House committee advances parental choice tax credit after close 8-7 vote

BOISE, Idaho — The House Revenue and Taxation Committee voted 8-7 on Feb. 5 to send House Bill 93 to the full House with a due-pass recommendation. The bill would create a refundable parental choice tax credit capped at $50 million, allow eligible parents to claim up to $5,000 per student (up to $7,500 for students with disabilities), and prioritize families with incomes at or below 300% of the federal poverty level.

Senator Lori Den Hartog, one of the bill’s sponsors, told the committee the proposal is “about school choice and school choice first and foremost is about kids and families.” She said the program is meant to be additive to Idaho’s current mix of public, charter and private options and would be first-come, first-served if demand exceeds the annual cap. Den Hartog also said her family would not apply for the credit if the bill becomes law.

Why it matters: supporters say the bill expands educational options, especially for families who report existing options do not meet their children’s needs; opponents say it diverts public resources, creates enforcement and oversight challenges, and risks weakening rural districts that lack private-school options.

What the bill would do: House Bill 93 would allow a refundable credit for qualifying academic expenses — including K–12 tuition at nonpublic schools, tutoring, nationally standardized tests and certain transportation costs — with the total program capped at $50 million per year. The bill defines “nonpublic school” to include private schools, micro‑schools and learning pods; nonpublic providers must be accredited or maintain a documented portfolio of student work that parents retain in case of a Tax Commission audit. The bill would be retroactive to Jan. 1, 2025, so expenses incurred in tax year 2025 would be eligible when parents file in 2026.

Key implementation features in the bill: - Priority for families with incomes at or below 300% of the federal poverty level (the sponsor gave an illustrative 2023 example of roughly $90,000 for a family of four). - An advanced-payment option for qualifying families at or below 300% of FPL so they can receive a one-time payment up front to cover expenses and then reconcile on their tax return the following year. - A 60-day initial application window beginning Jan. 15, 2026, with parents notified of eligibility within 30 days of the application window closing. - A requirement that parents complete a parent-satisfaction and engagement survey (assigned in the bill to the Legislative Services Office) as part of the documentation when reapplying. - Tax Commission reporting duties: the Tax Commission must report to the legislature and governor on credits issued, number of applicants, number of credits awarded to families at or below 300% FPL, geographic distribution, number of advance-payment applicants, wait-list counts and categories of qualified expenses. - Penalties for misuse, including the possibility of felony prosecution for tax fraud, and a provision that parents cannot use the same funds from the Empowering Parents microgrant program to qualify for the credit.

Supporters and testimony: Chris Cargill, president of the Mountain States Policy Center, argued the cost relative to the state K–12 budget is small and pointed to research and polling his organization provided. Tammy Emerick, superintendent of Catholic schools for the Diocese of Boise, and Alan Howlett, superintendent of Cole Valley Christian Schools, described accreditation and background‑check practices at their schools and cited higher test‑score averages. Commander (Ret.) Joshua Price and other parents described personal reasons for supporting expanded options.

Opponents’ concerns: Alexis Morgan, president of Idaho PTA, said the bill “does not meet these standards” of fair, accountable, responsible and transparent implementation, citing gaps in how transportation and parental‑survey measures would be audited. Dr. Jean Henscheid of the League of Women Voters of Idaho and Mary Ruck, speaking for the American Association of University Women of Idaho, opposed the bill as a diversion of public funds to private schools and highlighted civil‑rights and disability‑protections that apply in public schools but not necessarily in private settings.

Committee action and votes: Representative Michael Hill moved a due-pass recommendation. Representative Raybould moved to lay the bill on the table; that substitute motion failed by 7 to 8. The committee then approved the original motion to send House Bill 93 to the full House with a due-pass recommendation on a roll-call vote of 8 in favor and 7 opposed.

What remains unresolved: committee members repeatedly asked whether the Tax Commission has the staffing and expertise needed to administer applications, audits and the advanced-payment option; sponsors said conversations with the Tax Commission are ongoing and that the fiscal note reflects current agency input. Several members also pressed sponsors about whether background checks or other minimum educator‑vetting requirements would be required for recipient nonpublic programs; sponsors said the bill does not change existing vetting practices private schools already use.

Next steps: House Bill 93 will go to the full House for further debate. If enacted, the bill would require the Tax Commission and Legislative Services Office to implement application, reporting and survey processes detailed in the statute and to make administrative choices the committee did not resolve during the hearing.

Votes at a glance: - Motion to table (lay on the table): Representative Raybould — motion failed, 7–8. - Motion to send House Bill 93 to the House with a due-pass recommendation: passed, 8–7.

(Committee chair and member names in vote records are taken from the hearing roll calls.)