Kansas House Bill HB2058

Kansas 2025-2026 Regular Session

• Introduced: 1/22/25
• Refer: 1/22/25

Caption

Providing for an increased amount of income for eligibility of individuals for the selective assistance for effective senior relief income tax credit.

Summary

HB 2058 amends Kansas’s selective assistance for effective senior relief (SAFESR) income tax credit, which helps eligible seniors offset property and ad valorem taxes paid on their principal residence. The bill keeps the existing 75% credit rate but changes the income eligibility standard for tax year 2025 and later from a poverty-guideline-based test to a fixed household income cap of $28,000. Beginning in tax year 2026, that $28,000 threshold would be adjusted annually for inflation using the federal cost-of-living adjustment. The bill also preserves the current structure of the credit: it applies only to taxpayers age 65 or older, is limited to taxes paid on residential property used as the taxpayer’s principal place of residence, and cannot exceed the amount of property taxes actually paid. The credit remains refundable, meaning eligible taxpayers can receive a refund if the credit is larger than their Kansas income tax liability. The Department of Revenue would continue to administer the credit and adopt rules for documentation. In practical terms, the bill would broaden or clarify eligibility for the senior property tax credit by replacing the prior income test tied to 120% of the federal poverty level for two persons with a dollar-based threshold. It is also structured as a supplement to the homestead property tax refund act, and it continues to prohibit a taxpayer from claiming both this credit and a homestead property tax refund for the same property and tax year. The general sentiment reflected by the bill’s framing is supportive of tax relief for low- and moderate-income seniors, with no recorded committee testimony or votes indicating opposition in the provided materials. The bill’s title and committee origin suggest a policy focus on easing property tax burdens for older Kansans, especially those on fixed incomes. The main point of potential contention is fiscal and eligibility policy: raising or redefining the income cap could increase the number of seniors who qualify and therefore increase state revenue losses or refund payments. Another possible issue is whether a fixed dollar threshold, even with inflation indexing, is preferable to the prior poverty-guideline standard, since it changes how eligibility is measured and may affect which households qualify.

Impact

HB 2058 would amend K.S.A. 79-32,263 to revise the income eligibility rules for the SAFESR income tax credit and make the change effective for tax year 2025 and later. It would not change the 75% credit rate, the age requirement, or the requirement that the property be the taxpayer’s principal residence, but it would replace the prior income test with a $28,000 household income cap, indexed for inflation beginning in 2026. The bill would continue to allow refundable credits and would keep the credit supplemental to the homestead property tax refund act, while maintaining the prohibition on claiming both benefits for the same property and year.

Sentiment

The available materials suggest a generally favorable sentiment toward the bill, as it is presented as a targeted tax relief measure for seniors and was referred through the House Committee on Taxation. There are no recorded votes or committee transcript excerpts showing opposition, debate, or amendments in the provided context. Overall, the bill appears to have been framed as a modest expansion or modernization of an existing senior property tax credit rather than a controversial policy change.

Contention

The likely areas of contention are the fiscal cost of expanding eligibility and the policy choice to use a fixed income threshold instead of the prior poverty-level standard. Supporters would likely emphasize that the bill helps older homeowners on fixed incomes keep up with property taxes, while critics might question whether the new threshold is too broad, too narrow, or insufficiently tied to household need. Another possible concern is administrative complexity from coordinating the credit with the homestead property tax refund program and applying annual inflation adjustments.