Revenue & Taxation- House
Video
Transcript
1 document
Bills discussed (16)
| Bill | Title | Sponsor | Status |
|---|---|---|---|
|
HB1026
Act 125
· 4 mentions in chapter, agenda, transcript
Matched: “HB1026 Cavenaugh TO CLARIFY THAT CERTAIN APPEARANCE FEES ARE NOT C…”
|
TO CLARIFY THAT CERTAIN APPEARANCE FEES ARE NOT COMPENSATION FOR THE PURPOSE OF DETERMINING ELIGIBILITY … | Cavenaugh | Notification that HB1026 is now Act 125 |
|
HB1032
· 4 mentions in chapter, agenda, transcript
Matched: “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. |
|
HB1046
· 4 mentions in chapter, agenda, transcript
Matched: “HB1046 Jett TO CLARIFY THE ABILITY OF LEGAL COUNSEL FOR THE SECRET…”
|
TO CLARIFY THE ABILITY OF LEGAL COUNSEL FOR THE SECRETARY OF THE DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE … | Jett | WITHDRAWN BY AUTHOR |
|
HB1033
Act 144
· 3 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 |
|
HB1042
Act 146
· 3 mentions in chapter, transcript, agenda
Matched: “HB1042 Jett TO REPEAL THE LONG-TERM RENTAL VEHICLE TAX.”
|
TO REPEAL THE LONG-TERM RENTAL VEHICLE TAX. | Jett | Notification that HB1042 is now Act 146 |
|
HB1030
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…ON INMATE FARM FUND. DEFERRED BILLS Number Sponsor Subtitle HB1030 Jett TO PREVENT UNEXPECTED REDUCTIONS IN REVENUES FROM THE…”
|
TO PREVENT UNEXPECTED REDUCTIONS IN REVENUES FROM THE WHOLESALE SALES TAXES ON MOTOR FUEL AND … | Jett | WITHDRAWN BY AUTHOR |
|
HB1031
Act 143
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…AW CONCERNING THE CALCULATION OF THE WHOLESALE SALES TAXES. 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 |
|
HB1034
Act 732
· 2 mentions in chapter, agenda
Matched: “HB1034 Jett TO AMEND THE EXCEPTIONS TO THE PROHIBITION AGAINST THE…”
|
TO AMEND THE EXCEPTIONS TO THE PROHIBITION AGAINST THE DISCLOSURE OF TAXPAYER INFORMATION; AND TO … | Beaty Jr. | Notification that HB1034 is now Act 732 |
|
HB1041
Act 145
· 2 mentions in chapter, agenda
Matched: “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 |
|
HB1043
Act 719
· 2 mentions in chapter, agenda
Matched: “HB1043 Jett TO AUTHORIZE THE WAIVER OF CERTAIN AD VALOREM TAXES ON…”
|
TO AUTHORIZE THE WAIVER OF CERTAIN AD VALOREM TAXES ON UTILITIES AND CARRIERS; AND TO … | McClure | Notification that HB1043 is now Act 719 |
|
HB1044
· 2 mentions in chapter, agenda
Matched: “HB1044 Jett TO AUTHORIZE THE ESTIMATED ASSESSMENT OF TAX IF A TAXP…”
|
TO AUTHORIZE THE ESTIMATED ASSESSMENT OF TAX IF A TAXPAYER FAILS OR REFUSES TO PROVIDE … | Jett | Died in House at Sine Die Adjournment |
|
HB1047
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…T OF TAX IF A TAXPAYER FAILS OR REFUSES TO PROVIDE RECORDS. HB1047 Jett TO CLARIFY THAT A TAXPAYER'S AGENT MAY FILE A PROTEST…”
|
TO CLARIFY THAT A TAXPAYER'S AGENT MAY FILE A PROTEST ON BEHALF OF A TAXPAYER … | Jett | WITHDRAWN BY AUTHOR |
|
HB1048
Act 718
· 2 mentions in chapter, agenda
Matched: “HB1048 Jett TO AUTHORIZE THE OFFSET OF A TAX REFUND TOWARD A TAX D…”
|
TO AUTHORIZE THE OFFSET OF A TAX REFUND TOWARD A TAX DELINQUENCY WHEN A FINAL … | Milligan | Notification that HB1048 is now Act 718 |
|
HB1049
Act 283
· 2 mentions in chapter, agenda
Matched: “HB1049 Jett TO ALLOW THE WITHHOLDING OF STATE INCOME TAX FROM UNEM…”
|
TO ALLOW THE WITHHOLDING OF STATE INCOME TAX FROM UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION BENEFITS AND UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE … | Jett | Notification that HB1049 is now Act 283 |
|
HB1050
· 2 mentions in chapter, agenda
Matched: “HB1050 Jett TO REDUCE THE NUMBER OF EMPLOYEES REQUIRED TO MANDATE…”
|
TO REDUCE THE NUMBER OF EMPLOYEES REQUIRED TO MANDATE THE ELECTRONIC FILING OF ANNUAL WITHHOLDING … | Jett | Died in House at Sine Die Adjournment |
|
HB1117
Act 284
· 2 mentions in chapter, agenda
Matched: “HB1117 Wardlaw CONCERNING THE DIVISION OF CORRECTION INMATE FARM F…”
|
CONCERNING THE DIVISION OF CORRECTION INMATE FARM FUND. | Wardlaw | Notification that HB1117 is now Act 284 |
