The PACE Act moves the existing Child and Dependent Care Tax Credit into the part of the tax code that houses refundable credits, increases the credit’s generosity, and applies inflation indexing to the credit’s dollar limits. It also raises the amount employees can exclude for employer-provided dependent care assistance and indexes that exclusion.
Those changes change who gets immediate cash benefit (refundability), alter interactions between employer-dependent care benefits and the tax credit, and increase potential federal outlays. Compliance and payroll systems will need updating to reflect redesigned code references, new indexing mechanics, and a higher exclusion cap for employer programs.
At a Glance
What It Does
The bill redesignates section 21 as section 36C and relocates it to the refundable-credits subpart of the Internal Revenue Code, changes the credit’s rate structure to boost taxpayer share, and adds cost‑of‑living indexing with rounding rules for the credit and employer exclusion. It also increases the maximum tax‑free employer dependent care exclusion.
Who It Affects
Working families that claim dependent care expenses, employers that sponsor dependent-care assistance programs or FSAs, payroll and benefits administrators, tax preparers, and the IRS (for implementation and enforcement). Federal budget offices will also be affected by increased outlays.
Why It Matters
Making the credit refundable converts it from a potential reduction of tax liability to a direct cash benefit for low- and middle-income households that owe little or no federal income tax. Raising the employer exclusion and indexing both amounts changes incentives around employer-provided benefits and creates administrative and compliance work for employers and tax agencies.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
The bill repackages the Child and Dependent Care Tax Credit so it functions as a fully refundable credit rather than solely as a nonrefundable credit against income tax. Practically, that means taxpayers who previously received little or no benefit because they had low tax liability will be eligible to receive the credit as a refundable payment.
The sponsor accomplishes this by redesignating the existing statutory section and moving it into the portion of the tax code where refundable credits reside, while also updating cross‑references across the code.
Beyond refundability, the Act increases how generous the credit calculation is by changing the rate structure used to compute the credit. It then adds explicit indexing: dollar limits relevant to the credit will rise with inflation using the tax code’s cost‑of‑living formula, with statutory rounding rules to avoid fractional increases.
Those indexing rules use substituted base years to govern the first indexed adjustments and specify rounding increments.The bill also raises the exclusion for employer‑provided dependent care assistance, changing the maximum pretax exclusion employees can receive through their employers. That exclusion is likewise placed on a glide path to inflation adjustments under the bill, again with statutory rounding.
Because employer exclusions reduce the amount of expenses available to compute the credit, the interplay between a larger exclusion and a more generous refundable credit will matter at taxpayer level: employers and payroll vendors will need to coordinate reporting, and tax preparers will need to rework return worksheets that calculate interaction between the exclusion and the credit.Finally, the statutory language includes a series of technical amendments to update cross‑references and the table of sections so the rest of the Internal Revenue Code points to the newly located credit. Those technical edits are procedural but necessary: they control how other provisions—such as tax-exempt fringe rules and collection procedures—refer to the dependent care credit in practice.
The Five Things You Need to Know
The bill redesignates section 21 as section 36C and moves it to subpart C of part IV of subchapter A (the refundable‑credits subpart), effectively making the Child and Dependent Care Tax Credit fully refundable.
It alters the credit’s rate language by replacing the phrase '35 percent reduced (but not below 20 percent)' with '50 percent reduced (but not below 35 percent)', increasing the taxpayer’s share used in credit calculations.
The Act adds a cost‑of‑living adjustment for the credit’s dollar amounts for taxable years after 2025, using the section 1(f)(3) COLA formula with a substituted base year and rounds increases to the nearest $50.
It increases the maximum excludable amount for employer‑provided dependent care from $5,000 ($2,500 for married filing separately) to $7,500 (with the married filing separately amount being half), and creates COLA indexing for that exclusion with increases rounded to the nearest $100.
All changes are effective for taxable years beginning after December 31, 2025 (with the employer‑exclusion indexing taking effect for taxable years beginning in calendar years after 2026 under the bill’s text).
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Short title — PACE Act
Establishes 'Promoting Affordable Childcare for Everyone Act' (PACE Act) as the short title. This is a formal naming provision and carries no substantive tax rules, but it frames the bill’s policy objective for interpretive and legislative-history purposes.
Redesignation and relocation of the dependent care credit
Redesignates current section 21 as section 36C and inserts that new section into subpart C of part IV of subchapter A—placing it alongside other refundable credits—and updates an array of cross‑references across the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes (including section 129, section 213, section 6213, and title 31 references). The practical effect is to change how other provisions in the code refer to the dependent care credit and to put the credit in the statutory location used for refundable credits, which alters the credit’s treatment when calculating taxpayers’ liabilities and refunds. The section also updates the code tables so printed and electronic code references align with the new numbering.
