Revenue & Tax - Senate

Call this meeting Senate revenue and taxation committee. Open and. Center this morning a point you're ready to present your. Senate bill. 236. Wherever you feel comfortable. I mean it it's okay the membership I'll stand. 2. This. If you would. Okay. It's been my goal not to do that just to talk a little bit louder which the go get to bigger problem with unfortunately. Of members so this is the bill if you remember there was a veterans tax code along with that were several other provisions thank 1 was at the taxation of candy and some other items unemployment benefits what was part of that bigger package I mean they would all agree that when president president times and of this and it expected this pandemic are or employers didn't expect the lay offs they didn't expect the shut down and turn the same employees never anticipated that they would have to rely on unemployment insurance as part of a kick up in that bigger discussion is that there was not an ability for the state to do with holding on those payments that were made of course those payments became more sizeable as the federal government added to those weekly dollars to unemployment beneficiaries are the result of that is you've got a quite a few people that are not familiar with the process not familiar with the program have not set aside funds have not prepared to be able to pay state state income taxes and so what this bill does it removes the unemployment state income or state income tax and unemployment for the calendar years 2020 and 2021 at the same time there is a bill it's my understanding that would allow for withholding to take place maybe when we get back to some normalcy but with that that's that's my explanation of the bill. Members of the questions from the committee. Senator Teague. Chairman we go at this bill out and we just hear it for now. If I can you mean it's it's my understand when they do it to spill out pass it because it will be $1000000. We're going here from the a familiar objects record and so the issue and while there's maybe some difference between this and other bills that we're discussing this session tax season is upon us they're going to start allowing for the filing returns and also again part of the bigger pictures that 1090 nines of already went out to folks I would be shocked at some of you in this room if not most of legislators room have already received the phone calls from folks that never claimed unemployment received a 1099 in the mail this will help assist with that issue is just 1 more hurdle that would be eliminated as far as the reporting requirements on the state's version of a 1040 I but also would allow the taxpayers to know what to expect when that filing starts so there is an urgency that's part of the above and beyond you know the other types of bills that we're trying to wait and and let let us get to the end of the session to consider. So I've heard for more tax professionals and I have probably a individuals we which is important I mean it's important that a tax professional understand what's to be expected in regards to these funds and the longer we batted around the list the morning certainty there be out there. Thank you Mr chairman thank just to hear Mister Walters wisdom on this. Well I don't think that we're going to get that. Mr. Senator Rapert you're. I just want to verification centres maybe you say that. Well that did not receive unemployment compensation have probably already received I didn't I didn't quite hear the yeah there there are I mean I think everybody understands I I've even had unemployment filed on me during this past year we we get the DTW S. I don't want to try to speak for them but it's my understanding that there were people that scam the system all the way across United States started. Cosin worked away to the other side in hit every state by you know there that they obtain so screw numbers in those sorts of things I know the DWS trying to reconcile that and I hope everybody that I took advantage of that program illegally receives the punishment that's do but this you know when you get that phone call you can reassure those individuals that that unemployment 1099 they receive will not be taxable for state income tax purposes and will not be an issue for them on the state level that's not to say that they would need to address it on their federal returns since taxation is there on the federal return but it would it would ease some of those concerns I believe. I will I will just say that the this is as you say I actually have a conversation with the Missouri legislature yesterday and they were meeting on $150000000 over paid in their state that to the issue so obviously is going to be the issue I'm glad that were speaking to this we're handling this I did but that you know we made Mr chairman did little push back from folks if we're not passion of the bills out but it would just have to explain it I guess yeah I'm I'm fully prepared to for that explanation I think this is a unique circumstance because of unique times. Senator Johnson. Thank you Mr chairman and this is a follow up on Senator Rapert question and and I guess Senate is may I start with you but I've just want enough several of us she said you had people fraudulently using your name and filing for you I heard even did the governor I don't have anyone that I know of use my name but several used my dress and I forwarded these. Allegedly fraudulent filings and the response from a workforce services that to us Dr Chilvers and she's testified for us that you know we're on this route we're trying to stop with the other day 1 of these individuals he got I got is 1099 in the mail which made me think after all this he still got his money and you're telling me that that's probably not the case he did not get his money and so but then again it's perfectly legitimate recipient. That did would get that same 1099 what I would in yeah anticipate over time is that those those fraudulent 1090 nines or those fraudulent or those denies that re issued