the important factor here is a change in one's statutory liability. I don't care if you dislike calling a reduction in that amount a "handout" or prefer to call it a "gift" or a "windfall" or a "net gain" or whatever. But the change in status quo from owing more to owing less is absolutely a thing of value given at no cost at all to the taxpayer that receives it.

It's functionally not much different from a bank or landlord cutting your loan payment or rent amount because they decided they want you to "keep" more of "your money." Or the government waiving a penalty or a fine or an amount you are required to pay into a trust fund under a settlement or order for the same reason. You can argue all day about how it's really not them giving you anything but taking less, but you're forgetting that your tax liability is not something you choose to pay but a statutory requirement that comes out of your takehome pay. It's essentially rent for being an American, calculated based on how much money you earn. And a reduction in that amount given to you by the party that is entitled to that money absent the change absolutely is a thing of value given to you.

I honestly can't believe this is even being disputed by anyone other than the hoakie who argues that the sky is not blue.