PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Referred to the House Committee on Ways and Means.
Congressional Research Service
No official summary is available in the imported record yet.
People & committees
Rep. McDonald Rivet, Kristen [D-MI-8] · D–MI
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Referred to the House Committee on Ways and Means.
Introduced in House
Introduced in House
Primary sources
Text links open the official source. We also preserved the text version used in the PlainBill explanation below.
No related bills are listed in this snapshot. This does not establish whether the proposal has appeared in earlier Congresses.
Source last updated: Oct 16, 2026. Consult Congress.gov for the current record.
AI Conversation Starters
Choose a perspective, copy a prompt, and paste it into your preferred AI. Each prompt includes the bill version and available official source links, and asks for counterarguments as well as supporting evidence.
Analyze H.R.10448 as objectively as possible. Explain its main provisions, who would be affected, possible benefits and harms, implementation, exceptions, and uncertainties. Present the strongest arguments for and against it, and identify evidence needed to assess its public impact.
Examine H.R.10448 through a progressive lens, focusing on fairness, access, economic inequality, and effects on vulnerable communities. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and distinguish stated goals from demonstrated outcomes.
Examine H.R.10448 through a conservative lens, focusing on fiscal responsibility, institutional stability, federalism, and the scope of government. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and any provisions that challenge this perspective.
Examine H.R.10448 through a civil-liberties and limited-government lens. Consider individual rights, privacy, voluntary choice, accountability, and government power. Explain tradeoffs, possible safeguards, and the strongest counterarguments without assuming the proposal is beneficial or harmful.
PlainBill explanation
Based on the full Introduced in House · 2026-09-16 text. This explanation has not received human editorial review. This overview describes the proposal’s major provisions; it does not establish what its real-world effects would be.
This bill proposes to remove certain large data centers and related property from two categories eligible for tax advantages. It would exclude covered property from bonus depreciation, which concerns tax deductions for property costs, and from qualifying business property under opportunity-zone tax rules. The exclusions would cover qualifying facilities used for data services or artificial intelligence, including property outside a facility dedicated to its operation.
2. Exempting qualified data center property from bonus depreciation
The term qualified property shall not include any qualified data center property.
the term qualified data center property means any property which— (I) is used in a covered data center, or (II) is located outside of a covered data center but dedicated to the operation of such data center.
equipment used for— (aa) data storage, processing, and transport services, or (bb) developing, providing training in, or operating artificial intelligence.
The term qualified opportunity zone business property shall not include any covered data center (as defined in clause (iii) of section 168(k)(2)(I)) or any qualified data center property (as defined in clause (ii) of such section).
Section 1 would name the legislation the “Reverse Big Ugly Tax Breaks for Data Centers Act.”
This Act may be cited as the Reverse Big Ugly Tax Breaks for Data Centers Act.
Section 2 would exclude all property used in a covered data center from the bonus-depreciation category called “qualified property.” The exclusion would also reach property located outside the center if dedicated to operating it.
Section 168(k)(2) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended by adding at the end the following new subparagraph: (I) Exception for qualified data center property (i) In general The term qualified property shall not include any qualified data center property.
the term qualified data center property means any property which— (I) is used in a covered data center, or (II) is located outside of a covered data center but dedicated to the operation of such data center.
A covered data center would have to meet both a size requirement and a use requirement. It must be a permanent or semipermanent structure, or group of structures, with either maximum rated power capacity or total peak power load greater than 50 megawatts. It must also be dedicated to housing, connecting, and operating information technology and telecommunications equipment for the listed data services or artificial-intelligence activities.
the term covered data center means a permanent or semipermanent structure, or group of such structures, which— (I) has a maximum rated power capacity or total peak power load in excess of 50 megawatts, and (II) is dedicated to the centralized accommodation, interconnection, and operation of information technology and network telecommunications equipment used for— (aa) data storage, processing, and transport services, or (bb) developing, providing training in, or operating artificial intelligence.
The bill would use the definition of artificial intelligence in section 5002 of the National Artificial Intelligence Initiative Act of 2020. It does not reproduce that definition.
the term artificial intelligence has the meaning given such term in section 5002 of the National Artificial Intelligence Initiative Act of 2020.
The bonus-depreciation exclusion would apply to property placed in service during tax years that begin after enactment. The timing depends on the start of the tax year, rather than simply whether the property enters service after enactment.
The amendment made by this section shall apply to property placed in service in taxable years beginning after the date of the enactment of this Act.
Section 3 would exclude both covered data centers themselves and their qualifying related property from the tax-code category “qualified opportunity zone business property.” It would use the same definitions established by section 2.
Section 1400Z–2(d)(2)(D) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended by adding at the end the following new clause: (iv) Exclusion The term qualified opportunity zone business property shall not include any covered data center (as defined in clause (iii) of section 168(k)(2)(I)) or any qualified data center property (as defined in clause (ii) of such section).
The opportunity-zone exclusion would apply to property acquired during tax years beginning after enactment. This provision uses acquisition timing, while section 2 uses when property is placed in service.
The amendment made by this section shall apply to property acquired in taxable years beginning after the date of the enactment of this Act.
The amendment made by this section shall apply to property placed in service in taxable years beginning after the date of the enactment of this Act.
The supplied official-actions snapshot, updated October 16, 2026, at 08:05:48 UTC, records introduction in the House and referral to the House Committee on Ways and Means on September 16, 2026.
Source snapshot updated 2026-10-16T08:05:48Z. 2026-09-16: Referred to the House Committee on Ways and Means. 2026-09-16: Introduced in House
A closer look
Reviewed version: Introduced in House · 2026-09-16. These findings describe provisions and who may benefit; they are not judgments of waste, corruption, or motive.
This review covers the supplied bill text. “None identified” does not rule out provisions in later versions or accompanying reports and disclosures.
Provisions outside the bill’s main subject, or policy changes attached to appropriations.
None identified in the reviewed text
No unrelated provision or policy change attached to appropriations was identified in the complete supplied introduced text. This conclusion is limited to that version and does not establish absence in other versions or accompanying materials.
Spending directed to particular recipients or places outside ordinary competitive or formula-based allocation.
None identified in the reviewed text
No congressionally directed spending for particular recipients or places was identified in the complete supplied introduced text. This conclusion is limited to that version; earmark disclosures and committee or conference materials were not supplied.
Narrow exceptions, exemptions, or preferential treatment that warrant a closer look.
None identified in the reviewed text
No materially narrow preferential carve-out, special exemption, or other targeted benefit was identified in the complete supplied introduced text. The eligibility boundaries define the proposed exclusions rather than establish a separate preferential benefit. This conclusion is limited to that version and does not establish absence in other versions or accompanying materials.
Full text preserved for this analysis. Legislative record snapshot: Oct 16, 2026. How PlainBill uses AI