ISAR'S MODEL SPAY/NEUTER TAX DEDUCTION STATUTE (PART II)

 HOW YOU CAN HELP ANIMALS!

ISAR'S MODEL SPAY/NEUTER TAX DEDUCTION STATUTE (PART II)

In our Blog of October 5, 2009 we wrote the following:[1]

About a decade ago [in about 1999], again ahead of the curve, ISAR came up with the suggestion that Congress amend the Internal Revenue Code to provide a tax deduction for the cost of spay/neuter. (A copy of ISAR's Model Statute can be found HERE.) In the introduction to ISAR's Model Statute we set forth the policy reasons for the deduction, and argued that it's a "win-win" situation, as indeed it is.

Sadly, nothing came of ISAR's groundbreaking idea -- until now [in 2009].

A few months ago, Representative McCotter introduced H.R. 3501 (the "Humanity and Pets Partnered Through the Years ('HAPPY') Act"), entitled "A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to allow a deduction for pet care expenses." The Bill has been referred to the House Committee on Ways and Means.

[Apparently drawing its inspiration from ISAR's Model Statute], [t]he Bill recites that Congress finds "63 percent of United States households own a pet" and that "the Human-Animal bond has been shown to have positive effects upon people's emotional and physical well-being."

Accordingly, the IRC amendment would allow a "deduction for the taxable year an amount equal to the qualified pet care expenses[2] of the taxpayer during the taxable year for any qualified pet of the taxpayer," limited to $3,500. (The statute goes on to define "qualified pet care expenses" and "qualified pet.")

Because ISAR is a tax-exempt 501(c)(3) organization we can't lobby for legislation, but we certainly can observe that, given our Model Spay/Neuter Tax Deduction Statute, H.R. 3501 is a welcome development -- but for one problem. Had ISAR's input been sought in the drafting of H.R. 3501, we would have suggested that the deductible "qualified pet care expenses" mandatorily include spay/neuter. In other words, no reimbursement for any expenses unless included in them was the cost of spay/neuter.

Perhaps Representative McCotter, or his co-sponsors will see fit to amend their amendment.

Although ISAR considered the bill a "welcome development," we noted that a weakness was its failure to include in "qualified pet care expenses" mandatory spay/neuter.

Regrettably, the bill went nowhere, perhaps for this reason or because it included too much in "qualified pet care expenses." No such bill has been enacted by Congress since.

In our recent Blog of November 1, 2013 -- ISAR's Model Spay/Neuter Tax Deduction Statute (Part I) we revisited the subject of a tax deduction for spaying/neutering dogs and cats, making the point that the Internal Revenue Code implements social policy by its myriad allowable exemptions and deductions, that spay/neuter of pet dogs and cats serves several important public interests, and that a tax deduction on a federal and/or state level would greatly foster those interests.

In concluding, we wrote that:

ISAR is making this project -- obtaining tax relief for persons who spay/neuter their dogs and cats -- a priority.

Immediately below is the outline of an off-the-shelf bill that can be used for introduction into any state legislature and/or Congress.

As a 501(c)(3) organization, ISAR's ability to lobby for the introduction and enactment of legislation is limited. We need volunteers to carry the ball for us, and for the animals.

ISAR's proposal for a spay/neuter tax deduction is so simple, and could make such an impact on the overpopulation problem, that there should be no lack of animal advocates who are willing to find a sympathetic legislator willing to carry ISAR's proposed statute, or something similar, in his or her legislative body or administrative agency.

Often, there is an idea whose time has come. We believe that for this idea -- ISAR's "Model Spay/Neuter Tax Deduction Statute" -- the time has surely come.

But we cannot do this alone. Please help.

One response to our November 1, 2013, Blog informed us that on January 18, 2010 two West Virginia legislators had introduced a bill "relating to creating a personal income tax credit for persons who may choose to spay or neuter their pets." Because it went nowhere, Senators Laird and Snyder will reintroduce it in the next session of the West Virginia Legislature.

By itself, this is good news.

Even better is that their bill is taken almost verbatim from the Model Statute ISAR promulgated more than 20 years ago.

