HB383 creates a new Kentucky income tax credit for taxpayers that construct qualifying “accessible homes” in the state. The credit is available for tax years beginning on or after January 1, 2026, and before January 1, 2030. It is nonrefundable and nontransferable, equals 5% of eligible construction costs, and is capped at $5,000 per home. To qualify, a home must be a newly built, never-before-inhabited single-family residence that incorporates universal design and visitability features such as a main-floor bedroom and accessible bathroom, wider hallways and doorways, accessible controls, a zero-step entrance, and lowered kitchen counters and sinks.
The bill also sets out documentation requirements for claiming the credit, including blueprints or floor plans, certificates of occupancy, building permits, and receipts or invoices. It excludes land acquisition costs and bars use of the same construction costs for other tax incentives under the same chapter. The Department of Revenue must report annual data to the Legislative Research Commission and the Interim Joint Committee on Appropriations and Revenue, including the number and location of homes built, the amount of credit claimed, and income-range data for claimants. The bill expressly makes that reporting information public rather than confidential taxpayer information.
HB383 amends Kentucky’s credit-ordering statutes so the new accessible home credit is placed in the sequence of nonrefundable credits against individual and corporate income tax liabilities. It also amends the state tax confidentiality statute to authorize disclosure of information to the Legislative Research Commission for administration and oversight of the new credit. In practical terms, the bill would add a new housing-related tax expenditure to Kentucky law and create a reporting framework to monitor its use and fiscal impact.
The overall sentiment reflected in the bill text is policy-supportive and targeted: the stated purpose is to encourage construction of accessible housing and help older adults remain safely in their homes as they age. Because there are no committee transcripts or recorded votes provided, there is no direct evidence of debate, support, or opposition from legislators in the available materials. The bill’s structure suggests a generally pro-housing, pro-aging-in-place approach, with oversight provisions intended to measure effectiveness.
Notable potential points of contention include the cost of the credit to the state, whether the $5,000 cap is sufficient to influence builder behavior, and the administrative burden of verifying compliance with accessibility standards. The public reporting requirement may also raise privacy or confidentiality concerns for some taxpayers, although the bill explicitly overrides normal confidentiality protections for the required data. Builders, housing advocates, older adults, and disability-access stakeholders would likely be the main interested parties.
HB383 would add a new nonrefundable, nontransferable income tax credit to Kentucky law for construction of qualifying accessible homes, and it would amend the state’s credit-priority rules to place that credit among other business and personal credits. It would also create a new reporting obligation for the Department of Revenue and carve out an exception to tax confidentiality rules so the legislature can review claim data. The bill affects individual taxpayers and business entities that build new single-family homes, while indirectly benefiting older adults and people who need accessible housing features.
The bill appears to have a favorable, policy-driven tone centered on expanding accessible housing and supporting aging in place. The text frames the credit as a way to encourage construction of homes that are easier to use for older adults and people with mobility needs. No committee discussion or vote history was provided, so there is no recorded legislative debate to indicate broader support or opposition beyond the bill’s stated purpose.
The main likely areas of contention are fiscal and administrative. Critics could question whether a 5% credit capped at $5,000 is enough to change building practices, whether the state should subsidize private home construction, and whether the reporting and verification requirements are burdensome for builders and the Department of Revenue. The bill’s explicit removal of confidentiality for reporting data could also draw concern from taxpayers or privacy advocates, while supporters would likely emphasize accessibility, universal design, and aging-in-place benefits.