Revenue & Taxation- House
Video
Transcript
1 document
Bills discussed (58)
| Bill | Title | Sponsor | Status |
|---|---|---|---|
|
HB1026
· 4 mentions in agenda, transcript, chapter
Matched: “…IDENTIFICATION CARD. REGULAR AGENDA Number Sponsor Subtitle HB1026 A. Collins TO CREATE THE ARKANSAS PROMISE ACT; AND TO CREAT…”
|
TO CREATE THE ARKANSAS PROMISE ACT; AND TO CREATE AN INCOME TAX CREDIT FOR TUITION … | A. Collins | Died in House Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
HB1500
· 4 mentions in transcript, chapter, agenda
Matched: “know the bills that we are going to hear today our House Bill 1500 House Bill 1501 House Bill 1026. House Bill 1072 and House…”
|
TO ENHANCE ECONOMIC COMPETITIVENESS BY REPEALING THE THROWBACK RULE. | Beaty Jr. | Died in House Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
HB1501
· 4 mentions in agenda, chapter, transcript
Matched: “…E ECONOMIC COMPETITIVENESS BY REPEALING THE THROWBACK RULE. HB1501 Beaty Jr. TO ADOPT FEDERAL INCOME TAX LAW REGARDING DEPRECI…”
|
TO ADOPT FEDERAL INCOME TAX LAW REGARDING DEPRECIATION AND THE EXPENSING OF PROPERTY; AND TO … | Beaty Jr. | Died in House Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
HB1072
Act 876
· 3 mentions in agenda, transcript, chapter
Matched: “AGENDA (Revised 3-17-2025 @ 3:50 PM) Moved HB1072 to Regular Agenda House Committee on Revenue and Taxation T…”
|
TO CLARIFY THE REQUIREMENTS FOR ESTABLISHING ELIGIBILITY FOR THE PROPERTY TAX EXEMPTION FOR DISABLED VETERANS, … | C. Cooper | Notification that HB1072 is now Act 876 |
|
HB1538
· 3 mentions in agenda, chapter, transcript
Matched: “…LE BUSINESS ASSETS TO THE AMOUNT ALLOWED UNDER FEDERAL LAW. HB1538 Ray TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING THE NET OPERATING LOSS INCO…”
|
TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING THE NET OPERATING LOSS INCOME TAX DEDUCTION; AND TO INCREASE … | Ray | Died in House Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
HB1691
Act 497
· 3 mentions in transcript, chapter, agenda
Matched: “…The one bill that we are having a vote on is representorre House Bill 1691. Everybody understands that. All”
|
TO PROVIDE FOR CERTAIN PROPERTY TO BE EXEMPT FROM TAXATION; AND TO PROVIDE THAT CERTAIN … | Torres | Notification that HB1691 is now Act 497 |
|
HB1469
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…IGIBLE STUDENT AT A PUBLIC INSTITUTION OF HIGHER EDUCATION. HB1469 Beaty Jr. TO CREATE THE BROADBAND EXPANSION AND EFFICIENCY…”
|
TO CREATE THE BROADBAND EXPANSION AND EFFICIENCY ACT; AND TO CREATE A SALES AND USE … | Beaty Jr. | Died in House Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
HB1472
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…IPMENT USED IN PRODUCING BROADBAND COMMUNICATIONS SERVICES. HB1472 Beaty Jr. TO CREATE A SALES AND USE TAX EXEMPTION FOR PARTS…”
|
TO CREATE A SALES AND USE TAX EXEMPTION FOR PARTS PURCHASED TO REPAIR AGRICULTURAL EQUIPMENT … | Beaty Jr. | Died in House Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
HB1594
Act 621
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…ard McGrew RE-REFERRED TO COMMITTEE Number Sponsor Subtitle HB1594 Vaught TO CREATE A FARMER SALES TAX IDENTIFICATION CARD; AN…”
|
TO CREATE A FARMER SALES TAX IDENTIFICATION CARD; AND TO RELIEVE A SELLER OF SALES … | Vaught | Notification that HB1594 is now Act 621 |
|
HB1636
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…ARD PERIOD FOR THE NET OPERATING LOSS INCOME TAX DEDUCTION. HB1636 Ray TO AMEND THE ARKANSAS SOFT DRINK TAX ACT, AS AFFIRMED B…”
|
TO AMEND THE ARKANSAS SOFT DRINK TAX ACT, AS AFFIRMED BY REFERRED ACT 1 OF … | Ray | Recommended for study in the Interim by the … |
|
HB1657
Act 709
· 2 mentions in chapter, agenda
Matched: “HB1657 Beck TO AMEND THE ARKANSAS WOOD ENERGY PRODUCTS AND FOREST…”
|
TO AMEND THE ARKANSAS WOOD ENERGY PRODUCTS AND FOREST MAINTENANCE INCOME TAX CREDIT. | Beck | Notification that HB1657 is now Act 709 |
|
HB1658
Act 550
· 2 mentions in chapter, agenda
Matched: “HB1658 Nazarenko TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING THE PAYMENT OF PROPER…”
|
TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING THE PAYMENT OF PROPERTY TAXES; AND TO DEFINE "DEPLOYMENT" FOR … | Nazarenko | Notification that HB1658 is now Act 550 |
|
HB1665
· 2 mentions in chapter, agenda
Matched: “HB1665 Wardlaw TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING THE INSURANCE PREMIUM T…”
|
TO REPEAL THE CREDIT ALLOWED AGAINST THE INSURANCE PREMIUM TAX FOR ACCIDENT AND HEALTH COMPREHENSIVE … | Wardlaw | Died in House Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
HB1670
· 2 mentions in chapter, agenda
Matched: “HB1670 L. Johnson TO CREATE THE PRECEPTOR TAX INCENTIVE PROGRAM; A…”
|
TO CREATE THE PRECEPTOR TAX INCENTIVE PROGRAM; AND TO PROVIDE INCENTIVES FOR CERTAIN MEDICAL OR … | L. Johnson | WITHDRAWN BY AUTHOR |
|
HB1671
Act 1007
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…ARE LEARNING TO BECOME MEDICAL OR COUNSELING PROFESSIONALS. HB1671 L. Johnson TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING THE GROSS RECEIPTS T…”
|
TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING THE GROSS RECEIPTS TAX; AND TO CREATE A GENERAL SALES … | L. Johnson | Notification that HB1671 is now Act 1007 |
|
HB1674
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…X EXEMPTION FOR SALES TO QUALIFIED NONPROFIT ORGANIZATIONS. HB1674 L. Johnson TO CREATE AN INCOME TAX CREDIT FOR CONTRIBUTIONS…”
|
TO CREATE AN INCOME TAX CREDIT FOR CONTRIBUTIONS TO CERTAIN RURAL HOSPITAL ORGANIZATIONS; AND TO … | L. Johnson | WITHDRAWN BY AUTHOR |
|
HB1687
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…58; AND TO EXEMPT GROCERIES FROM STATE SALES AND USE TAXES. HB1687 K. Moore TO PROVIDE THAT A WATER AUTHORITY IS EXEMPT FROM A…”
|
TO PROVIDE THAT A WATER AUTHORITY IS EXEMPT FROM ALL EXCISE TAXES. | K. Moore | Died in House Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
HB1698
· 2 mentions in chapter, agenda
Matched: “HB1698 Torres TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING THE INCOME TAX TREATMENT…”
|
TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING THE INCOME TAX TREATMENT OF EMPLOYER CONTRIBUTIONS FOR AN EMPLOYEE'S … | Torres | Died in House Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
HB1699
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…ARE SHARING MINISTRY OR OTHER MEDICAL COST-SHARING PROGRAM. HB1699 McCullough TO ADD FIREARM SAFETY DEVICES AND FIREARM STORAG…”
