobbying Activity — Who's Pushing?

Organizations that lobbied on issues related to this bill's policy area.

Client Lobbying Firm Amount
AMERICAN CONCRETE INSTITUTE CROSSROADS STRATEGIES, LLC $80,000
ANNE PRAMAGGIORE CROSSROADS STRATEGIES, LLC $60,000
SIGHTLINE INTELLIGENCE C2 STRATEGIES $50,000
ACTUS ADVANCED SYSTEMS C2 STRATEGIES $40,000
WASHOE COUNTY PORTER GROUP, LLC $30,000
VETERANS ASSOCIATION OF REAL ESTATE PROFESSIONALS, INC. C2 STRATEGIES $30,000
EO SOLUTIONS LLC PORTER GROUP, LLC $20,000
WASHOE COUNTY REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION PORTER GROUP, LLC $20,000
ULINE BROYDRICK & ASSOCIATES $20,000
RTC SOUTHERN NEVADA PORTER GROUP, LLC $10,000
WISH BROYDRICK & ASSOCIATES undisclosed
WISCONSIN STATE CRANBERRY GROWERS ASSOCIATION BROYDRICK & ASSOCIATES undisclosed
WISCONSIN CRANBERRY RESEARCH AND EDUCATION FOUNDATION BROYDRICK & ASSOCIATES undisclosed
WISCONSIN CRANBERRY RESEARCH AND EDUCATION FOUNDATION BROYDRICK & ASSOCIATES undisclosed
WD SCHORSCH LLC BROYDRICK & ASSOCIATES undisclosed

Source: Senate Lobbying Disclosure Act (LDA) filings, 2026

Sponsor's Top Donor Industries

Top industries funding Josh Gottheimer, ranked by total contributions.

Health Professionals $120,000,000
Individuals: $120,000,000 PACs: $0
Retired $37,500,000
Individuals: $37,500,000 PACs: $0

Source: OpenSecrets.org (Center for Responsive Politics)

TheBillRoom is free and independent. No ads, no subscriptions, no political funding. If this analysis was useful, reader support keeps it running.
Support Us