PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Congressional Research Service
Version 49 · Public Law · Apr 1, 2015
(This measure has not been amended since it was introduced. The expanded summary of the House passed version is repeated here.)
Slain Officer Family Support Act of 2015
(Sec. 2) This bill authorizes a charitable tax deduction for cash contributions made for the relief of the families of slain New York Police Department Detectives Wenjian Liu and Rafael Ramos even if such contributions are made for the exclusive benefit of such families. A taxpayer who makes such a contribution may claim a deduction in 2014 for contributions made between January 1, 2015, and April 15, 2015. The bill also provides that the recordkeeping requirements for the charitable tax deduction will be satisfied if the taxpayer produces a telephone bill showing the name of the organization to which a contribution was made with the date and amount of such contribution.
Showing the opening paragraphs of the official summary.
The bill also confirms that payments made on or after December 20, 2014, and on or before October 15, 2015, to the spouse or any dependents of Detectives Wenjian Liu or Rafael Ramos by a tax-exempt organization shall be treated as related to the purpose or function constituting the basis for such organization's tax exemption, and shall not be treated as inuring to the benefit of any private individual, if such payments are made in good faith using a reasonable and objective formula which is consistently applied.
People & committees
Rep. Jeffries, Hakeem S. [D-NY-8] · D–NY
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Became Public Law No: 114-7.
Became Public Law No: 114-7.
Signed by President.
Signed by President.
Presented to President.
Presented to President.
Message on Senate action sent to the House.
Passed Senate without amendment by Unanimous Consent. (consideration: CR 3/26/2015 S2088)
Passed/agreed to in Senate: Passed Senate without amendment by Unanimous Consent.(consideration: CR 3/26/2015 S2088)
Received in the Senate, read twice.
Motion to reconsider laid on the table Agreed to without objection.
On motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill Agreed to by voice vote. (text: CR H2021-2022)
Passed/agreed to in House: On motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill Agreed to by voice vote.(text: CR H2021-2022)
DEBATE - The House proceeded with forty minutes of debate on H.R. 1527.
Considered under suspension of the rules. (consideration: CR H2021-2023)
Mr. Ryan (WI) moved to suspend the rules and pass the bill.
Referred to the House Committee on Ways and Means.
Introduced in House
Introduced in House
Primary sources
Text links open the official source. We currently store references to these documents.
Source last updated: Nov 4, 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.1527 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.1527 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.1527 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.1527 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.