Referred to the House Committee on Ways and Means.
Creates a new refundable tax credit (sec. 36C) equal to 35% of qualifying home accessibility expenditures for a "qualified individual." Annual cap $10,000 and $30,000 lifetime cap; income-phaseouts apply. Defines eligible individuals (age 60, beneficiaries of VA or Social Security, or with physician disability certification) and a list of qualified home modifications.
Liberals emphasize accessibility, refundable nature, and broader inclusion.
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill is a well-specified substantive tax-law change that defines eligibility, credit mechanics, implementation responsibilities, and an evaluative study.
Creates a new refundable tax credit (sec. 36C) equal to 35% of qualifying home accessibility expenditures for a "qualified individual." Annual cap $10,000 and $30,000 lifetime cap; income-phaseouts apply.
Defines eligible individuals (age 60, beneficiaries of VA or Social Security, or with physician disability certification) and a list of qualified home modifications.
Requires Treasury guidance, IRS outreach, SSA/VA data-sharing, and a GAO study with a report within three years.
Substantive but narrow and sympathetic policy increases chances, while refundable spending implications and absence of offsets lower likelihood absent packaging in broader legislation.
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill is a well-specified substantive tax-law change that defines eligibility, credit mechanics, implementation responsibilities, and an evaluative study. It includes concrete numeric limits, phaseout mechanics, and administrative deadlines.
Liberals emphasize accessibility, refundable nature, and broader inclusion.
These are examples from the analysis, not a ranked list of the most-affected groups.
Liberals emphasize accessibility, refundable nature, and broader inclusion.
Likely generally supportive: advances independent living, targets seniors and people with disabilities, and the credit is refundable which aids low- and no-tax households.
May seek broader scope and higher limits, and worry about administrative barriers like the disability certification and landlord/renter treatment.
Cautious support: values targeted assistance that can reduce institutional care costs, but concerned about fiscal cost, implementation complexity, and potential for improper claims.
Views GAO study and required Treasury guidance as important to refine program.
Likely skeptical: opposes expanding refundable tax credits and new federal subsidies, worries about cost, bureaucracy, and program complexity.
May prefer market-based or state-level solutions and tighter eligibility to limit spending.
Reached or meaningfully advanced
Reached or meaningfully advanced
Still ahead
Still ahead
Still ahead
Substantive but narrow and sympathetic policy increases chances, while refundable spending implications and absence of offsets lower likelihood absent packaging in broader legislation.
The bill has not accumulated any surfaced votes yet.
Liberals emphasize accessibility, refundable nature, and broader inclusion.
Substantive but narrow and sympathetic policy increases chances, while refundable spending implications and absence of offsets lower likeli…
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill is a well-specified substantive tax-law change that defines eligibility, credit mechanics, implementation responsibilities, and an evaluative study. It includes concr…
Go beyond the headline summary with full stakeholder mapping, legislative design analysis, passage barriers, and lens-by-lens tradeoff breakdowns.