PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Read twice and referred to the Committee on Finance.
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in Senate · Jul 14, 2016
This bill amends the Internal Revenue Code to require a qualified hazardous duty area to be treated in the same manner as a combat zone for certain tax provisions.
A "qualified hazardous duty area" is the Sinai Peninsula of Egypt if a member of the Armed Forces performs services in such location that qualify for special pay for duty subject to hostile fire or imminent danger.
The requirement applies to specified tax provisions relating to:
the special rule where a deceased spouse was in missing status;
the exclusion from gross income of certain combat pay of members of the Armed Forces;
income taxes of members of the Armed Forces on death;
combat zone-related deaths of members of the Armed Forces;
the definition of wages relating to combat pay for members of the Armed Forces;
the taxation of phone service originating from a combat zone from members of the Armed Forces;
joint tax returns where an individual is in missing status; and
additional time for individuals serving in combat zones to file returns, pay taxes, and perform other specified acts.
People & committees
Sen. Cornyn, John [R-TX] · R–TX
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Read twice and referred to the Committee on Finance.
Introduced in Senate
Primary sources
Text links open the official source. We currently store references to these documents.
Source last updated: Dec 5, 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 S.3272 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 S.3272 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 S.3272 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 S.3272 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.