Kansas Senate Bill SB455

Kansas 2025-2026 Regular Session

• Introduced: 2/3/26
• Refer: 2/4/26

Caption

Restoring homestead renters as eligible to participate in certain homestead property tax refund claims.

Summary

SB 455 amends Kansas’s Homestead Property Tax Refund Act to restore eligibility for renters in certain refund claims beginning with tax year 2026. Under current law, the homestead refund program primarily benefits qualifying homeowners and, in some cases, certain renters through a separate provision; this bill revises the definition of “homestead” for claims under K.S.A. 79-4508 so that, starting in 2026, it includes dwellings that are either owned or rented. It also updates the refund calculation so a claimant’s refund can be based on property taxes accrued and/or “rent constituting property taxes accrued,” and it defines that rent-based amount as 15% of gross rent paid. The bill keeps the existing structure of the refund program for qualifying older adults, people with disabilities, disabled veterans, and low-income households with dependent children, while aligning the claim rules and documentation requirements to account for renters. It also preserves the income-based refund schedule and the $700 annual cap on property taxes accrued or rent treated as property taxes accrued, but applies that cap to the combined amount where applicable. The bill makes conforming changes to the proof-of-claim provisions so renters must verify gross rent and landlord information, and it retains the existing property-value limit that bars claims for non-rental homesteads with appraised value above $350,000. In practical terms, SB 455 would expand access to the homestead property tax refund for eligible renters who occupy a Kansas homestead and meet the program’s age, disability, veteran, or family-income criteria. It would also require the Department of Revenue to administer claims using updated definitions and forms, and it would amend or repeal several sections of the current statute to integrate the renter eligibility changes into the refund framework. The bill’s general sentiment, based on its caption and the absence of recorded opposition in the provided materials, appears supportive and remedial: it is framed as “restoring” renter eligibility rather than creating a new tax benefit. The measure seems intended to broaden relief to lower-income households and other qualifying claimants who rent rather than own their homes. No committee testimony or vote history was provided, so there is no documented controversy in the record supplied. The most likely points of contention are fiscal cost to the state, administrative complexity in verifying rent-based claims, and whether expanding the refund to renters should be paired with the same income and property-value limitations that apply to owners.

Impact

SB 455 would amend the Homestead Property Tax Refund Act by changing the definition of “homestead” for certain refund claims to include rented residences beginning in tax year 2026, thereby allowing eligible renters to claim refunds based on a portion of rent treated as property taxes. It would also revise claim-calculation, documentation, and verification provisions in K.S.A. 79-4502, 79-4508, 79-4509, 79-4511, and 79-4522, and repeal the existing versions of those sections. The Department of Revenue would need to update forms, tables, and administrative procedures to process renter claims under the expanded program.

Sentiment

The bill appears generally favorable and expansionary in tone, with its caption explicitly describing the measure as restoring renter eligibility in homestead property tax refund claims. Because no committee transcripts or votes were provided, there is no direct evidence of opposition or divided sentiment in the supplied record. The available text suggests the bill is aimed at increasing access to property tax relief for qualifying households, especially renters and lower-income claimants.

Contention

No recorded committee debate or vote history was provided, so specific objections cannot be identified from the supplied materials. Potential areas of contention include the fiscal impact of expanding refunds to renters, the administrative burden of verifying rent and landlord certifications, and whether the program should continue to use the same income thresholds, $700 cap, and property-value restrictions when applied to renters. Any opposition would likely come from fiscal conservatives, tax administrators concerned about implementation, or stakeholders questioning the scope of the expansion.