Revenue & Tax - Senate
Video
Transcript
1 document
Bills discussed (8)
| Bill | Title | Sponsor | Status |
|---|---|---|---|
|
HB1010
Act 142
· 4 mentions in chapter, agenda, transcript
Matched: “HB1010 Jett TO AMEND THE SALES AND USE TAX EXEMPTION FOR SALES OF…”
|
TO AMEND THE SALES AND USE TAX EXEMPTION FOR SALES OF CERTAIN AIRCRAFT. | Jett | Notification that HB1010 is now Act 142 |
|
HB1033
Act 144
· 4 mentions in agenda, chapter, transcript
Matched: “…AMOUNT OF THE INCOME TAX EXEMPTION FOR RETIREMENT BENEFITS. HB1033 Jett TO REMOVE EXTRANEOUS REFERENCES TO DIGITAL MAGAZINES I…”
|
TO REMOVE EXTRANEOUS REFERENCES TO DIGITAL MAGAZINES IN THE SALES TAX LAWS; AND TO CLARIFY … | Jett | Notification that HB1033 is now Act 144 |
|
HB1026
Act 125
· 3 mentions in transcript, chapter, agenda
Matched: “…tax to order. Senator Blake Johnson, you're here to present House Bill 1026,”
|
TO CLARIFY THAT CERTAIN APPEARANCE FEES ARE NOT COMPENSATION FOR THE PURPOSE OF DETERMINING ELIGIBILITY … | Cavenaugh | Notification that HB1026 is now Act 125 |
|
HB1032
· 3 mentions in agenda, chapter, transcript
Matched: “…SALES AND USE TAX EXEMPTION FOR SALES OF CERTAIN AIRCRAFT. HB1032 Jett TO AMEND THE INCOME TAX ACT OF 1929 TO ALLOW A TAXPAYE…”
|
TO AMEND THE INCOME TAX ACT OF 1929 TO ALLOW A TAXPAYER RECEIVING MILITARY RETIREMENT … | Jett | Died in Senate Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
HB1031
Act 143
· 2 mentions in chapter, agenda
Matched: “HB1031 Jett TO REQUIRE THE ELECTRONIC FILING OF INCOME TAX RETURNS…”
|
TO REQUIRE THE ELECTRONIC FILING OF INCOME TAX RETURNS BY TAX PRACTITIONERS; AND TO AMEND … | Jett | Notification that HB1031 is now Act 143 |
|
HB1041
Act 145
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…THE EXEMPTION OF A CAR WASH OPERATOR'S SALE OF A CAR WASH. HB1041 Jett TO AUTHORIZE THE SECRETARY OF THE DEPARTMENT OF FINANC…”
|
TO AUTHORIZE THE SECRETARY OF THE DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE AND ADMINISTRATION TO WAIVE THE CERTIFICATE … | Jett | Notification that HB1041 is now Act 145 |
|
HB1042
Act 146
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…ICATE OF INDEBTEDNESS FILING FEES IN CERTAIN CIRCUMSTANCES. HB1042 Jett TO REPEAL THE LONG-TERM RENTAL VEHICLE TAX. HB1031 Jet…”
|
TO REPEAL THE LONG-TERM RENTAL VEHICLE TAX. | Jett | Notification that HB1042 is now Act 146 |
|
HB10
· 1 mention in transcript
Matched: “…. And you want to make a motion to adopt your amendment for House Bill 10-10 to add you as a sponsor. Is that correct? Yes. I have a…”
|
Pre-2017 bill |
Machine transcript
May contain errors. Verify important quotations against the official video.
About transcript accuracy
- Source
- Whisper
- Model
- ggml-large-v3-turbo.bin RTX5060
- Processing date
- October 6, 2026
Senator Bill Sample
Unverified
0:00
Call this meeting of revenue and tax to order. Senator Blake Johnson, you're here to present House Bill 1026,
Speaker 2
0:09
is that correct? If you would, take a seat. State your name
Speaker 5
0:23
for the record and present your bill. So, Senator Blake Johnson, I appreciate members.
Speaker 6
0:30
Pretty simple bill right now. Under DF&A rules, this exemption is $20, and this puts it in code. It'll help our volunteer fire departments maintain and recruit membership. And this just says $50. So these appearance fees, they won't be considered against the tax exemption for sales tax whenever they buy equipment.
