Establishing the education opportunity tax credit to provide an income tax credit for taxpayers with eligible dependent children who are not enrolled in public school.
SB 75 creates a new Kansas income tax credit called the “education opportunity tax credit” for resident taxpayers with dependent children who are eligible to attend Kansas public school but are instead enrolled full time in private school. The credit is set at $8,000 per child for students in accredited private schools and $4,000 per child for students in nonaccredited private schools, beginning in tax year 2025. The credit is refundable, meaning taxpayers can receive a refund if the credit exceeds their income tax liability.
The bill caps the total statewide amount of credits at $125 million for tax year 2025, with future annual caps adjusted upward under a formula if prior-year credits use at least 90% of the cap. It also allows taxpayers to claim the credit in advance during the tax year or on their annual return, requires a valid Social Security number for each child, bars the credit for children who receive a scholarship under the low-income students scholarship program, and authorizes the Department of Revenue to verify public-school enrollment with the State Department of Education. The department must also report annually to the Legislature on credits claimed and known fraudulent claims, and intentional false claims are subject to civil penalties.
Beyond creating the new credit, SB 75 amends Kansas adjusted gross income provisions in K.S.A. 79-32,117 to add a new subtraction for any state income tax refund attributable to the education opportunity tax credit, effective for tax years beginning after December 31, 2025. The bill also retains the existing structure of Kansas income tax modifications and makes the new credit part of the Kansas income tax act. In practical terms, the measure would reduce state income tax revenue and shift public support toward families choosing private education rather than public school enrollment.
The available context shows no committee transcript or recorded votes, so there is no documented floor or committee debate to gauge formal sentiment. Based on the bill’s structure and caption, the measure appears to be framed as a school-choice tax benefit and likely reflects support from proponents of private-school tuition assistance and parental choice. At the same time, the bill’s design suggests likely concern from opponents about revenue loss, fairness to public schools, and the use of state tax policy to subsidize private education.
Notable points of contention include the size of the credit, the refundable nature of the benefit, the $125 million statewide cap, and the exclusion of students who receive low-income scholarship assistance. The distinction between accredited and nonaccredited private schools may also be controversial, as may the bill’s verification and anti-fraud provisions. Because the bill ties eligibility to non-enrollment in public school, it is likely to be debated as a school-choice measure with implications for public-school funding and state tax expenditures.
SB 75 would add a new refundable income tax credit to the Kansas income tax act for taxpayers with eligible dependent children enrolled full time in private school instead of public school, and it would amend Kansas adjusted gross income rules to exclude future state income tax refunds attributable to that credit. The bill would create new administrative duties for the Department of Revenue, including advance-claim processing, enrollment verification with the State Department of Education, annual reporting to the Legislature, and enforcement against false claims. It would also reduce state general fund revenue through a new tax expenditure and potentially affect private-school enrollment incentives, public-school participation, and the distribution of education-related state benefits.
No committee discussion or vote history is provided, so there is no recorded legislative sentiment from debate or roll calls. The bill’s caption and structure indicate a policy direction favoring private-school choice and tax relief for families not using public schools, which suggests likely support among school-choice advocates. At the same time, the absence of recorded support or opposition in the provided materials means the overall legislative reception cannot be determined from the available context.
The main likely points of contention are whether Kansas should use income tax credits to subsidize private education, whether the refundable credit and $125 million cap create an appropriate fiscal commitment, and whether the program diverts resources from public schools. The bill’s exclusion of children receiving low-income scholarship program aid may also draw scrutiny from advocates concerned about overlapping eligibility and equity. Additional concerns may arise over the accreditation distinction, the advance-payment feature, fraud prevention, and the bill’s requirement that the state verify public-school enrollment while limiting the Department of Revenue’s consultation authority.