Helping Our Heroes Act
- Sponsor
- Rep. Bresnahan, Robert P. [R-PA-8]
- Committees
- Ways and Means Committee (primary)
- Last action
- Nov 4, 2025
Bottom line
The bill creates a new federal tax deduction for volunteer emergency services, aiming to incentivize and recognize their critical community contributions.
What it actually does
This bill amends the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to allow volunteer firefighters and emergency medical and rescue personnel to claim a charitable deduction for their service. It treats each hour of qualified volunteer service as a $20 contribution, capped at 300 hours per year, and allows this deduction even for individuals who do not itemize their deductions.
Proponents argue
Proponents argue that this bill provides much-needed recognition and a tangible incentive for the invaluable service provided by volunteer firefighters and emergency medical personnel. They contend it will help address recruitment and retention challenges faced by volunteer departments nationwide, strengthening local emergency response capabilities without direct federal appropriations.
Opponents contend
Opponents might raise concerns about the fiscal impact of creating a new tax expenditure, arguing it will reduce federal revenue. They may also question the effectiveness of a tax deduction as a primary incentive for volunteerism, or express worries about the administrative burden and potential for fraud in verifying volunteer hours.
The bill is very short and straightforward, making it highly accessible for a reader to understand its core provisions quickly.
Section 2(a), new Section 170(q)(1)
Charitable Deduction for Volunteer Service
This provision establishes that each hour an individual spends performing qualified volunteer services for an eligible organization will be treated as a $20 charitable contribution for tax purposes. This allows volunteers to reduce their taxable income based on the time they dedicate to emergency services.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue this provision directly rewards and recognizes the significant personal time and effort volunteers dedicate to public safety, providing a tangible incentive that could boost recruitment and retention in critical emergency services.
Critics contend
Critics might contend that while well-intentioned, this provision creates a new tax expenditure that adds to the national debt and may not be the most efficient way to support volunteer services, potentially leading to administrative complexities.
Tradeoffs
The provision balances the desire to support volunteer emergency services with the fiscal cost of a new tax deduction. It also navigates the tension between purely altruistic volunteerism and providing financial incentives.
Section 2(a), new Section 170(q)(2)
Annual Hour Limitation
This section limits the number of qualified volunteer hours that can be claimed for the deduction to 300 hours per individual per taxable year. This means the maximum deduction an individual can claim under this provision is $6,000 annually (300 hours x $20/hour).
Section 2(a), new Section 170(q)(3)
Definitions of Qualified Services and Bona Fide Volunteer
This section defines 'qualified services' to include firefighting, emergency medical and rescue, ambulance, civil air patrol, and search and rescue services, along with all related required or authorized training. It also defines a 'bona fide volunteer' as someone whose only compensation is reimbursement for reasonable expenses or reasonable benefits/length of service awards, ensuring the deduction targets genuine volunteers.
This provision allows individuals who do not elect to itemize their deductions to still claim the charitable deduction for volunteer services established by this Act. It creates an 'above-the-line' deduction specifically for this purpose.
Section 2(b), amending Section 63(b) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986
Why it matters:This is standard legislative practice for amending different parts of the code. However, its placement could lead to a casual reader overlooking its significant impact on the accessibility of the deduction.
Case for: Proponents argue that allowing non-itemizers to claim this deduction is essential for equity, as many volunteer emergency personnel, particularly those with lower or middle incomes, do not itemize. This ensures the benefit is accessible to a broader range of volunteers, maximizing its incentive effect.
Case against: Critics might argue that expanding the deduction to non-itemizers significantly increases the potential fiscal cost to the federal government, as it broadens the pool of eligible claimants beyond those already benefiting from itemized deductions.
Estimated impact: This provision significantly expands the reach and potential cost of the deduction by making it available to a much larger segment of the population, including those who typically take the standard deduction.
This provision explicitly excludes services rendered by a Member of Congress from being treated as qualified services for the purpose of this charitable deduction.
Section 2(a), new Section 170(q)(6)
Why it matters:This is likely a politically motivated carve-out, designed to prevent accusations of self-dealing or to ensure that Members of Congress are not seen as personally benefiting from legislation they pass. Its placement is typical for such specific exclusions.
Case for: Proponents would argue this exclusion is necessary to maintain public trust and prevent any appearance of impropriety, ensuring that the tax benefit is solely for community volunteers and not for elected officials.
Case against: Critics might argue that if the service is truly valuable, it should apply universally, or that excluding a specific group, even Members of Congress, creates an unnecessary distinction. However, this is a very weak argument given the political optics.
Estimated impact: The direct fiscal impact is negligible, as the number of Members of Congress who are also active volunteer emergency personnel is likely very small. Its primary impact is symbolic and political.