The Loved Ones Interment Act Could Correct 2024 VA Burial Reform

The Loved Ones Interment Act—a bipartisan legislative effort introduced by Rep. Julia Brownley (D‑CA) in September 2024 and reintroduced in June 2025—seeks to address a critical and emotionally charged gap in veterans’ burial benefits. This change is deeply relevant for deathcare professionals tasked with guiding and supporting military families.

The problem: cremation + VA benefits = no burial together

Under a current interpretation of the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs policy by the National Cemetery Administration, families who opt for a commemorative urn or plaque for a cremated veteran are automatically ineligible for interment in a national cemetery—and worse, cannot be buried alongside a spouse or dependent. According to VA’s FAQ:

“If a family chooses an urn or a plaque to commemorate a Veteran, VA is prohibited by law from interring that Veteran’s remains in a VA national cemetery or from providing a headstone… Families should be certain of their choice.” 

Families understandably feel the sting of such irreversible decisions—decisions influenced by emotions, finances, or uncertainty about future desires.

Legislative fix: The Loved Ones Interment Act

The Loved Ones Interment Act (H.R. 9804) specifically amends Title 38 of the U.S. Code, empowering the VA to issue headstones and markers for cremated veterans even if they already received a VA urn or plaque, provided they are interred with an eligible spouse or dependent. The bill’s language outlines that the marker:

• Includes information for both the veteran and the loved one.
• Must not exceed existing marker costs.

“Those who have served our country in uniform deserve to be buried with the utmost respect and dignity, regardless of whether their families choose for them to be cremated or not…” Rep. Brownley explains. “It is heartbreaking and completely unacceptable that VA’s current interpretation of the law prevents cremated veterans from being buried with their family members…”

Why this matters: The 2024 Burial Reform

This bill builds on the foundation laid by the 2020 Veterans Health Care and Benefits Improvement Act, which authorized the VA to furnish urns or plaques when remains weren’t interred. Implemented in June 2024, the VA’s final rule stated that choosing an urn or plaque made burial in a VA cemetery—along with any headstones—unavailable.

This well-intentioned reform empowered more cremation options but inadvertently repositories for stranded veterans—honored with an urn yet barred from final burial with their loved ones in esteemed cemeteries.

Funeral directors responded

In a 2024 congressional hearing on the Veterans’ Burial Improvement Act and related legislation, the National Funeral Directors Association (NFDA) played an active role, warning that “Section 2207 of P.L. 116‑315… could unintentionally jeopardize the veteran’s eligibility for ground burial by opting for an urn benefit from the VA.”

The NFDA urged the VA to “amend its policy to allow a veteran’s cremated remains to be placed in the same VA cemetery plot as a spouse who is buried at a later date,” noting that including an urn is “no different than including a memento in the casket.”

Benefit to families—and to your business

For funeral professionals, the Loved Ones Interment Act:

1. Reassures Families
   Clients gain confidence knowing cremation won’t preclude cemetery burial or family interment—even if they initially opt for an urn or plaque.
2. Simplifies Planning
   Funeral homes can offer clearer, more complete preplanning options, reducing future emotional and logistical stress for families.
3. Aftercare Trust
   Providing full-spectrum support—from urn selection to graveside placement—builds lasting trust and demonstrates your advocacy.

Legislative status and next steps

As of its 2025 reintroduction, the Act is referred to the House Subcommittee on Disability Assistance and Memorial Affairs. It has strong backing from veterans’ groups (AMVETS, IAVA, and PVA) and bipartisan support.

The Loved Ones Interment Act corrects an unintended but profound oversight in the 2024 reforms — restoring dignity, closure, and unity for veterans and their families. For deathcare professionals, this is more than policy: it’s an opportunity to better serve those who served, guiding families with sensitivity, foresight, and integrity.

 

Funeral Director Daily first reported on the “Funeral Coverage Act”, a proposed amendment to the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to treat distributions from health savings accounts (HSA) for funeral expenses of the account beneficiary as qualified distributions last March.  (You can see that article here).  However, the bill never made its complete movement through Congress last session.

 

We have recently learned that the bill — HR 2436 — has been re-introduced.  You can follow the progress of the bill as it moves its way through Congress here.

 

The ultimate result of treating these monies paid to a funeral home from an HSA would be that they could be a tax-free payment for funeral expenses instead of a taxable distribution to the beneficiary(ies) or the estate.

 

According to the National Funeral Directors Association (NFDA) website:

“Like an IRA account, when a person sets up an HSA, they name a beneficiary. If the beneficiary is a surviving spouse, the unused portion of the decedent’s HSA passes directly to the spouse and becomes his or her HSA; there is no tax liability.

If the beneficiary is not the surviving spouse, the proceeds that pass to the beneficiary are taxed to the beneficiary as ordinary income. However, if the decedent died owing medical expenses, the proceeds in the HSA may be used to pay those medical expenses on a tax-free basis for up to one year after the death.

