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 fertility treatment expenses.
HB889 would create a new nonrefundable Ohio income tax credit for certain fertility-related medical expenses. The bill defines two categories of eligible expenses: treatment for conditions that impact fertility, capped at $3,500, and assisted reproductive technology treatment, capped at $9,500. Eligible treatment includes services and procedures such as ovulation-stimulating medications, intrauterine insemination, laparoscopic surgery, and in vitro fertilization, while excluding some procedures that do not involve egg retrieval or laboratory fertilization. The credit would apply against an individual taxpayer’s Ohio income tax liability and could be carried forward for up to seven years if the credit exceeds the taxpayer’s tax due in the year claimed.
The bill also amends Ohio’s credit-ordering statute to place the new fertility treatment credit into the sequence of credits taxpayers must apply when calculating aggregate tax liability. In practical terms, this means the credit would be integrated into the existing personal income tax structure alongside other nonrefundable and refundable credits. The bill further authorizes the Tax Commissioner to require documentation to verify eligibility and makes conforming changes to the tax code sections governing return filing and credit ordering.
If enacted, HB889 would reduce state income tax liability for qualifying taxpayers who incur fertility treatment costs, potentially offsetting some out-of-pocket medical expenses. Because the credit is nonrefundable, it would only reduce tax owed to zero and would not generate a cash refund beyond the taxpayer’s liability, though unused amounts could be carried forward. The bill would affect individual Ohio taxpayers seeking fertility care, as well as tax preparers and the Department of Taxation, which would need to administer and verify the new credit.
The available legislative context shows the bill was introduced and referred to the House Ways and Means Committee, but there are no recorded committee transcripts or votes in the provided materials. As a result, there is no documented floor debate or formal vote history to indicate broader legislative sentiment. Based on the bill’s sponsorship and structure, the measure appears to be framed as a targeted tax relief proposal for families facing infertility or fertility-related medical treatment costs.
No specific points of contention are documented in the available record, but the main policy issues likely involve the fiscal cost of the credit, how broadly fertility-related expenses should be defined, and what documentation taxpayers would need to substantiate claims. The distinction between assisted reproductive technology and other fertility treatments may also be relevant to administration and eligibility disputes.
HB889 would add a new section to the Ohio Revised Code creating a nonrefundable personal income tax credit for fertility treatment expenses and would amend the credit-ordering statute to place that credit within the existing hierarchy of Ohio income tax credits. It would affect Chapter 5747 of the Revised Code, especially sections 5747.08, 5747.87, and 5747.98, and would require the Department of Taxation to administer eligibility verification and credit claims. The bill would primarily benefit taxpayers incurring qualifying fertility-related medical costs by reducing state income tax liability, with unused credit amounts carried forward for up to seven years.
The available record suggests generally favorable intent, with the bill introduced as a targeted tax relief measure for fertility-related expenses and no recorded opposition, votes, or committee testimony in the provided materials. Because there are no transcripts or vote tallies, sentiment cannot be measured directly, but the bill’s sponsorship and framing indicate support for helping taxpayers offset the cost of infertility treatment and assisted reproductive technology.
No explicit contention is documented in the provided materials. Potential areas of disagreement, based on the bill text, would likely include the fiscal impact of creating a new tax expenditure, the scope of eligible medical treatments, the relatively high cap for assisted reproductive technology compared with other fertility treatments, and the administrative burden of verifying medical expenses. Questions could also arise over whether a nonrefundable credit is sufficient relief for lower-income taxpayers who may have limited tax liability.