To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide for deductible contributions to medical finance accounts and to reform the earned income credit.
Referred to the House Committee on Ways and Means.
Congressional Research Service
Official summary
Version 00 · Introduced in House · Nov 30, 1995
TABLE OF CONTENTS: Title I: Medical Finance Accounts Title II: Reform of the Earned Income Credit Title I: Medical Finance Accounts - Amends the Internal Revenue Code to allow an individual a deduction in an amount equal to the aggregate amount paid in cash by such an individual to the individual's medical finance account. Limits the amount allowable as a deduction to not exceed the greater of: (1) $3,000 ($5,000 for married individuals and dependents); or (2) for individuals with a catastrophic health plan, the deductible or the excess of the limitation for the taxable year and each of the preceding four taxable years over the sum of amounts allowed as a deduction for such years. Imposes a ten percent penalty on any amount not used for qualified medical expenses, except for amounts paid or distributed to an account holder who becomes disabled or dies. Disallows the deduction in cases of rollovers and transfers at death. Allows a deduction whether or not the individual itemizes other deductions. Excludes medical finance accounts from estate tax. Title II: Reform of the Earned Income Credit - Denies the earned income credit (EIC) to individuals not authorized to be employed in the United States. (Sec. 203) Repeals provisions allowing the EIC for individuals without children. (Sec. 204) Prescribes a specified formula for the modification of the phaseout amount and sets forth specified credit and phaseout percentages and amounts. Increases the amount allowable as a credit for low-income families having two or more qualifying children. Provides for a phaseout of the EIC for taxpayers whose applicable income exceeds $14,000 ($17,000 for joint returns). Requires married individuals to file joint returns. (Sec. 205) Revises provisions concerning: (1) EIC denial on the basis of disqualified income; and (2) modification of the definition of adjusted gross income for EIC purposes. (Sec. 207) Increases the amount of penalty for return preparers with respect to understatement of income tax liability by the income tax preparer, other assessable penalties, and aiding and abetting understatement of tax liability.
No related bills are listed in this snapshot. This does not establish whether the proposal has appeared in earlier Congresses.
Source last updated: Jan 2, 2025. Consult Congress.gov for the current record.
AI Conversation Starters
Explore the bill from different angles
Choose a perspective, copy a prompt, and paste it into your preferred AI. Each prompt includes the bill version and available official source links, and asks for counterarguments as well as supporting evidence.
Neutral evidence review
Objective
Analyze H.R.2692 as objectively as possible. Explain its main provisions, who would be affected, possible benefits and harms, implementation, exceptions, and uncertainties. Present the strongest arguments for and against it, and identify evidence needed to assess its public impact.
View full prompt & sources
Fairness and public impact
Progressive lens
Examine H.R.2692 through a progressive lens, focusing on fairness, access, economic inequality, and effects on vulnerable communities. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and distinguish stated goals from demonstrated outcomes.
View full prompt & sources
Institutions and government scope
Conservative lens
Examine H.R.2692 through a conservative lens, focusing on fiscal responsibility, institutional stability, federalism, and the scope of government. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and any provisions that challenge this perspective.
View full prompt & sources
Individual rights and government power
Liberty lens
Examine H.R.2692 through a civil-liberties and limited-government lens. Consider individual rights, privacy, voluntary choice, accountability, and government power. Explain tradeoffs, possible safeguards, and the strongest counterarguments without assuming the proposal is beneficial or harmful.