Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Marriage Credit topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Commission recommends modification of marriage credit after discussion on simplicity and impact

Tax Expenditure Review Commission · January 28, 2026
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

The commission recommended that the legislature modify the marriage credit (tax expenditure 1.6.01). Members agreed the credit meets its objective but raised concerns about paperwork, paper filers and measurement; the recommendation passed by roll call, 7–0 (2 excused).

The Tax Expenditure Review Commission on Jan. 28 voted to recommend that the legislature modify the marriage credit (tax expenditure 1.6.01), an individual income‑tax credit adopted in 1999 with an estimated annual revenue loss of about $17 million.

Christian Larson of the Legislative Budget Office summarized the commission’s tabulated evaluation responses: most members agreed the expenditure helps achieve its objective of reducing marriage penalties, while views varied on the size and distribution of the benefit. The LBO noted the credit was not adopted to conform with federal law and that appendices include the evaluation detail presented previously.

During member discussion, several commissioners urged simplification to reduce taxpayer paperwork and to improve accessibility for paper filers. Senator Clark said the credit “is a fine expenditure and we should keep it in, but we should probably just find a way to simplify it so we don't have to be doing as much paperwork.” Commissioner Markwart and others pressed for clearer, more transparent filing procedures for a small group of paper filers who still use manual forms.

Representative Robbins and others raised analytic limits and asked staff to explore complementary analyses to address the question of whether the public would be better served if funds were returned directly rather than channeled through the credit. LBO staff acknowledged data limitations can constrain ‘but‑for’ analysis but said they will assess feasible complementary methods for future evaluations.

Co‑chair Davids moved that the commission recommend modification of the marriage credit in accordance with commission procedures. The roll call recorded seven yes votes, zero no votes and two excused, and the motion carried. The commission directed LBO staff to include the discussion summary and member comments in materials provided to the legislature’s tax committees.

Next steps: the recommendation and supporting discussion will be included in the commission’s 2026 report and forwarded to the tax committees for consideration.