Senator Bill Sample
Unverified
1:09
appearance, I mean, this is, I thought this was a training
Speaker 9
1:15
fee rather than an appearance fee. Yeah, it can be used for training or calls
Speaker 6
1:21
or whatever they use for the appearance fees for. So they don't get deemed, so they don't go against their sales tax exemption for buying equipment and things.
Senator Bill Sample
Unverified
1:35
Are there questions from the membership? What's your motion? Do pass. Got a motion. Do pass. Second. Any discussion on the motion? All in favor, say aye. Aye. All opposed, no. Congratulations, Senator. Thank you.
Speaker 17
2:09
Okay. Senator Johnson. Yeah, you got House Bill
Senator Bill Sample
Unverified
2:20
1010. Is that where you want to start? That's actually not a D, F, and A bill. Is that correct? That's not an agency legislation bill. Okay.
All right. That's a bill for Representative Jett, and you're presenting it. 10-10. And you want to make a motion to adopt your amendment for House Bill 10-10 to add you as a sponsor. Is that correct? Yes. I have a motion and a second.
All in favor say aye. All right, you're presenting House Bill 1010 as amended. Thank you,
Senator Mark Johnson
Unverified
3:36
Mr. Chairman, members of the committee. State your name for the record, please. I'm Senator Mark Johnson, District 15.
This bill is a cleanup bill related to aircraft. It would expand what's called the flyaway exemption on sales of certain aircraft in Arkansas. In 2015, this exemption was passed so that sales tax isn't due if the sale is between a purchaser and a seller who are residents of another state, even though the transaction occurred in Arkansas. It was expanded in 2017 to exempt sales of aircraft by an Arkansas seller if the aircraft will be based outside of the state
and has a maximum takeoff weight of more than 9,500 pounds. So we're basically talking about commercial airlines or airplanes and not private personal use airplanes. This bill would remove the maximum takeoff requirement. Arkansas sellers would no longer be required to collect sales and use tax when a consumer of another state purchases and takes possession of the aircraft in Arkansas if the aircraft will be based in another state. And it's intended to stop purchasers from moving their aircraft closings to other states.
It has no revenue impact at all. It's basically just an acknowledgment that business has done.
Speaker 28
4:56
here in the state by out-of-state parties. Senator Roper, you have a question? Sure.
Senator Jason Rapert
Unverified
5:09
Thank you, Mr. Chair. My question is, is there tax on the transaction if it stays in the state, or
Senator Mark Johnson
Unverified
5:16
do you know? Only because it would be an Arkansas transaction, it's my understanding, Senator. So the exemption is-
Senator Jason Rapert
Unverified
5:22
Mr. Gehring is nodding his head. So the exemption is given if it's going to another state, but not in-state buyers
Senator Mark Johnson
Unverified
5:31
staying in the state? Yes, sir. Now, well, the other states wouldn't, Arkansas wouldn't collect
tax, but other states might, depending on what their particular state law is. Imagine if you had someone that lived in Spiro, Oklahoma, and somebody else in Jackson, Tennessee, and they come to Little Rock to do a transaction, then they go back to their homes. It's really not, it's an interstate transaction between Oklahoma and Tennessee, not Arkansas.
arkansas did i pretty well cover that all thank you thank you mr gary he he nods that that's about how it is but it's uh but it has no revenue impact because it's as if the transaction took place in one of those two states where ultimately it really did we just happen to be where the and hopefully this will help if some work is done or on a transaction say you know we have some major aircraft modification facilities in the state. Well,
Senator Jason Rapert
Unverified
6:25
I'm just really interested in the educational part of this transaction and how it works,
you know, especially in light of internet sales tax and everything else. I just wondered who benefits then, I guess, would be my question.
Senator Mark Johnson
Unverified
6:39
Well, I presume and I'll be corrected by the department if that's the case, but when you get into where something is placed in service or or purchased or placed in service. It's a use tax, it will be placed in service. And this will be placed in service both originated in another state and placed in service in another state. Arkansas businesses may be involved in the transaction,
but it's not an Arkansas sale or an Arkansas use tax. Like I say, I'm just interested
Speaker 30
7:10
in who's benefiting here since we're making the change. Yes. That's what I
Senator Mark Johnson
Unverified
7:14
was interested in because usually somebody is. So if you went to Dallas, Mr. Chairman, and bought a real night.
Speaker 46
7:39
Didn't mean to give you too many ideas, Senator.
