Skip to content
Bills from the 2009–10 session

Assembly Bill 135

Allowing an individual income tax deduction for certain amounts contributed by a divorced or legally separated parent to his or her child's college savings account or college tuition and expenses program and limiting the deduction that may be claimed by a married person who files separately

Topics: Divorce, Income tax: Deduction, Legislature: Tax Exemptions, Joint Survey Committee on, Marriage, Scholarships and loans

Passed the Assembly, then stopped

The Assembly passed it on Mar 4, 2010, but the Senate never voted on it. A bill has to ⁠. To try again, a lawmaker would have to start a new bill.

  1. Introduced, passed

    Mar 9, 2009

  2. Committee, passed

    Approved

  3. Assembly vote, passed

    Passed Mar 4, 2010

  4. Senate vote, stopped here

    Stopped here. The Senate never voted on it.

  5. Governor, not reached

  6. Law, not reached

Latest entry in the official record, Apr 28, 2010: “Failed to concur in pursuant to ⁠”

Read the bill

Following saves it on this device. New actions show on your Following page. You can also get updates in a feed reader.

What it would have done

Summary by the , the Legislature's nonpartisan drafting office. It's their wording, not ours.

Under current law, there is a college tuition and expenses program, commonly referred to as "EdVest I," under which a contributor may purchase "tuition units" that can be used to pay qualified educational costs on behalf of a beneficiary. The purchase of the units is limited to parents, grandparents, aunts, uncles, legal guardians, trusts created on behalf of a beneficiary, or individuals purchasing units for their own use. Contributions made to an account set up under the program, up to a limit of $3,000 each year for each beneficiary, may be deducted from a contributor's income in the calculation of his or her income taxes if the beneficiary of the account is one of the following: the claimant; the claimant's child and the claimant's dependent under the Internal Revenue Code; the claimant's grandchild;

the claimant's great-grandchild; or the claimant's niece or nephew.

Read the full summary

Also, under current law, there exists a college savings program, commonly referred to as "EdVest II," under which anyone may open an account for a prospective student, regardless of the contributor's relationship to the beneficiary. Individuals may open accounts for themselves, and a prospective student may be the beneficiary of more than one college savings account. Contributions made to an account set up under the program, up to a limit of $3,000 each year for each beneficiary, may be deducted from a contributor's income in the calculation of his or her income taxes if the beneficiary of the account is one of the following: the claimant; the claimant's child and the claimant's dependent under the Internal Revenue Code; the claimant's grandchild; the claimant's great-grandchild; or the claimant's niece or nephew.

Under this bill, an income tax deduction for amounts contributed to both EdVest I and EdVest II may be claimed by a divorced or legally separated parent of a child. The deduction may be claimed without regard to whether the child is his or her dependent.

Currently, the total amount for which a deduction may be claimed under EdVest I and EdVest II, per beneficiary, by any claimant, may not exceed $3,000 each year and, in the case of a married couple filing a joint return, the total annual deduction under these two programs, per beneficiary, claimed by the married couple may not exceed $3,000.

Under the bill, the total annual deduction under these two programs, per beneficiary, claimed by married parents who file jointly or separately, or by the divorced or legally separated parents of a child, may not exceed $3,000. The total annual deduction under the bill, under these two programs, per beneficiary, claimed by a married person who files separately may not exceed $1,500 per claimant. The total annual deduction under the bill, under these two programs, per beneficiary, claimed by a formerly married couple may not exceed a total of $3,000, or $1,500 per claimant, except that the former couple's divorce judgment may specify a different division of the $3,000 maximum that may be claimed by each former spouse.

Because this bill relates to an exemption from state or local taxes, it may be referred to the Joint Survey Committee on Tax Exemptions for a report to be printed as an appendix to the bill.

Who's behind it

15 lawmakers are its ⁠. 9 are Democrats and 6 are Republicans.

11 more lawmakers ⁠.

See all 26 names

Authors (15)

Signed on in support (11)

What it would cost

State agencies filed a . Each opens as a PDF from the Legislature.

Versions and amendments

Every text the Legislature printed for this bill, including proposed changes. Each opens on the Legislature's site.

How lawmakers voted

There were 2 votes on this bill.

Assembly Committee on Colleges and Universities vote on an amendment

Passed, 11 to 0 · Nov 24, 2009

No member-by-member record exists for this vote. Committee votes and some older sessions record totals only.

Official motion: “Report Assembly Substitute Amendment 3 adoption recommended by committee on Colleges and Universities, Ayes 11, Noes 0”. Official record · This vote on its own page

Assembly vote

Passed, 9 to 0 · Feb 17, 2010

No member-by-member record exists for this vote. Committee votes and some older sessions record totals only.

Official motion: “Report of joint survey committee on Tax Exemptions received, Ayes 9, Noes 0”. Official record · This vote on its own page

What happened

  1. Apr 28, 2010

    The session ended, and the bill died with it.

  2. Mar 8, 2010

    Sent to the Joint Committee on Finance.

  3. Mar 5, 2010

    The Senate received it.

  4. Mar 4, 2010

    The Assembly passed it.

  5. Mar 4, 2010

    The Assembly adopted it.

  6. Feb 17, 2010

    Sent to the Assembly Committee on Rules.

