The Idaho House of Representatives on Feb. 7 passed House Bill 93, the Idaho Parental Choice Tax Credit Bill, a measure to create a refundable tax credit to reimburse families for eligible K–12 nonpublic-education expenses. Representative, District 32 (bill sponsor) presented the bill on the House floor. The House voted 42 ayes, 28 nays in favor of passage; the bill will be transmitted to the Senate.

Under the version presented on the floor, House Bill 93 would allow families to claim a refundable tax credit of up to $5,000 per child for qualified education expenses; the credit would rise to $7,500 for a child with a disability. Sponsor remarks described eligible students as "full time Idaho residents from the age of 5 to 18, except for students with disabilities, which is the age of 5 to 21." The sponsor enumerated qualified expenses on the floor to include K–12 tuition and fees for nonpublic schools, tutoring, nationally standardized tests, college-admission assessments, Advanced Placement costs, textbooks, curricula and transportation to academic instruction settings. The bill includes a hard cap of $50,000,000 on total credits available in a tax year and gives application priority to families at or below 300% of the federal poverty limit; the sponsor said that threshold equates roughly to "95,000 gross, about 65,000 roughly, for, adjusted gross" in her presentation.

The bill contains several features intended to enforce accountability and reporting: the sponsor described requirements for reporting by the Idaho State Tax Commission on amounts claimed and remaining, and an aggregate, depersonalized report on number of participants, average award and geographic distribution. The floor debate also covered advance payments: supporters said low-income families may receive advance payments so they can afford initial tuition costs; opponents questioned whether advance payments in practice could effectively become unrepaid grants absent explicit repayment language. Representative, District 11 raised that the bill’s language does not clearly state whether advance payments must be repaid when a family later receives a tax credit for that tax year; another member described the advance-payment provision as potentially ambiguous in its current drafting.

The House debate was lengthy and sharply split. Supporters said the bill expands educational choice, could help children whose needs are not met in public schools and would not reduce the existing public-school budget because it is structured as a refundable credit with a fixed cap. Representative, District 32 (bill sponsor) told the chamber: "I want to emphasize that this bill does not take any funds away from public schools. There is a $50,000,000 cap on this bill." Opponents argued the bill would grow government administration, could expose taxpayers to fraud or double-dipping, and would primarily reimburse families who already pay for private schooling rather than expand access to new families. Representative, District 17 said on the floor: "This program will grow and the government will grow."

Specific points from floor debate

- Priority and means test: Sponsors emphasized that families below 300% of the federal poverty limit receive priority. The sponsor characterized the means test as a tool to prioritize lower-income applicants.
- Qualified expenses and limits: The bill lists tuition, tutoring, testing, curricula, textbooks and transportation as reimbursable expenses. Caps are $5,000 per child and $7,500 for children with disabilities.
- Advance payments and repayment ambiguity: The floor discussion highlighted an operational question: whether advance payments made to low-income families are structured as grants or advances that must be repaid if the family later receives a tax credit for the same tax year. Members sought clarification about the fiscal note and the mechanism to prevent double claims.
- Administration and oversight: The fiscal note included a one-time appropriation of $125,000 and reassignment of two full-time positions to the State Tax Commission to administer the program; several members raised concerns about the commission’s capacity to audit and verify claims and about assigning survey and reporting duties to the Legislative Services Office.
- Special education and parental placement: Members pointed to language in the bill that interacts with parental placement and Individualized Education Program (IEP) arrangements; advocates and opponents debated whether families of high-needs students would keep access to services and how the bill affects special-education rights when a student is moved out of public schools.

Votes at a glance

- House Bill 93 — Motion to pass: Passed the House (42 ayes, 28 nays). The floor roll call was completed and the bill will be transferred to the Senate.

Context and next steps

If the Senate and, where applicable, the governor approve the measure, the tax-credit program would be implemented by the Idaho State Tax Commission subject to the program rules, reporting and auditing that appear in the bill. Multiple members called for additional clarification and tighter accountability language if the program advances in the Senate; opponents urged returning the bill to committee to resolve operational ambiguities, while supporters urged prompt passage to expand parental options.

Source material

This article is based on floor debate and the roll-call report from the Feb. 7, 2025 House session as recorded in the session transcript.