Call this one McCotterCare. A bill introduced Republican Congressman Thaddeus McCotter of Michigan would allow a tax deduction of up to $3,500 for your pet care expenses.
The Humanity and Pets Partnered Through the Years (“HAPPY”) Act would allow you to deduct “an amount equal to the qualified pet care expenses of the taxpayer during the taxable year for any qualified pet of the taxpayer.” The annual deduction would be capped at $3,500.
McCotter’s bill would be restricted to “qualified pets,” so a domesticated animal wouldn’t be eligible if it were used for commercial purposes. That means the horse you ride to work when Cap-and-Trade passes will not qualify.
We love Thaddeus McCotter and we love animals. Neveretheless, we wanted to believe this was a parody of ObamaCare. Unfortunately, after watching this video we’re afraid McCotter is serious.
Please feel free to consider McCotterCare proof positive that the Chinese have slipped LSD into Washington, DC’s water supply.
Source: TheHill.com
This post was last modified on January 26, 2021
View Comments (13)
111th CONGRESS
1st Session
H. R. 3501
To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to allow a deduction for pet care expenses.
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
July 31, 2009
Mr. MCCOTTER 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 a deduction for pet care expenses.
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 ‘Humanity and Pets Partnered Through the Years (HAPPY) Act’.
SEC. 2. FINDINGS.
The Congress finds the following:
(1) According to the 2007-2008 National Pet Owners Survey, 63 percent of United States households own a pet.
(2) The Human-Animal Bond has been shown to have positive effects upon people’s emotional and physical well-being.
SEC. 3. DEDUCTION FOR PET CARE EXPENSES.
(a) In General- Part VII of subchapter B of chapter 1 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to additional itemized deductions for individuals) is amended by redesignating section 224 as section 225 and by inserting after section 223 the following new section:
‘SEC. 224. PET CARE EXPENSES.
‘(a) Allowance of Deduction- In the case of an individual, there shall be allowed as a deduction for the taxable year an amount equal to the qualified pet care expenses of the taxpayer during the taxable year for any qualified pet of the taxpayer.
‘(b) Maximum Deduction- The amount allowable as a deduction under subsection (a) to the taxpayer for any taxable year shall not exceed $3,500.
‘(c) Qualified Pet Care Expenses- For purposes of this section, the term ‘qualified pet care expenses’ means amounts paid in connection with providing care (including veterinary care) for a qualified pet other than any expense in connection with the acquisition of the qualified pet.
‘(d) Qualified Pet- For purposes of this section--
‘(1) QUALIFIED PET- The term ‘qualified pet’ means a legally owned, domesticated, live animal.
‘(2) EXCEPTIONS- Such term does not include any animal--
‘(A) used for research or owned or utilized in conjunction with a trade or business, or
‘(B) with respect to which the taxpayer has claimed a deduction under section 162 or 213 in any of the preceding 3 taxable years.’.
(b) Clerical Amendment- The table of sections for part VII of subchapter B of chapter 1 of such Code is amended by striking the last item and inserting the following new items:
‘Sec. 224. Pet care expenses.
‘Sec. 225. Cross reference.’.
(c) Effective Date- The amendments made by this section shall apply to taxable years beginning after December 31, 2009.
I disagree with your analysis: Singles have for years had to pay for other people's children through tax credits. But pets are my kids - why shouldn't you have to pay for them as I do for yours?
Of course, in a better world we'd have a flat tax and NO deductions. But until we get there, I'll take this.
I hope that was said tongue-in-check. Pets are not children. You're tongue was in your check, right?
We have a toad that lives under the porch. Would that count for tax deductive purposes? If so, I support this bill!
Will this allow the "funemployed" to buy pet food to eat?
no way, its parody, mccotter seems like the kind of guy who would take this joke as far as he possibly could, before pulling back
Check the demeanor of the babe. Gotta be a put on but hey, any tax cut is a good thing right?
Good one Doc! I hope he is joking, but I find that most members of congress have the humor defective gene.
I would like to go with it's a joke but I don't know. Keep in mind, he is a congressman.
McCotter was again hosing the LIBTARD side of the House...
Since McCotter's humor is dry and droll this bill introduction wasn't serious but apparently the one who posted this on 'I Hate the Media' didn't get it...
That possibility crossed our mind when we read the story, Juandos, but he seems completely serious in the video. We hope you're right.
My vote is for poking fun of DemCare and Cash 4 Clunkers.
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=h110-3501
This bill was introduced in 2007 and didn't go anywhere and doesn't mention pets. McCotter does not show a a co-sponsor.