Senator Bill Sample
Unverified
7:55
Are there other questions? Senator, we're on House Bill 1010. Would you like to ask the sponsor a question? It's an amended bill. Senator, are you closed?
I was wondering the department will if needed if you have a question for them they will if not it appears that they don't we have a motion. Now we've got a second. And a second
as we're in discussion on motion. Seeing none, all in favor say aye. Aye. All opposed no. Congratulations Senator. Yes. Would that be
Speaker 54
9:04
correct? 10-32. 10-32. Or you can run 10-31
Speaker 55
9:08
if you'd like. Okay, we'll do 10-32 then.
Speaker 58
9:30
me please? This one looks a little more complex. If
Senator Mark Johnson
Unverified
9:33
I may, Mr. Chairman, I'll continue on 10-32. No, you need to amend your bill first. Okay. This amendment that adds me as a co-sponsor. Motion to
Speaker 3
9:41
amend your bill, add you as a co-sponsor. Do I have a second?
Senator Bill Sample
Unverified
9:45
Aye. I have a second. All in favor say aye. Aye. You have amended your bill. Senator, if you would, present House Bill
Senator Mark Johnson
Unverified
9:58
1032. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, members of the committee. House Bill 1032 amends the income tax law to allow taxpayers receiving military retirement or survivor benefits to receive the full amount of the income tax exemption for retirement benefits. Under current law, they exempt the first 6,000 of their retirement benefits from income tax.
If they have military retirement benefits, those are completely exempt. They can only claim one of those exemptions, the $6,000 exemption or the military retirement exemption. The problem is sometimes you have an individual claiming the military retirement exemption who has less than $6,000 in retirement benefits for the year. They can't claim both exemptions, so their deduction is less than the taxpayers claiming the $6,000 exemption. This would allow those who are, their benefit is less than $6,000 to exempt their retirement benefits
under the standard exemption up to the difference between their military retirement benefit and the $6,000 cap. Military retirees and those with survivor benefits could claim as much of the $6,000 deduction as they need to get up to the full $6,000 if they don't have enough military benefits. And this bill would only reduce state revenue by $34,000 in the first partial year and $68,000 in the first full year and each year thereafter.
It would help 700 to 800 military retiree taxpayers each year. And so there would not be a tax increase associated with this bill. So we ask
Speaker 39
11:30
if the committee would consider this today. Are there questions from the members? Thank you, Mr. Chair. Paul Gehring with DFA.
Speaker 69
12:06
on, please. Is this in the governor's budget? The governor had provided for $50 million in income tax reductions as a part of the governor's balance budget. This bill was a part of DFA's legislative packet. We provided this information to the governor. It was approved. So this certainly is to be accounted for in the governor's balance budget, but not as a specific line item.
Senator Jonathan Dismang
Unverified
12:28
Thank you. Senator, yes, ma'am. And so in the $50 million that you're referencing, you mean that
the transfer of the $50 million from the surplus? Or do you mean, wasn't there some additional, wasn't about $13 million that was still outside
Speaker 69
12:49
the balanced budget if you didn't include that $50 million? I do recall that there was a $13 million for used cars exemption on sales tax, sales and use tax. But generally speaking, there was a $50 million allotted for income tax
relief, as well as approximately, I believe, $4 or $5 million for the cliff adjustment. But this isn't a zero revenue impact, certainly, but it is minimal. I mean, I understand. I'm not saying it's a bad thing.
Senator Jonathan Dismang
Unverified
13:15
I just really was in response to the response to Senator Ingram's question. So this is included in the $50 million of surplus that's going to be transferred, but not necessarily in the balanced budget, that we can make those adjustments for this type amount in RSA? Correct. Okay. Are there other questions? That's quite all right. Senator, as you're
Senator Bill Sample
Unverified
13:46
familiar, we're not going to take a vote on this bill. We will hold it till the time gets right, and we'll come back and vote yay or nay on this bill? Yes, sir. Okay. Thank you. Thank
you, members. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. There's 1033.
Speaker 7
14:09
Are you going to do 1033, or did you want to do, which bill do you want to do? We'll do 1033, Mr. Chairman. Okay.