|
TO ADD FIREARM SAFETY DEVICES AND FIREARM STORAGE DEVICES TO THE SALES TAX HOLIDAY; AND … | McCullough | Died in House Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
HB1702
· 2 mentions in chapter, agenda
Matched: “HB1702 Wooldridge TO AMEND THE SALES AND USE TAX EXEMPTIONS FOR CE…”
|
TO AMEND THE SALES AND USE TAX EXEMPTIONS FOR CERTAIN MACHINERY AND EQUIPMENT USED IN … | Wooldridge | Died in House Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
HB1708
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…FOR MACHINERY AND EQUIPMENT USED IN CLOSED- LOOP RECYCLING. HB1708 Underwood THE KEEP THE BONUS, AXE THE TAX: THE NO-TAX BONUS…”
|
THE KEEP THE BONUS, AXE THE TAX: THE NO-TAX BONUS ACT. | Underwood | Died in House Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
HB1732
Act 878
· 2 mentions in chapter, agenda
Matched: “HB1732 Vaught TO INCREASE THE AMOUNT OF THE INCOME TAX DEDUCTION A…”
|
TO INCREASE THE AMOUNT OF THE INCOME TAX DEDUCTION ALLOWED FOR A TEACHER'S CLASSROOM INVESTMENT. | Vaught | Notification that HB1732 is now Act 878 |
|
HB1738
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…TAX DEDUCTION ALLOWED FOR A TEACHER'S CLASSROOM INVESTMENT. HB1738 Crawford TO PROVIDE A SALES AND USE TAX EXEMPTION FOR DISAB…”
|
TO PROVIDE A SALES AND USE TAX EXEMPTION FOR DISABLED VETERANS. | Crawford | Died in House Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
HB1750
· 2 mentions in chapter, agenda
Matched: “HB1750 Cavenaugh TO REPEAL THE ARKANSAS CORPORATE FRANCHISE TAX AC…”
|
TO REPEAL THE ARKANSAS CORPORATE FRANCHISE TAX ACT OF 1979; AND TO MAKE CONFORMING CHANGES. | Cavenaugh | Died in House Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
HB1759
Act 551
· 2 mentions in chapter, agenda
Matched: “HB1759 Milligan TO INCREASE THE AMOUNT OF TIME A TAXPAYER HAS TO A…”
|
TO INCREASE THE AMOUNT OF TIME A TAXPAYER HAS TO ASSESS TANGIBLE PERSONAL PROPERTY ACQUIRED … | Milligan | Notification that HB1759 is now Act 551 |
|
HB1775
· 2 mentions in chapter, agenda
Matched: “HB1775 Lundstrum TO PROHIBIT THE SEPARATE VALUATION AND ASSESSMENT…”
|
TO PROHIBIT THE SEPARATE VALUATION AND ASSESSMENT OF AN ACCESSORY DWELLING UNIT FOR PURPOSES OF … | Lundstrum | Died in House Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
HB1787
· 2 mentions in chapter, agenda
Matched: “HB1787 Warren TO PROVIDE AN INCOME TAX EXEMPTION FOR CERTAIN RETIR…”
|
TO PROVIDE AN INCOME TAX EXEMPTION FOR CERTAIN RETIREMENT BENEFITS RECEIVED BY LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS … | Warren | Died in House Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
SB379
Act 464
· 2 mentions in chapter, agenda
Matched: “SB379 Crowell TO REPEAL THE LAW REQUIRING THE TAX ADVISORY COUNCI…”
|
TO REPEAL THE LAW REQUIRING THE TAX ADVISORY COUNCIL TO SUBMIT A REPORT. | Crowell | Notification that SB379 is now Act 464 |
|
SB381
Act 465
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…LAW REQUIRING THE TAX ADVISORY COUNCIL TO SUBMIT A REPORT. SB381 Crowell TO REPEAL THE LAW REQUIRING THE DEPARTMENT OF FINAN…”
|
TO REPEAL THE LAW REQUIRING THE DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE AND ADMINISTRATION TO SUBMIT A REPORT … | Crowell | Notification that SB381 is now Act 465 |
|
SB382
Act 466
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…KANSAS'S PARTICIPATION IN THE ACTIVITIES OF THE COMMISSION. SB382 Crowell TO REPEAL THE REQUIREMENT THAT THE ARKANSAS DEVELOP…”
|
TO REPEAL THE REQUIREMENT THAT THE ARKANSAS DEVELOPMENT FINANCE AUTHORITY SUBMIT A REPORT CONCERNING THE … | Crowell | Notification that SB382 is now Act 466 |
|
SB383
Act 467
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…THORITY SUBMIT A REPORT CONCERNING THE CAPITAL ACCESS FUND. SB383 Crowell TO REPEAL THE ANNUAL REPORT REQUIRED UNDER THE VENT…”
|
TO REPEAL THE ANNUAL REPORT REQUIRED UNDER THE VENTURE CAPITAL INVESTMENT ACT OF 2001. | Crowell | Notification that SB383 is now Act 467 |
|
SB384
Act 468
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…REQUIRED UNDER THE VENTURE CAPITAL INVESTMENT ACT OF 2001. SB384 Crowell TO REPEAL THE REQUIREMENT THAT THE ARKANSAS DEVELOP…”
|
TO REPEAL THE REQUIREMENT THAT THE ARKANSAS DEVELOPMENT FINANCE AUTHORITY SUBMIT A PROGRAM FACT SHEET … | Crowell | Notification that SB384 is now Act 468 |
|
SB385
Act 469
· 2 mentions in chapter, agenda
Matched: “SB385 Crowell TO REPEAL THE REQUIREMENT THAT THE RURAL SERVICES D…”
|
TO REPEAL THE REQUIREMENT THAT THE RURAL SERVICES DIVISION OF THE ARKANSAS ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION … | Crowell | Notification that SB385 is now Act 469 |
|
SB387
Act 470
· 2 mentions in chapter, agenda
Matched: “SB387 Crowell TO REPEAL THE LAW REQUIRING OCCUPATIONAL LICENSING…”
|
TO REPEAL THE LAW REQUIRING OCCUPATIONAL LICENSING ENTITIES TO SUBMIT A REPORT CONCERNING THE NUMBER … | Crowell | Notification that SB387 is now Act 470 |
|
SB389
Act 471
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…CCUPATIONAL LICENSURE AND EXPEDITED OCCUPATIONAL LICENSURE. SB389 Crowell TO REPEAL THE LAW REQUIRING THE SECRETARY OF THE DE…”
|
TO REPEAL THE LAW REQUIRING THE SECRETARY OF THE DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE AND ADMINISTRATION TO … | Crowell | Notification that SB389 is now Act 471 |
|
HB1
· 1 mention in transcript
Matched: “…ff is uh Representative Howard Beatty. You're gonna present House Bill 1,5001. Mr. Chair, I'll do whatever you, if you yourself, you…”
|
Pre-2017 bill | ||
|
HB1015
· 1 mention in agenda
Matched: “…E INCOME TAX CREDIT. DEFERRED BILLS Number Sponsor Subtitle HB1015 D. Garner TO AMEND THE INDIVIDUAL INCOME TAX LAWS; AND TO C…”
|
TO AMEND THE INDIVIDUAL INCOME TAX LAWS; AND TO CREATE AN INCOME TAX CREDIT FOR … | D. Garner | Died in House Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
HB1016
· 1 mention in agenda
Matched: “…AND TO CREATE AN INCOME TAX CREDIT FOR DEPENDENT CHILDREN. HB1016 Ennett TO CREATE A SALES AND USE TAX EXEMPTION FOR MENSTRUA…”
|
TO CREATE A SALES AND USE TAX EXEMPTION FOR MENSTRUAL DISCHARGE COLLECTION DEVICES; TO CREATE … | Ennett | Died in House Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
HB1018
· 1 mention in agenda
Matched: “…RTS FOR AND REPAIR OF AGRICULTURAL EQUIPMENT AND MACHINERY. HB1018 Hudson TO CREATE THE STRONG FAMILIES ACT; AND TO CREATE AN…”
