AN ACT ESTABLISHING A CREDIT AGAINST THE PERSONAL INCOME TAX FOR DONATED FOOD.
Summary
SB 97 would create a new personal income tax credit equal to 25% of the value of food donated by a taxpayer during the taxable year. In practical terms, the bill is designed to encourage individuals and potentially other taxpayers subject to the personal income tax to donate food by reducing their state tax liability based on the value of those donations.
The bill is short and straightforward: it directs the General Statutes to be amended to add this credit, but it does not provide detailed eligibility rules, valuation methods, or administrative procedures in the text provided. Those implementation details would likely need to be addressed in later statutory language, agency guidance, or subsequent legislation if the bill were enacted.
Impact
If enacted, the bill would amend Connecticut’s tax code to add a new nonrefundable personal income tax credit tied to food donations. It would affect taxpayers who donate food, and it could also indirectly benefit food banks, shelters, and other charitable organizations that receive donated food by incentivizing more contributions. The bill would require the Department of Revenue Services to administer the credit under whatever rules are later established for determining the value of donated food and claiming the credit.
Sentiment
There is no recorded committee testimony or vote history in the provided materials, so no formal public sentiment can be measured from the record here. Based on the bill’s purpose, the measure appears pro-charity and pro-food-donation, with an implied policy goal of reducing food waste and supporting food insecurity relief. The absence of opposition or recorded debate suggests the bill had not yet generated visible controversy at the stage reflected in the materials.
Contention
The main potential points of contention are administrative and fiscal rather than ideological. Questions could arise over how to verify the value of donated food, what documentation taxpayers would need, whether the credit should be refundable or capped, and how much revenue the state would forgo. Another possible issue is whether the credit would primarily benefit larger donors with higher tax liabilities or meaningfully incentivize smaller household donations; however, no specific objections or supporters are identified in the provided record.