on fraudulent claims and already know this is is happening DWS will see the send out a 0 reporting 1099 or corrected 1099 form and so that would that would take care of that for you know for that particular individual if they did not receive those funds you know there's some information they need to make sure that it the that those transactions didn't actually occur for the right person but there will be corrected $0.1099 out for those that didn't actually receive unemployment compensation and I'm not putting words your math would help me sounds like what you said was if we're not gonna tax this is kind of a moot point on all this and certainly simplifies things for people that you know did legitimately receive the benefit I just I'd really like to know who is at fault who sent these people their 1090 nines when they really either were fraudulent the first place or I guess there's not a way to release in 1 by 1 separate the legitimate ones from the illegitimate ones that receive the 1099 I think these folks that you know scanned the system some of was on individual basis the sum was bigger than that and they get and they were very sophisticated as my understanding on how they obtain the funds and and that sort of thing so I mean you would expect there to be some issues when you got a program that typically runs on $100000000 for the pay out a year and it jumps up to 2.$6000000000 in pay outs in which you have I can remember those top my head the number of actual receivers what we have 40 3000 prior years and that's jumped up and I don't have in front of me but I would say it's. 280 6000 rupees recipients in years so you know it he hated 90 W. S. is doing everything they can Director children's is but you know this particular bill and I want to be clear that doesn't fixing the issues that those folks that received 1090 nines on the federal level it does help assist with I think some easing of concerns on the state level which is all that we have control over okay thank you Sir Dismang thank you Mr. Senator Hickey. Yes Sir and Senate dismaying you probably can answer this And I'm I'm for the bill and for us getting it out quick but with what you all discussions here just made me get into the weeds a minute do do where should we possibly consider some language within the bill that says that the employee the people who receive this through for all deception whatever would not be included for that to be tax exempt my reason for thinking that way is is I understand that they may can be charged you know with whatever they've done but in addition you know the prosecutor may would want to put in something of about tax evasion where they could get us a stiffer penalty that already exist in so many if you receive funds through fraudulent means you have to pay taxes on the funds that you receive the product means is my understanding when you're not so that that's already that's already in play an already something that should be taken care of okay so just and again I know what represented Jett could work on that on the end if we did look at that though and insists and think that through just to make sure since we're exempting these funds from being taxed that that No Way would limit us from or some prosecutor from trying to bring bring that part of it in the you know in a procedure thank you. Thank you and I thank the minister will address I want once he's up here. Any other questions from committee. Swing 9 a. Mr would you contextually to table and. A Mister Wilson if you wanna make sure yep that'll work too. And members I think did it some of the. People center to you said that you were tax preparers which have as far to call I thank the the people of the gentleman we got these checks are now just realizing that. That that they have a tax obligation. And some of them. I have never drawn a an employment check in so that's a big shock to them and so that's one of the reasons that we need to. Expedite this. The legislation. If you will please say your lines from record. Thank you Mr chairman members of the committee my name is Paul hearing I'm assistant revenue commissioner for DFA. Both in the progress would be a 5. Thank you Mr chair IDFA has signed up to speak in favor of Senate bill 236 as by Sherman DISMANG pointed out this was a law change that to tax unemployment in Arkansas and that occurred in 2017 as a part of a an omnibus bill to allow for military retirement to be exempt and state of Arkansas your first tax years that were affected for unemployment purposes were 2018 and 2019 is when we started receiving return information for those years I'm as noted in the revenue impact we've had on average a little over $100000000 and benefits that were reported on 1090 nines from the department of workforce services for an average about 40 4000 1090 nines 2000 and on the returns that were actually filed and unfortunately we had on average about 20 4000 individuals that reported that income on their returns for an average in the neighborhood of a sick little higher than 60 that $60000000 in reported income so we've got about 65 percent rate of individuals that are and that received the benefits in those 2 tax years that have reported the income on their returns of course if you don't report an item of income on your return it subject to an assessment at a later date. Now do we did receive the DWS data for the 2020 filing here earlier in January. We noted that there's 2.