To repeat: ". . . we cannot do this alone. Please help." To see how easy it is to introduce ISAR's Model Spay/Neuter Tax Deduction Statute (and other of our Model Laws) click HERE.

---

^[1] Material in brackets has been added.

^[2] Emphasis added.

Good Intentions Go Astray

Bill S.767 has been introduced in the Massachusetts Legislature. Entitled "An Act relative to a private cause of action to prevent the cruel and inhumane treatment of animals," the bill seeks to confer "standing to sue" on citizens of the Commonwealth, allowing them to invoke the judicial system on behalf of animals--a worthy proposal, but put forth in a wholly inept form.

Referred to the Legislature's Joint Committee on the Judiciary, the bill provides as follows:

SECTION 1. Chapter 243 of the General Laws, as appearing in the 2010 Official Edition is amended by inserting after section 6 the following new section:

Section 7. A party of interest may bring an action under this chapter for the protection and humane treatment of animals. It shall be proper in any action to combine causes of action against one or more defendants for the protection of one or more animals. A party in interest as plaintiff shall include any person even if the person does not have any legal interest or possessory rights in an animal. Such person has standing to bring an action under this section based on the public policy against animal mistreatment. The action may be commenced against any individual, guardian or any entity that has possession of an animal and has engaged in or defendant shall include any guardian who has or is engaging in cruel or inhumane treatment of an animal or animals.

To make the proposed statute more intelligible to laypersons, we're going to rearrange it.

Who can sue? A party in interest as plaintiff shall include any person . . . . In other words, anyone. Presumably, infants to the aged, whether citizens or residents of Massachusetts or not.

Must they have a personal interest in a specific animal or animals? . . . even if the person does not have any legal interest or possessory rights in an animal. No interest of any kind whatsoever is necessary in order to invoke the judicial power of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts.

Why are they authorized to sue? Because Massachusetts has a "public policy against animal mistreatment." In other words, because the Commonwealth has laws against animal cruelty, anyone, even persons with no connection to any specific animal or animals, can bring someone to court.

Who would be the defendant or defendants? Well, this crucial sentence of the bill is unintelligible: "any individual, guardian or any entity that has possession of an animal and has engaged in or defendant shall include any guardian. . . ." Yes, that's what it says.

Engaged in what? "cruel or inhumane treatment of an animal or animals." While on its face the bill is meaningless because "cruel or inhumane" is not defined, it probably refers to conduct prohibited under other Massachusetts' statutes. Maybe.

We could say more about the bill--how its vagueness probably renders it unconstitutional, how as a practical matter it would be unmanageable, how it fails to differentiate between civil and criminal lawsuits, how damages are to be assessed, and more--but to ISAR, which has said quite a lot about the subject of standing to sue (See Animals and "Standing to Sue", Litigation) it is sufficient to observe that yet again legislators sympathetic to animals have made a colossal mistake, revealing once more good intentions gone astray.

Bill S.767 188th (Current)

By Mr. Montigny, a petition (accompanied by bill, Senate, No. 767) of Mark C. Montigny and Benjamin Swan for legislation to prevent the cruel and inhumane treatment of animals. The Judiciary.

Sponsors: Mark C. Montigny

Status: Referred to Joint Committee on the Judiciary

• Current Bill Text
• Bill History
• Miscellaneous

Download PDF

View & Print Full Page

"Cruel and inhumane treatment of an animal or animals" shall include a violation of chapter 272, sections 77 to 80G or any circumstance in which the life, health or safety of the animal is at risk. 

ISAR's Model Spay/Neuter Tax Deduction Statute

HOW YOU CAN HELP ANIMALS!

ISAR's MODEL SPAY/NEUTER TAX DEDUCTION STATUTE

Most knowledgeable people understand that the American system of income taxation, both federal and state, is only secondarily concerned with raising revenue. Compared to all revenue raised by taxation, income taxes account for only a small percentage. Indeed estimates are that in 2003 roughly 40% of Americans pay no income tax at all. The fundamental purpose of income taxes is to stimulate certain activities (and discourage others).

