New Federal Tax Credit For Police

[jam1433]

New Federal Tax Credit for Police (READ!)

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I got the following email from Representative Ron Paul. I had been contacting various members of the House and Senate to see if someone could introduce legislation to provide tax breaks for public safety employees. Pass this info to your fellow officers. Contact your Local US Representative to encourage them to support these bills. Hopefully we can generate enough public interest to get this bill passed,

Jam1433


Paul, Rep." Add to Address Book
To: "'jam1433@yahoo.com'"
Subject:
Date: Wed, 6 Jul 2005 14:27:46 -0400




Thank you for contacting my office regarding your support for tax credits for police officers and fire fighters. You will be interested in legislation I have introduced, HR 2822, the Public Safety Tax Cut Act, that would provide a tax credit for public safety officers and professional firefighters and would exclude from income certain benefits received by public safety volunteers. Additionally, I introduced HR 2823, which would provide for a nonrefundable tax credit for law enforcement officers who purchase armor vests. Relieving public safety officers of the enormous tax burden they bear should be a top priority of every congressman and senator. There is absolutely no justification, practical or constitutional, for imposing heavy taxes on those who risk the most for the safety of Americans.

Thank you again for contacting my office concerning these important issues.

Sincerely,

Ron Paul



This bill was introduced by Representative Ron Paul of Texas on June 8th
Public Safety Tax Cut Act (Introduced in House)

HR 2822 IH


109th CONGRESS

1st Session

H. R. 2822
To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide a tax credit for police officers and professional firefighters, and to exclude from income certain benefits received by public safety volunteers.


IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

June 8, 2005
Mr. PAUL introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Ways and Means



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


A BILL
To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide a tax credit for police officers and professional firefighters, and to exclude from income certain benefits received by public safety volunteers.


Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the `Public Safety Tax Cut Act' .

SEC. 2. CREDIT FOR POLICE OFFICERS AND PROFESSIONAL FIREFIGHTERS.

(a) In General- Subpart A of part IV of subchapter A of chapter 1 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to nonrefundable personal credits) is amended by inserting after section 25B the following new section:

`SEC. 25C. POLICE OFFICERS AND PROFESSIONAL FIREFIGHTERS.

`(a) Allowance of Credit- In the case of an eligible individual, there shall be allowed as a credit against the tax imposed by this chapter for a taxable year an amount equal to $1,000.

`(b) Eligible Individual- For purposes of subsection (a), the term `eligible individual' means an individual who--

`(1) is a police officer or firefighter in a police department or fire department which is organized and operated by a State or political subdivision to provide police protection, firefighting services, or emergency medical services for any area within the jurisdiction of such State or political subdivision, and

`(2) is employed on a full-time basis during the taxable year as a police officer or firefighter.'.

(b) Clerical Amendment- The table of sections for subpart A of part IV of subchapter A of chapter 1 of such Code is amended by inserting after the item relating to section 25B the following new item:

`Sec. 25C. Police officers and professional firefighters.'.

(c) Effective Date- The amendments made by this section shall apply to taxable years beginning after December 31, 2005.

SEC. 3. EXCLUSION FROM GROSS INCOME OF CERTAIN BENEFITS RECEIVED BY PUBLIC SAFETY VOLUNTEERS.

(a) In General- Part III of subchapter B of chapter 1 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to items specifically excluded from gross income) is amended by inserting after section 139A the following new section:

`SEC. 139B. BENEFITS RECEIVED BY PUBLIC SAFETY VOLUNTEERS.

`(a) In General- Gross income does not include the value of any public services benefits received by a public safety volunteer.

`(b) Definitions- For purposes of this section--

`(1) The term `public services benefits' means services such as water, sewer, trash pickup, or other similar services provided by a State or local government agency as a benefit to its public safety volunteers.

`(2) The term `public safety volunteer' means a volunteer firefighter or volunteer auxiliary police officer.'.

(b) Clerical Amendment- The table of sections for part III of subchapter B of chapter 1 of such Code is amended by inserting after the item relating to section 139A the following:

`Sec. 139B. Benefits received by public safety volunteers.'.