If no beneficiary is named, the proceeds of the HSA go to the decedent’s estate, and they are taxed as ordinary income on the decedent’s final personal income tax return.”

 

Related Article —  “Health Savings Accounts and Funeral Expenses:  A common sense solution for grieving families”.  NFDA

 

Funeral Director Daily take:  Don’t get me wrong — on a selfish note this bill would be great for funeral homes and for families that might struggle to pay for their death care costs.  It would give families another tool to stop some of them from taking on debt to pay funeral expenses. . . .And, that would be a good thing for those consumers.

 

However, there is, at least, two sides to every issue.  By allowing a “tax-free” distribution for this purpose, it eliminates the ability of our federal government to “take-in” a form of tax revenue.  And, there is a group that believes that revenue might be better used to pay down the nation’s debt than to give to families — some whom may have other ways to pay for the funeral costs.

 

Again, don’t get me wrong.  I’m not arguing against passing this bill — but this is how I learned to look at issues when I sat on the Board of Regents for the University of Minnesota.  I always had to look at both sides of the issue.  I learned that even when I had a personal viewpoint one way, voting the other way might be the best way for the University to move forward.  I’m just wondering if that is how members of Congress might see this issue.

 

So, while I am for this bill.  . I think that there will be challenges passing it moving forward because the net result is that it will add to the deficit and debt.

 

My Friday morning group:  During my winter in Florida I belong to a Minnesota Friday morning breakfast group.  We meet every Friday morning for breakfast and invite speakers to come to the event.  One of our speakers this winter was Congress member Rep. Michele Fischbach of Minnesota.  She is a member of the Ways and Means Committee and told us that her committee was already having these discussions about what will be in the, as President Trump calls it, “Big Beautiful Tax Cut” bill.  Congress member Fischbach explained the discussions are around exactly what I am talking about  —  “Maxium tax benefits to Americans versus the costs of decreased revenue to the National budget”.

 

HR 2436 – The “Funeral Coverage Act” was not introduced until March 15 — a period long after Congresswomen Fischbach told us that they were already considering what will be “in” and what will be “out” of the President’s proposed bill.

 

Related Article — Here’s an article Funeral Director Daily published in 2023 about this HSA/Funeral Cost idea well before it was introduced into Congress.

 

More news from the world of Death Care:

 

Enter your e-mail below to join the 3,120 others who receive Funeral Director Daily articles daily:

“A servant’s attitude guided by Christ leads to a significant life”

 

In early September the National Funeral Directors Association (NFDA) joined with hundreds of other groups to delay implementation of the Corporate Transparency Act (CTA) which is set to be implemented on January 1, 2025.  According to Google artificial intelligence (AI),  “The Corporate Transparency Act (CTA) went into effect on January 1, 2024. The CTA requires certain businesses to disclose information about their beneficial owners to the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN). The goal of the CTA is to create a central registry of beneficial owners to help fight money laundering and other financial crimes.”

 

While the bill became law on January 1, 2024, the final date set for small business to register under this act is January 1, 2025 — approximately 3 1/2 months from now.  And, as we have learned in the Death Care business, regulation in many situations can be good.  However, in this instance, the United States Chamber of Commerce, with co-signatories such as NFDA and other organizations, penned a letter to House Speaker Mike Johnson to delay the implementation.  You can see that letter here.

 

Civil fines for not registering your business can be up to $591 per day according to an article from the U.S. Chamber of Commerce.

 

In its letter, the U.S. Chamber also argues that less than 10% of business have registered to date and that low number “can be attributed directly to the general lack of awareness among the small business community when it comes to the new rules.”  The letter continues,  “Given this massive education gap, it is clear additional time is needed for regulators and other stakeholders to continue their outreach to affected small businesses.”

 

According to the U.S. Chamber there are other concerns with the potential rule as quoted in their letter:

 

• “The CTA is unique in that it explicitly targets the very companies least equipped to shoulder its regulatory burdens. Among its various exemptions, the statute includes a carve out for entities whose revenue exceeds $5 million and which employ more than 20 full-time employees. Companies not meeting those thresholds – essentially every small business currently operating in America today – must comply.” 

 

• “Earlier this year, the District Court for the Northern District of Alabama found the CTA exceeded the Constitution’s enumerated powers and is unconstitutional. That case was appealed and will be heard by an appellate court next month. In the meantime, however, FinCEN continues to enforce the CTA against small businesses not named in the lawsuit. This effectively creates two classes of small businesses – the roughly 60,000 who are exempt and the tens of millions who must still comply.”

 

A bill – HR 9278 –  was introduced on August 2, 2024, to delay the implementation of the CTA.  It was introduced by Republican Rep. Zachary Nunn of Iowa, and has both Democrats and Republicans as co-authors.  You can follow the status of HR 9278 here.

 

Related Article — “What every Small Business needs to know about the Corporate Transparency Act”. U.S. Chamber of Commerce.