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 7, 2026
Bill 1117, Representative Warlaw, you prepare to present your bill, sir?
Representative Jeff Wardlaw
Unverified
0:05
Yes, sir, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate it, and thank you for hearing this. Committee, I was prepared for this bill to go to the judiciary, so I hope you guys... You lucked
out. You come to the best
Representative Jeff Wardlaw
Unverified
0:19
committee. I'll tell you what, I've not been here in a long time, seven years, actually, since I've been to revenue tax. Committee, this bill is pretty simple. So what it does is the Department of Corrections is one of the only departments, other than a few others, that can take a loan from the revenue stabilization.
And because they can do that, they do it only for their farm stuff. And the only part of that that's been eligible is the Department of Corrections, not the Department of Community Corrections. All this bill does is makes the Department of Community Corrections eligible for the same as the Department of Corrections, which makes it able to feed those products to the prisoners and get the same credit back for their loan forgiveness. And it's been in practice. They've been feeding these inmates this product all along.
They just haven't been getting credit towards their loan payments through that. So this is only going to give them credit for that, and I'll be happy to answer any questions. All
right, members, heard the bill. Any questions? Representative Beatty, you recognize
Representative Howard M. Beaty, Jr.
Unverified
1:29
her? I notice in the bill where they talk about the 50 cents credit for each dollar's worth of food produced, but how are they going to value, what valuation model are they going to use to base that 50 cents against for the product?
Representative Jeff Wardlaw
Unverified
1:44
Representative Beatty, the value of the products produced or processed on the farm that are consumed by the inmates and other authorized personnel should be based upon prices obtained through the Department of Correction, the state procurement director, and similar products and quantities in the open market of the state agencies, institutions, and universities. So they will use those values that the university system is using and all other food products are using. So it will be a bid-based value that's placed on those products.
Any other questions, members? Representative Hodges, you recognize, sir? Can
Representative Monte Hodges
Unverified
2:21
you repeat everything that you just presented? I just made it into the meeting. I can, just for
Speaker 13
2:26
you. I'm here for you, Representative. Members, any other questions? Motion at the proper
time. Let's hear your motion, Representative Lundstrom. Hold on a second. Anybody speaking against the bill, for the bill? Okay, Representative Lundstrom, I can hear your motion.
Representative Rick McClure
Unverified
2:47
Motion do pass. Motion do pass. Any debate members? All in favor, aye. Aye. Opposed? Congratulations, sir. You passed your bill. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and committee. Members, we want to jump back up to House Bill 1026.
Representative Kavanaugh. House Bill 1026. Representative Kavanaugh, you
Representative Frances Cavenaugh
Unverified
3:15
get ready, ma'am. Just go ahead and start. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you, committee. This bill is a simple bill that allows volunteer
firefighters to be able to pay their firefighters in a larger amount for their appearance fee and still maintain their exempt status so that they can not have to pay sales tax on their equipment. Currently in statute, it's set at $20. This is going to raise it up to $50. Not meaning that they have to pay 50, but they can pay up to 50, and it still won't be considered compensation, so it won't interfere with their exempt status. And there's no physical impact to it.
