HB4037 adds a new "education opportunity" individual income tax credit (section 43-1073.02) that credits taxpayers for qualifying dependent children based on the state’s base support level. The credit has two payout tiers — 80% of the base support level for children who did not attend public school or participate in the state's empowerment scholarship account during the taxable year, and 40% for children who attended public school or used an ESA for up to 50% of instructional days.
The bill makes the credit refundable (paid as a refund if it exceeds tax liability after other credits and setoffs), directs the Department of Revenue to adopt rules and forms (with the option to consult the Department of Education), and amends filing rules so the credit is listed among those allowed on short and simplified return forms. It also inserts the new credit into the legislative review schedule for periodic oversight.
The combination of a sizable refundable credit and minimal statutory verification creates immediate budget and administrative questions for revenue and education officials.
At a Glance
What It Does
Creates a refundable education opportunity credit for each qualifying child equal to either 80% or 40% of the state base support level, depending on the child's public-school or ESA attendance during the year. The Department of Revenue must adopt rules and may consult the Department of Education to verify enrollment or ESA participation; refunds are processed under the state's existing refund and setoff provisions.
Who It Affects
Families whose dependent children are homeschooled, attend private schools, split time between public school and private/ESA programs, and users of Arizona's empowerment scholarship accounts; the Department of Revenue and Department of Education for verification and administration; and the state general fund because the credit is refundable.
Why It Matters
The credit ties a tax benefit directly to the base support level used in K-12 funding formulas, creating a direct fiscal link between school-choice activity and state tax expenditures. Because the credit is refundable and has limited statutory verification, it creates near-term revenue exposure and administrative burden while incentivizing shifts in enrollment patterns.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
The bill creates a new tax credit that targets families of dependent children who are eligible to attend Arizona public schools but were not enrolled in public school for more than half the instructional days of the taxable year and likewise did not participate in an Arizona empowerment scholarship account for more than half the year. The statute uses the federal definition of dependent (IRC §152) to identify qualifying children and then sets two payout levels tied to the "base support level" from the state's school funding statute (section 15-943).
There are three mechanics to watch. First, the size of the credit is expressed as a percentage of the base support level: 80% where the child had no public-school attendance and no ESA participation during the taxable year, and 40% where the child either attended public school or participated in an ESA for not more than 50% of instructional days.
Second, the credit is refundable: if it exceeds the taxpayer's liability after other credits and required setoffs, the excess is paid as a refund under the state's existing refund statute. Third, the Department of Revenue is charged with rulemaking and form design and is explicitly allowed to consult the Department of Education to determine enrollment or ESA participation status.Beyond the credit itself, HB4037 amends the state’s filing-form rules so that the new credit is listed among the credits that allow individual taxpayers to use short or simplified returns.
The simplified-return provisions also gain a specific prohibition: the simplified form must not include any space for a taxpayer to contribute a portion of a refund to designated funds. Finally, the bill inserts the new credit into the joint legislative income tax credit review schedule, so it will be subject to periodic committee review in the years specified by statute.Operationally, the statute leaves significant detail to agency rulemaking: the effective date language places the credit for taxable years beginning on or after December 31, 2025, and the department must create forms and procedures to determine a child's qualifying status.
The statute also links refund processing to existing setoff rules, meaning the credit interacts with the state’s debt collection and offset mechanisms.
The Five Things You Need to Know
The credit applies to taxable years beginning on or after December 31, 2025.
Credit amounts are set as percentages of the state 'base support level' (section 15-943): 80% for children with no public-school attendance and no ESA participation during the year; 40% for children who attended public school or used an ESA for up to 50% of instructional days.
The credit is refundable: any excess after applying other credits and statutorily required setoffs is paid as a refund under Arizona's existing refund statute (section 42-1118).
The Department of Revenue must adopt implementing rules and forms and may consult the Department of Education to confirm public-school enrollment or ESA participation.
The bill adds the new section to the joint legislative income tax credit review schedule and updates short/simplified return rules to allow claiming this credit while removing any line on simplified returns to contribute part of a refund.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Adds the new credit to the legislative review schedule
This amendment places the newly created section 43-1073.02 on the joint legislative income tax credit review committee's scheduled reviews (years ending in 1 and 6). Practically, that means the credit will be subject to the same periodic legislative evaluation as other tax expenditures, but not before its first scheduled review year. The timing determines when lawmakers will have a structured opportunity to assess fiscal impacts and program outcomes.
Changes to short and simplified individual return eligibility and form content
The bill updates the lists of credits that permit taxpayers to use the department's short and simplified returns by including the new education opportunity credit. It also directs that simplified return forms may not include any line that lets a taxpayer donate a portion of a refund to other funds under chapter 6, article 1. That combination lowers paperwork for eligible claimants but also removes a common voluntary giving mechanism from simplified filings, and it requires the Department of Revenue to modify return layouts and software logic.
