H.R. 2637 (119th)Bill Overview

Home Run for Kids Act

Taxation|Taxation
Cosponsors
Support
Bipartisan
Introduced
Apr 3, 2025
Discussions
Bill Text
Current stageCommittee

Referred to the House Committee on Ways and Means.

Introduced
Committee
Floor
President
Law
Congressional Activities
01 · The brief
Plain-English summaryWhat this bill actually does

Creates a new nonrefundable individual tax credit (Sec. 25F) of up to $200 for "qualified organized sport equipment expenses" paid by a taxpayer for a dependent under age 19. The credit phases out for modified adjusted gross income (MAGI) above $150,000 and is fully phased out when MAGI exceeds $215,000.

Why people may split

Progressive objects to nonrefundable design excluding poorest households

Watch point

Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill establishes a narrowly targeted nonrefundable individual tax credit for 'organized sport equipment expenses' with a clear dollar cap, an income phaseout, a definition for MAGI, and an effective date, and it makes the expected clerical amendment to the table of sections.

Creates a new nonrefundable individual tax credit (Sec. 25F) of up to $200 for "qualified organized sport equipment expenses" paid by a taxpayer for a dependent under age 19.

The credit phases out for modified adjusted gross income (MAGI) above $150,000 and is fully phased out when MAGI exceeds $215,000.

The credit applies to equipment for organized sports, games, or hobby programs primarily for unrelated participants under age 19, and is effective for taxable years beginning after December 31, 2023.

Passage40/100

Technically simple and low-salience, so plausible as part of a broader tax package; standalone enactment faces moderate procedural and pay-for objections.

CredibilityPartially aligned

Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill establishes a narrowly targeted nonrefundable individual tax credit for 'organized sport equipment expenses' with a clear dollar cap, an income phaseout, a definition for MAGI, and an effective date, and it makes the expected clerical amendment to the table of sections.

Contention55/100

Progressive objects to nonrefundable design excluding poorest households

02 · What it does

Who stands to gain, and who may push back.

Likely benefits vs burdens50% / 50%
ConsumersTaxpayers

These are examples from the analysis, not a ranked list of the most-affected groups.

Likely helped
  • Potential benefitReduces out-of-pocket equipment costs for families with youth in organized sports.
  • Potential benefitMay encourage greater youth participation by lowering financial barriers to joining organized programs.
  • ConsumersCould increase consumer demand for sporting goods, potentially supporting retail and manufacturing sales.
Likely burdened
  • TaxpayersCreates additional tax code complexity and documentation requirements for taxpayers and the IRS.
  • Potential burdenNonrefundable credit may provide little or no benefit to low-income families with minimal tax liability.
  • Potential burdenSubsidizes organized sports specifically, potentially disadvantaging other child activities or unstructured play.
03 · Why people split

Why the argument around this bill splits.

Progressive objects to nonrefundable design excluding poorest households
Progressive40%

Likely lukewarm to critical.

Supports reducing barriers to youth sports but objects to the credit being nonrefundable and modest in size.

Prefers refundable credits or direct spending targeted to low-income families and broader access programs.

Split reaction
Centrist75%

Generally favorable as a modest, targeted tax relief for families.

Values the small cap, clear phaseout, and limited fiscal exposure but wants clarity on administration and revenue estimates.

Sees it as pragmatic incremental policy rather than large entitlement.

Leans supportive
Conservative65%

Likely supportive if limited spending and family-oriented.

Views it as pro-family tax relief encouraging private activity over federal programs.

Some conservatives may still object to new targeted tax credits as tax-code complexity.

Split reaction
04 · Can it pass?

The path through Congress.

Introduced

Reached or meaningfully advanced

Committee

Reached or meaningfully advanced

Floor

Still ahead

President

Still ahead

Law

Still ahead

Passage likelihood40/100

Technically simple and low-salience, so plausible as part of a broader tax package; standalone enactment faces moderate procedural and pay-for objections.

Scope and complexity
24%
Scopenarrow
52%
Complexitymedium
Why this could stall
  • No CBO or cost estimate provided
  • "Organized sport" and eligible equipment definitions are vague
05 · Recent votes

Recent votes on the bill.

No vote history yet

The bill has not accumulated any surfaced votes yet.

06 · Go deeper

Go deeper than the headline read.

Included on this page

Progressive objects to nonrefundable design excluding poorest households

Technically simple and low-salience, so plausible as part of a broader tax package; standalone enactment faces moderate procedural and pay-…

Unlocked analysis

Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill establishes a narrowly targeted nonrefundable individual tax credit for 'organized sport equipment expenses' with a clear dollar cap, an income phaseout, a definition…

Go beyond the headline summary with full stakeholder mapping, legislative design analysis, passage barriers, and lens-by-lens tradeoff breakdowns.

Perspective breakdownsPassage barriersLegislative design reviewStakeholder impact map
Open full analysis