 

Funeral Director Daily take:  I’m certainly not an expert on financial crimes and don’t understand everything about this bill.  And, it’s also true that in funeral service we’ve sometimes learned the hard way about not having enough regulations — such as in recent cases about body brokering and lack of licensed personel in some jurisdictions.

 

However, Small Business in American should be protected from overburdens put on them by the United States government.  Funeral directors and funeral homes are still waiting for final rules to come from the review of the Funeral Rule by the Federal Trade Commission. . . .

 

Some rules are necessary, however, if funeral directors and funeral home owners are over burdened by these rules and regulations it is the families that we pledge to serve that get hurt the most.  While we should be actively helping these families we are instead filling out forms to tell the government more and more about our businesses.

 

While this was a law (the CTA) passed by Congress, I am still waiting to see what effects that the recent Supreme Court decision in the “Chevron ruling” has on Federal Trade Commission dictates on funeral service.  Again, I’m not an attorney but requiring decisions to be made by “the intent of the law” rather than a regulatory agency’s (like FTC) interpretation may make a difference in some decisions for the Funeral Rule.  Here is an article titled “Unpacking the Supreme Court’s recent ruling on the “Chevron doctrine””.  

 

More news from the world of Death Care:

 

Enter your e-mail below to join the 3,121 others who receive Funeral Director Daily articles daily:

“A servant’s attitude guided by Christ leads to a significant life”

NFDA Special Advocacy Bulletin: US EPA Finds Formaldehyde Used for Embalming is NOT Regulated Under the Toxic Substances Control Act

Major Victory for NFDA and Funeral Service

NFDA to host free member webinar on March 27 about the draft risk assessment.

[On Friday, March 15] the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) released its draft of its determination of the health and environmental risks of formaldehyde under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) for comment and peer review. NFDA and funeral service secured a major victory when the draft risk assessment indicated that formaldehyde used for embalming would not be subject to regulations under TSCA. NFDA will offer further details to the profession about the EPA draft risk assessment, its implications and next steps during a webinar on March 27.  

Over the past five years NFDA has worked with its experts, industry leaders, and the EPA itself on this review. These tireless efforts spearheaded by NFDA’s Senior Vice President of Advocacy, Lesley Witter, have spent countless hours researching data, analyzing EPA reports and opinions, and working with subject matter experts, all to make sure that the data and information related to funeral service and its use of formaldehyde was up to date and accurate. 

NFDA even conducted its own study of formaldehyde exposure published in the peer reviewed Journal of Occupational and Environmental Hygiene which showed that the level of exposure to formaldehyde for funeral directors and embalmers is less than current exposure limits (https://nfda.org/news/in-the-news/nfda-news/id/6449/landmark-nfda-study-on-formaldehyde-exposure-published-in-scientific-journal).  

In this evaluation, the EPA evaluated the risks that arise from the production and use of products that are subject to TSCA – as opposed to exposures from those products that are excluded from TSCA, such as pesticides. The EPA can use these findings to determine if additional regulation and restrictions on formaldehyde and its uses are required.

The EPA found that there was risk of exposure to formaldehyde for some workers, from consumer products, and even in our homes (building products and furniture can release formaldehyde when newly formulated). The EPA admitted, however, there were uncertainties in some of its findings.

Most importantly to funeral service, the EPA found that TSCA excludes from the definition of “chemical substance” “any pesticide” as defined in the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA). Under FIFRA, mortuary science products intended for preservation of biological specimens are considered pesticides. Thus, embalming fluids used in mortuaries, laboratories, hospitals, and institutions of learning meet the definition of “pesticide” and are therefore excluded from the TSCA when manufactured, processed, or distributed in commerce for these uses.

However, there is still work to be done. This finding does not ensure that there won’t be repercussions for funeral service. EPA has previously issued a determination that all uses of formaldehyde constitute an “unreasonable risk,” which may trigger regulations under various laws overseen by EPA and other agencies. For example,  TSCA also requires EPA to coordinate, provide exposure data, and report on “exposures or releases of a chemical substance or mixture that may be prevented or reduced under another Federal law.”

Excluding funeral service from the scope does not provide any protection for the upstream and intermediate uses of formaldehyde, which may be subject to bans or unachievable standards, with a corresponding negative impact on cost or availability of formaldehyde-based embalming products (including imports). Other bodies, including other parts of EPA or OSHA or state agencies, may use the EPA determinations by the EPA here and its accompanying unachievable draft workplace levels as the basis for regulatory or enforcement actions in funeral service.

It is important to note that this is only a draft and is subject to further review and revision. However, the finding issued by the EPA that embalming fluids are not subject to TSCA appears to be one of a matter of law by the Agency’s attorneys, thus presumedly reducing the chances that it is rescinded or revised.

The draft risk evaluation will be reviewed by stakeholders and the EPA’s Science Advisory Committee on Chemicals and a final evaluation is expected to be published in the future, but the timing is unknown.

For more information on NFDA’s efforts, the EPA’s review, and formaldehyde best practices management please visit the NFDA website.