|
TO CREATE THE STRONG FAMILIES ACT; AND TO CREATE AN INCOME TAX CREDIT FOR EMPLOYERS … | Hudson | Died in House Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
HB1019
· 1 mention in agenda
Matched: “…E TAX EXEMPTION FOR CERTAIN ITEMS RELATED TO BREASTFEEDING. HB1019 D. Garner TO CREATE THE AFFORDABLE CHILDCARE ACT OF 2025; T…”
|
TO CREATE THE AFFORDABLE CHILDCARE ACT OF 2025; TO CREATE AN INCOME TAX CREDIT FOR … | D. Garner | Died in House Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
HB1021
· 1 mention in agenda
Matched: “…COME TAX CREDIT FOR EMPLOYER-OPERATED CHILDCARE FACILITIES. HB1021 D. Garner TO CREATE THE EARLY CHILDHOOD EDUCATION WORKFORCE…”
|
TO CREATE THE EARLY CHILDHOOD EDUCATION WORKFORCE QUALITY INCENTIVE ACT; AND TO CREATE AN INCOME … | D. Garner | Died in House Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
HB1063
Act 875
· 1 mention in agenda
Matched: “…FOR CERTAIN EARLY Page 3 of 4 CHILDHOOD EDUCATION WORKERS. HB1063 J. Mayberry TO AMEND THE ACHIEVING A BETTER LIFE EXPERIENCE…”
|
TO AMEND THE ACHIEVING A BETTER LIFE EXPERIENCE PROGRAM ACT; AND TO AMEND THE DEFINITIONS … | J. Mayberry | Notification that HB1063 is now Act 875 |
|
HB1065
· 1 mention in agenda
Matched: “…O CHANGE DISABILITY ONSET AGE FROM TWENTY-SIX TO FORTY-SIX. HB1065 Ray TO CREATE THE INFLATION REDUCTION ACT OF 2025. HB1066 R…”
|
TO CREATE THE INFLATION REDUCTION ACT OF 2025. | Ray | Died in House Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
HB1066
· 1 mention in agenda
Matched: “…. HB1065 Ray TO CREATE THE INFLATION REDUCTION ACT OF 2025. HB1066 Ray TO INCREASE THE STANDARD DEDUCTION. HB1216 Long TO CREA…”
|
TO INCREASE THE STANDARD DEDUCTION. | Ray | Died in House Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
HB1076
· 1 mention in agenda
Matched: “…ROVIDE PAID FAMILY AND MEDICAL LEAVE FOR CERTAIN EMPLOYEES. HB1076 Hudson TO CREATE THE CARING FOR CAREGIVERS ACT; AND TO PROV…”
|
TO CREATE THE CARING FOR CAREGIVERS ACT; AND TO PROVIDE AN INCOME TAX CREDIT FOR … | Hudson | Died in House Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
HB1116
· 1 mention in agenda
Matched: “…FOR EXPENSES INCURRED IN CARING FOR CERTAIN FAMILY MEMBERS. HB1116 Ray TO CREATE THE REMOTE AND MOBILE WORK MODERNIZATION AND…”
|
TO CREATE THE REMOTE AND MOBILE WORK MODERNIZATION AND COMPETITIVENESS ACT; AND TO PROVIDE INCOME … | Ray | Died in House Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
HB1190
· 1 mention in agenda
Matched: “…ED TO CERTAIN REMOTE AND MOBILE EMPLOYEES AND NONRESIDENTS. HB1190 Vaught TO CREATE AN INCOME TAX EXEMPTION FOR TEACHERS. HB13…”
|
TO CREATE AN INCOME TAX EXEMPTION FOR TEACHERS. | Vaught | Died in House Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
HB1203
· 1 mention in agenda
Matched: “…LICENSED CHILDCARE PROVIDERS; AND TO DECLARE AN EMERGENCY. HB1203 Underwood TO PROTECT ARKANSAS TAXPAYERS FROM A TAX TO COLLE…”
|
TO PROTECT ARKANSAS TAXPAYERS FROM A TAX TO COLLECT TAXES. | Underwood | Died in House Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
HB1216
· 1 mention in agenda
Matched: “…ACT OF 2025. HB1066 Ray TO INCREASE THE STANDARD DEDUCTION. HB1216 Long TO CREATE THE FREE MARKET ZONES ACT; AND TO EXEMPT A B…”
|
TO CREATE THE FREE MARKET ZONES ACT; AND TO EXEMPT A BUSINESS LOCATED IN AN … | Long | Died in House Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
HB1366
· 1 mention in agenda
Matched: “…1190 Vaught TO CREATE AN INCOME TAX EXEMPTION FOR TEACHERS. HB1366 Ennett TO CREATE AN INCOME TAX CREDIT FOR QUALIFIED STORM S…”
|
TO CREATE AN INCOME TAX CREDIT FOR QUALIFIED STORM SHELTERS. | Ennett | Died in House Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
HB1388
· 1 mention in agenda
Matched: “…O CREATE AN INCOME TAX CREDIT FOR QUALIFIED STORM SHELTERS. HB1388 Vaught TO EXEMPT CERTAIN STORAGE SERVICES FROM SALES TAX; A…”
|
TO EXEMPT CERTAIN STORAGE SERVICES FROM SALES TAX; AND TO EXEMPT THE SERVICE OF FURNISHING … | Vaught | Died in House Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
HB1404
· 1 mention in agenda
Matched: “…TO PROTECT ARKANSAS TAXPAYERS FROM A TAX TO COLLECT TAXES. HB1404 C. Cooper TO CREATE A TAX CREDIT FOR CONTRIBUTIONS TO A PRE…”
|
TO CREATE A TAX CREDIT FOR CONTRIBUTIONS TO A PREGNANCY RESOURCE CENTER. | C. Cooper | Died in House Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
HB1435
· 1 mention in agenda
Matched: “…TE FRANCHISE TAX, AND THE ELECTIVE PASS-THROUGH ENTITY TAX. HB1435 Achor TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING INCOME TAX CREDITS FOR CH…”
|
TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING INCOME TAX CREDITS FOR CHILD CARE; TO AMEND THE INCOME … | Achor | Died in House Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
HB1464
· 1 mention in agenda
Matched: “…CREDIT FOR CONTRIBUTIONS TO A PREGNANCY HELP ORGANIZATION. HB1464 Vaught TO CREATE A SALES AND USE TAX EXEMPTION FOR PARTS FO…”
|
TO CREATE A SALES AND USE TAX EXEMPTION FOR PARTS FOR AND REPAIR OF AGRICULTURAL … | Vaught | Died in House Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
HB1485
· 1 mention in agenda
Matched: “…URT FROM SALES TAX, AS AFFIRMED BY REFERRED ACT 19 OF 1958. HB1485 K. Brown TO CREATE A SALES AND USE TAX EXEMPTION FOR SALES…”
|
TO CREATE A SALES AND USE TAX EXEMPTION FOR SALES TO CERTAIN ORGANIZATIONS THAT SUPPORT … | K. Brown | Died in Senate Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
HB1540
· 1 mention in agenda
Matched: “…TO CERTAIN ORGANIZATIONS THAT SUPPORT VETERANS' FACILITIES. HB1540 J. Mayberry TO AMEND THE INCOME TAX CREDIT AND THE INCOME T…”
|
TO AMEND THE INCOME TAX CREDIT AND THE INCOME TAX DEDUCTION RELATED TO MAINTAINING, SUPPORTING, … | J. Mayberry | Died in House Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
HB1685
Act 1008
· 1 mention in chapter
Matched: “HB1685 Underwood TO CREATE THE GROCERY TAX RELIEF ACT; TO AMEND TH…”
|
TO CREATE THE GROCERY TAX RELIEF ACT; TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING THE SALES AND … | Underwood | Notification that HB1685 is now Act 1008 |
|
HB1715
· 1 mention in chapter
Matched: “HB1715 Lundstrum TO LIMIT THE INCREASE IN THE ASSESSED VALUE OF RE…”
|
TO LIMIT THE INCREASE IN THE ASSESSED VALUE OF REAL PROPERTY AFTER A SALE OR … | Lundstrum | Died in House Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
Machine transcript
May contain errors. Verify important quotations against the official video.
