H.r. 3501

Dear Animal Advocates,

Introduced by Rep. Thaddeus McCotter, H.R. 3501—known as the Humanity and Pets Partnered Through the Years (“HAPPY”) Act—is a federal bill that would reward responsible pet parents by allowing them to keep more money in their pockets come tax time.

We all want to give our animal companions the best care we possibly can, but it seems that pet care costs are always on the rise—and these days, it’s harder than ever to stretch the family budget. That’s why the ASPCA supports H.R. 3501, which would amend U.S. tax code to allow qualifying pet care expenses, including veterinary care, to be tax-deductible.

This means that when you prepare your income taxes, money you spent on pet care that year would count as non-taxable income—and you can deduct up to $3,500 per year!

Please help us support the HAPPY Act, H.R. 3501.

What You Can Do
Visit the ASPCA Advocacy Center online to send an email to your U.S. representative and urge him or her to support and cosponsor the HAPPY Act, H.R. 3501.

https://secure2.convio.net/aspca/sit...Action&id=2605

Thank you for supporting this bill and being part of the team!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fearless

Dear Animal Advocates,

Introduced by Rep. Thaddeus McCotter, H.R. 3501—known as the Humanity and Pets Partnered Through the Years (“HAPPY”) Act—is a federal bill that would reward responsible pet parents by allowing them to keep more money in their pockets come tax time.

We all want to give our animal companions the best care we possibly can, but it seems that pet care costs are always on the rise—and these days, it’s harder than ever to stretch the family budget. That’s why the ASPCA supports H.R. 3501, which would amend U.S. tax code to allow qualifying pet care expenses, including veterinary care, to be tax-deductible.

This means that when you prepare your income taxes, money you spent on pet care that year would count as non-taxable income—and you can deduct up to $3,500 per year!

Please help us support the HAPPY Act, H.R. 3501.

What You Can Do
Visit the ASPCA Advocacy Center online to send an email to your U.S. representative and urge him or her to support and cosponsor the HAPPY Act, H.R. 3501.

https://secure2.convio.net/aspca/sit...Action&id=2605

Thank you for supporting this bill and being part of the team!

---

im still up on the fence on this bill. sure it is meant to do good, but look at how its worded. especially the bold lines. the business/trade leaves alot to interpretation
also why should it be a "domesticated" and not a "pet" also exactly what is "providing care" for the purposes of this bill

SEC. 224. PET CARE EXPENSES.

`(a) Allowance of Deduction- In the case of an individual, there shall be allowed as a deduction for the taxable year an amount equal to the qualified pet care expenses of the taxpayer during the taxable year for any qualified pet of the taxpayer.

`(b) Maximum Deduction- The amount allowable as a deduction under subsection (a) to the taxpayer for any taxable year shall not exceed $3,500.

`(c) Qualified Pet Care Expenses- For purposes of this section, the term `qualified pet care expenses' means amounts paid in connection with providing care (including veterinary care) for a qualified pet other than any expense in connection with the acquisition of the qualified pet.

`(d) Qualified Pet- For purposes of this section--

`(1) QUALIFIED PET- The term `qualified pet' means a legally owned, domesticated, live animal.

`(2) EXCEPTIONS- Such term does not include any animal--

`(A) used for research or owned or utilized in conjunction with a trade or business, or

`(B) with respect to which the taxpayer has claimed a deduction under section 162 or 213 in any of the preceding 3 taxable years.'.

(b) Clerical Amendment- The table of sections for part VII of subchapter B of chapter 1 of such Code is amended by striking the last item and inserting the following new items:

`Sec. 224. Pet care expenses.

`Sec. 225. Cross reference.'.

(c) Effective Date- The amendments made by this section shall apply to taxable years beginning after December 31, 2009.

I really gotta say no. If you can't afford to keep a pet, don't keep it. It looks to me like someone trying to give more rights to animals. Then again I also gotta wonder how many people would claim spending a thousand bucks on caring for their sea monkeys?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MarkS

I really gotta say no. If you can't afford to keep a pet, don't keep it. It looks to me like someone trying to give more rights to animals. Then again I also gotta wonder how many people would claim spending a thousand bucks on caring for their sea monkeys?

---

:rofl::rofl::rofl: sea monkeys thats a good one.

How many people will go out and buy a dog and chain it up in the back yard and toss food out to it now and then so they can claim a pet on their income tax? :confused:

While I can understand the attractiveness of the idea (ANYthing we can do to save money on taxes sounds good at first blush, as well as anything the government does that makes it look like they're supportive of pet ownership)...I can still see far more problems with a bill like this than saving a few dollars would be worth.