Senator Mark Johnson
Unverified
14:18
House Bill 1033, and we have an amendment on it. It's also just add me as a co-sponsor, and I move
Senator Bill Sample
Unverified
14:28
the adoption. Do we have a second? Second. We have a motion and a second. All in favor say aye. Aye. I will amend the
Senator Mark Johnson
Unverified
14:41
bill 1033. Okay. You've passed your amendment. Thank you, Mr. Chair. House bill 1033 removes the extraneous references to digital magazines in the sales tax law
and clarifies the exemption of a car wash operator's sale of a car wash. It clarifies a few of the issues that came from Act 822 of 2019. It removed the references to digital magazines that were included in Act 822. Arkansas does not have a sales tax levy on digital magazines, so those references are unnecessary. it was act 22 was supposed to exempt the sale of car washes by car wash operators in lieu of the
payment of the new water usage fee but it did not provide language to exempt the sale of the car wash by a car wash operator this bill clarifies that the sale car washes through the car wash tunnel automatic car wash or self-service bay are exempt from sales and use tax it also adds a definition for self-service bays. There's no revenue impact and would not be a tax increase associated with the bill. Senator Disman, you have a question?
Senator Jonathan Dismang
Unverified
15:54
Yeah, I just want to make sure I understand. So we'd heard and we have on hold a bill from Senator Stubblefield. How do those mesh or, I mean, does one need to pass? I mean, do both of them need to pass if we pass this one or can this one be a standalone and the other can be dealt with
Senator Mark Johnson
Unverified
16:12
later, or what are we looking at? Partially, I think that's true, Senator
Speaker 89
16:17
Dismayne, but if you could go ahead and fill this in. Lauren Ballard, I'm with DFA Revenue Legal. I actually think they're fairly
Speaker 90
16:23
harmonious. The bill that was presented by Senator Stubblefield fixed one of the issues about the self-service
bay definition, so that certainly does the same thing as part of this bill. I don't know that those two, the car wash usage fee would be removed under Senator Stubblefield's bill. Under this bill, we're just fixing some language that was not correctly drafted in the original. So they will work together. And if I remember
Senator Jonathan Dismang
Unverified
16:48
right on part of that discussion was, I mean, so if Senator Stubblefield's bill passes and this one passes and gives the right to promulgate some additional rules related to car washes,
then car washes will be one of the only entities, if not the only entity in the state, that isn't subject to sales tax either on the inputs and the outputs, and then ultimately there would be no user fee. So they would have no taxation with the exception of income tax for a car wash provider.
Speaker 90
17:18
Is that right? I believe so, and I listened to that conversation when that bill was run. This bill really doesn't change anything, and certainly those two would not conflict with one another. Okay. All right. Thank you.
Speaker 98
17:32
Thank you. Senator Ingram. When we changed, is there a difference on the taxation between a tunnel wash and a car wash that physically puts hands on a car? Is one taxable and the other not? Thank you, Senator. You
Speaker 99
17:56
know, my understanding when this, originally with
Speaker 90
17:59
Act 822, the change we made to those car washes was to specifically address that question.
So under 822, if you go through a car wash tunnel and somebody comes out to manually spray something on
Speaker 99
18:14
your windshield, let's say, that's considered an ancillary service. So that is also exempt under 822.
Speaker 99
18:25
sorry. It is not. It would be if the car wash that you're going
Speaker 90
18:31
through is exempt and they provide that ancillary
Speaker 98
18:34
service, that would also be exempt. Okay. It would be exempt. What about if it's hand-dried or if that becomes taxable then?
Speaker 90
18:43
I think that is also considered an ancillary service that would be exempt.
Speaker 105
18:52
Okay. All right. Thank you. And I want to hear it from
Speaker 29
18:58
you. If we pass this bill and we don't pass Senator Stubblefield's bill, there's still a tax on car washes. Is that correct? Well, Senator Sample, I
Speaker 90
19:08
think if you look at the car wash operators, which are going to be the automatic car washes, the car wash tunnels,
they will be allowed to sell those car washes and any ancillary services, hand prepping or anything like that, that would be sold exempt from sales tax, but what would happen after that is they would pay the car wash usage fee, which would be eliminated under Senator Stubblefield's bill. So if that bill did not pass, but this did, they would continue to sell those car washes exempt and instead would
Speaker 99
19:36
remit, based on their water usage, a fee on their water usage. I've got that
Senator Bill Sample
Unverified
19:41
straight. But I just wanted to make sure that if we pass this one, that the other one was still out there
And we had to make a decision on whether we wanted to take and pass that or not pass that.