About transcript accuracy
- Source
- SliQ live captions
- Model
- SliQ live ASR
- Processing date
- October 2, 2026
Representative Lane Jean
Unverified
0:09
know the bills that we are going to hear today our House Bill 1500 House Bill 1501 House Bill 1026. House Bill 1072 and House Bill 1538 on all these, we're gonna listen to them and testimony, but there will be no vote on these bills. The one bill that we are having a vote on is representorre House Bill 1691. Everybody understands that. All
right. First off is uh Representative Howard Beatty. You're gonna present House Bill 1,5001. Mr. Chair, I'll do whatever you, if you yourself, you're, uh. Able to proceed.
Speaker 2
0:49
Give me just one second to get my Get what I don't need moved out of the way.
Representative Howard M. Beaty, Jr.
Unverified
1:23
here. District 95, um, here to present House Bill 1500, uh, basically, uh, this bill is to enhance economic competitive by repealing the throwback rule. Uh, last session, we, we, we ran the throwback or repeal the throwback and it was, it was
phased in over a seven-year period. So we've enjoyed uh a couple of year and a half of, of repeal of the throwback. And basically what this bill would do is it would go ahead and eliminate. The next 5 years of the throwback tax. Uh, you should have had a fiscal impact. On it and it gives some basic information uh related to the throwback. As you would see by, by the elimination, it would basically be eliminated, um, on or after
January of 2030. Uh, this bill accelerates that elimination so that it would be eliminated um in in January of next year. Uh, repeals the throwback, uh, basically throwback is um uh multi-state corporation that has business operations in Arkansas, they have to calculate the income tax, um, based on, uh, out of state sales and as we presented this bill that it was an unfair disadvantage to Arkansas businesses, uh, that
were competing for jobs because we're, we're taxing uh the input and um and and the sales here in Arkansas. puts them at a disadvantage, uh, so basically that's what the bill does, um, and with that, I'll entertain any questions. I also have uh members of the state chamber, Randy So here, um. They would like to speak on the bill. Representative Wooton,
Chair
Unverified
3:07
you're recognized. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Representative Beatty, uh, do
Representative Jim Wooten
Unverified
3:14
you have any estimate of what this will mean from a competitive standpoint to income to the state and jobs are employment and increased pay and that type of thing. Representative Wootton, that's, that's an excellent question. I don't have
Representative Howard M. Beaty, Jr.
Unverified
3:28
exact numbers on it, but I'll tell you an economic development every time we speak with, uh, with
an industry looking to locate in, in Arkansas anytime I've spoken with them, uh, one of the, one of the key elements is that was appointed discussion and why this was a priority, uh, for
myself, for the state chamber, for uh AEDC and those involved in economic development is it was one deterrent, uh, the way our language read, uh, it put those businesses at a advantage, uh, sometimes that throwback tax could be up to 10% or over 10% of the total tax liability for those corporations and those businesses. Uh, the other side is a lot of these, a lot of these manufacturers, they're in the state, they have multi-state locations, so not only are we competing for new, uh new business to come into the
state, but it puts those industries that are located in the state and have multiple locations, they're competing against each other. So sometimes Arkansas, that would be a good investment for Arkansas and expanding operation here. They lose out to another state that has facility just based on the throwback tax. So it, you know, to to have an exact number I don't, I don't have the economic impact of what this would do. I would just tell you it would be huge. It's a, it's a a a big talking point every time we discuss economic development. So it would be a plus, it would
Representative Jim Wooten
Unverified
4:48
be a win-win situation for the state if we did away with it completely.
Speaker 19
4:53
Yes, sir. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Any other questions from the committee?
Representative Lane Jean
Unverified
5:02
Sing, we have one sign up, uh, Randy Zook with the um Arkansas State Chamber. You'll identify yourself, Mr. Zook.
Speaker 23
5:20
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Randy's president of Arkansas State Chamber of Commerce and associated Industries of Arkansas, members of the committee, pleased to be here. Appreciate the opportunity to speak in support of these bills, the whole package that Representative Beatty has, uh, on the throwback rule, especially he, he mentioned the, the incidents where uh companies or plants within Arkansas are competing within plant for business within their own company. This is a very common occurrence in the
Defense Department companies down in the Highland Industrial Park area, also all of the resource companies like Steel and timber, uh, where you've got companies that have operations in several states. This is a key part of the calculation over which plant or facility gets the work and it really does drive backlogs in our Arkansas plants and the health and and the long-term sustainability of these plants, so it's a key item.
And one that has high impact near term as well as long term, and the other bills that that you'll get to that he's presenting the same thing the these these bills as a package represent uh the tax foundation in Washington's uh assessment of Arkansas's tax climate, we get very high marks for what we've done over the last several sessions, and these are the key elements that they're identifying that would further uh uh enhance our position and our
competitiveness on new projects as well as sustaining long term investments in company plants across the state. Happy to take any questions or say thanks
Speaker 22
7:02
if there are none. Any questions right representative
Representative Ry
Unverified
7:06
Ryan, you're recognized for a question. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Randy. Back in 1997, there was a piece of legislation that came through here that basically said that if there was property outside the border coming in and going out as a finished product that was
tax exempt. That the raw material that was involved in it. Now, they actually, Michael Evert, do you remember when he was here? Uh, he passed a bill that said anything that was out there as far as coming from inside the border going out. That that was actually non-taxable. So I don't know where this changed. Well, I'm sorry, I, I, I'm not
Speaker 22
7:46
familiar with that bill, um. It, it's basically establishing
Speaker 23
7:54
a regime sort of like export products, um, you know, lots of sales from Arkansas plants go into Texas, which has no corporate income tax, and that's typically the toughest competition we've got for a plant that's making, whether it's aircraft parts or uh defense products or steel or whatever for automobile plants in Texas and other places. So Texas, Tennessee is an exception because they do have a corporate income tax, so it
doesn't apply there, but it does for sales to Florida, for instance, and lots of other states that that have zero corporate income tax. Follow up, Mr. Chair, please.
Representative Johnny Rye
Unverified
8:34
Randy, let me ask you this. As far as things are going now, is anything that is coming from inside of this state as far as raw material being manufactured and going outside the border, is that non-taxable? Now, let me make sure
Speaker 22
8:50
I understand. Are you clear about how he's phrasing that.
Representative Howard M. Beaty, Jr.
Unverified
8:55
I, I don't understand what he says. Thank you. The Represented Rock,
Speaker 33
9:02
could you get a little qualify that a little more you're representative Rye pull that mic a little bit closer. Yes sir, I've
Representative Howard M. Beaty, Jr.