For example, the federal tax code long encouraged oil and gas exploration through depletion allowances. Business is helped through write-offs for equipment purchase and depreciation; even by the deductibility of many entertainment expenses. Charitable giving--contributions to ISAR, for example--is fostered by tax deductibility. Home ownership is assisted greatly by deductions for real estate taxes and mortgage interest. Other activities, not favored by the government, are discouraged through taxation. Gambling losses, for example, are not tax deductible. Taxes on tobacco are high. In other words, much of the federal tax code is driven by social policy.

In the states, the same is true. Tax codes encourage and reward certain activities with tax breaks, and discourage and penalize others with higher tax rates and non-deductibility.

As ISAR's supporters know, as part of our legal and humane education programs, for decades we have promoted the important social policy of spay/neuter as a powerful weapon in the problem of dog and cat overpopulation.

ISAR can promote that important social policy of reducing dog and cat overpopulation by enlisting in our cause every American who files a federal and/or state income tax return.

The taxpayers will benefit themselves, their intact dogs and cats, and strike an important blow for spay/neuter and against dog and cat overpopulation.

How? Like most important ideas, ISAR's is simple......

Congress and/or the state legislatures should allow a tax deduction for the spaying/neutering of taxpayers' pet dogs and cats.

Granted, obtaining such legislation from the federal House Ways and Means Committee, which writes national tax laws, or the IRS, which regulates the taxation of income, might be problematic. But not impossible.

On the other hand the situation at the state level is much different. There, legislators are much closer, and typically respond more readily, to their constituents--as many animal rights activists already know from their efforts to obtain the enactment of other pro-animal legislation.

ISAR's proposed legislation is a win-win proposition; there's something in it for everyone.

First, countless animals would be spayed and neutered who would otherwise might not be, and countless unwanted births would be avoided.

Although there would be a minuscule drop in tax revenues, there would be a concomitant savings of considerable taxpayer dollars that are now spent on catching, briefly maintaining, killing, and disposing of millions of unwanted dogs and cats.

Fewer unwanted dogs and cats and dogs means more time available to shelters and humane societies for more productive work, e.g.: cruelty investigations, public education, adoption programs.

The modest tax relief which, though not large, would probably reduce or even eliminate the charge for spaying/neutering. This, in turn, would create more paying business for veterinarians, who could then, it is hoped, afford to provide more pro bono or low-cost spay/neuter services to the truly needy custodians of dogs and cats.

An indirect, but nonetheless important, benefit of reducing the number of unwanted cats and dogs are the public health and policy aspects, e.g.: at minimum, reduction of the overpopulation problem, with the attendant consequences.

ISAR is making this project--obtaining tax relief for persons who spay/neuter their dogs and cats--a priority.

Immediately below is the outline of an off-the-shelf bill that can be used for introduction into any state legislature and/or Congress.

As a 501(c)(3) organization, ISAR's ability to lobby for the introduction and enactment of legislation is limited. We need volunteers to carry the ball for us, and for the animals.

ISAR's proposal for a spay/neuter tax deduction is so simple, and could make such an impact on the overpopulation problem, that there should be no lack of animal advocates who are willing to find a sympathetic legislator willing to carry ISAR's proposed statute, or something similar, in his or her legislative body or administrative agency.

Often, there is an idea whose time has come. We believe that for this idea--ISAR's "Model Spay/Neuter Tax Deduction Statute"--the time has surely come.

But we cannot do this alone. Please help.

"Model Spay/Neuter Tax Deduction Statute"

1. Allowance of deduction.

Subject to the limitations provided in paragraph 2 hereof, there shall be allowed as a one-time deduction against adjusted gross income amounts paid by the taxpayer for the spaying and neutering of each dog and cat which is maintained as a pet in the taxpayer's household.

2. Limitations. 

a.) The deduction herein provided shall be allowable only as to sums which have actually been expended.

b.) The spay or neuter surgical procedure shall have been performed by a duly licensed veterinarian on a live dog or cat.

c.) The amount of deduction for each cat or dog which shall have been spayed or neutered may not exceed the reasonable cost of the spay and neuter procedure in the geographical location where the surgery was performed.

d.) The deduction herein provided shall be limited to no more than three companion animals (i.e. dogs and cats) per household in any taxable year.