Access Technology Affordability Act of 2025
- Sponsor
- Rep. Kelly, Mike [R-PA-16]
- Committees
- Ways and Means Committee (primary)
- Last action
- Feb 24, 2025
Bottom line
The bill creates a refundable tax credit to help blind individuals and their families afford specialized technology designed to convert visual information into accessible formats.
What it actually does
This bill amends the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to establish a new refundable tax credit, Section 36C, for the purchase of qualified access technology for blind individuals. Taxpayers can claim a credit of up to $2,000 over a three-year period for technology used by themselves, their spouse, or a dependent who meets the definition of a 'qualified blind individual.' The credit is set to terminate for taxable years beginning after December 31, 2030.
Proponents argue
Supporters argue that this credit will significantly improve the quality of life and independence for blind individuals by making essential access technology more affordable. They contend that such technology is often expensive and a financial barrier, and a refundable credit ensures that even low-income individuals can benefit, promoting greater inclusion and participation in society.
Opponents contend
Critics might raise concerns about the potential cost to federal revenue, especially for a refundable credit. They may also question the administrative burden on the IRS to verify eligible technology and individuals, or argue that the $2,000 limit over three years may not be sufficient to cover the rapidly evolving and often high costs of advanced access technology.
The bill is very short and clear, making it highly accessible for a reader to understand its core provisions quickly.
Section 2(a), new Section 36C
Establishment of Refundable Tax Credit for Qualified Access Technology
This provision creates a new tax credit allowing individuals to reclaim money spent on specialized hardware or software that helps blind people use visually represented information. The credit is refundable, meaning eligible taxpayers can receive the benefit even if they owe no federal income tax. It applies to technology purchased for the taxpayer, their spouse, or a dependent who is legally blind.
Supporters argue
Proponents argue this credit directly addresses a significant financial barrier for blind individuals seeking to access essential technology. By making it refundable, the credit ensures that those with lower incomes, who often need such assistance most, can also benefit, thereby promoting equity and independence.
Critics contend
Opponents might argue that while well-intentioned, the credit could lead to increased federal spending without clear mechanisms for oversight on the types of technology purchased. They may also contend that the capped amount might not keep pace with the actual costs of cutting-edge assistive devices.
Tradeoffs
The bill balances the goal of enhancing accessibility for blind individuals with concerns about federal budget impacts and the administrative complexity of verifying eligible expenses and individuals. The refundable nature prioritizes equity but increases the direct cost to the Treasury.
Section 2(a), new Section 36C(b) and (e)
Credit Limitation and Inflation Adjustment
The bill sets a maximum credit amount of $2,000 for any single blind individual over a three-consecutive-taxable-year period. To ensure the credit retains its value over time, this $2,000 limit will be adjusted annually for inflation starting in 2026, with amounts rounded down to the nearest $100.
Section 2(a), new Section 36C(f)
Termination of Credit
This section specifies that the tax credit for qualified access technology for the blind will not apply to amounts paid or incurred in taxable years beginning after December 31, 2030. This means the credit is temporary and will expire unless Congress takes further action to extend or make it permanent.
The definition of 'qualified blind individual' relies on a cross-reference to section 63(f)(4) of the Internal Revenue Code.
Section 2(c)(1)
Why it matters:This is standard legislative practice to avoid redundancy and ensure consistency with existing legal definitions. It's not intended to be evasive.
Case for: Using existing definitions ensures consistency across the tax code and leverages established criteria, avoiding the need to create new, potentially conflicting definitions.
Case against: A reader unfamiliar with the Internal Revenue Code would need to consult an external source to fully understand who qualifies for the credit, adding a step to comprehension.
Estimated impact: Clarifies eligibility for the credit, impacting all potential beneficiaries.