Unverified
9:09
got you right there. Representative Ryan, you, you said raw materials that are manufactured, so could you explain that a little bit more because that's confusing to me if it's raw materials, it's, it's raw. What
Representative Johnny Rye
Unverified
9:20
it is, Howard, is Representative Howard, if it's say coming from inside the border being
manufactured. And it's going through all those stages and then going out as a finished product. Is that, is that tax exempt already? No, in these cases
Speaker 23
9:36
like the on the throwback rule, let, let's use an example, uh, steel coming out of one of the mills in northeast Arkansas going to Texas, which has no corporate income tax. The apportionment of their income tax calculate that as if that sale occurred to a customer within the state of
Arkansas, so it will be, it will drive their income tax. To the extent that it's a part of their total uh tax package. Well, is
Representative Johnny Rye
Unverified
10:08
that a good thing? No, it's not a good thing. No, but I
Speaker 23
10:12
thought it changed, you know, years ago, right? I don't know the, the throwback rule still applies to multi-state. Companies or any company that has operations in more than one state, uh, and if they've got an Arkansas-based operation, uh,
the sales of, of those products from those plants within the state are subject to a share of the company's total income tax based on how much of their sales went into, say, the state of Texas. But Randy, to me, that
Representative Johnny Rye
Unverified
10:40
looks like a bad thing. I would agree with
Speaker 22
10:45
you 100%. Thank you. Thank you for the question. Representative McClure, you have a question.
Representative Rick McClure
Unverified
10:51
Mr. Z, um, I view this as part of competitiveness, to be competitive. So when they're
getting taxed here, uh, then that. Ads as it goes up out of state, so they calculate that in. Other than site related questions when a company is coming in, uh, our labor force, this throwback rule seems to be one of the big one of the top 10 objections to companies that are looking at Arkansas. Is that, would you find that to be true also? I'd hate to put it in it depends on the the
Speaker 23
11:23
decision tree that a particular company has, but it has the potential to rise to that top 10 kind of.
kind of factors to evaluate, uh, because it is, it can create a bogey if you're, if you're Lockheed, for instance, in Camden and you're bidding on a piece of work within the company. Uh, you're up against Fort Worth plant, which does not have a throwback rule or a corporate income tax rule, so it creates a bogey on the sheet as to where the work goes, uh, within the company and, and that, that's, that's problematic for some companies, lots of companies, uh, representative Beatty, um.
Representative Rick McClure
Unverified
12:05
It's been my experience you can win the site selection, you can win the workforce selection, and when you sit down with the CFO this becomes a major part of the conversation with the CFO.
Representative Howard M. Beaty, Jr.
Unverified
12:18
Is that correct? Representative McClure, it, it, it becomes a major topic of discussion and, and something that uh over the years, uh, probably every economic developer in the state would agree 100% with your comments once you get to that final, you're getting close to, to closing the deal, this comes up
and, and, and then there are a couple other issues that are always there, um, but this is one of the, one of the probably the top 5. Thank you. Any other
Representative Lane Jean
Unverified
12:47
questions from committee? Thank you very much, Mr. Zook, appreciate your testimony. Anybody in the audience wanna speak against this bill. For the bill You're ready to close, Representative Beatty. I
Representative Howard M. Beaty, Jr.
Unverified
13:03
am Mr. Chair. Uh, members, I would just
tell you, you know, this passage of this legislation, I, I view this as one of the, one of the my favorite pieces of legislation that I was able to be involved with. I think it had overwhelming support, bipartisan support in the House and the Senate because folks understand the importance of economic development and we got to have jobs and we have to have industry to have jobs and so it it does have a a a price tag. of about $10.5 million a year. I'm happy we passed it and it's gonna phase out over 7 years,
but man, if y'all want to see me smiling a lot and see a happy face all the time up here if we could pass this and and eliminate this and move forward and it would, it would be a great deal. So with that, when, when y'all do vote, I would appreciate a motion to pass and get votes from the committee, uh, but until then, I'm happy we have it phased out, but it sure would be nice, be a nice day in Arkansas when it's gone completely. Thank you, Representative Beatty.
Representative Lane Jean
Unverified
14:04
You've got also House Bill 1501. You're recognized.
Representative Howard M. Beaty, Jr.
Unverified
14:11
Thank you, Mr. Chair. House 1501, uh, basically, uh, to adopt the federal income tax law uh regarding depreciation expense of property and increase the amount allowed for expensive certain appreciable business assets allowed under federal law and that in, in a um I guess in, in layman's terms what this bill would do is it would lead to conformity with the federal depreciation code related to Section 168K of the
IRS code, and I know that gets a little technical, you know, last session, uh, two sessions ago, I guess we did conformity with um 179 depreciation and basically 168 depreciation under the code basically allows businesses to duct a larger portion of the cost. Of qualifying property in the year that it's placed in service, um, um, some of those businesses can claim that bonus depreciation up to 100% of the eligible property that was
placed in service, I think after um September 27th or so 17, um, and, and basically this 168 deduction and and part of the code was introduced as part of the tax, uh, the tax cut and Jobs Act of 2017. Uh, that, that we're hoping will get extended in Congress to extend this out further, uh, bonus to be depreciation provisions under 168 are pretty much intended to incentivize businesses to invest in new
equipment, property, uh, and, and those by those investments stimulate economic development and growth and productivity in their markets. So that's why this is a very important bill to take the bonus depreciation. If you look at your fiscal impact though, you can see by that investment in, and I would think it's probably this is uh I we always get in those discussions. How did you come up with these numbers? Um, but you can, you can look on here and see that it it's a pretty hefty um reduction
in GR $104 million in 2006, but I, I guess the way you look at it 100 $104,000 reduction in GR but if these businesses are investing in property and plant in your community. What's that impact back home where you Live, that's gonna generate more income, more, more workers, more innovation, and stir economic development in your communities. So it, it, it has an impact far beyond just the impact, the negative impact on GR through a projection. Uh, with that, um, and, and again this would be the
final step that would put us in full conformity with the, the federal depreciation laws. Right now you still Arkansas businesses have to keep a couple of depreciation schedules, state depreciation schedule and a federal. Appreciation schedule. So it would, it would impact everyone that has a business and has depreciable property and would be a benefit.
Speaker 2
17:09
So with that, I'll entertain any questions. Well, you got a few questions. Representative Wooton, you're reckon that.
Representative Jim Wooten
Unverified
17:16
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Representative Beatty, in other
words, this is 100% write off the first year that they make the year they make the
Representative Howard M. Beaty, Jr.
Unverified
17:27
purchase. It, it would allow for 100% and I'll put that disclaimer that anyone should contact and consult with their CPA and financial advisor before they, they make such a determination, but it, it would allow that for certain property.
Representative Jim Wooten
Unverified
17:42
OK, all right, that's what I wanted to clear up, but some, some may, may carry a smaller amount, but a greater amount than we currently permit.
Representative Howard M. Beaty, Jr.
Unverified
17:53
I, I think that would be correct. Yes,
Representative Les D. Eaves
Unverified
17:59
sir. Thank you. Revive, you're recognized for a question. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Um, Representative Beatty, which, which bill the 1500 or 1501 do you think would have the greatest economic um impact in the state, which one would be more beneficial? Or do they work in tandem? Well, it's an easy
Representative Howard M. Beaty, Jr.
Unverified
18:13
answer right now because 1500 is already in law and being phased out. So if you had to
vote on one or the other today, 500 1 would have the biggest impact. Has there been any thought to,
Representative Les D. Eaves
Unverified
18:24
since we have the ability now to do a small number of dynamic fiscal scores. Run 1501 through something like that to be able to prove the overall benefit the state would would have. I, I, I think that this
Representative Howard M. Beaty, Jr.
