LANSING, Mich. - When the Affordable Care Act became law, it didn't just affect health care; it also changed what adoptive parents can claim on their taxes. Namely, the tax credit for adoption-related expenses went from being nonrefundable to refundable.

Accountant Jeremy Rospierski with Lutheran Social Services of Michigan is a tax preparer and an adoptive parent. He says that in the past, that meant the credit could only be used to offset any taxes you owed, with any extra rolled into the following year. But now, he says, the change means adoptive parents will get cash back - even if they don't owe anything.

"A refundable credit means that you can get the entire credit in the year that you file your Adoption Credit."

Under U.S. tax law, qualified expenses include adoption fees, court costs, attorney fees and travel expenses. Rospierski says that unused credits from the past five years can be carried forward, so parents who did not receive the full credit in the past can file an amendment for expenses going back to 2005.

The maximum amount adoptive parents can claim per child for 2011 is $13,360. Rospierski says parents who have adopted a special needs child are eligible to claim the maximum credit. He stresses that the definition of "special needs" is broader than many parents might be aware and is based on three criteria.

"One, the child is a U.S. citizen. The second qualification is that it's determined that the child will not return to the parents' home, which if you're adopted that's going to be the case. Number three is the state determines that the child will not be adopted unless assistance is provided for that child."

Rospierski says the tax return must also include a copy of the state's determination of special needs.

More information about the changes is online on the Internal Revenue Service website.

While Tax Day is typically April 15, this year, the deadline for filing federal tax returns is Tuesday, April 17.




get more stories like this via email

An annual report shows Minnesota now tops 62,000 clean-energy jobs, a new state record. Federal and state policies are fueling growth. However, project developers signal a need for a robust pipeline of workers. Clean Energy Economy Minnesota's latest summary says that in 2023, jobs tied to non-fossil fuel energy sources grew nearly five times faster than the state's overall economy.

Gregg Mast, Clean Energy Economy Minnesota executive director, credits the federal Inflation Reduction Act, as well as a state law requiring carbon-free electricity by 2040, for helping the sector move further past pandemic disruptions.

"The future looks very bright with jobs in the sector, and we expect to see these numbers grow by another 6% or more this year," he explained.

Industry leaders say solar, wind and similar projects also are doing a better job in providing strong wages and benefits to those hired to construct these systems. But some firms hope for more training opportunities so they can have enough engineers and other experts design projects in the development queue. While election outcomes could impact certain government incentives, advocates remain optimistic about future growth.

Andy Kim, president of EVS Engineering in the Twin Cities-area, which specializes in the solar-energy substation and battery-storage markets, said over the past decade, they've grown from about 35 staff members to nearly 200. The hard part is finding enough people to fill the accelerated pace of openings.

"It's an industry where people want to go," he said. "It's also an industry where our educational system doesn't have the track record of putting those people out because it's a new industry."

Roughly 40 colleges around the country now offer renewable-energy engineering degree programs. But Kim suggested that many more need to follow suit to meet future demand. Other institutions and technical schools are adding other courses tied to the clean-energy sector.

Arizona workers, retirees and small business owners say they'll be left to pick up the slack when the wealthy and big corporations don't pay their fair share in taxes. They argue that'll be the case if former President Donald Trump's 2017 tax code gets extended in 2025.

Linda Somo, president of the Arizona Alliance for Retired Americans, contends the tax code is not balanced and favors the rich. Workers in 2016 who made less than $114,000 a year saw no change in earnings, while top executive salaries increased , according to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities.

Somo added the issue needs to be revisited before it gets renewed in 2025. She was in D.C. last month and spoke to Arizona lawmakers.

"Once we have a new Congress in session, after January, they could start closing some loopholes, even if it's not the actual tax law," Soto explained. "There are some things they could do to tweak that law ahead of time."

Republicans argue the tax plan would lead to economic growth. In 2017, the Department of Treasury claimed the law would increase tax revenues by $1.8 trillion over ten years. But Somo said she views the tax code as something damaging to the middle class, and wants to see a more equitable tax code be considered.

Somo, a retired teacher, says a more just tax code would translate to better funding for public education, better access to health care and a stronger social net for all Americans.

"It really ticks me off when I think, 'OK, I pay 15% and someone who is a billionaire probably is paying a far less percent because they can take advantage of all kinds of loopholes,'" she continued.

Somo encouraged all Arizonans to get informed and voice their opinions on the tax code to their state legislators. She said if lawmakers are only hearing from those who can donate big money to their campaigns, they'll forget about those who are impacted the most.

A new study by the Missouri Budget Project calls out some opposing views to the ballot measure known as Proposition A and included data to debunk them as "myths."

If it passes next month, Proposition A would raise Missouri's minimum wage from $12.30 an hour to $15 by 2026. Opponents said the increase would mostly affect young adults and teenagers.

Lindsey Baker, director of research for the Missouri Budget Project, disagreed. She said debunking the myth of whom the minimum wage increase affects is one of her organization's top priorities.

"One thing that people are often unaware of is just how many kids and families would benefit from this," Baker pointed out. "Often people have a stereotypical image of who 'minimum wage workers' are and really, they are all kinds of people."

The report shows one in four Missouri children lives in a household that would see its income rise with an increase in the minimum wage. Proposition A would also guarantee paid sick leave for more 700,000 Missouri workers who currently do not have it.

Opponents have said increasing the minimum wage would be bad for businesses and the economy, with the potential for job loss. Baker stressed it is also a myth.

"Consistently, when you look at before and after Missouri's own minimum wage increase that was implemented in 2019, we see that all of those things that were predicted by opponents that would happen -- job loss, all of those things -- really didn't happen," Baker outlined. "In fact, we did very well as a state after that."

The study indicates Missouri's unemployment rate went down faster than the national average and faster than each of the neighboring states not increasing their minimum wage. Baker added it is consistent with prior data suggesting a hike in the minimum wage increases employment, in part by reducing turnover among workers.


get more stories like this via email