AN ACT TO ESTABLISH THE MISSISSIPPI TALENT EXCHANGE FOR ADVANCEMENT OF CAREERS AND HIGHER EDUCATION (TEACH) CREDIT ACT; TO PROVIDE A STATE INCOME TAX CREDIT FOR PRIVATE EMPLOYERS WHO LOAN QUALIFIED EMPLOYEES TO MISSISSIPPI COMMUNITY COLLEGES AS INSTRUCTORS IN HIGH-DEMAND CAREER AND TECHNICAL EDUCATION DISCIPLINES; TO PROVIDE FOR ADMINISTRATION, ELIGIBILITY, AND REPORTING REQUIREMENTS; AND FOR RELATED PURPOSES.
House Bill 1792 creates the Mississippi Talent Exchange for Advancement of Careers and Higher Education (TEACH) Credit Act. The bill would allow private employers to claim a state income tax credit when they continue paying a qualified employee who is temporarily loaned to a Mississippi community college to teach in a high-demand career and technical education (CTE) program or workforce training program. The credit equals the salary and benefits paid to the loaned employee during the teaching assignment, to the extent those costs are not already reimbursed by public funds or workforce grants.
The bill sets several conditions for participation. Employers must keep paying the employee’s full salary and benefits, enter into a written agreement with the college, and assign the employee for a minimum period determined by the college and employer. Loaned employees must meet instructor qualifications established by the college. The Mississippi Community College Board, working with the Department of Revenue, would administer the program, approve participation, and oversee reporting. The bill also allows colleges to provide stipends to loaned employees and to prioritize placements in sectors with critical shortages.
HB1792 would amend Mississippi tax law by codifying a new section in Title 27, Chapter 7, and by creating a new state income tax credit for eligible employers. The credit is capped at the employer’s tax liability, can be carried forward for five years if unused, and is subject to an annual statewide cap of $1 million. The bill also requires annual reporting by employers and community colleges, plus a yearly report to the Legislature on program effectiveness and possible expansion. It takes effect January 1, 2026.
The stated policy goal is to address shortages of qualified instructors in high-demand CTE and workforce training fields by drawing on private-sector expertise. The bill’s overall sentiment appears supportive and workforce-focused, emphasizing economic development, student access to industry-aligned instruction, and stronger career pipelines. Because there are no committee transcripts or recorded votes in the provided material, there is no documented public debate or formal vote history to indicate broader legislative sentiment beyond the bill’s pro-workforce framing.
No specific points of contention are recorded in the available context, but the structure of the credit suggests possible areas of scrutiny: the fiscal cost of the tax credit, whether the $1 million annual cap is sufficient, how colleges will define minimum qualifications and placement terms, and whether the program could duplicate existing workforce grants. The bill also leaves significant implementation details to the Community College Board and Department of Revenue through rulemaking, which could be a point of interest for administrators and employers.
HB1792 would create a new state income tax credit in Mississippi for private employers that loan employees to community colleges as instructors in designated high-demand CTE or workforce training programs. It would be codified in Title 27, Chapter 7, and administered by the Mississippi Community College Board in consultation with the Department of Revenue. The bill would affect private employers, community colleges, and loaned employees by establishing eligibility rules, reporting obligations, and a statewide annual cap of $1 million in credits, while also allowing unused credits to carry forward for five years.
The bill’s tone is generally positive and pro-workforce, with the stated purpose of addressing instructor shortages and strengthening the state’s talent pipeline. The available materials show no recorded committee discussion or votes, so there is no evidence of organized opposition or amendment debate in the provided record. Based on the text alone, the measure appears designed to attract support from business, education, and workforce development interests.
No specific contention is documented in the provided transcripts or voting history. Potential areas of debate include the fiscal impact of the tax credit, whether the statewide cap is adequate, how to verify employee qualifications and program outcomes, and whether employers should receive a credit for wages that might otherwise be supported by public workforce funds. Another possible issue is the administrative discretion given to the Community College Board and Department of Revenue in setting rules and approving participation.