Unverified
18:36
would be an excellent um uh sample run trial run for the dynamic scoring that we have in place now to see exactly what that impact would be. I think there are a lot of variables that would, would affect that, and that would be, uh, what investments in property and plant we would project that Arkansas businesses would, uh,
Uh, would enact based on the approval of this uh of this bill.
Representative Les D. Eaves
Unverified
19:00
Alright, yeah, you know, we're sitting here looking at something that you're $104 million impact and um that can seem staggering until you look at the, you know, long term benefits of something like this or something to think about. I appreciate you. Most
Speaker 64
19:12
definitely I appreciate the question. Revative Lynch, you're recognized
Speaker 67
19:17
for a question. Representative Beatty, does it actually Increase the deductions or only shift the time frame in which they're claimed.
Representative Howard M. Beaty, Jr.
Unverified
19:29
It, well, it, it would increase the deduction amount. I, I mean, it would be, it's a timing issue on a lot of it. It is a timing issue, but it allows them to deduct up to 100% and removes the limitations that they have now, but over the long
Representative Roger D. Lynch
Unverified
19:42
term it's the same deduction. It's just occurs over a longer period of time, so it's really in the end it's not a revenue impact at all. It just shifts the timing of that, that's, that's a
Representative Howard M. Beaty, Jr.
Unverified
19:51
good point on both of them. I mean. Any other questions from committee?
Representative Lane Jean
Unverified
20:02
Singan, is there anybody in the audience? Nobody has signed up. Anybody want to speak for the bill. Against the
Speaker 2
20:13
bill. Sing no bay. Do you want to close on your bill again, members, uh, I know we're
Representative Howard M. Beaty, Jr.
Unverified
20:19
not going to take a vote today, uh, again, these pieces of legislation, uh, specifically the bonus depreciation and conformity uh with the federal would have a far-reaching impact on Arkansas businesses, it would
stimulate economic growth and productivity in, in the state, uh, and with those considerations when you do take this up, um, and if, if we're able to get that done scoring. We'll we'll try to get that for the committee to look at as well. I think that would be enlightening and um and and maybe minimize some of the impact that we we show here, but I would appreciate when you, when you take these bills up, um, a motion do pass and and a good vote from the committee and
I appreciate y'all for allowing me to go first this
Representative Lane Jean
Unverified
21:07
morning. Thank you, Representative Beatty. All right, we're here now. House Bill 1026 Representative Collins once again we're not gonna take a vote on this today. Representative, when you get down to the
table, introduce yourself and you're free to go. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Uh, it's an honor to be here with y'all today in revenue and
Representative Andrew Collins
Unverified
21:27
tax, and it's an honor to present the Arkansas Promise Act. I know
you'll have a long agenda, so I'll, I'll keep it, uh, brief, but I do want to just discuss what the bill does and why I'm running it. So this um would give every Arkansas student the opportunity to go to college, and it's modeled off a successful program in Colorado. Other states have done it, but this is modeled off of the way Colorado did it. So we would create a tax credit equal to the out of pocket costs that a family pays for tuition. Anyone making up to $90,000 would be eligible, and then this
tax credit could be used for a certificate, associate's degree, or bachelor's degree, and it could be used at any public to or for Arkansas institution. Um, there is of course a cost. It's 29 million. I would venture to say it is $29 million very well spent to open the door to opportunity and a lifetime of all that follows from higher education opportunities in Arkansas. Um, the reasons to do the bill um, simply put, it would shatter barriers to college, uh, the
cost barrier to college or um a technical school. And um it's effectively with the middle class threshold of $90,000. The days of college being too expensive really would be over for, for most Arkansas families, and I would say that every dime that we invest here is an investment in our state's future. Um, some statistics y'all may know this generally, but Arkansas ranks ranks forty-eighth among states in the percentage of students earning a bachelor degree, college
education is necessary for many high paying jobs, employers are looking for an educated workforce and it is holding us back that we can't deliver that in many cases. So, um, being 48, as we know, it makes it more difficult to achieve the economic growth we need in our state to lift all boats, um, and ensure the revenues that we need to deliver on whatever the legislature needs to deliver on both in terms of quality of life,
safety, but also future tax reforms, anything that we may decide to be necessary in the future. We can't get there without growth and we can't get growth without an educated workforce. This is a path to that. Um, obviously we passed the Access bill. I think this bill is a perfect complement to access as well as the constitutional amendment that Representative Lunstrom, uh, initiated that we passed, so access increased the availability and the amount of various scholarships. It's one of the things I think was great about access. This bill would
fill in the gaps around the scholarships and around the other forms of aid people can get. So again it unlocks that promise of higher education. It's often said, and we've said it in the discussion around access that college isn't for everyone, and I would agree, but I would say that the opportunity to go to college should be there for everyone. And so we, we can and we should have a robust career pathway that doesn't include college for students who want to go that route. At the same time, it becomes even more important
for us to make sure that the door to go to college is wide open. especially at a time when people are getting priced out of higher education, and so we avoid with this bill we avoid making parental income, the, the closed door that prevents people from accessing higher education and the life of benefits that comes after that. So with that, uh, I'm happy to answer any questions you guys have.
Speaker 77
25:11
Any members of the committee got a question?
Representative Jim Wooten
Unverified
25:17
President Boton, you're, you're recognized for a question. Representative Collins is I read the bill. They would everyone that's in school now would be eligible in any future enrollees must meet to requirement. Is that true? Everyone who is attending a public
Representative Andrew Collins
Unverified
25:32
2 or 4-year institution, the effective date of this bill would be eligible for 2 years of the income tax credit. Yes, sir.
Representative Jim Wooten
Unverified
25:42
And then those who enroll with me to qualifications down, down the list for it. And you, you feel like the fiscal impact of uh What was it, 20 million? 292 million you you think that is um Sufficient. Does that include, does that include what we've got now and then the anticipated inquiries as a result of this.
Representative Andrew Collins
Unverified
26:13
So that applies, um, and, and I think it's, it's a, it made sense the way they did this. They laid out the number of students they anticipate would take advantage of it in the out of pocket costs that people are paying for college now and essentially made that a multiplier and so, um, there are a lot of scholarships currently, especially a two-year. institutions, a lot of people have opportunities to get some sort of a, you know, uh, relief on what they pay, so they're not paying the full freight of tuition out of pocket now. And so that's how that's reduced
somewhat, and also these are all gonna be in-state residents at public 2 or 4 year institutions, so they're only paying that in-state rate.
