SB 1592 creates a new Missouri income and business tax credit for donations made to “prevention resource centers,” defined as nonprofit entities whose mission is to reduce the illegal or age-inappropriate use or misuse of alcohol, tobacco, and other drugs. Beginning with tax years starting on or after January 1, 2027, eligible taxpayers may claim a credit equal to 70% of qualifying contributions to a classified center.
The bill sets several limits and administrative rules. The total amount of credits available statewide is capped at $2.5 million per fiscal year, no taxpayer may claim more than $100,000 in credits per year, and any unused credit may be carried forward only one year. Contributions must total at least $100 in a tax year to qualify, credits may not be transferred or sold, and the Department of Mental Health must determine which facilities qualify as prevention resource centers and maintain a process for verifying that status. Centers must also report donor information and contribution amounts to the department, which then shares the information with the Department of Revenue under existing confidentiality rules.
Impact
The bill would add a new section to Chapter 135, RSMo, creating a state tax incentive tied to charitable contributions for substance-use prevention organizations. It affects taxpayers subject to Missouri income tax, corporate franchise tax, insurance premium tax, financial institution taxes, express company taxes, and certain exempt organizations with unrelated business taxable income. It also imposes new administrative duties on the Department of Mental Health and the Department of Revenue to certify eligible centers, track donations, and administer the credit.
Sentiment
Based on the bill text and the absence of recorded committee debate or votes in the provided materials, the measure appears to be presented as a targeted incentive for prevention-oriented nonprofits rather than a broadly controversial tax change. The structure suggests support for public-health and substance-misuse prevention efforts through private donations, with the state foregoing some revenue in exchange for encouraging contributions. No formal vote history or transcript comments are available here to indicate opposition or amendment concerns.
Contention
The main potential points of contention are the fiscal cost of the credit, the $2.5 million annual statewide cap, and the administrative burden of certifying centers and reporting donor information. Some may also question whether a 70% credit is too generous, whether the definition of prevention resource center is broad enough, and whether the reporting requirements create privacy or compliance concerns for donors and nonprofits. Because no committee transcript or vote record is provided, specific supporters or opponents cannot be identified from the available materials.