Dont laugh, sea monkey care is expensive. You need to buy sea fruit and sea ants for them to eat. Plus you need to aid them in setting up their sea-ciety, which means offering them internet access, and how often do you end up getting deliveries for sea-johnny?

[QUOTE=Oxylepy;1170096]sea-ciety/QUOTE]

I'm tempted to quote south park, but I can't think of one that would fit with the TOS.

I don't support this bill, but if it passes I sure am going to take the deduction. Hypocritical? I suppose, but then again I'm poor and 23 years old.

In general I don't like the US tax code, and I REALLY don't like many of the deductions.. There is no reason that a pet owner should pay less taxes than an otherwise identical non pet owner.

Just because I would benefit from a bill does not mean that I support it. Supporting a bill I don't agree with but would benefit me is selfish.

I can see it being handy for emergencies. For example; last year in the May/June area, it was super rainy. One of the goats was standing up on a slope, with her front legs on a tree, eating the leaves. She some how slipped, caught her leg in a fork, and snapped it at a 40 degree angle. Since she produced a nice kid, we opted to keep her.

Total cost of the surgery to fix her leg? Over $500. That doesn't cover the supplies we bought to wrap the leg, the antibiotics, the calcium powder, taking her in to get pus out of the surgery site, etc. For those who have many animals, I can see this being very handy for those unexpected, costly emergencies. However, if you can't afford to deal with the standard costs of an animal, such as vaccinations/spaying neutering, etc, don't have animals.

I wouldn't go out of my way to support it, I'd rather support a bill that would simply lower taxes(drastically) instead of giving a deduction for every little thing.

I have to say I'm not liking this bill either. It will probably encourage more pet abuse than anything, especially if a person would get more of a tax break the more pets he has. Just look at the welfare system: people get more money for having more kids, and despite that the additional money doesn't completely cover the cost of caring for additional kids, people still have more kids just to get more welfare money.

If you don't have the money to take care of a pet--including possible vet bills--then you shouldn't have it.

Now, I know there are special circumstances where this would be incredibly helpful. Murphy's Law tells us that when our money is tight, the vet bills start pouring in. A law like this would be incredibly helpful to anyone who is going through a [temporary] tough time, financially, but doesn't want to give up his pets.

If they made an amendment to this bill that limited the amount of time and/or amount of tax breaks any household could get, then I might look on it more favorably.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Eventide

A law like this would be incredibly helpful to anyone who is going through a [temporary] tough time, financially, but doesn't want to give up his pets.

.

---

This isn't really true. It wouldn't be helpful at all in any emergency situation. This isn't the govt saying they'll hand out money to folks with pets. This is a person being able to deduct a certain amount of money spent on their pets from their overall income at tax time.

SO...in July, your dog is hit by a car and you incur a lot of vet bills, on top of all the regular expenses for your pet. The new tax law won't help a bit at that time. But the following spring, when you do your taxes....IF you're able to take itemized deductions, THEN you can add $3500 (at the most) to those deductions....which, depending on your situation, might lower your owed taxes by $50 or so. Not exactly a bail-out situation for pet owners.

Well, that added $50 in the pocket can go towards paying bills or buying food.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Raptor

Well, that added $50 in the pocket can go towards paying bills or buying food.

---

Certainly, every little bit helps. But to say this is some sort of big help for pet owners and they will suddenly be able to afford their pets more easily because of this tax bill is silly.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JLC

Certainly, every little bit helps. But to say this is some sort of big help for pet owners and they will suddenly be able to afford their pets more easily because of this tax bill is silly.

---

I think that the only people who will get any form of major tax break are those who deal a lot with vets. Such as cattle breeders, horse trainers, etc. People who have the vets come out routinely. It's hard to say though.

Once again though....it all comes back to what the law will interpret as being a "pet".

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JLC

This isn't really true. It wouldn't be helpful at all in any emergency situation. This isn't the govt saying they'll hand out money to folks with pets. This is a person being able to deduct a certain amount of money spent on their pets from their overall income at tax time.

SO...in July, your dog is hit by a car and you incur a lot of vet bills, on top of all the regular expenses for your pet. The new tax law won't help a bit at that time. But the following spring, when you do your taxes....IF you're able to take itemized deductions, THEN you can add $3500 (at the most) to those deductions....which, depending on your situation, might lower your owed taxes by $50 or so. Not exactly a bail-out situation for pet owners.

---

True. But it doesn't really matter if people are actually getting additional money to help with pet bills or not: they see "tax benefit" or "tax break" and immediately think they'll be getting money.