Senator Mark Johnson
Unverified
19:58
And, Mr. Chairman, on lines 10 and 11 of page 3, it does clean up the language of what is a self-service bay, which should be in place regardless of what the General Assembly does with Senator Stubblefield's bill. And it clarifies something that was unclear. Are there other questions?
Senator, are you closed? Aye. Yes, sir. Move the adoption of the bill, or do pass as
Senator Bill Sample
Unverified
20:31
amended. Do I hear a second? Second. Have a motion and a second. Is there any discussion on the motion? Seeing none, all in favor
say aye. Aye. All opposed, no. Senator, we have passed this bill out as amended.
Speaker 111
20:50
Okay, 1041. Thank you, Mr. Chair. House Bill
Senator Mark Johnson
Unverified
21:00
1041, and we do have yet another amendment to add me as a co-sponsor, and I move the adoption of
Senator Bill Sample
Unverified
21:12
the amendment. Okay, we're passing out the... I mean, adding you as a sponsor, yes, you've made
Speaker 113
21:23
the motion, yes, sir, move adoption amendment
Senator Bill Sample
Unverified
21:26
moving. Have a second members have a motion in the second all in favor say aye. All right, Senator, present your bill as amended.
Senator Mark Johnson
Unverified
21:51
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. This bill authorizes the Secretary of the Department of Finance and Administration to waive the Certificate of Indebtedness filing fee in certain circumstances.
And the current law allows DF&A to waive interest and penalty in three circumstances. When the taxpayer's failure to pay is satisfactorily explained to the Secretary, when the taxpayer's failure to pay resulted from a mistake by the taxpayer on the law or the fax, or when the taxpayer's ability to pay results from the insolvency or the bankruptcy of the taxpayer. In those circumstances, DF&A is authorized to waive interest in penalty.
This bill would also give DF&A the authority to waive a state tax lien filing fee in those same circumstances. So it gives the secretary discretion in these types of cases.
Speaker 115
22:50
Mr. Goering. Paul Goering, DFA. Thank you, Mr. Chair. This
Speaker 69
22:54
just addresses an issue that in our Tax Procedure Act was not specifically clear. Typically, a taxpayer, if they can demonstrate under the statutory reasons for a waiver of interest or penalty,
as noted by Senator Johnson. We have the clear statutory authority in those circumstances for DFA to waive that interest or penalty, but the statute was silent about the approximately $8 or $9 lien filing fee. We just wanted there to be some clarity in the law that we had the statutory authority to waive a lien filing fee.
Speaker 60
23:29
Okay. Members, are there questions? Senator Ingram.
Speaker 118
23:37
Why do we need anything after if the Secretary's failure to pay the tax is satisfactorily explained to the Secretary? I
Speaker 103
23:45
mean, if you do that, then why do you need the rest of this? But I'm fine
Speaker 69
23:51
with it. Well, the issue was that the Tax Procedure Act, Senator Ingram, just was silent. It didn't say, DFA, you do not waive a lien filing fee. It was never been addressed by a prior General Assembly. and if there's any type of waiver that's ability, we would prefer that it be clearly defined in the law
so that we are acting appropriately in our decision-making. I got you. Thank you. Are there other questions?
Senator Mark Johnson
Unverified
24:20
Senator, are you closed? I'm closed, Mr. Chairman, and I move do pass as amended. I have a
Senator Bill Sample
Unverified
24:27
motion do pass amended. Do I have a second? I have a second. Are there discussions on the motion? Seeing none, all in favor say aye. Aye. All opposed, no.
Senator, congratulations. Your bill has passed. And now I
Senator Mark Johnson
Unverified
24:45
think the last one we'll do today, I believe, Mr. Chairman, is House Bill 1042. You are
Speaker 111
24:57
going to amend this bill? Yes, sir. amendment to
Senator Mark Johnson
Unverified
25:01
add me as a co-sponsor move adopt the amendment I have a motion and a second
Senator Bill Sample
Unverified
25:13
all in favor say aye aye received with House Bill 1042 as amended I don't think there's
Senator Mark Johnson
Unverified
25:27
anything to do I like bills like this You'll like
this one too, Mr. Chair. May I proceed? You may. Thank you, sir. House Bill 1042 repeals the long-term rental vehicle tax. It expired in 2015 and is no longer collected.
The long-term vehicle tax levy called for the expiration of the tax when 3% or more of all new motor vehicles registered in Arkansas were leased vehicles. and it's expired on June 30th, 2015 and is no longer collected on lease of motor vehicles for periods of 30 days or more. There's no revenue impact. So this
is essentially a cleanup bill. Are there questions? Seeing no questions, I'm intrigued.
