Ohio House Bill HB242

Ohio 2025-2026 Regular Session

• Introduced: 4/23/25

Caption

To amend sections 5747.08 and 5747.98 and to enact section 5747.87 of the Revised Code to authorize a nonrefundable income tax credit for having a dog spayed or neutered or for completing a dog training course.

Summary

HB242 would create a new nonrefundable Ohio income tax credit for individual taxpayers who pay to have a dog spayed or neutered, or who pay for one complete dog training course for a dog they own. The credit would equal the taxpayer’s eligible cost, up to $350 per taxable year, and could be claimed only once per year. The bill also specifies that qualifying training must be obedience training that teaches appropriate social behavior and response to commands and cues, and it allows the tax commissioner to request receipts or other proof before allowing the credit. In addition to creating the new credit, the bill amends Ohio’s income tax credit ordering statute to place the dog-related credit in the sequence of credits that taxpayers must apply when calculating aggregate tax liability. It also updates the list of credits referenced in the pass-through entity filing provisions so that the new credit is accounted for in those sections. The bill would take effect for taxable years ending on or after the effective date of the new section, and it repeals the existing versions of the amended sections once the changes are enacted.

Impact

HB242 would amend Ohio Revised Code sections 5747.08 and 5747.98 and add new section 5747.87, thereby expanding the state income tax code to include a specific nonrefundable personal income tax credit tied to pet sterilization and dog training expenses. The credit would reduce individual income tax liability, but only up to the amount of tax owed and only within the statutory cap of $350 per year. The bill also affects the administration of credits by requiring documentation and by directing the tax commissioner not to maintain a list of taxpayers claiming the credit.

Sentiment

Because the bill was only introduced and had no recorded votes or committee testimony in the provided materials, there is no formal legislative vote history to gauge support or opposition. The bill’s subject matter suggests a generally positive, consumer- and animal-welfare-oriented policy approach, pairing pet population control with responsible dog ownership and training. The absence of committee discussion means there is no documented public debate in the available record.

Contention

The main potential points of contention are fiscal and policy-based rather than procedural. Critics could question whether the state should subsidize private pet-related expenses through the income tax code, whether the credit is an appropriate use of tax expenditures, and whether the $350 cap and documentation requirements are sufficient to prevent abuse. Supporters are likely to emphasize animal welfare benefits, reduced shelter intake, and the public-safety value of basic dog training. No specific objections or endorsements are recorded in the provided committee materials.