Remember, you heard an explanation of the bill. Any
Representative Rick McClure
Unverified
4:00
questions? Representative Kavanaugh, you're getting off the light. Hey, finally. Anybody want to speak against the bill, for the bill?
We have a motion. I have a motion from Representative Eves Any debate members? All in favor say aye Opposed? Congratulations, ma'am You passed your bill Thank you, committee Welcome Is Paul Goering here in the bullpen anywhere?
Does anybody know DFA? Staff seen DFA by any chance? Yeah Okay Are they
Speaker 31
4:34
in the bullpen over there? Okay. Members, we're going to switch
Representative Rick McClure
Unverified
4:42
around, and Representative Jack Fortner is going to chair, and I'm going to go to the end of the table and present DFA bills. I heard that.
Speaker 33
4:55
You just going to go down the list? Yeah, it'll be this list right here. Do you
Chair
Unverified
5:21
have another one of these? So far today, I've spilt potato chips in my lap, fruit pie on my tie, and coffee on my shirt.
So it's got to go up from here. Representative Jett, are you about ready? Yes, sir,
Mr. Chairman. You're recognized to present your bill. Mr. Chairman, I think we're going to be, members, these are going to be DFA bills. We're
Representative Rick McClure
Unverified
5:47
going to start off with House Bill 1032. The one we'll start off with.
Go ahead. Mr. Chairman. Members, these bills, the bills that we're going to see
Representative Rick McClure
Unverified
6:08
here today are from DFA. Now, Mr. Chairman, if your permission, I'm going to kind of go over what we're doing. The last bill, 1046, we're going to take a vote. We're going to ask to take a vote on all these bills except for House Bill 1046. I've asked DFA just to present the bill. Without us taking a motion on, there might be some issues with the bill. So just an interest to be sure we're going to vet these bills and do them the right way.
I'm going to ask DFA to present 1046 here shortly, but without us taking a motion on that. So just make sure everybody was clear on that. Yeah. Does
Chair
Unverified
6:43
everybody understand what he just said? We will hear that for information. I will not accept a motion. And then we'll poll
the committee. And if everybody feels like it's going to be a
Representative Rick McClure
Unverified
6:53
decent bill for the citizens of Arkansas, then we'll come back and run that bill at a later date. Okay. We're good. Thank you. All right, members, we're going to do the House Bill 1032. and basically all this is is a play on military retirement.
Military retirees, they can take up to $10,000 on their exemption for their retirement, but they can't take, under the existing law, they can't take like the 401k plus their military retirement. So they've got to choose one of each, but what this law will do, We'll let military retiree take $6,000 total, a combination of the 401k plus the military benefits up to $6,000. And to my left is Paul Gehring, a lot smarter guy than I am.
Let him explain this to you if
Speaker 45
7:43
you don't care, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you, Representative Jett. We also have immediately behind me is our senior counsel, Alicia Austin Smith, who was the drafter of this bill. So I'm going to ask her to come to the table and explain this bill draft, what it
Speaker 48
7:57
does, and answer any questions. All right.
Chair
Unverified
8:00
Please be seated and recognize yourself. Thank you,
Speaker 50
8:06
Vice Chair and members of the committee. Alicia Austin-Smith, Senior Counsel for the Department of Finance.
As Chair Jett, Representative Jett said, basically you may have some members of the military, veterans or their spouses, who want to take this military exemption, but they are only allowed under Arkansas law as it stands right now to take either the military exemption or the standard $6,000 retirement exemption that everyone else takes. They can't take both. And so let's say you have someone who started receiving benefits late in the year and they only get, you know, say $2,000 of military benefits. They have to choose either the standard deduction
on their regular retirement and forego the deduction on their military retirement or to only take that $2,000, so what this bill, it would allow them to take the difference. They can still claim their $2,000, and then they can claim up to $4,000 of the standard so that they're on par with regular taxpayers who are taking that $6,000 deduction. And we're here for any questions. Are there any questions, committee?
Chair
Unverified
9:13
Seeing none, did anyone sign up to speak?