Speaker 78
26:51
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you. Thank you, Representative. Resident of McAlinden, you got a question? You're recognized. Thank you, Chairman. A couple of
Representative Mindy McAlindon
Unverified
26:59
quick questions for you. Um, it looks like you have it as they have to complete at least 6 credit hours per semester, so I'm curious as to why not a full-time student to get the credit and then the follow up to that is um it also says it
cannot be claimed for more than 4 consecutive academic semesters. I understand the 2 year,
4 year, but why would you not allow 4 years if you want them to go to school, why would you not
Representative Andrew Collins
Unverified
27:25
expand that? First one, you know, 6 is the way that Colorado did it. Honestly, there
are some students who take a reduced load, um, this is, you know, it's their choice, really, they don't get the benefit if they, they don't get as much benefit if they only take 6 hours because they're extending their college career by taking that part-time loan, um, but if for work reasons or family reasons
or whatever reasons that they take 6, they would be eligible for it. Um, and then could you, could you say, and so with the 4 consecutive semesters, uh, what's the question with that? I'm Curious
Representative Mindy McAlindon
Unverified
27:56
why only 4, if I'm in college, I'm there 4 year college. I'm there for more than 4 semesters. Oh,
Representative Andrew Collins
Unverified
28:01
absolutely, yeah, and that's just a a way to um to limit it from, from being an overwhelming cost and to have equity, I think, between the 2 and 4 year colleges, you can do an associate's degree, you can do a certificate, you can do a 4-year college, whatever you do,
it's 2 years, and I mean in some ways it's arbitrary, it's not uh you know, we can increase the income threshold up from 90,000 or lower it down, but this is a, a way to get at as many people in a fair way who are taking a two-year path or a 4-year path that, uh, you know, this is how we've drafted the bill. Thank you. Thanks. Thank you. Any other questions from committee? Seeing none, I
Representative Lane Jean
Unverified
28:42
don't have anybody signed up. Do we have
anybody in the audience that want to speak against this bill. For this bill. Reverend
Collins, you're Welcome to close. Well, that's all. I appreciate your time today. Thank you, appreciate it, of course we're not doing a vote on this. But we appreciate you presenting the
bill today. All right, the next one and we can't vote on this one that does not have a fiscal impact. This is House Bill 1691 represent Torres. You go
We have an amendment first that we're gonna pass out. We'll, we'll, uh, speak on the amendment first, Representative Torres,
and then we'll vote on it then you could proceed with your bill.
All right, now that everyone's got a uh copy of the amendment. You can speak
Representative Randy Torres
Unverified
30:22
on the amendments represent Victorious. OK, thank you, Mr. Chair and members of the
committee, uh, this amendment, uh, just, it's, it's very simple but meaningful. This amendment underscores Arkansas's commitment to ensuring that tax-exempt vehicles are utilized strictly for their intended charitable functions, so that's why this was put in here for this amendment. Any questions to representatives on this amendment.
Representative Lane Jean
Unverified
30:49
Do we have a motion to adopt the amendment. We have a motion any discussion? All
Representative Randy Torres
Unverified
30:56
in favor say aye. Your amendment is adopted. Proceed with your bill, Mr.
Torres. Thank you. House Bill 1691 proposes an exemption from personal property taxes for certain motor vehicles used exclusively for public charity purposes. Current law is that Arkansas Constitution already exempts buildings and materials used solely for public charity from
property taxes. The state also recognizes that motor vehicles owned and used exclusively by charities qualify for this exemption. So what does this bill do? What does it change? It clarifies and expands the tax exemption to include motor vehicles that are leased for at least 12 months by a charitable organization by charitable organizations, not just the ones they own. So it just extends it to a leased vehicle. It's already enacted for vehicles that are owned by these charitable
events, uh, this aligns with existing rules that allow state and local governments to decide whether they lease or buy their vehicles while still receiving tax exemptions. Why does it matter? Charities often rely on vehicles for their operations, delivering food, providing medical services or transporting people in need. Um, allowing leased vehicles to be tax exempt gets charities more flexibility in managing their resources. I think as we know, uh, leased vehicles in
some cases can help with cash flow, uh, cash flow is definitely king for charitable organizations that don't really know what's coming in, uh, and a lease option would certainly be able to help them with that. So this is kind of expanding that flexibility form. Um, yeah, and so. if this is passed, it would start January 1st, 2026. So with that, I'll
Representative Lane Jean
Unverified
32:43
take any questions. Members of the committee have any questions? Representative Lynch, we recognize. Representative who who is
Representative Roger D. Lynch
Unverified
32:52
currently responsible for the personal property tax on a leased vehicle.
Representative Randy Torres
Unverified
32:58
Um, well, the charitable organizations at the moment are responsible for paying personal property taxes on leased vehicles. If that's your question, I'm sorry. Yeah, that's
Speaker 19
33:13
it. Any other questions? Representative
Representative Jim Wooten
Unverified
33:17
Wooton, you're recognized. Um, Representative Torres is exempts motor vehicles leased
by a public charity for a minimum of one year from property tax. You just exempt him for one year. Well, that's the minimum
Representative Randy Torres
Unverified
33:32
uh time frame that would permit them to get this exemption, so
they'll need to lease a vehicle for longer than a year to qualify. Representative Wootton. So If I get a 3 year
Representative Jim Wooten
Unverified
33:47
lease and it'd be exempted for 3 years. That's correct. OK. Yes, sir. I can.
Representative Lane Jean
Unverified
33:57
Any other questions from the committee? Singing none, we have. Nobody signed up to speak. Do anybody in the audience want to speak against this bill? for
Representative Randy Torres
Unverified
34:16
this bill. Representative Torres you free to close for your bill, OK, well, as we all know, the state of Arkansas is the state of choice in the nation that people
are coming to. And a lot of that
has to do with the quality of life that we have here and our charitable organizations in this state play a major role in that. So being able to do this would be a huge blessing to them and to our state as a whole. And with that, I'll close. All right, he's
Representative Lane Jean
Unverified
34:43
closed. What's the pleasure of the committee as amended, I have a motion to pass as amended. Any discussion? All in favor say aye. Any opposed? Congratulations representative. You passed your bill. Thank you, Mr. Chair and members of the committee.
Representative Randy Torres
Unverified
34:58
Appreciate it. Thank you. All right,
Representative Lane Jean
Unverified
35:00
members, we've got, uh, we're going to House Bill 1072 Representative Cooper and uh the chairman came back in a while ago and indicated this does not have a fiscal impact, so we can adopt this. Uh, Bill, if it's your pleasure, but we've got an amendment first. We need to pass out the amendment. And reted cookery you talk on your
amendment, we'll get it passed, then we'll go to your bill.
Representative Cameron Cooper
Unverified
35:28
Representative Cameron Cooper District 57, and I'll, I'll wait for that amendment to be passed out.
Speaker 104
36:17
Or all the amendments are passed out. Re Cougar, you proceed on the amendment. OK,
Representative Cameron Cooper
Unverified
36:24
this amendment just adds several co-sponsors and it also includes a good faith effort. I am making to address a concern that AAC had with
Representative Lane Jean
Unverified
36:36
the bill. Any questions on the amendment? Do we have a motion? OK, you're recognized. Thank you, Representative Cooper,
Representative Les D. Eaves
Unverified
36:42
can you explain, uh, see, it says that.
The taxpayer, a taxpayer shall notify the county collector if he or she has previously submitted a letter, but no longer qualifies for the exemption. What would make them no longer qualify. If I'm reading the. Reasons they do qualify as being like
Speaker 62
37:01
loss of limb, total blindness, things like that. That's an excellent question and, and this is the
Representative Cameron Cooper
Unverified
37:06
Part that addresses the concern that the Association of Counties had If a veterans should lose that status, personally, I don't think they're going to lose that status. If it happened, it would
be very rare. I see what you're doing. Thank you.