Creates the Education Opportunity Tax Credit and sets eligibility and payment rules
This is the operative provision. It defines a "qualifying child" using the federal dependent standard and attendance thresholds (not more than 50% public school attendance or ESA participation), sets two credit tiers tied to the base support level (80% and 40%), makes the credit refundable after other credits and setoffs, and authorizes DOR to adopt rules and forms — including consulting the Department of Education to verify enrollment or ESA participation. The statute relies on external definitions (base support level in section 15-943 and ESA rules in section 15-2402) rather than declaring dollar amounts, which means annual credit values will track legislative or administrative changes to the funding formula.
Legislative intent invoking school-choice objectives
The stated purpose ties the credit to expanding educational choices for families and improving the statewide educational landscape. While nonbinding, this clause signals the policy objective that will guide rulemaking and administrative interpretation, and it may influence disputes about ambiguous statutory phrases during implementation.
This bill is one of many.
Codify tracks hundreds of bills on Education across all five countries.
Explore Education in Codify Search →Who Benefits and Who Bears the Cost
Every bill creates winners and losers. Here's who stands to gain and who bears the cost.
Who Benefits
- Families homeschooling or using private instruction without ESAs: They are eligible for the higher 80%-of-base-support tier when the child had no public-school attendance and no ESA participation during the taxable year, which can translate into a substantial refundable benefit.
- Families who split time between public school and private/ESA programs: These households may qualify for the 40% tier if the child’s public-school attendance or ESA participation does not exceed 50% of instructional days, providing a partial subsidy for mixed enrollment arrangements.
- Private schools and nonpublic educational providers: By lowering net costs for families outside full-time public school, the credit can increase demand for private schooling and tuition-based services.
- Advocates and administrators of school-choice programs: The credit complements empowerment scholarship accounts and other choice policies by creating an additional, tax-based incentive that operates independently of ESA account balances.
- Taxpayers who otherwise have little or no income tax liability: Because the credit is refundable, low- and moderate-income households can receive a cash refund even if they owe no state income tax.
Who Bears the Cost
- Arizona general fund / taxpayers broadly: Refundable tax credits reduce net state revenue and create up-front fiscal exposure when paid as refunds, increasing pressure on the budget unless offset elsewhere.
- Department of Revenue: DOR must design forms, implement eligibility checks, integrate the credit into electronic filing systems, and establish verification procedures — all without an appropriation in the bill.
- Department of Education and school districts: ADE may be asked to provide enrollment data or verification for DOR; districts could see enrollment shifts that affect average daily membership and local planning.
- Public schools (potentially): If the credit encourages movement away from public schools, districts may face decreased enrollment and attendant budgetary and programmatic impacts.
- Tax preparers and software vendors: They must update intake questions, calculations, and e-filing flows to reflect the new credit and the revised short/simplified return rules, which creates operational and compliance costs.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The bill pits two legitimate goals against each other: expanding parental choice and lowering out-of-pocket education costs versus protecting the state budget and public-school funding stability. The statute achieves the first by creating a refundable, formula-linked tax benefit that flows to families outside full-time public school, but doing so without tight verification, income limits, or a cap raises hard questions about cost control, equitable targeting, and administrative feasibility.
The bill leaves critical operational work to the Department of Revenue, which must adopt rules and forms to determine when a child qualifies. Those rules will need to define terms not fully specified in the statute (for example, how to calculate "instructional days" when a child moves midyear, attends part-time programs, or participates in virtual schooling) and to establish what documentation suffices to show nonattendance or limited ESA participation.
The statutory permission to consult the Department of Education helps, but cross-agency data-sharing raises privacy, timing, and technical-integration questions that will affect how quickly refunds can be issued and how much staff time verification consumes.
The refundable nature of the credit creates immediate fiscal exposure: because refunds are paid after required setoffs, the state will see cash outflows tied to tax-year activity rather than later budget adjustments. The statute does not include a cap, phaseout, or income threshold, so take-up among eligible families will depend on outreach, awareness, and administrative ease.
That combination of a potentially large per-child benefit (tied to the base support level) and open eligibility increases the risk of higher-than-expected revenue losses. At the same time, the statutory language contains ambiguities — for example, the interplay between the stricter no-attendance condition for the 80% tier and the looser "not more than 50%" language for the 40% tier — that DOR will have to resolve in rulemaking, potentially producing different outcomes than some stakeholders expect.
Finally, the change to simplified return forms (removing any line to contribute a portion of a refund) is a mechanical but consequential policy choice: it streamlines forms but removes a common low-friction charitable or special-fund giving channel. Separately, inserting the credit into the scheduled legislative review process ensures eventual oversight, but the statutory review timing may lag several years after the credit's first claims, delaying legislative insight into real-world fiscal and enrollment impacts.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.