Missouri House Bill HB2589

Missouri 2024 Regular Session

• Introduced: 1/31/24
• Refer: 2/29/24

Caption

Modifies provisions of the "Champion for Children" tax credit and the "Donated Food" tax credit relating to tax credit award denials

Impact

This legislation is designed to facilitate smoother transactions concerning tax credits associated with donations made to local organizations focused on child welfare. By establishing clear guidelines on how tax credits can be claimed and reinforcing the eligibility requirements for organizations receiving the donations, HB2589 aims to enhance support for local child advocacy and crisis services. The cumulative amount of tax credits available for redemption is set to one million seven hundred fifty thousand dollars per fiscal year, which will be apportioned among all qualifying organizations. This is expected to encourage increased contributions from taxpayers to such agencies.

Summary

House Bill 2589 seeks to modify the existing provisions related to the "Champion for Children" tax credit and the "Donated Food" tax credit in Missouri. The bill repeals sections 135.341 and 135.647 from the Revised Statutes of Missouri and introduces two new sections which outline the specifics of how tax credits are to be administered and allocated to qualified agencies such as CASA (Court Appointed Special Advocates), child advocacy centers, and crisis care centers. This modification is part of a broader effort to streamline the tax credit application process and ensure that contributions to these agencies are appropriately incentivized through tax relief.

Contention

Despite its goals, the bill may face scrutiny regarding the overall impact on state revenue and the adequacy of the allocated funding for important child advocacy programs. Some critics may argue that the cap on tax credits might not meet the growing needs of local organizations, and that more aggressive funding approaches should be adopted. Additionally, the provisions that restrict the transfer or sale of credits could be seen as limiting flexibility for taxpayers who want to share the benefits of their contributions with others, which might result in pushback from community advocates seeking more robust support systems.