(c) Effective Date- The amendment made by this section shall apply to amounts received in taxable years beginning after December 31, 2005.

[Ranger__101]

I see one problem that needs to be corrected..

...which is organized and operated by a State or political subdivision to provide police protection, firefighting services, or emergency medical services for any area within the jurisdiction of such State or political subdivision, and

It needs to be changed to allow any sworn law enforcement officer or sworn firefighter. Currently the wording leaves out any Federal Law Enforcement Officers or Federal Firefighters and those who are Law Enforcement officers and who are not employed by a City or State.

[GoDirectly2Jail]

It also excludes Sheriffs/Deputy Sheriffs and Corrections Officers.

Not that I see this one being signed into law anytime soon.

[RO56]

I see one problem that needs to be corrected..

...which is organized and operated by a State or political subdivision to provide police protection, firefighting services, or emergency medical services for any area within the jurisdiction of such State or political subdivision, and

It needs to be changed to allow any sworn law enforcement officer or sworn firefighter. Currently the wording leaves out any Federal Law Enforcement Officers or Federal Firefighters and those who are Law Enforcement officers and who are not employed by a City or State.

Not completely true. "organized and operated by a State or political subdivision ... for any area within the jurisdiction of such State or political subdivision" -- a political subdivision includes areas/jurisdictions within each state, such as a county (sheriff), a township, a college, or other entity that might have public safety officers or firefighters, not just "state" police or firefighters, such as in Montana or Texas.

It doesn't seem to cover FEDERAL employees as you state, though.

And, although it addresses unpaid (volunteers), it only gives them a credit for BENEFITS received (i.e., "The term `public services benefits' means services such as water, sewer, trash pickup, or other similar services provided by a State or local government agency as a benefit to its public safety volunteers.") -- so it doesn't seem to provide any additional incentives (other than current tax deductions for certain expenses) for (unpaid) volunteers for any time/money spent in/to provide their services to the community.

But you're right - it needs to be fleshed out to include all public safety officers and firefighters.

[GoDirectly2Jail]

-- a political subdivision includes areas/jurisdictions within each state, such as a county (sheriff), a township, a college, or other entity that might have public safety officers or firefighters, not just "state" police or firefighters, such as in Montana or Texas.

Unless it says it, it doesn't say it. Right now it says,

Eligible Individual- For purposes of subsection (a), the term `eligible individual' means an individual who--

`(1) is a police officer or firefighter in a police department or fire department which is organized and operated by a State or political subdivision to provide police protection, firefighting services, or emergency medical services for any area within the jurisdiction of such State or political subdivision,

A deputy sheriff is not a police officer and an EMT is not a firefighter.

Don't get me wrong, this bill has good intentions, but it's VERY poorly worded.

[RO56]

Unless it says it, it doesn't say it. Right now it says, A deputy sheriff is not a police officer and an EMT is not a firefighter.

Don't get me wrong, this bill has good intentions, but it's VERY poorly worded.

"Public Safety Officer" would be better, but they should include a specific definition as well (and undoubtedly will, I'm sure).

As an example here, many of the definitions in our Public Acts define "Public Safety Officer" as something including all law enforcement officers, firefighters, EMTs, etc., and also define "law enforcement officers" as individuals involved in crime control, juvenile delinquency control or the reduction or enforcement of criminal law, including police, corrections, probation, parole, baliffs or other similar court officers (and, if referring specifically to certified LEOs, they include verbiage involving: sheriff or sheriff deputy, village or township marshal, a police officer of any city, village, or township, an officer of the state police, or any other police officer trained and certified pursuant to the Commission on Law Enforcement Standards Act).

If the author of THIS bill intends for "police officer" to be interpreted to NOT include sheriff deputies or other (as we know) actual LEOs, then she or he is an idiot for writing it that way.

In short -- yes, you're right - it needs much more clairity.

[GoDirectly2Jail]

I'm right?!

Will wonders never cease! :D ;)

[retdetsgt]

I'm right?!

Will wonders never cease!

Damn! Who wodda thought! :D

[GoDirectly2Jail]

Well, you didn't hafta agree. :(














;)