$6000000000 in unemployment benefits that were paid on those 1090 nines. We applied that 65 percent the filing rate to that 2.6000000000 which came up with about 1.7000000000 that we would potentially expect to be received on returns filed in this spring from the recipients of those benefits. We applied a 3 percent effective tax rate which was in line with the effective tax rate for 2018 and 2019 to come up with the revenue impact of 50 $1000000 that would hit in FY 21 simply for for the following year that we're starting here in the next few weeks. Now we certainly understand that there mental many members that are in the present in the room here received a notification from work for services that a file an unemployment claim was filed against them my wife myself other employees and DFA. So there were many fraudulent claims what that actual number of the fraudulent claims for unemployment actually could potentially be we don't know it could be upwards of 25 percent. So we certainly had to account for those fraud claims that we would never receive any type of of income from because it group should not be reported on a return because it was not income to that taxpayer. So we also understood and had to make the assumption on the 51000000 was that that would only be if all of that income was reported 65 percent of the benefits paid on a return and the taxpayer when they file their return. Also paid the tax due with the return or it may sufficient estimated payments to cover their liability throughout the tax year as as a senator Dismang pointed out there is a bill currently in the legislature that DFA has has drafted to apply the ability for DWS to allow a recipient of unemployment to withhold on their benefits as they receive them but currently before the session we did not have a law in place and what to allow for withholding for state unemployment only for federal. So the only individuals that might have sent in any type of tax prepayments for unemployment benefits would be estimated payments. A so what we ultimately what would receive in in in tax if this was not passed into law we would not know that until after the filing season concluded and many individuals may not even file the return in this fiscal year they may obtain a federal extension and state extension and not filed in FY 22 but we certainly believe the revenue impact for FY 21 is somewhere less than 51000000. And also that the taxpayers that had their of liability potentially we would not receive even if they reported on the return it potentially could not be collected this fiscal year next this year or into the future we may even have to go and file an assessment and give the taxpayer an opportunity to contest the assessment in even at that point we would have to collect upon it there is room in our current surplus to provide for this revenue impact to be built in so that we can provide this benefit to all those individuals that were affected by the pandemic we had in over 240000 additional claims for unemployment that we would ordinarily receive in a in a in a calendar year. A number of taxpayers were hard hit by the pandemic even though that the federal government stepped in and provided the additional benefits I not only for the additional for the salaried workers but applied allowed for the self employed to get the benefits as well certainly this benefit would allow those hard hit Arkansas citizens that word displaced from their work to avoid a tax consequence when they file their returns this spring I'd be happy to answer any questions if the to the Committee having. Centring on. Also we have a state income tax of on the fraudulent claims would it be just a simple thing to compare of people to file our state income tax the against the unemployment claims would not be a very first step to eliminate a lot of this national this for all bring. Cert certainly I think Senator Ingram that would certainly be a valid tool and effective tool that we could use once we were start receiving returns but if in the case of of myself my wife we're going to file a return she got a 1099 I did not from DWS so ultimately we we certainly expect anyone that's in that non filer group they could either fall into that group that was fraud or they could be somebody that received the benefit and is just typically not a non is not a filer or that they were possibly intending upon filing return included this income on the return saw that they were going to have a bill to pay and maybe they delay filing until sometime later in the future but of course there are a lot of tools I know that law enforcement is utilizing and working with DWS to identify and that the individuals that are responsible for this nation wide fraud that occurred and just about every state I don't know the I'm not fully aware of everything that they are utilizing to identify and and seek to work receive this restitution from that was you know taken from other people that really needed the benefits but I certainly agree once we receive more returns and we might bill have more information but of course if. The individuals that are going to be filing if this bill were to be passed they're not gonna be including it on their return as well but we certainly can match the taxpayer identification numbers on those returns with the 1090 nines that were sent. Right thank you Sir. Questions. Senator Johnson. Thank you Mr chairman of Mr Gerry I'm generally. Always a little bit of a problem this taxing unemployment benefits seems like a kind of a vicious circle but it is what it is but I'm wondering if there might be and that this is this point I've tended support senators Max bill but I'm wondering if we could. Or maybe through some system of the credit. Take care of the issue Senator Hickey brought up of the the criminals and also. If someone and again which will grow some numbers as someone makes $200000 a year but they they they did qualify for the employment they got sent home or whatever other basically. A highly paid individual and then suddenly we get this extra thing we've all heard the stories of I one friend that owned a restaurant and he had a dishwasher that was making about $300 a week more. With the unemployment in the extra federal money the the when he worked and consequently we could he could get these people to come back to work and and we've we've heard those stories. Is there perhaps a way to do that and some kind of a credit type thing that the course of require paperwork it have to file a claim the credit and all that but is that a anything it could possibly be done short of just doing this I'm not saying we shouldn't do this maybe it's