Okay. Do I have a motion? Okay. Motion. Representative Wooten. What's your motion? Okay. Do I have a second? All in favor? Opposed? Congratulations. You got that one passed. All right. Thank
Representative Rick McClure
Unverified
9:38
you, Mr. Chair. Sunshine's an old dog every so often, huh? Members, next one's going to be House Bill 1033. Likewise, this is a DFA bill.
Back up last session, during the tax task force, the words digital magazines got put in state statute. Well, the state of Arkansas does not tax digital magazines. So basically that part of this bill is clarifying, taking that portion of the language out of state statute, since we don't tax that anyway. And then clarifying the exemption for the car wash, basically that is just clarifying. I think the folks that was in this committee last session knew that we had a heated argument or debate over car washes.
Representative Lynch remembers. I heard them say amen. So, anyway, long story short, this actually just clarifies the language of the bill. DFA tells me and informs me that it does not change any of the intention of the previous law of state statute that we vigorously debated last session. It's just a matter of cleaning up language in the bill. So with that, I'll be happy to try to answer any questions. Members, do you have any questions? Representative
Representative Robin Lundstrum
Unverified
10:53
It talks about digital magazines and car washes, so we have two different things. I'm not understanding. We have two different items in the same bill that are totally different.
Speaker 57
11:06
And, Representative, this is Lauren Ballard with DFA. We had a, that bill from last session covered quite a wide range of issues, as you probably recall, and actually added some more along the way, I believe. So we added this in one bill just to clarify Act 822 and put that all in one bill.
Representative Robin Lundstrum
Unverified
11:25
Okay, and this doesn't, just follow up, follow up? Please. This doesn't add any more taxes? Does it do any deregulation? I'm just not sure what
Speaker 57
11:37
the clarification was needed. Sure, I'm happy. I think Representative Jett did an excellent job explaining it, but I'm happy to give a little more detail if that would be helpful. So digital magazines, he referenced, that was an item that the task force identified that might be a place where we might want to consider an additional tax levy. That ultimately did not happen.
So when that language somehow was left over in the bill and should have been removed about the digital magazines. So when we were reviewing Act 822, we noticed that was kind of a leftover reference, and it was confusing to taxpayers because we have no levy on digital magazines. Which is good. So we took it out to clarify for our taxpayers that there's no levy on digital magazines. As to the car wash language, again, we had another drafting error about the self-service bays. So if you went to the exemption section, it talked about an exemption for self-service bays,
And it said you can find that definition under a different code section, and it didn't have a definition. So that was clean up to hopefully fix that drafting error so our taxpayers knew what a self-service bay was. And the final change was it's nothing new. When we were given 576 to review, we knew the legislative intent was to exempt those car washes, both their inputs and their outputs. And there was just kind of a technical drafting error there.
So we've clarified that and made sure that the law is clear that the sales from those car washes would be exempt. Thank you. That clarifies it. Any more questions? All right. Are you ready to close, Representative Chattery? I'm closing my
Chair
Unverified
13:14
bill, Mr. Chairman. Do I have a motion? Okay. Representative Warren? All in favor?
Speaker 39
13:29
Any opposed? Bill passes. Okay, Representative Jett, let's go to 1041. Yes, sir.
I'm going to let DFA just go ahead and run out of the gate on this one as well.
Speaker 50
13:54
Thank you, Representative Jett. Currently under Arkansas law, the Department of Finance has the ability to waive penalty
and interest in certain circumstances. There are three circumstances there listed in the bill. You know, when the taxpayer's failure to pay is explained to the director, when the taxpayer's failure to pay resulted from a mistake, their misunderstanding, or when the taxpayer may be insolvent or may be in bankruptcy, in those circumstances, the department can waive penalty and interest. So all this bill does is add on certificate of indebtedness filing fees. So it would allow the department to not only waive penalty and interest in those circumstances,
but in those exact same circumstances, we could also waive a filing fee that is on that account. So it would assist the taxpayers in that way. And I'm happy to answer any questions.
Speaker 66
14:53
Are there any questions, members? Yes, sure, thank you, Representative Lynch, a certificate of indebtedness is our lien, the department's lien. Yes, sir.
Chair
Unverified
15:02
Representative, would you speak into the microphone a little clearer?
We didn't hear you. Okay. I guess he's done. Any other questions? Is there anybody in the audience who wishes to speak? All right. Do we have a motion? All right. What's your motion? We do pass. All in favor? Aye. Opposed? All right.
