Relates to assessing a separate tax on compensation payments received from certain federal programs, settlement funds, reimbursements and pardon-related compensation initiatives
This bill would create a new “public harm mitigation assessment tax” on certain compensation payments received by New York residents, estates, or trusts from federal programs, settlement funds, reimbursement programs, or pardon-related compensation initiatives tied to claims arising from the January 6, 2021 attack on the U.S. Capitol and related investigation, prosecution, incarceration, commutation, pardon, or alleged political targeting. The tax would equal 100% of the gross compensation payment, with no deductions, exemptions, or credits allowed.
The bill also establishes a new state fund, the public harm mitigation fund, into which the tax revenue would be deposited. After legislative appropriation, the fund would be administered by the Department of Homeland Security and Emergency Services for services to victims of political violence and domestic extremism, security and preparedness initiatives for democratic institutions and election infrastructure, and educational programming and materials about January 6, constitutional governance, and democratic institutions.
The bill would amend the Tax Law by adding a new section imposing a separate tax on specified compensation payments and would amend the State Finance Law to create a dedicated fund for the resulting revenue. It would affect resident individuals, estates, and trusts receiving covered federal compensation related to January 6 events, and it would direct those revenues to state-administered public safety, preparedness, and civic education purposes. If enacted, it would create a new revenue stream and a new earmarked fund, while effectively offsetting the covered compensation payments by taxing them at a 100% rate.
No committee transcript or recorded vote information is available, so there is no documented floor or committee sentiment beyond the bill text itself. The bill’s framing suggests a strongly punitive and policy-driven approach toward January 6-related compensation, with an emphasis on redirecting those funds to public harm mitigation and civic education. Because the measure was introduced and referred to Ways and Means, its reception at this stage appears procedural rather than reflective of broader legislative consensus.
The main point of contention is likely the bill’s decision to impose a full 100% tax on covered compensation payments, which would eliminate the benefit of those payments for recipients and could be viewed as targeting a specific group or class of claims. Another likely dispute is the bill’s narrow focus on compensation connected to January 6, including pardon-related and alleged political targeting claims, which may raise legal, constitutional, fairness, and policy concerns. Supporters would likely emphasize accountability, victim services, and funding for democratic resilience, while opponents may argue the tax is punitive, politically motivated, or inconsistent with how compensation from federal programs is ordinarily treated.