This is why I like the fair tax idea, its simple, its easy and you cant evade it very well (there's always a way of course :rolleyes:) and it would essentially do away with the tax code. I am a FIRM believer of the K.I.S.S. approach to all things!! :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JLC

How many people will go out and buy a dog and chain it up in the back yard and toss food out to it now and then so they can claim a pet on their income tax? :confused:

While I can understand the attractiveness of the idea (ANYthing we can do to save money on taxes sounds good at first blush, as well as anything the government does that makes it look like they're supportive of pet ownership)...I can still see far more problems with a bill like this than saving a few dollars would be worth.

---

I agree with this. You know that people would be getting an animal and not giving it good care just so they can get income tax. IDK yes this would help me but just think what people will do to get that money.

Thanks for posthing this. I filled it out and passed the word on. :)

Im concerned with this point.

or did this already get cleared up?

`(1) QUALIFIED PET- The term `qualified pet' means a legally owned, domesticated, live animal.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 2kdime

Im concerned with this point.

or did this already get cleared up?

`(1) QUALIFIED PET- The term `qualified pet' means a legally owned, domesticated, live animal.

---

im also concerned with that it leaves alot to interpretation

Only reason I mention it is it leaves a lot of "room" for a domesticated pet.

For instance, most places don't allow pets when you rent.

But I didn't have any problems when I told em I had some snakes.

I just don't see the Government calling our snakes "domesticated"

Maybe I'm wrong.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 2kdime

Only reason I mention it is it leaves a lot of "room" for a domesticated pet.

For instance, most places don't allow pets when you rent.

But I didn't have any problems when I told em I had some snakes.

I just don't see the Government calling our snakes "domesticated"

Maybe I'm wrong.

---

well i for one agree with you, but also there is many different definitions of domestication.

then again F&W ventures off to name many many animals as domesticated

everything from cows to canaries

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 2kdime

Im concerned with this point.

or did this already get cleared up?

`(1) QUALIFIED PET- The term `qualified pet' means a legally owned, domesticated, live animal.

---

Heck, despite the fact that many species of snake have been captive bred for over a dozen generations and come in many varieties or morphs, most people who KEEP them don't consider them domesticated, how in the world can you expect the government to?

I suspect, that despite evidence to the contrary, most hobbyists don't WANT reptiles to be considered domesticated. There is a certain allure to keeping a 'wild' animal as a pet.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MarkS

Heck, despite the fact that many species of snake have been captive bred for over a dozen generations and come in many varieties or morphs, most people who KEEP them don't consider them domesticated, how in the world can you expect the government to?

I suspect, that despite evidence to the contrary, most hobbyists don't WANT reptiles to be considered domesticated. There is a certain allure to keeping a 'wild' animal as a pet.

---

yes but then again if you go by the lacey act it says this:


As used in this subsection, the term “wild” relates to any creatures that, whether or not raised in captivity, normally are found in a wild state; and the terms “wildlife” and “wildlife resources” include those
resources that comprise wild mammals, wild birds, fish (including mollusks and crustacea), and all other
classes of wild creatures whatsoever, and all types of aquatic and land vegetation upon which such wildlife
resources are dependent.


but then again if you look through the many pages of documents that are online, many say domesticated for many animals which are not domesticated

I dont trust it... Not one bit.. This is just another way to keep track of what we have. If say, a ball breeder claims hundreds on vet care for treatment, the government would have a hayday with that. You can't have over so many animals for breeding and selling out of your home with out certain business certs and license's.

It would just give them a reason to come take your animals.

Many cities have a limit on how many dogs or cats you can own. Also limits on the number of birds or reptiles. Not to mention limits on what type of reptile you can have..

I wont support this bill.. Its way too fishy.

If you are running a reptile breeding business, you already claim veterinary expenses as part of your business expenses, so there is no need to duplicate the claim, which is why they are not included in the bill.

I do agree that the definition of a domesticated animal must be settled before the Bill should go to any kind of vote. I'm not sure that I agree with the idea of a tax reward for pet owners in general, as that is a personal choice, and people who are not inclined to get pets should not get them just so they can claim a deduction.

It also depends on whether or not people will be required to prove the money spent in order to get the deduction. It looks like they will, which is a good thing.

If we can get 'Domesticated' defined to include pet reptiles, birds, fish, and small mammals that are commonly kept (similar to the way Nebraska defines domesticated), then I would support the Bill, because it think it will help animals, not necessarily because I think owning a pet deserves a tax deduction.