exactly what we should do what I'm I'm just kind of looking for an alternative when I see $51000000. It's pretty big by. Well it certainly didn't want to add that might be a question that Senator Dismang would like to answer but certainly there's when you when you provide relief to such a large group of individuals you would you would prefer to use a scalpel and be able to carve out all those individuals that you would like to make sure that you are giving them the benefit and and and to the exclusion of of another group of people whether they are upper income or if they are. You know criminals that that received the benefit but have no intention ever paying any tax on it in Arkansas but that might be a question that service men would like to pass I'd like to hear that Senate is fine but when we face you by saying what kind of relative administrative cost in problem will it calls for D. F. and I will going in either direction sure in at I will address and and that is a of a very valid point that if you do provide for a tax credit and that would require the individual that is affected that received the benefit to file a return and given that we have an additional 240000 individuals that are receiving it's it's unclear if. Those individuals would would actually file and get the benefit. Thank you and so. I think that certainly it's a I don't disagree that it would be a great idea to find a way to structure the bill so that only individuals that we want to give this benefit to which would provide it but certainly providing a tax credit would require that individual to file and take the credit on the return. But the cost and the I'll call it personnel wrist the F. and they would have to put into that is not an insignificant numbers this is what I'm hearing you say that is true that this change as contemplated by the bill would require programming changes to software vendors that that do tax preparation software going to have to make changes. I believe that this change that's contemplated in Senate bill 236 would be less complicated for for DFA as well as for the software vendors I want to speak for them but certainly this would be I think an easier programming change for them as opposed to crafting a credit to be taken. Thank you thank service rearing. Could you follow up with what I'm trying to make sure I understand so there's I think there's 3 parts that you're looking at in providing a credit so instead of just exempting the income we have a credit because we think that high income people shouldn't. Should pay taxes on the employment okay and then the second is we want. People to pay fraudulently to pay taxes on employment I think it's what you're saying it's kind of what Senator say I can't put words and then what was the third well it was about the the the situation that about we're we're looking at the total cost in the in the revenue loss and there's my I was really asking the F. and I there's administrative costs of doing it that way and we can't count that into the whole budget situation not just the the gross the cotton the the gross revenue loss yes so my understanding is is that the the revenue impact is roughly $3000000 and that's because we historically have about $100000000 worth of unemployment claims paid out at least the 2 years with that taxation in place SO $3000000 is what you're looking at and revenue it on the forecast what I mean so I'll I'll take first with the higher income earners or whatever you want to call them I mean what what I would say is is if someone has been pretty personally involved in a entity that was forced to shut down to add to to you know the governor mandate and then also I would just the environment that we're in in relation to coded that you know those managers. That were laid off or lost their job due to the closure their mortgages didn't stop in their utilities bill doesn't stop and their support for their children didn't stop inside I mean I have a hard time. Believing that a system that their employer paid into unemployment. You know that they don't deserve the benefit just because they made more money prior to the closure prior to the lay off its philosophically NO I wouldn't agree that that that would be a route that I'd want to go I'm not saying the best Jordan members would get you know see otherwise they might but that would that that I would I would not include that bill and I really would I mean or amendment I would not entertain to put it in this bill to do that will serve as mining I agree with you on what you just said the only thing I think of is those same types of people the records come higher income professionals whatever if they're laid off because of the issue unrelated to pandemic then they're still faced with taxation on on their unemployment benefits in a in a quote normal situation so I'm not I'm not picking on him at this time but they were just is harmed as the ones that we've seen the last year so I'm not I'm just want us to be and that's a broader yes and I think that that was your third your thirds was should we tax and employment at all and and that's going to be that would be a debate and I think there's urgency here so we did something that was pretty clear cut if we have that debate further off later on then the supportive of having that discussion but at this point what I wanted to do was get a bill that we can get in front of you at that didn't require that additional bait debate on what should happen is unemployment there needs to be a discussion about if we do do we have the the ability to withhold which I think that you should so that was a much bigger discussion this right here is trying to take care of an immediate need and we can you know real the other stuff around and debate it as we get the time you know to do so senator I believe you brought a good bill I don't want the perfect be the enemy of the good I'll support thank you thank you Mr thank you. Both balls thank. Senator Rapert you have a question thank you very much I just wanted to clarify on this and there's a couple