The bill passes. Representative Jett, go to your next one, please. Okay, members. This is going
Representative Rick McClure
Unverified
15:39
to be House Bill 1042. This is DFA bill as well. Basically, it's pretty simple. They're repealing the long-term rental vehicle tax. It's a tax that's been on the books several years. I'm told it's been sunsetted. I don't know if that's the correct way of saying it. It's been sunsetted, so we just might as well get it off the books. So this is a taxpayer-friendly bill doing away with the tax. It's been sunsetted, I think, back in 17. Is that right? 15. 15. It got sunsetted back in 15, but it's still been on the books.
We're just cleaning the books up. With that, Mr. Chairman, I will entertain any questions. Are there any questions? Motion
Chair
Unverified
16:16
at the proper time. Is there anybody in the audience that wishes to speak? Okay, I'll entertain the motion. Do
Representative Rick McClure
Unverified
16:30
pass. All in favor? Aye. Opposed? Your bill passes, Representative. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Members, last but not least is House Bill 1046. This is the bill that we do not want to accept a motion on if you guys do not care without objection.
Basically, DFA is going to present this bill. Had just some personal issues, and I want to make sure that you guys, we're all on the same page here before we let it out of the committee. So if you don't care, members like Paul to proceed and present House
Speaker 44
16:57
Bill 1046 from DFA. Thank you, Representative Jett. Thank you, Chairman, members of the committee. Paul Gehring, DFA. DFA. House Bill
Speaker 45
17:03
1046 addresses an issue that we notice in another drafting issue that actually arose from Act 212 of 2007 when we were looking through the Tax Procedure Act. And just to give
you an idea about how tax protests work within DFA, if a taxpayer receives a notice of proposed assessment or a notice that a refund claim has been denied, that taxpayer may avail himself or herself of the Tax Procedure Act and requested administrative hearing before DFA. The administrative hearing that is held before DFA is conducted by an administrative law judge. We have two ALJs within DFA that decide these matters. After the ALJ issues his or her written decision,
there is a provision in our Tax Procedure Act that allows for the Commissioner of Revenue to revise the decision, which is essentially an appeal within DFA to the secretary and also to the commissioner of revenue. It is not a new hearing. You don't get a new administrative hearing. It's on written briefs and documents. So we do not have a new proceeding. But due to, and the way the law is currently right now, the taxpayer may request a revision from the commissioner of revenue
if the decision was sustained in full or in part. However, if the administrative decision currently in the law is not sustained at all, if it's completely reversed, the DFA does not have the legal authority to request an appeal within DFA to the commissioner and to the secretary. And how we got here was a drafting issue that we found from Act 212.
So back, the law before Act 212 was the DFA director at the time could revise the decision, whether it was in favor of DFA or in favor of the taxpayer. But back in 2007, there was some rewording within that paragraph to make technical corrections, which ended up inadvertently making DFA only able to request a commissioner's revision
if the assessment was sustained in part. So, for example, if we issued an assessment for tax penalty and interest and the tax and the interest was sustained but the penalty was not sustained, we could appeal to the commissioner of revenue and the secretary and ask that the penalty be reinstated for the legal reasons that we rely upon. So this is a very unusual procedure for us to ask for DFA for a commissioner's revision of an administrative decision,
but there are circumstances where we might disagree with an assessment that has been reversed by one of our administrative law judges and this bill would allow DFA to be on the same ground to request a revision that the taxpayer currently has. I'll be happy to answer any questions. Are there any questions? Seeing none, I guess you did a good job. Okay. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you. Thank you,
Chair
Unverified
20:35
Mr. Chair. Is there a question? I do have a question. Okay. Get up to your microphone because
Representative Roger D. Lynch
Unverified
20:51
we're dying to hear what you have to say. Am I on? No. Okay. Well, I'll just speak loud then. All right. So you're going to appeal a decision made by your own administrative
Speaker 45
21:00
law judge? That's right. That's right. Yes. 20 days? Don't get your mail. You're in trouble.
Speaker 45
21:11
it. Well, there are circumstances where an administrative law judge that we have the hearing before the administrative law judge and the administrative law judge has a different interpretation of law, a different interpretation of the facts. And DFA at this point, the way the law reads now due to the change that occurred back in 07, does not have the ability to request either the secretary or the commissioner to revise the decision.
