Adds to existing law to establish the Idaho Parental Choice Tax Credit.
House Bill 1 establishes the Idaho Parental Choice Tax Credit, a refundable state income tax credit for parents or legal guardians who pay qualifying education expenses for a child not enrolled full- or part-time in a public school, public charter school, public virtual charter school, public magnet school, or public kindergarten. The bill states a legislative intent to support parental choice in education and to ease the financial burden of educating children outside the public system.
The credit applies beginning with tax year 2025 and can be claimed for each qualifying child, up to $9,500 per child in qualified expenses. Eligible expenses include private school tuition and fees, tutoring, testing fees, curriculum, textbooks, transportation, and other education-related costs reasonably tied to K-12 instruction. The bill also defines nonpublic schools broadly to include private schools, microschools, learning pods, and instruction delivered in person, online, virtually, or in combination.
The bill would add a new section to Idaho Code, section 63-3029N, creating a refundable income tax credit administered by the Idaho State Tax Commission. It would require taxpayers to keep receipts and invoices, allow audits and recapture of improper claims, and direct the commission to publish the cumulative amount of credits claimed. The measure also excludes from taxable income any refund received through the credit and bars claims for expenses covered by certain government education grants. A statewide cap of $250 million per tax year would limit total credits, with a first-come, first-served allocation if claims exceed the cap.
The bill’s stated purpose and structure reflect strong support for school choice and parental control over education decisions. Because the provided context contains no committee transcripts or recorded votes, there is no documented opposition or support from hearings or floor action in the materials supplied. Based on the text alone, the bill is framed as a pro-family, pro-choice tax relief measure aimed at nonpublic education expenses.
The main points of contention likely center on the use of state tax revenue to subsidize private and alternative education, the exclusion of students enrolled in public schools, and the size of the annual fiscal cap. The first-come, first-served structure may also raise fairness concerns if demand exceeds the $250 million limit. In addition, the bill’s broad definition of qualifying expenses and inclusion of microschools and learning pods could prompt debate over oversight, accountability, and whether the program indirectly supports schools outside the public system without imposing state control.