Environment
No direct effect
Neutral — no direct effect identified.
Benefits
- No material direct effect identified.
Risks
- No material direct effect identified.
StateNew HampshireIntroduced
HB 635: relative to taxing non-profit entities who settle illegal immigrants as for-profit entities.
Travis Corcoran
HB 635 status: Introduced — Interim Study Report: Not Recommended for Future Legislation 09/02/2026 (Vote 18-0; ) (updated Sep 14, 2026).
Source
LegiScan
Confidence
High
Analysis basis
LegiScan full bill text
01
What this bill does
Official summary alongside an AI-generated read on where it stands and why.
Overall Score
19OUT OF 100
Score:19/100 civic fit
Risk:High Risk
Impact:Moderate Impact 60/100
Constitutionality10%
Bipartisan20%
Public opinion35%
Bill summary
What changes
The bill reclassifies 501(c)(3) non-profit entities as 'business enterprises' subject to the Business Enterprise Tax (BET) if they engage in 'settling' or 're-settling' illegal immigrants, defined broadly to include housing assistance, legal aid, or translation services. It also creates a discretionary bounty system for citizens to report these entities to the Department of Revenue Administration.
Who is affected
Non-profit organizations (501(c)(3)), immigrant populations receiving charitable services, community health centers, and state revenue officials.
Requirements and enforcement
Non-profits must track whether their services constitute 'settling' as defined, and the Department must develop rules for a bounty program.
Costs and funding
Indeterminable. The state expects potential administrative costs to update forms/rules and potential legal costs regarding tax classification disputes; no new funding is authorized.
When it takes effect
Takes effect 60 days after passage.
Potential benefits
Potential for increased state tax revenue and greater legislative control over the role of non-profits in immigration support.
Risks and tradeoffs
Significant constitutional risks regarding taxpayer classification, potential for malicious reporting via bounties, and disruption to essential community health and social services.
What is still unknown
The actual number of non-profits that would be caught by this definition and the subsequent impact on state tax revenue remain unknown.
02
Impact analysis
✦ AI analysisModeled effects across six domains, estimated from bill text and comparable legislation.
Economy
Critical outlook
20%
Benefits
- Potential increase in state Business Enterprise Tax revenue
- Eliminates tax-exempt status for entities deemed to be engaging in commercial-like resettlement activities
- Increased tax compliance monitoring
Risks
- Significant compliance costs for charitable non-profits
- Potential chilling effect on non-profit service delivery
- Administrative overhead for the Department of Revenue Administration
Society
Critical outlook
10%
Benefits
- Aligns tax policy with legislative intent regarding immigration enforcement
- Provides a mechanism for public oversight of non-profit operations
- Publicly signals state stance on immigration resettlement support
Risks
- Limits availability of aid for vulnerable populations
- Potential for social harassment through bounty-seeking behavior
- Disruption of social safety nets provided by community health centers
Technology Industry
No direct effect
Neutral — no direct effect identified.
Benefits
- No material direct effect identified.
Risks
- No material direct effect identified.
Civic Accountability
Critical outlook
25%
Benefits
- Increases transparency into activities of tax-exempt organizations
- Establishes a citizen oversight mechanism
- Requires rule-making from the Department of Revenue Administration
Risks
- Potential for abuse of the bounty system through malicious reporting
- Lack of clear due process for accused non-profits prior to investigation
- Risk of creating an opaque surveillance culture
Public Health & Safety
Critical outlook
20%
Benefits
- Focuses state enforcement on activities related to immigration
- Requires organizations to be more intentional about their service activities
- May lead to a reassessment of public service funding
Risks
- Resource diversion for community health centers responding to complaints
- Reduced capacity for health-related service delivery to immigrants
- Risk of compromising emergency service functions through investigation burden
03
How trustworthy & consequential it is
Sourcing already shown above, this is what the analysis found worth flagging.
Source
LegiScan
Official bill text or data from LegiScan.
Confidence
High
Information is complete and verified.
Analysis basis
LegiScan full bill text
Source used for this bill's analysis.
Source note
The Department of Revenue Administration has explicitly flagged the bill for potential 'impermissible classification of taxpayers,' indicating high risk of constitutional failure.
Analysis scope
The bill uses broad definitions for 'settling' that may capture unintended charitable activities.
04
Where it stands
Official record- IntroducedCurrent
- CommitteeUpcoming
- Chamber votesUpcoming
- Final agreementUpcoming
- GovernorUpcoming
- EnactedUpcoming
05
How it affects your district
✦ Personalized
Set your location
Add your district to see how this bill may affect your community and who to contact.
Your Representatives
Your representatives appear here once you add your location.
06
Take action
Contact your representatives
Let them know how you feel about this bill.
Share your view
Join the discussion and see what others are saying.
Track this bill
Stay updated on progress and changes.