Those ALJs within DFA are in a separate division, and we're designed to have that is much separation and independence of those ALJs. But we certainly, there are going to be decisions that have arised that where the ALJ disagrees with the department's assessment or the department's denial of a refund claim. and we wanted to be able to have that procedure that, um, to have the appeal to the commissioner just like the taxpayer has. So that
Representative Roger D. Lynch
Unverified
22:11
would only happen if the taxpayer was getting off with less
mode. You got me fixed now. Okay. That would only happen if, if the taxpayer, the ALJ said that the taxpayer didn't have to pay as much as what y'all had asked for originally. That's correct. That's correct yes so you're actually we're actually taking away an opportunity for the taxpayer by second guessing the administrative law judge
Speaker 45
22:46
we're providing an appeal to the commissioner um that if if the alj if if the legal counsel for the department disagrees with the finding of the ALJ in the case, this bill would allow us to request an appeal where the taxpayer has an opportunity to also say the ALJ was correct. We are just arguing the ALJ misinterpreted law or did not interpret the facts the way consistent with our interpretation. I think we
Representative Roger D. Lynch
Unverified
23:19
normally try to cut our private citizens a little
more slack than we do the administrative side of the house. And what this does is it levels the playing field
Speaker 45
23:29
between the two of them, right? That's correct, Representative Lynch. That was how the law worked prior to that 2007 act. Of course, that was before my time at DFA. I can't really speak to what the intent was at the time because in that 2007 act, the General Assembly change the law that currently allowed the department the revision process for either the taxpayer or Revenue Legal Counsel for DFA.
Speaker 72
23:56
One last. Okay. Could you, let me put you in the queue. We've got a couple more questions. Okay. We'll get back to you. Representative Bruton, did you have a question? Yes. Is it working
Chair
Unverified
24:09
now? No. Now, members, if you don't have a question, would you turn your microphones off? We're low on power or something in here. Try it now, Representative Wooden. There you go. Can you hear me now?
Representative Jim Wooten
Unverified
24:26
Yes. Can you hear me now? I want to follow up what Representative Lynch was making the point. Let me understand this. This is a case where a taxpayer has made an appeal to the decision that the department has made, right? That's correct, Representative Wooten. Okay. And he requests or he or she requests, and then it moves to your judges?
That's correct, yes. Okay. Before this 2007 law, how was that handled? The way the law read in 2007 before the effective date of
Speaker 45
25:09
Act 212 was that the director had the ability to revise any decision. So that could be requested by the department. It could be requested by the taxpayer. And it rewrote this section in Act 212 of 2007.
So essentially what this 2007 Act did was say that a taxpayer clearly has a right to request a revision, but Revenue Legal Counsel for DFA can only request a revision if the assessment or the refund
Representative Jim Wooten
Unverified
25:54
you're moving it to the Revenue Commissioner. that that's the ability for the revenue legal counsel to request request of the revenue
commissioner not the secretary the way
Speaker 45
26:06
the law works is that uh the the secretary has this authority but the secretary delegates these decisions to the revenue commissioner as the assistant um to to the
Representative Jim Wooten
Unverified
26:19
secretary and so why do y'all
Speaker 45
26:21
feel this is necessary i think it's necessary in order to have the same procedures that can apply. We all know that as fact-finders and decision-makers, administrative law judges, we might disagree from time to time
on the interpretation of the law and as well as how the law applies to those facts. This would provide an ability for there to be a next level of review in case the Revenue Legal Counsel of DFA is of the opinion that the ALJ was incorrect in its decision. The commissioner can certainly disagree with the Office of Revenue Legal Counsel and say, I see no error. But there are circumstances that we, as the attorneys for the Revenue Department,
Speaker 90
27:09
believe that the ALJ, their outcome was not consistent with what we believe should have been the ultimate conclusion in the decision. Why not just run them all
Representative Jim Wooten
Unverified
27:19
through to the revenue director rather than having the judges, if y'all are going to sit over there and second-guess them? I mean, you know, lawyers don't get, shouldn't get, don't get second chances. And y'all are getting a second chance at the taxpayer. If the judge rules in favor of the taxpayer, to me,
if I'm out here on the street and I end up in court and the judge says, hey, I mean, I can appeal it, or you can't appeal it. But within a state agency, it just seems unfair. That's all I
Speaker 45
28:04
have, Mr. Chairman. Thank you. Thank you, Representative Wooten. Thank you, Representative Wooten. And to that point, we had this conversation in preparation of this bill. We anticipated exactly these types of questions, and that's why when we had these preparations,
We wanted to make sure that this would not go to a vote today, just to get the information out there of what this bill contemplated. Ultimately,
Speaker 90
28:24
if this is just not a bill that the committee feels should be moving forward, we certainly
Chair
Unverified
28:34
Representative Wooten, if you'll turn yours off. Representative McClure, you're recognized. Okay. Representative Lynch, your turn.