Senator Bill Sample
Unverified
26:18
Have a motion do pass. And a second? Second. Are there any discussions on the motion? Seeing none, all in favor say aye. Aye. All opposed, no. Senator, your bill has passed. Are you going to run House Bill 1031? Yeah, we've got 1031.
Speaker 43
26:37
This is our electronic file. Yeah. Yes.
Senator Mark Johnson
Unverified
26:40
Yes, Mr. Chairman, I wasn't sure we were going to do 1031. And you are amending the bill to add you as a sponsor.
Speaker 10
26:49
With the indulgence of the committee, I will
Senator Bill Sample
Unverified
26:59
proceed. I have a motion to adopt to amend. Second. Second. We
Speaker 73
27:04
have a motion and a second. All in favor say aye. Aye.
Speaker 64
27:10
Opposed, no. Senator, proceed with House Bill 1031 as amended. House Bill
Senator Mark Johnson
Unverified
27:15
1031 requires the electronic filing of income tax returns by tax practitioners
and to amend the law concerning tax practitioners. Now, again, this means professionals, not lay people using TurboTax or whatever. It would require a tax practitioner to file a taxpayer's state return electronically if they file the taxpayer's federal return electronically. And this would apply to any person, partnership, LLC, or corporation that prepares a return for hire. DF&A would have the authority to waive the requirement if DF&A determines
it would cause an undue hardship for the practitioner. So that's a safety valve in case of a strange circumstance where he makes a case that he has a problem or that there is a reason why the state return should be filed differently than the federal return. And there, of course,
there's no revenue impact on this. I'll be glad to answer any questions or ask Mr.
Senator Jonathan Dismang
Unverified
28:18
Gehring to answer any questions. Senator Dispain, you have a question? Thank you, Mr. Chairman. So what
I want to make sure I understand is when we're moving the definition of a tax practitioner to Section 1 from Section 3B,
is that changing anything else? Because we're moving code sections,
so I'm trying to make sure. I don't know what else is up above that or why that exists or what. Senator
Speaker 69
28:46
Dismang, the preference was to have a defined term within the Income Tax Act appear to be in the definitional section as opposed to be later on in the code. Is there any particular
Senator Jonathan Dismang
Unverified
28:58
reason it was there previous to this? I just want to make sure we don't have some unintended consequence because we're, you know, did the definition carry for
Speaker 132
29:07
the whole section of the whole code or, but now it is, but
Senator Mark Johnson
Unverified
29:15
it didn't previous to? Senator, one of the things you might know in Section 3, that is the section on 26-51-8-10. That has to do with forms and providing forms to practitioners, and it defines a practitioner in this. By taking it out there and putting it in 26-51-102, it makes the definition apply to all of that whole part of the code
as opposed to the part related to forms. Yeah,
Senator Jonathan Dismang
Unverified
29:41
and so what I want to do is
just make sure, you know, before it was a definition provided for a specific provision, and now it's something that's going to be utilized for the entire section. And is there going to be any unintended consequence for making that definition apply
Speaker 69
30:00
more broadly? Senator Dismay, the intended consequence is certainly to make sure that if you have a defined term such as tax practitioner that's going to appear in two different statutes in that chapter or subchapter
that you want to make sure that it's in the definitional section at the beginning of the chapter. But no, there are no unintended consequences that we are trying to cause. I don't mean that, but in the end, when we
Senator Jonathan Dismang
Unverified
30:24
start reading it, you know, red letter, and this is how it works, are we going to have
a catch for, you know, someone that, you know, is changing the definition of what they're able to do or not do or put additional requirements that they previously didn't have outside of this one change. So,
but I mean, if I'm hearing no, then I'll take that.
I mean, the only other question I had is on E2, where we have the provision that it
can be waived. How quickly do you think you're going to have rules promulgated setting out that process for
Speaker 69
31:02
a tax preparer? Certainly, we are in the process of putting together draft rules for income tax. This would be included in that package of income tax rules. So we are hoping that before the end of 2021 that we have draft rules that are prepared for,
that would include this particular change as
Speaker 137
31:24
well. But this is going to take effect
Senator Jonathan Dismang
Unverified
31:27
before you all have the draft rules in place. So it's going to take effect now. Yeah. I
Speaker 139
31:34
guess it would take effect for tax year 2021. Yeah, but he's
Senator Jonathan Dismang
Unverified
31:37
saying they're not going to have the rules on the, you know, being able to abstain from having to do that until the end of 2021. So then there's going to be a period of time there that there's no guidance.