reference has been made but is not required I want to make clear on this is not true that Arkansas historically did not tax unemployment benefits. That that is correct senator and that changed what year 2017 sessions Sir right and for the 2018 tax year right well you know I was sitting on this committee at that time to in the course of this I want to make the point that I think Senator Stubblefield actually made in here a few days ago this is one of the reasons why we need to have bills that are clean. Because quite frankly when not that bill passed. With the changes many of which I lack the changes that were reducing I just happen remember there was not a whole lot of clear. Messaging on changes like what we're facing right now and so you know it just bothers me because here we had not ever even taxed unemployment benefits in our state we pass the bill there's a provision in here and again I was listening to this debate as well but it was one of those things I think I made a statement sitting in this exact position that we get a bill in here with a lot of really good provisions and then we get a lot of baggage thrown on the the train as it leaves the station in your face a situation where you can't vote for things you want to vote for because you got some baggage on that train and so I just want to make sure that that stating clearly and and again senator dismaying made reference to a debate in the future yeah I think we ought to debate why we would continue to tax unemployment benefits in this state when we had never done so before and so that particular bill included other provisions is that not true that's correct center there were military retirement the taxation at the wholesale level of soft drinks it is well as people levying the full sales tax on. And a candy and soft drinks that the full state sales tax rate as well as I believe there was also some provisions on and digital goods that was included and it was designed to be a general revenue neutral bill in order to fund this the $13000000 that was going to be needed for military Tyerman exemption well I definitely joined senators may we should have that debate again because this is one of those things that they just really disturbs me because a lot of great things we did but then here we are in a situation and now with this unexpected pandemic in all fallout from here we are to have to make a decision to go back on it and to be quite honest we never should have started in the first place thank you. Senator Caldwell. Senator Teague did junior year. Formica's closure that of my family members drew unemployment and would be affected by this probably will staying so noted for the record. Hello can you have something else to. And no Sir thank you. Seeing no other questions. You. In the I have a motion measurement. Order was for your motion the motion would be that we should that we. Just been available which we uh say we wouldn't vote until later on these bills and let this bill be voted upon today. A pride in Senate Revenue fix have you ought to. I think that's a proper motion the. If I could just discussion in our reason for doing that is solely because of the situation we're in with the pandemic of the tax preparers need to know which way to go when it also save a huge administrative costs probably. We don't have to do amended returns so are some reasons the reasons to go along with that sekarang synergy. Thank you Sir Senator Hickey is there a second yes it is. Thank you. Motion before is that we. Take a vote this to suspend the rules to vote do pass or not do pass on this particular bill all in favor say aye. All opposed no. Motion carries. Senator do you have a motion to pass. I have a second center records a discussion on the motion. Seeing none all in favor say aye. Posed NO. Cynder this man your motion is passed thank members. The. The. No we're not. We have. House Bill 1229. Senator Stubblefield assist the bill that you called me last night to let you run pass over. What we will. Okay you're pulling this bills them for them for an amendment okay. 111109. Okay. Thank you say please. Members we're going here House Bill Evans on that. Interest of the Phyllis is non controversial bill thank you said is Mr chairman thank you thank you Committee I think most of us in here where the fact that there's a lot of volatility when it comes to. Of the amount of unclaimed property and and audits and remittances to come back to the Arkansas office this bill simply sweeps a specific amount of money. From that account over to the FNA general revenues and the rest of the the funds will stay in that account for 3 years except for the math that's it is a designated for Central Services that's basically all it does and I'm. 5. Misstating find I think the auditors here to correct me but I think definitely is good with this. What a pretty simple bill. Members of the questions. Yes I just wanna make 100 percent sure I understand. What what is been happening. This is all sorts Gretchen out all. So what what is been happening with this. What is the what what is been happening prior to this bill whenever we're saying that all funds have been swept before so all funds before were being swept to G. R. is that correct. I'm pretty sure that if. You are so inclined auditor light will come thank you Sir. Would you state your name for the record please. Auditor and really welcome to the committee misli thank you Senator 80 yes I just simple terms I just wanna know what what's currently happening before this bill because it says we wish that we shall transfer to the G. R. all remaining funds and then now we're only going to transfer 18000002 G. or it's cleaning up that language no we were not necessarily doing all it was a convoluted. Formula that the if in a and I just met and finally said let's just come up with one of a number that we both agree on. Thank you thank you my paper. Continue so over the last 3 years. What have we transferred. I didn't bring. I'm sorry I went back over 10 years and took an average of what we've