Representative Rick McClure
Unverified
28:44
I've probably said enough. Representative Jett. Thank you, Representative Lynch. Members, I know it sounds crazy, DFA and myself sitting here arguing against, kind of arguing against this bill. But at the end of the day, Paul's right. They come, DFA comes to us and gives us packaged bills, and it's one of those things that some bills are non-starters, some are 50-50, and some is good to go. Of course, y'all already seen some good gold bills.
This is a 50-50 bill, and my problem with Representative Wooten is hit my problem as well when we started talking about the bill earlier on when Paul and the staff come over. The problem I had with the bill was, and I didn't want to bring it up front because I didn't want to prejudice your thought process since Representative Wooten touched on it. My problem with the bill is, say a taxpayer goes in and does everything right, He gets deemed on an audit. He takes it to the administrative law officers, and they rule in his favor.
And now DFA does not like that ruling, and they turn around and they say, okay, this taxpayer now, even though that you went through, did everything right, now we're going to make you go through, and no offense to our fine colleague over here because we all like him, but now we're going to have to go to the secretary of DFA for another ruling. To me, it was double jeopardy. But in my mind was, in fairness to DFA, because these guys are good guys, and they do want to get this right, and they're wide open. They want to just, lack of a better way of saying it, they wanted this committee to vet this bill to see how we felt about it.
So that's one reason why we decided not to take a motion. But also we want to hear your thoughts and your comments, because obviously if it don't fly in here, it's not going to fly out in the general public, and we're trying to make everything a taxpayer-friendly environment. So to DFA's credit, they come to us and said, hey, listen, this is a bill that you're probably going to be on the fence with. It's 50-50 at best, but we want to run it and kind of see the thought process and maybe there's something I missed when we bedded the bill. So that's kind of where we are, and that was my interpretation.
Representative Wooten is the same. So obviously you guys can make your own interpretation, and probably what we'll do is myself and Representative Faulkner is going to go around and kind of poll the committee members and see how you feel about this bill and for support for it, then we'll run it. Then I'll just go to DFA and ask DFA politely to pull the bill down. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Representative McElroy,
Chair
Unverified
31:10
did you have a question? No, sir. I'm just glad to be here. Okay.
Speaker 110
31:13
McGrew, do you have a question? Yes. So far down there, I can't see.
Representative Richard McGrew
Unverified
31:21
Yeah, I did. It's really more of a comment, and I feel a little bit disadvantaged. I'm a freshman, and I'm also not an attorney, But I kind of think I agree with the items that have been brought up. If a judge rules on the decision to a taxpayer who's already went through all those procedures, giving the department an opportunity to double dip and go back against the taxpayer, I would have a severe question about that. That's just my comment, and thank you. All right, thank you. One other thing
Representative Rick McClure
Unverified
31:51
also, there's avenue to go to the circuit court as well after the appeal process.
So this is not like this is cut and dry. DFA and the taxpayer can go back to the circuit court after the
Chair
Unverified
32:08
fact. All right. Any other questions? All right. Well, I think that was discussed, and it's probably best that we bring it back later, and we'll talk to you all and see what your opinions are, and then we'll come back with this another time. Okay, Mr.
Representative Rick McClure
Unverified
32:21
Chairman, I have one quick housekeeping. Go right ahead. So, members, Thursday, we're going to be looking at, I'm going to give you all some house bills.