And so how are we going to, if we have this in place and there's no relief and no relief can
Speaker 69
32:01
be provided, then how do we do that? The way that the bill is drafted is that it would be effective for tax
Speaker 115
32:06
years January 1, 2020 and following, so that would apply to the filing year that would occur in 2022.
Senator Jonathan Dismang
Unverified
32:13
Beginning on or after? Okay, I'm calling you now. Okay. Tax years beginning on. I would hope,
Senator Mark Johnson
Unverified
32:19
Senator Tisman, that that would give us time to tweak something
if there's anything in the rules that seems to create another problem or, as you said, unintended consequence. Got you. Well, and then just
Senator Jonathan Dismang
Unverified
32:33
last as a comment, you know, there's some discussion for folks that operate in multiple states. It's a difficult task. It was something that was miserable for me, is making those multi-state filings. I mean, I think this can help with that, but I think we all should. So like I said, hopefully there'll be some language coming around to allow us to have a little bit
additional time as prepares for multi-state filings. So thank you. Are there other questions?
Senator Mark Johnson
Unverified
33:06
Mr. Chairman, move to pass as amended.
Senator Bill Sample
Unverified
33:09
So I have a motion to do pass as amended. Do I have a second? I have a second. Are
there any discussion on the motion? Seeing none, all in favor say aye. Aye.
All opposed, no. Thank you. Congratulations, Senator. You have. And
Agenda
CALL TO ORDER
HB1026 Cavenaugh TO CLARIFY THAT CERTAIN APPEARANCE FEES ARE NOT COMPENSATION FOR THE PURPOSE OF DETERMINING ELIGIBILITY FOR THE SALES AND USE TAX EXEMPTION FOR FIRE PROTECTION EQUIPMENT AND EMERGENCY EQUIPMENT.
HB1010 Jett TO AMEND THE SALES AND USE TAX EXEMPTION FOR SALES OF CERTAIN AIRCRAFT.
HB1032 Jett TO AMEND THE INCOME TAX ACT OF 1929 TO ALLOW A TAXPAYER RECEIVING MILITARY RETIREMENT OR SURVIVOR BENEFITS TO RECEIVE THE FULL AMOUNT OF THE INCOME TAX EXEMPTION FOR RETIREMENT BENEFITS.
HB1033 Jett TO REMOVE EXTRANEOUS REFERENCES TO DIGITAL MAGAZINES IN THE SALES TAX LAWS; AND TO CLARIFY THE EXEMPTION OF A CAR WASH OPERATOR'S SALE OF A CAR WASH.
HB1041 Jett TO AUTHORIZE THE SECRETARY OF THE DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE AND ADMINISTRATION TO WAIVE THE CERTIFICATE OF INDEBTEDNESS FILING FEES IN CERTAIN CIRCUMSTANCES.
HB1042 Jett TO REPEAL THE LONG-TERM RENTAL VEHICLE TAX.
HB1031 Jett TO REQUIRE THE ELECTRONIC FILING OF INCOME TAX RETURNS BY TAX PRACTITIONERS; AND TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING TAX PRACTITIONERS.
ADJOURNMENT
Documents
| Title | Type | Pages | Source |
|---|---|---|---|
| Agenda — REVENUE & TAX - SENATE, Feb 8, 2021 | Agenda | 1 | Official source ↗ |
Speakers
Senator Bill Sample
Unverified
Speaker 2
Speaker 5
Speaker 6
Speaker 7
Speaker 9
Speaker 17
Senator Mark Johnson
Unverified
Speaker 28
Senator Jason Rapert
Unverified
Speaker 30
Speaker 46
Speaker 54
Speaker 55
Speaker 44
Speaker 58
Speaker 3
Speaker 39
Speaker 68
Speaker 69
Senator Jonathan Dismang
Unverified
Speaker 89
Speaker 90
Speaker 98
Speaker 99
Speaker 102
Speaker 105
Speaker 29
Speaker 111
Speaker 113
Speaker 115
Speaker 60
Speaker 118
Speaker 103
Speaker 43
Speaker 10
Speaker 73
Speaker 64
Speaker 132
Speaker 137
Speaker 139