• Utah lawmakers are advancing reforms, including H.J.R. 18 and H.B. 210, to remove marriage penalties in both federal and state tax policy, ensuring public policy no longer discourages marriage.
• H.B. 290 would expand Utah’s Child Tax Credit, providing meaningful, targeted relief to families raising children while addressing affordability concerns.
• By carefully phasing in tax changes, coordinating with income tax rate reductions, and pairing structural reform with an expanded Child Tax Credit, lawmakers can deliver fiscally responsible, pro-marriage, pro-family reform this session.

As the Utah State Legislature approaches the final week of the 2026 general session, among the many bills still being debated are several pieces of legislation that have the opportunity to achieve pro-marriage, pro-family policy objectives. Lawmakers should strive to move quickly to align these bills to deliver a real policy win for Utah families.

H.J.R. 18 Joint Resolution Urging Congress to Eliminate Marriage Penalties correctly points to the well-documented body of evidence showing a strong connection between stable, healthy families and widespread benefits for children and communities. Importantly, it points out that public policy — both social welfare programs and the tax code — can inadvertently discourage or penalize the decision to marry.

The resolution’s message calling on Congress to fix these problems on the national level is a welcome one, especially when paired with state efforts to bolster family formation and stability.

H.B. 210 Tax Penalties Amendments pursues the laudable policy objective of removing marriage penalties that can exist in some of Utah’s existing tax credits. In a similar vein, H.B. 290 Child Tax Credit Amendments expands Utah’s Child Tax Credit to help address affordability concerns for families raising children.

Utah lawmakers are right to pursue the elimination of marriage penalties in the state’s tax code. Public policy should not discourage marriage. At the same time, providing additional financial stability to parents raising children is a worthwhile investment of tax dollars.

In the remaining days of the session, lawmakers should strive to align these pieces of legislation in a way that accomplishes the respective policy goals.

Three principles should guide the final stages of reform.

First, the ongoing dialogue around marriage penalties could yield refinements to H.B. 210 that phase in the structural changes over time while leveraging the benefit of other tax credits to create a smoother transition to the new structure. Adjusting income thresholds and credit phaseouts in a slower, smoother way can prevent abrupt shifts that unintentionally increase tax liability for unmarried filers.

The latest version of the bill helps accomplish this by phasing in the new structure over a five year period, and using a more generous starting point in the Taxpayer Tax Credit to help smooth that transition.  

Second, pairing structural reform with the broad income tax rate reduction could provide modest, across-the-board relief that could help offset impacts to families.

Third — and most importantly — lawmakers should strategically align reform with expansion of the Child Tax Credit under H.B. 290. If structured correctly, a strengthened credit can provide meaningful support to families raising children while working in concert with the marriage penalty elimination efforts in H.B. 210.

Good family policy is not a one-off discussion, nor is it often accomplished in a single bill. But taken together, these steps would eliminate marriage penalties, support families, and avoid raising taxes on those who benefit from these tax credits.

This is still achievable if legislators take the appropriate next steps. If the Legislature can align these respective efforts — and if analysis of the impacts of these reforms shows it can be done this session in alignment with the broad goals articulated above — then the state will have achieved a significant policy win for Utah families.

Given the deadlines of the current session, if the math does not fully align before adjournment, lawmakers should not abandon the effort. The objectives are sound. Continued refinement during the interim would be preferable to missing an opportunity for reform altogether.

Utah has an opportunity to demonstrate that pro-marriage, pro-family reform can be prudent and fiscally responsible. That is a goal worth getting right.