H.r. 3501

[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!

[nixer]

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.

[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?

[nixer]

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?

sea monkeys thats a good one.

[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?

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.

[Oxylepy]

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?

[mainbutter]

[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.

[Raptor]

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.

[MattU]

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.

[Eventide]

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.