Posted on 06/09/2007 5:40:59 PM PDT by Remember_Salamis
Family Education Freedom Act of 2007 (Introduced in House)
HR 1056 IH
110th CONGRESS
1st Session
H. R. 1056
To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to allow individuals a credit against income tax for tuition and related expenses for public and nonpublic elementary and secondary education.
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
February 14, 2007
Mr. PAUL (for himself, Mr. FEENEY, Mr. RUSH, and Mr. SENSENBRENNER) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Ways and Means
A BILL
To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to allow individuals a credit against income tax for tuition and related expenses for public and nonpublic elementary and secondary education.
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the `Family Education Freedom Act of 2007'.
SEC. 2. CREDIT FOR TUITION AND RELATED EXPENSES FOR PUBLIC AND NONPUBLIC ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDUCATION.
(a) In General- Subpart A of part IV of subchapter A of chapter 1 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to nonrefundable personal credits) is amended by inserting after section 25D the following new section:
`SEC. 25E. TUITION AND RELATED EXPENSES FOR PUBLIC AND NONPUBLIC ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDUCATION.
`(a) Allowance of Credit- In the case of an individual, there shall be allowed as a credit against the tax imposed by this chapter for the taxable year an amount equal to the qualified educational expenses paid during such taxable year for the elementary or secondary education of any dependent (as defined in section 152) of the taxpayer at a qualified educational institution.
`(b) Limitation- The credit allowed by this section shall not exceed $5,000 per student for any taxable year.
`(c) Definitions- For purposes of this section--
`(1) QUALIFIED EDUCATIONAL EXPENSES- The term `qualified educational expenses' means cost of attendance in connection with the elementary or secondary education of the student at a qualified educational institution. Under regulations prescribed by the Secretary, rules similar to the rules relating to cost of attendance (within the meaning of section 472 of the Higher Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 1087ll) (as in effect on the date of the enactment of this paragraph) shall apply for purposes of the preceding sentence.
`(2) QUALIFIED EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTION- The term `qualified educational institution' means any educational institution (including any private, parochial, religious, or home school) organized for the purpose of providing elementary or secondary education, or both.
`(d) Cost-of-Living Adjustment-
`(1) IN GENERAL- In the case of any taxable year beginning in a calendar year after 2007, the $5,000 amount contained in subsection (b) shall be increased by an amount equal to--
`(A) $5,000, multiplied by
`(B) the cost-of-living adjustment determined under section 1(f)(3) for the calendar year in which the taxable year begins by substituting `calendar year 2006' for `calendar year 1992' in subparagraph (B) thereof.
`(2) ROUNDING- If any increase determined under paragraph (1) is not a multiple of $10, such increase shall be rounded to the next highest multiple of $10. In the case of a married individual (as determined under section 7703) filing a separate return, the preceding sentence shall be applied by substituting `$5' for `$10' each place it appears.
`(e) Regulations- The Secretary shall prescribe regulations to carry out this section, including regulations providing for claiming the credit under this section on Form 1040EZ.'.
(b) Clerical Amendment- The table of sections for subpart A of part IV of subchapter A of chapter 1 of such Code is amended by inserting after the item relating to section 25D the following new item:
`Sec. 25E. Tuition and related expenses for public and nonpublic elementary and secondary education.'.
(c) Effective Date- The amendments made by this section shall apply to amounts paid in taxable years beginning after December 31, 2006.
He started the newsletter in the late ‘80s when he was still in office. He left office and stopped working on it, putting it on auto-pilot.
If it was his newsletter with his name and reputation associated with it, as it appears to have been, he was either extremely foolish and irresponsible... or... he agreed with what was written in it. In either case, he isn’t off the hook.
Up front, I am not necessarily a Ron Paul supporter, but maybe, just maybe, Mr. Paul is reading the Constitution and returning the power to make those laws back to the several States, where it is MOST appropriate.
Washington, FedGov, is NOT the answer to all our problems. Acting Local or Statewide is better, as the solutions can be tailored to the local needs.
So, perhaps, Mr. Paul IS against the pedophiles, et al, but believes that increasing FedGov’s powers isn’t the way to go. Just my .02
Unfortunately that is all too true with a lot of those who can only sing one note.
When he is right, he is right. There is no one in Washington D.C. who can match his consistent commitment to limit the reach of government. Him being wrong on the WOT does not change this fact.
Don't we all worship the great god Democracy? Why shouldn't we try to set up other countries with a despicable form of government that we were warned to never adopt?
“I don’t care how invested you are in the Iraq war, Ron Paul takes his oath to protect and defend the Constitution more seriously than any other congress-critter out there.”
That he does.
I guess you guys have forgotten the Free Republic Motto:
R equals Gooood. D equals Baaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaad.
Go ask any "top tier candidate" supporter if you need clarification.
“Most of the “conservatives” on FR consider the Constitution quite fungible. It only is an issue when there’s a (D) at 1600.”
Unfortunately this is all too true.
Well, he’s been off the hook with his voters, who are 1/8th Black and 1/8th Hispanic. Nobody cares down there. His story that he fired the man is accepted.
I would be glad for him to get national media coverage to answer the question.
Uh, dude...got news for you, Israel is like another U.S. state...like Idaho, or Wisconsin...they have over a hundred thousand Americans living there...so, yes, it’s a good argument. I guess you are anti-semitic too?
Yes, he is. Ron Paul hates Jews, hates Israel too.
Wow...Ron Paul is nuttier than I thought! I didn’t know about his racist views, that’s highly interesting. Thanks for your post.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.