The bill inserts a new Section 23A into the Internal Revenue Code to create a federal income tax credit for assisted reproductive technology (ART) expenses. The credit equals the taxpayer’s ART expenses for the year but is capped at $20,000 per taxpayer ($40,000 for joint filers), phases out as adjusted gross income rises, disallows credit for reimbursed expenses, and may be carried forward for up to five years.
This is a targeted affordability measure: it reduces out‑of‑pocket costs for people paying for IVF and related ART procedures, while preserving anti‑double‑dipping limits and an AGI‑based phaseout to restrict benefits to middle‑ and lower‑middle income filers. The design raises immediate implementation and equity questions — chiefly that the credit is limited by tax liability (nonrefundable) and interacts with insurance, employer benefits, and existing tax deductions and credits.
At a Glance
What It Does
The bill allows a credit against federal income tax equal to assisted reproductive technology expenses paid in the taxable year, limited to $20,000 for an individual and $40,000 for married joint filers. It phases the credit out by adjusted gross income, denies the credit for reimbursed or otherwise already deducted expenses, and permits unused credit amounts to carry forward up to five years.
Who It Affects
Directly affects individuals who pay for IVF and other ART services, fertility clinics that bill those patients, health insurers and employers with fertility benefits, and the IRS (tax administration). Tax preparers and benefits managers will handle new documentation and filing rules.
Why It Matters
This is one of the first federal tax provisions that directly subsidizes fertility treatment costs rather than relying on health‑plan mandates. It will change out‑of‑pocket calculus for patients, affect demand for clinic services, and create new compliance tasks for the IRS and employers; its nonrefundable structure and AGI phaseouts also shape who actually receives the value.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
The bill creates Section 23A of the Internal Revenue Code to let taxpayers claim a credit equal to the amount they paid for assisted reproductive technology in a tax year, subject to a dollar cap. For single filers the cap is $20,000; for married couples filing jointly (or a surviving spouse in the covered circumstance) the cap is $40,000.
The statute borrows the federal definition of assisted reproductive technology from the Fertility Clinic Success Rate and Certification Act of 1992, so the kinds of procedures covered track that existing statutory definition.
To limit benefits for higher‑income households, the credit phases out as adjusted gross income rises above specified thresholds. For single filers the phaseout begins when AGI exceeds $200,000 and completes when it exceeds $300,000; for joint filers the phaseout runs from $400,000 to $600,000.
The bill says AGI for this test must be calculated without regard to certain foreign‑income exclusions, so taxpayers using those exclusions will not get artificially lower AGI for phaseout purposes.The bill prevents double benefits: any ART expense that is reimbursed by insurance or used to claim another deduction or credit must be reduced by the amount of this credit, and the statute expressly disallows claiming the credit for an expense that has been reimbursed. It also imposes filing rules for married taxpayers (rules modeled on existing child‑and‑dependent care filing rules) and stops multiple taxpayers from claiming credits for the same dependent’s ART expenses.Finally, the credit is limited by the taxpayer’s tax liability rather than being refundable.
If the credit exceeds the allowable limit in a year because of the tax liability cap, the unused portion carries forward for up to five taxable years and is applied first‑in, first‑out. The bill applies to taxable years beginning after enactment, and it makes several conforming changes to the subpart table and cross‑references in the Code.
The Five Things You Need to Know
The credit equals qualified assisted reproductive technology expenses but is capped at $20,000 per individual and $40,000 for joint filers in a single year.
The credit phases out proportionally: for singles it phases between AGI $200,000 and $300,000 (and for joint filers between $400,000 and $600,000), with AGI calculated ignoring sections 911, 931, and 933.
Expenses that are reimbursed by insurance or otherwise used to claim another deduction or credit are reduced by, or excluded from, the credit — the bill bars double‑dipping.
Unused credit amounts are carried forward up to five years on a first‑in, first‑out basis; the credit itself is constrained by section 26(a) (i.e.
it is limited by tax liability and not explicitly refundable).
Married taxpayers claiming the credit must generally file jointly under rules modeled on section 21(e); dependents’ ART expenses cannot be claimed by multiple taxpayers.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Short title
Gives the Act the public name “IVF Access and Affordability Act.” Short titles are procedural, but they also signal legislative intent to focus this measure on access and affordability rather than, say, tax simplification.
Allowance of credit for ART expenses
Adds a new Section 23A(a) that permits a taxpayer, spouse, or dependent to claim a credit equal to assisted reproductive technology expenses paid that taxable year. Practically, this creates a new credit line item the IRS must administer and tax preparers must populate, and it ties eligibility to documented ART expenses per the federal ART definition.
