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. Barr, Andy [R-KY-6] · R–KY
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: May 6, 2025. 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.1113 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.1113 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.1113 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.1113 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 · 2025-02-07 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.
The bill proposes a three-year tax depreciation period for race horses—a schedule for deducting their cost over time. It would affect taxpayers depreciating race horses placed in service after December 31, 2022.
Three-year depreciation for race horses
The amendments made by this section shall apply to property placed in service after December 31, 2022.
The proposal is named the Race Horse Cost Recovery Act of 2025. It would replace the specified tax-code clause with “any race horse,” without adding qualifications within that replacement clause.
This Act may be cited as the Race Horse Cost Recovery Act of 2025.
Section 168(e)(3)(A)(i) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended to read as follows: (i) any race horse, .
The proposed change would apply to property placed in service after December 31, 2022. The supplied text specifies no end date for that application.
(b) Effective date The amendments made by this section shall apply to property placed in service after December 31, 2022.
The supplied actions snapshot, updated May 6, 2025, records introduction in the House and referral to the House Committee on Ways and Means on February 7, 2025.
Source snapshot updated 2025-05-06T12:41:37Z. 2025-02-07: Referred to the House Committee on Ways and Means. 2025-02-07: Introduced in House
A closer look
Reviewed version: Introduced in House · 2025-02-07. 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 was identified in the complete supplied introduced version. This conclusion does not cover 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 version. This conclusion does not establish absence in other versions or accompanying materials.
Narrow exceptions, exemptions, or preferential treatment that warrant a closer look.
Findings to examine
The proposal contains narrow, asset-specific tax treatment as its central policy.
Taxpayers depreciating race horses are the intended beneficiaries of a three-year cost-recovery classification specifically for those animals. The supplied text does not establish the size of any tax advantage relative to existing law.
Three-year depreciation for race horses
Section 168(e)(3)(A)(i) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended to read as follows: (i) any race horse, .
Full text preserved for this analysis. Legislative record snapshot: May 6, 2025. How PlainBill uses AI