  7. Feb 17, 2010

    “Report of joint survey committee on Tax Exemptions received, Ayes 9, Noes 0” (the official wording)

  8. Nov 24, 2009

    Sent to the Assembly Committee on joint survey committee on Tax Exemptions.

  9. Nov 24, 2009

    The committee voted to recommend passing it, 11 to 0.

  10. Jul 8, 2009

    The committee held a public hearing.

  11. Mar 19, 2009

    A state agency sent in its estimate of the cost.

  12. Mar 9, 2009

    Sent to the Assembly Committee on Colleges and Universities.

  13. Mar 9, 2009

    Introduced in the Assembly.

See the official record, word for word
  1. Mar 9, 2009 · Assembly

    Introduced by Representatives Molepske Jr., Roys, Cullen, Nass, Berceau, Suder, Vos, Richards, Kaufert, Smith, Pope-Roberts, Bies, Zepnick, Kestell and Fields;Cosponsored by Senators Lassa, Taylor, Kreitlow, Holperin, Darling, Lehman, Erpenbach, Plale, Grothman, Olsen and Kedzie

  2. Mar 9, 2009 · Assembly

    Read first time and referred to committee on Colleges and Universities

  3. Mar 19, 2009 · Assembly

    Fiscal estimate received

  4. May 6, 2009 · Assembly

    Assembly substitute amendment 1 offered by Representatives Molepske Jr. and Roys

  5. Jul 8, 2009 · Assembly

    Public hearing held

  6. Oct 20, 2009 · Assembly

    Assembly substitute amendment 2 offered by Representatives Molepske Jr. and Roys

  7. Oct 28, 2009 · Assembly

    Assembly substitute amendment 3 offered by Representative Molepske Jr.

  8. Oct 29, 2009 · Assembly

    Executive action taken

  9. Nov 24, 2009 · Assembly

    Report Assembly Substitute Amendment 3 adoption recommended by committee on Colleges and Universities, Ayes 11, Noes 0

  10. Nov 24, 2009 · Assembly

    Report passage as amended recommended by committee on Colleges and Universities, Ayes 11, Noes 0

  11. Nov 24, 2009 · Assembly

    Referred to joint survey committee on Tax Exemptions

  12. Feb 17, 2010 · Assembly

    Report of joint survey committee on Tax Exemptions received, Ayes 9, Noes 0

  13. Feb 17, 2010 · Assembly

    Referred to committee on Rules

  14. Mar 2, 2010 · Assembly

    Placed on calendar 3-4-2010 by committee on Rules

  15. Mar 4, 2010 · Assembly

    Read a second time

  16. Mar 4, 2010 · Assembly

    Assembly substitute amendment 3 adopted

  17. Mar 4, 2010 · Assembly

    Ordered to a third reading

  18. Mar 4, 2010 · Assembly

    Rules suspended

  19. Mar 4, 2010 · Assembly

    Read a third time and passed

  20. Mar 4, 2010 · Assembly

    Ordered immediately messaged

  21. Mar 5, 2010 · Senate

    Received from Assembly

  22. Mar 8, 2010 · Senate

    Read first time and referred to joint committee on Finance

  23. Apr 28, 2010 · Senate

    Failed to concur in pursuant to Senate Joint Resolution 1

Terms on this page

Second chamber's vote

A bill has to pass both the Assembly and the Senate in the same form before it goes to the governor.

Official term: Concurrence. More in the glossary

Senate Joint Resolution 1

The session's calendar. Any bill not passed by its last voting day dies.

Official term: Failed to pass pursuant to SJR 1. More in the glossary

Legislative Reference Bureau

The Legislature's nonpartisan office that drafts bills and writes the summary at the top of each one.

Official term: LRB analysis. More in the glossary

Author

A lawmaker who formally puts a bill forward. The text itself is drafted by the Legislative Reference Bureau.

Official term: Author, coauthor. More in the glossary

Signed on in support

Lawmakers who back a bill without being one of its authors, often from the other chamber.

Official term: Cosponsor. More in the glossary

Cost estimate

A state agency's estimate of what a bill would cost or save.

Official term: Fiscal estimate. More in the glossary

Roll call

A vote where each lawmaker's yes or no is recorded by name.

Official term: Roll call vote. More in the glossary

From the Wisconsin Legislature's official record, checked Sep 15, 2026. See the source

Second chamber's vote

A bill has to pass both the Assembly and the Senate in the same form before it goes to the governor.

Official term: Concurrence

Senate Joint Resolution 1

The session's calendar. Any bill not passed by its last voting day dies.

Official term: Failed to pass pursuant to SJR 1

Legislative Reference Bureau

The Legislature's nonpartisan office that drafts bills and writes the summary at the top of each one.

Official term: LRB analysis

Author

A lawmaker who formally puts a bill forward. The text itself is drafted by the Legislative Reference Bureau.

Official term: Author, coauthor

Signed on in support

Lawmakers who back a bill without being one of its authors, often from the other chamber.

Official term: Cosponsor

Cost estimate

A state agency's estimate of what a bill would cost or save.

Official term: Fiscal estimate

Roll call

A vote where each lawmaker's yes or no is recorded by name.

Official term: Roll call vote