Caps and AGI phaseout rules
Section 23A(b) sets the $20,000/$40,000 dollar caps and the income‑phaseout mechanism. The phaseout reduces the credit proportionally using a simple ratio: for singles the credit falls to zero as AGI moves from $200k to $300k (and for joint filers from $400k to $600k). It also instructs that AGI for the phaseout ignores common foreign‑income exclusions, preventing offshore income rules from enlarging eligibility.
Anti‑double‑dipping and reimbursement exclusion
This provision requires taxpayers to reduce other tax benefits by the amount of this credit and flatly bars credits for expenses already reimbursed by insurance or other payments. That creates a compliance hinge point: taxpayers (and insurers) must coordinate on whether an expense was reimbursed and how that affects allowable deductions/credits.
Five‑year carryforward and tax‑liability cap
If a taxpayer cannot use the full credit in a year because it exceeds the taxpayer’s tax liability (the limit in section 26(a)), the unused portion carries forward for up to five years and is applied FIFO. The bill therefore functions as a nonrefundable credit with limited portability across years, which constrains benefit value for low‑income taxpayers with small or no tax liability.
Definition of ART; eligible individuals; married‑filing and dependent rules
The bill defines assisted reproductive technology by cross‑reference to the Fertility Clinic Success Rate and Certification Act of 1992, includes taxpayers, spouses, and dependents as eligible individuals for whose expenses the credit may be claimed, requires married claimants to meet joint‑filing rules modeled on section 21(e), and prevents multiple taxpayers from claiming credits for the same dependent’s ART expenses. Those choices shape both eligibility and enforcement complexity.
Code cross‑references and effective date
The bill updates the subpart A table of sections and adjusts cross‑references in sections 23(c) and 25(e) to account for the new credit. It applies to taxable years beginning after the date of enactment, meaning the IRS will need to add forms and guidance in the next filing season after enactment.
This bill is one of many.
Codify tracks hundreds of bills on Healthcare across all five countries.
Explore Healthcare 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
- Individuals and couples paying out‑of‑pocket for ART — they receive a direct federal tax offset that can materially reduce lifetime treatment costs, particularly for multi‑cycle care. The credit’s dollar cap makes it most valuable to patients with high aggregated ART bills.
- Fertility clinics — increased affordability for price‑sensitive patients can raise demand for services and reduce unpaid balances if patients can use expected tax credits to pay providers.
- Families without comprehensive employer or insurer fertility benefits — those who previously self‑funded care gain the largest incremental subsidy, especially middle‑income households beneath the phaseout thresholds.
Who Bears the Cost
- Federal Treasury — the credit will reduce income tax receipts. The magnitude depends on uptake, carryforward use, and average claim size; Congress will trade revenue for targeted health subsidy.
- IRS and tax preparers — they must implement new forms, guidance, documentation standards, and audit rules to verify ART expenses, reimbursements, and carryforwards, increasing administrative workload.
- Health insurers and employers — the explicit bar on claiming the credit for reimbursed expenses changes the economics of plan reimbursements and may shift bargaining over coverage design; employers with self‑funded plans may face coordination and recordkeeping burdens.
- Low‑income taxpayers with little or no tax liability — because the credit is limited by tax liability (not refundable), these taxpayers may receive little direct benefit unless they can use carryforwards, so the distribution of benefit is skewed away from the lowest incomes.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The bill balances two legitimate goals — improving affordability of ART and preventing public subsidy from duplicating private coverage — but those aims push in opposite directions: a generous, refundable subsidy would maximize access for lower‑income patients but cost more and risk duplicate payments, while the chosen nonrefundable, capped, and phase‑out design limits fiscal exposure and double‑dipping but reduces benefit value for the lowest‑income patients who often face the greatest affordability barriers.
The bill’s biggest operational hinge is verification: the IRS will need rules on what documentation proves an ART expense, how to treat partial reimbursements, and how to coordinate with insurers and employers. Because the definition of ART is a cross‑reference to an older statute, disputes may arise over whether certain newer procedures or ancillary services qualify.
Those interpretive fights will determine how much of typical patient spending actually counts.
Equity and targeting are also unresolved. The credit is capped but nonrefundable and limited by tax liability, which systematically benefits filers with higher tax bills and leaves low‑income patients with smaller gains.
The AGI phaseout narrows the beneficiary pool, but the combination of a high dollar cap and nonrefundable structure still tends to concentrate value among middle‑income taxpayers who both need treatment and have substantial taxable income. Finally, the reimbursement ban creates odd incentives: patients might forgo insurance reimbursement to claim the credit, or insurers might redesign benefits to exclude categories to preserve actuarial cost—either outcome could shift costs and coverage unpredictably.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.