Enhancement and indexing of the Child and Dependent Care Tax Credit
Amends the (now) section 36C substantive text to increase the credit’s rate structure (modifying the internal percentage language) and inserts an inflation‑adjustment subsection. The indexing clause ties the credit’s dollar thresholds to the cost‑of‑living adjustment under section 1(f)(3) with a substituted base year for the first post‑enactment calculation and prescribes rounding to the nearest $50. The provision also removes an existing subsection and renumbers others to accommodate the new inflation language. These mechanics determine how the credit scales over time and fix the rounding rules used for annual updates.
Increase and indexing of employer‑provided dependent care exclusion
Raises the tax‑free exclusion for employer‑provided dependent care assistance programs by substituting a higher dollar cap (and making the married‑filing‑separately cap equal to half that amount). The bill replaces the static dollar amounts with a new indexing rule for taxable years after 2026, using the section 1(f)(3) COLA substitution specified and instructing the IRS to round annual increases to the nearest $100. Because the exclusion reduces eligible expenses for computing the credit, this section changes the arithmetic taxpayers and preparers use when reconciling pretax employer benefits with the refundable credit.
This bill is one of many.
Codify tracks hundreds of bills on Finance across all five countries.
Explore Finance 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
- Low‑ and moderate‑income working parents and caregivers — Because the credit becomes refundable, households with little or no income tax liability can now receive the credit as a cash refund, improving cash flow for families who incur dependent care costs.
- Single parents and households with multiple dependents — The higher credit generosity and higher allowable employer exclusion will raise the potential tax‑benefit ceiling for many working single heads of household and families that previously exhausted the nonrefundable credit.
- Employees who receive employer‑sponsored dependent care assistance — The larger exclusion increases the portion of dependent‑care benefits that can be provided tax‑free, effectively boosting take‑home pay for workers whose employers expand programs.
- Childcare providers and local care markets — By increasing net family resources available to pay for care, the bill can raise demand for licensed care services, benefiting providers that can capture that demand.
Who Bears the Cost
- Federal Treasury (taxpayers at large) — Refundability and higher caps increase federal outlays or reduce revenue, creating a budgetary cost that must be financed through appropriations offsets or borrowing.
- Employers and payroll/benefits administrators — Employers must adjust plan documents, payroll systems, and reporting to reflect the higher exclusion and to coordinate pretax benefit amounts with the refundable credit on employee returns; small employers may face disproportionate compliance costs.
- IRS and tax administration systems — The IRS must update forms, instructions, refund‑processing rules, and compliance routines to implement refundability, new indexing formulas, and the relocated statutory citation, requiring programming and guidance resources.
- Tax preparers and software vendors — Tax preparation workflows and software calculators will need updates to handle the credit’s refundability, changed rate language, indexing mechanics, and new interplay with employer exclusions, creating implementation costs and initial taxpayer confusion.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The central dilemma is between expanding immediate, universal cash support for caregivers by making the credit refundable and the fiscal and administrative consequences of doing so: refundability increases federal outlays and susceptibility to improper payments, while leaving the credit nonrefundable preserves budgetary containment but excludes the lowest‑income households that need help most. The bill prioritizes access and simplicity for recipients at the cost of higher programmatic expense and increased administrative complexity for employers and the IRS.
The bill’s most consequential operational move is the statutory relocation of the credit into the refundable‑credits subpart—functionally converting it into a refundable payment. That approach achieves the sponsor’s policy objective without extensive new statutory computation language, but it raises implementation questions: how the credit interacts with existing withholding and refund procedures, whether additional anti‑fraud safeguards are needed for refundable payments, and how aggregates of refundable credits will be prioritized during offset or levy processes.
The technical amendments scattered through sections 129, 213, 6213 and title 31 update cross‑references, but they also create a short window for clerical mismatch between older tax guidance and the new citations that the IRS must address quickly.
Another tension is the interplay between the larger employer exclusion and a more generous, refundable credit. Employer‑provided pretax benefits reduce the pool of qualified expenses that generate a credit; an employer that expands its dependent‑care benefits could reduce an employee’s creditable expenses even while increasing the employee’s pretax compensation.
That interaction is not changed substantively by the bill, but the combined effect of higher exclusion caps and a refundable credit can yield uneven outcomes across households depending on benefit design, family income, and filing status. Finally, the bill relies on substituted base‑years and specific rounding rules for initial indexing.
Those choices simplify initial calculations but can produce step changes in benefit levels in early years and produce distributional winners and losers depending on how rounding aggregates with inflation.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.