Access Technology Affordability Act of 2025
- Sponsor
- Sen. Boozman, John [R-AR]
- Committees
- Finance Committee (primary)
- Last action
- May 22, 2025
Bottom line
The bill creates a refundable tax credit to make access technology more affordable for blind individuals and their families, aiming to enhance independence and participation.
What it actually does
This bill establishes a new refundable tax credit, up to $2,000 per individual every three years, for the purchase of qualified access technology for blind individuals. The credit is designed to help blind taxpayers, their spouses, or dependents afford specialized hardware and software that converts visual information into usable formats. The credit is set to expire for taxable years beginning after December 31, 2030.
Proponents argue
Supporters argue that this bill addresses a significant financial barrier faced by blind individuals in acquiring essential access technology. They contend that making such technology more affordable will promote greater independence, educational opportunities, and workforce participation for the blind community, aligning with broader goals of accessibility and inclusion.
Opponents contend
Critics might raise concerns about the potential cost to federal revenue, arguing that a new refundable tax credit could increase the national deficit. Some may also question the administrative burden on the IRS to verify qualifying purchases and individuals, or suggest that direct spending programs might be a more efficient or targeted approach than a tax credit.
The bill is very short and clearly written, making it accessible for any informed reader to understand its core provisions quickly.
Section 2(a), new Section 36C(a)
Establishment of Refundable Tax Credit
This provision creates a new tax credit that taxpayers can claim for expenses paid for 'qualified access technology' used by a 'qualified blind individual.' The credit is refundable, meaning that even if a taxpayer owes no federal income tax, they can still receive the credit amount as a refund.
Supporters argue
Proponents argue that establishing a refundable credit directly addresses the high cost of specialized technology, making it accessible to a wider range of blind individuals, including those with lower incomes who might not benefit from non-refundable credits.
Critics contend
Opponents might argue that creating new refundable tax credits adds to the complexity of the tax code and can be difficult to administer, potentially leading to increased opportunities for fraud or improper claims.
Tradeoffs
The provision balances the goal of increasing accessibility for blind individuals with the fiscal impact of reducing federal tax revenue and potentially increasing administrative complexity for the IRS.
Section 2(a), new Section 36C(b)
Credit Limitation and Frequency
The bill limits the total credit amount to $2,000 per qualified blind individual within any three-consecutive-taxable-year period. This means an individual cannot claim the credit more frequently than once every three years, and the maximum amount they can receive in that period is $2,000.
Section 2(a), new Section 36C(c)
Definitions of Qualified Blind Individual and Access Technology
This section defines 'qualified blind individual' by referencing existing tax code (section 63(f)(4)), which generally refers to statutory blindness. It defines 'qualified access technology' broadly as hardware, software, or other information technology primarily designed to convert or adapt visually represented information for use by blind individuals.
The credit for qualified access technology for the blind will terminate for amounts paid or incurred in taxable years beginning after December 31, 2030.
Section 2(a), new Section 36C(f)
Why it matters:Including a sunset clause is a common legislative practice to allow for future review and reauthorization of a program, rather than making it permanent. It is not necessarily evasive but can be overlooked by a casual reader focusing on the immediate benefits.
Case for: Proponents of the sunset clause argue it provides an opportunity to evaluate the credit's effectiveness and cost-efficiency after several years, allowing Congress to make informed decisions about its continuation, modification, or termination.
Case against: Critics might argue that a sunset clause creates uncertainty for blind individuals and their families, making long-term planning for technology purchases more difficult and potentially discouraging investment in essential assistive devices if the credit's future is unclear.
Estimated impact: Limits the total fiscal impact of the credit to a defined period, preventing indefinite revenue loss without re-evaluation.
These conforming amendments modify sections 6211(b)(4)(A) of the Internal Revenue Code and 1324(b)(2) of title 31, United States Code, to include the new section 36C, explicitly making the credit refundable.
Section 2(b)(1) and (2)
Why it matters:This is standard legislative drafting practice for integrating new tax provisions into the existing legal framework. While technical, these amendments are critical for the credit's refundability, which is a key feature for its impact on lower-income individuals.
Case for: Proponents argue that making the credit refundable is essential for equity, ensuring that individuals with little to no tax liability, who often have the greatest financial need, can still benefit from the credit.
Case against: Opponents of refundable credits generally argue that they function more like direct spending programs hidden within the tax code, increasing the deficit and potentially being less transparent than direct appropriations.
Estimated impact: Significantly expands the reach and cost of the credit compared to a non-refundable credit, as it allows for direct payments from the Treasury.