I'll text these out as well, but I'm going to give these a heads up right now. Thursday, we're going to take a look at, is everybody ready? House Bill 1010, 1109, 1158, 1031, 1050. We're going to do 1043, but there's also another issue we're working through on 1043, so we're going to hold off on 1043. So it'll be 1010-1109-1158-1031-1050.
It'll be five bills for Thursday. And anybody has any questions, feel free to give myself or Representative Fortner a call.
Chair
Unverified
33:15
That's all I have, Mr. Chairman. Well, seeing no other business,
Speaker 33
33:19
we'll call this one done. I need to get your signature here. The best goes for 1030, 1030.
Agenda
REGULAR AGENDA Number Sponsor Subtitle
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.
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.
HB1046 Jett TO CLARIFY THE ABILITY OF LEGAL COUNSEL FOR THE SECRETARY OF THE DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE AND ADMINISTRATION TO REQUEST REVISION OF A HEARING OFFICER'S DECISION.
HB1117 Wardlaw CONCERNING THE DIVISION OF CORRECTION INMATE FARM FUND.
DEFERRED BILLS Number Sponsor Subtitle
HB1030 Jett TO PREVENT UNEXPECTED REDUCTIONS IN REVENUES FROM THE WHOLESALE SALES TAXES ON MOTOR FUEL AND DISTILLATE SPECIAL FUEL BY AMENDING THE LAW CONCERNING THE CALCULATION OF THE WHOLESALE SALES TAXES.
HB1031 Jett TO REQUIRE THE ELECTRONIC FILING OF INCOME TAX RETURNS BY TAX PRACTITIONERS; AND TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING TAX PRACTITIONERS.
HB1034 Jett TO AMEND THE EXCEPTIONS TO THE PROHIBITION AGAINST THE DISCLOSURE OF TAXPAYER INFORMATION; AND TO DESIGNATE THE SECRETARY OF THE DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE AND ADMINISTRATION AS THE OFFICIAL CUSTODIAN OF CERTAIN RECORDS.
HB1043 Jett TO AUTHORIZE THE WAIVER OF CERTAIN AD VALOREM TAXES ON UTILITIES AND CARRIERS; AND TO CREATE A STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS ON THE COLLECTION OF CERTAIN AD VALOREM TAXES ON UTILITIES AND CARRIERS.
HB1044 Jett TO AUTHORIZE THE ESTIMATED ASSESSMENT OF TAX IF A TAXPAYER FAILS OR REFUSES TO PROVIDE RECORDS.
HB1047 Jett TO CLARIFY THAT A TAXPAYER'S AGENT MAY FILE A PROTEST ON BEHALF OF A TAXPAYER IF THE TAXPAYER PRODUCES A PROPERLY EXECUTED POWER OF ATTORNEY AT THE TIME OF THE FILING.
HB1048 Jett TO AUTHORIZE THE OFFSET OF A TAX REFUND TOWARD A TAX DELINQUENCY WHEN A FINAL ASSESSMENT OF TAX HAS BEEN ISSUED.
HB1049 Jett TO ALLOW THE WITHHOLDING OF STATE INCOME TAX FROM UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION BENEFITS AND UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE BENEFITS.
HB1050 Jett TO REDUCE THE NUMBER OF EMPLOYEES REQUIRED TO MANDATE THEELECTRONIC FILING OF ANNUAL WITHHOLDING STATEMENTS.
Documents
| Title | Type | Pages | Source |
|---|---|---|---|
| Agenda — REVENUE & TAXATION- HOUSE, Jan 26, 2021 | Agenda | 2 | Official source ↗ |
Speakers
Representative Joe Jett Chair
Unverified
Representative Jeff Wardlaw
Unverified
Representative Howard M. Beaty, Jr.
Unverified
Representative Monte Hodges
Unverified
Speaker 13
Representative Rick McClure
Unverified
Representative Frances Cavenaugh
Unverified
Speaker 31
Speaker 33
Chair
Unverified
Speaker 45
Speaker 48
Speaker 50
Speaker 52
Representative Robin Lundstrum
Unverified
Speaker 57
Speaker 39
Speaker 66
Speaker 44
Representative Roger D. Lynch
Unverified
Speaker 89
Speaker 72
Representative Jim Wooten
Unverified
Speaker 90
Speaker 38
Speaker 110
Representative Richard McGrew
Unverified