PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Referred to the House Committee on Ways and Means.
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in House · Jan 21, 2015
Wild Game Donation Act of 2015
Amends the Internal Revenue Code to: (1) increase the tax deduction for charitable contributions of qualified wild game meat by the processing fees paid with respect to such contributions, and (2) exclude from the gross income of meat processors processing fees paid by a charitable organization for the processing of donated wild game meat.
Defines "qualified wild game meat" as the meat of any animal typically used for human consumption but only if: (1) such animal is killed in the wild by the individual making the charitable contribution and is hunted or taken in accordance with all state and local laws, (2) the meat is processed for human consumption by a licensed processor, and (3) the meat is apparently wholesome as determined by regulations under the Bill Emerson Good Samaritan Food Donation Act.
People & committees
Rep. Young, Don [R-AK-At Large] · R–AK
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 currently store references to these documents.
No related bills are listed in this snapshot. This does not establish whether the proposal has appeared in earlier Congresses.
Source last updated: Aug 12, 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.461 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.461 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.461 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.461 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.