done over the last 3 auditors to make it to a number that we could both agree upon and we felt that this was it I did not bring with me what I've done All of those 10 years I'm sorry Sir. Members the location is coming forward to answer this question for any. For testimony yeah. Regarding this from asked if the old pool them agree it. As follows in the. The numbers fluctuated between 1920 $3000000 over the last 5 or 6 years I understand that some of those numbers have been miscalculated it's been all of financial this so we sit down look at what the number should have been. The term in the. The $18000000 as a ballpark what the sheer and it's what we have in the budget and forecast for this year and next. So without consistency picking that number would be best. So is there a fiscal impact to the state on a minor the way I mean because we picked the number that's in our forecast for this year and next year there will be no impact to the forecast for the budget. So is G. R. but is G. are going to be reduced because of this bill from what's been happening. Again we tried to look at the areas where it should have been worse is what we receive the ticket number with what will be the best number one for so there will be calculation errors and audit findings of the Arkansas. Thank you Mr open. Senator. Well all is a pretty consistent numbers in my experience to so call the the that 19 to 23000000 that additional for $5000000 where does that where where does that end up with the money stays inside the phone dollars release right there's a calculation is made but I have all of this is based on the the stock market values on any certain day we second fluctuate back and forth there was an issue about the ownership of the stock is so. When I made these calculations and determine what they're going to Census there's been errors in that so we went up over recording revenue we should have had and leaving the sun sure. What we're trying to do is say okay let's take any use our amount the money stays on the phone if it doesn't go anywhere so the state doesn't lose any money it may sit there for another year before we get it out but this will give us a consistent number the hit each year and it's going to be revenue neutral this because of the number of the San forecast for the next 2 years. And and of course this fun would be would build up over the years. He could build over years or. Go down in value because we don't know what we're going to get the cheer from the dollar amounts going into the appointment of the property so okay thank you. Mr chairman I I'm very sorry I told you this was not controversy it was in the House and passed out so please excuse me for what I told you with all these questions and here. Senator Johnson's question. Thank you Mr a. Matt Rourke I understand exactly what you're doing here I just wanna clarify something that I'm not quite sure about. This much of this funded securities or things that are of a sliding scale of you for example if I lift a gold bar in my safe deposit box and I. Matter in a timely death and had no heirs and state would be sitting there with that goal Laure and depending on the price of gold that particular year open they could just like our stock market has its its long quite a bit and if our selection stock certificates for site apple OR Walmart's stock in there then same situation so that's why we have the variance between say 19 and $23000000 you're nodding so I'll say okay I did understand it correct. If the situation came up where the the the full 3 year time it passed in that amount was less than 18000000 would your office have enough time or notification to come back to the General Assembly for. Temporary correction. Yes Sir I would never agree to disability if it didn't yes comparable. Sir okay that's great thank you so much thank you Mr. Were there other questions. Restaurateur 93 I have for. Members I will lead to scroll through but I want taken and sent this on the record. Normally these this particular bill if it had comments I didn't hear any comments that were really bad about it but if. If this happens again I'm fixin take and send it back to our regular gender rooms and have a non controversial bill. And so. And. I'm of those closely thank goodness there's really not any bill that they were come true it's not controversial so I wanna I wanna make that clear that. Hi I'm going to rule from now on but I will allow you to close on your bill and we will take about. This is. Thank you Mr chairman I understand exactly what you're saying. You will bill come to city county local to that is the sponsor said this is a simple real simple non controversial bill meanwhile 2.5 hours later he had pulled the bill down so I understand what you're saying but I have agreed with the center he key to take this before audit and let them look at it going passes out if the committee is willing to pass this out I will take this before on and let them look at this to make sure there's not any issues there so I thank the armor to read like to take interjects something okay she is running toward your state. This was audit suggestion of what to do. Sorry I I. It was non controversial I'm so sorry thank you and I withdraw that statement Mr. Thank you for that. So you were closed for close to the bill I appreciate a good vote. I have a motion do pass from Central regular session from Senator Hickey revving discussion on the motion. Seeing none all in favor say aye. Opposed no. Senator green graduation June. Senator Teague did you have a question Mr chairman you need a motion to undo the motion we may tweak your so we can vote on a. Johnson's builder because the weekly with this all right of the motion just one bill or if you left it open. If you do all as I understood your motion that was a motion to to allow us to suspend the rules so that we could not have been days we under that are with so if we're if that. Arises again we will need that same motions I can suspend the rules thank you. Savings for your business members we are dismissed.