Representative Lane Jean
Unverified
37:26
You bet. All right, we have a motion to adopt the amendment. Are there any other questions first? Motion to adopt the amendment. We have one, we have a motion and a no, we don't need a second. It's not a joint committee. I get confused on joint
budget sometimes anyway, any discussion? All the favor say aye. Any opposed? Congratulations, your amendment
Representative Cameron Cooper
Unverified
37:49
is adopted. Now you will speak on your bill. Yes, sir. I would like to have a constituent join me at the end of the table. Is that OK,
Speaker 91
38:03
Mr. Chair? Sure. If you'll identify yourself, sir. Brandon Wilson. You recognize it. Committee
Representative Cameron Cooper
Unverified
38:14
HP 1072 makes what I believe to be a much needed clarification for disabled veterans who as a result of
their disability, are exempt from property tax. This idea was brought to me by Mr. Wilson, my constituent, and I thought it was an idea worthy of our consideration. Ark Arkansas code 263306 says a disabled veteran who has been awarded special monthly compensation by the Department of Veterans Affairs for the loss of Or the loss of use of one or more limbs for total blindness in one or both eyes or for service connected 100% total and permanent disability shall be exempt from payment of all state
taxes on the homestead and personal property owned by the disabled veteran. The law goes on to say that a 100% totally and permanently disabled veteran desiring to claim the exemption must furnish to the county tax collector a letter from the Department of Veterans Affairs, verifying the veteran is in fact 100 100% totally and permanently disabled. However, what the law does not state is how often this letter should be provided to the tax collector. It's my understanding that collectors have been making
these rules themselves and requiring this letter to be submitted annually, even though there is nothing in the law requiring this. Mr. Wilson asked if this letter could only be submitted once as a 100% total and permanent disabled status is not going to change and the requirement for annual submission can be burdensome on veterans who could not get to the collector's office or could not remember to get a letter and submit it to their county collector. Especially those who may be elderly or with mental health issues or physical disabilities.
I thought this was a reasonable request. I'm doing my research on this bill, I found that there's actually been some confusion over this issue for many years. In 2010. An attorney General's opinion was sought by the director of the Arkansas Department of Veterans Affairs. The director of the Department of Veterans Affairs said we would like to know whether 263306 requires eligible persons to provide a letter from the department annually. Or should one letter issued by
the department be kept on the county collector's file from year to year. The director went on to say, it is my contention that the code requires one letter to be furnished by the veteran and retained in the tax collector's file from year to year, not a new letter each year. We request your opinion as to whether the code is written requires persons eligible for the exemption to supply the county tax collectors with an annual letter from the department. Or does the code only require submission of one tax exemption
letter to be retained on file, establishing the current and future exemption status. In response, the Attorney General said, in my opinion, a conclusive answer to your question probably requires legislative clarification. The AG went on to say there are a few textual arguments supporting the reading that a single letter will suffice to establish the exemption indefinitely. The statute requires the veteran to file a letter which may indicate that a single letter is sufficient.
Further veterans are only eligible for the exemption if they have a form of permanent disability that is described by the statute set out above. So presumably the legislature had in mind that when a veteran became eligible for the exemption, he or she would always remain eligible. In my opinion, the combined force of these two textual points, the use of the indefinite article and the permanent nature of the disability adds significant weight to the argument that the legislature intended for one
letter to suffice indefinitely. In conclusion, the AG said, as noted above, one can make a strong argument that the statute contemplates a one-time verification. But given the statute's context, I cannot confidently predict how a court would resolve your question. Legislative or judicial clarification is warranted. Committee HB 1072 does just that. It provides clarification provides the clarification that was suggested by this AG opinion.
If you look at the bill with me HB 72 with the amendment you approved this morning, simply clarifies this issue. And states a letter from the department required under this subsection is required to be submitted only one time to establish eligibility for the exemption provided under this under this section. And your submission of a letter from the department is not required. That's all I have at the moment and I will turn
it over for some remarks from Mr. Wilson. You recognize Mr. Wilson.
Speaker 115
42:59
Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you, Representatives. I'm here. As a 100% total and permanent veteran. But I'm mainly here for. My father. My father is a Vietnam Desert Storm veteran. Um, he's 100%. Owns a farm. And My father has been penalized twice. For
Forgetting to turn in a letter. To the County collector's office. A letter that states total and permanent. It means it will not ever change. And he was penalized twice on a farm that he's had. I'm 53 years old and he's, he's had that farm at least 50 years. This is a man that is drawing a disability from the government. And he was in.
Had a great chance of losing his farm that he's had over 50 years because of taxes that he and the county knew that he was exempt from. So I came to my father, asked him if. He would well wish me on this, and I went to Representative Cooper who uh took it upon himself and I'm asking that you guys help us out on this. We're we're open to any questions. Committee, we got any questions?
Representative Lane Jean
Unverified
44:36
Seeing none, do we have anybody from the audience that wants to speak against this
bill. You come to the table. Mr. Curtis and identify yourself.
Speaker 120
44:53
Thank you, Mr. Chair. Uh, Josh Curtis Association, Arkansas Counties representing the county Collectors Association. Uh, I'm a little out of breath. I ran down here. My collectors were texting me saying this bill was running today. I wasn't aware
that it was gonna run today, but, uh, this is something we don't like to do here. We don't like to speak against the disabled veterans, but what our collectors like to do, we like to help our disabled veterans. I get calls, um, the, the gentleman that just spoke, uh, we get calls sometimes that there's a Issue between the disabled veterans and the letter, um, it, it happens, uh, we normally try to work those out by county. Uh, there's an issue a few years ago where different counties interpreted the law different,
so the county collectors got together and wrote a wrote a memo signed by the collector's leadership, allowing for the disabled veterans 2 years to present the letter to the collector's office. Our collectors try really, really. cards sending out letters, making phone calls, texting veterans to get this letter to them. Why is the letter important? The gentleman spoke before me, said 100% permanent in total means it'll never change. I wish that was the case. If that was the case, this
bill, we would be all in support of this bill. However, it does change and it changes when a veteran passes away, then that benefit goes to the surviving spouse. We still have to have that letter because the collectors have to confirm the exemption they're giving and tax exemption is a big deal. They have to have proper documentation when they uh give that exemption out, um, we would love to work with, with, uh, Representative Cooper on this,
uh. What we've tried to do in the past. We've tried to get uh our federal delegation to send letters directly from the Department of Veterans Affairs directly to the tax collectors. The, the Department of Veterans Affairs, the federal level, does not care about our little tax exemption for our, our, um, famed disabled veterans, uh, they're, they're, uh, they mean a lot to us and we try to help them out as much as possible. Like I said, we've, we've tried, we tried to work with uh the veteran.
On this issue for many, many years now, and I, if I knew this bill was running, you would have a, a room full of collectors here, I promise you, because they've all been texting me, uh, but I asked that, um, you not vote on this bill today or or vote it down and we will continue working with Representative Cooper. I've tried to, I know his, his collector has talked to him personally, and she's adamantly opposed to this bill as well. Uh, we want to find a better way. Uh, we've, we've worked around the edges a few times. Most of the time when there's a
problem, we can resolve that problem county by county, uh, so I just ask that you either uh not vote on it or or vote the bill down and give the collectors some time to to talk,
Speaker 121
47:55
uh, but I'm open to any questions, Mr. Chairman. Yeah Representative Ray,
Chair
Unverified
48:01
you're recognized for a question. Thank you,
Representative David Ray
Unverified
48:04
Mr. Chair. So Mr. Curtis, did I understand you correctly? You said the, the reason that the that that that they want the annual renewal is in the event that
A veteran becomes deceased, that's one reason,
Speaker 120
48:17
yes, sir, uh, Representative Beret, and another reason is 100% permanent total it says that on the letter, but that status can change and it's, it's changed before, so we need to know when that changes so we can either continue giving the exemption or not give the exemption. OK, so 22 follow-ups to
Representative David Ray
Unverified
48:37
that. The first one is how often does that exemption change? Is that a common occurrence? It seems like
Seems like if somebody's 100% disabled, it, it would be very rare that they it it not disabled it's not
Speaker 120
48:52
common. You're correct. It is not common and if I had some collectors here, they could probably provide you with some numbers. I don't have those off the top of my head. Uh, we've talked about it internally. It is not common. You are absolutely right on that. Uh, but another reason is because if a, a, uh, disabled veteran does pass away, the letter still has to be there to allow the surviving spouse, the exemption as well. OK, my other follow up to your
Representative David Ray
Unverified
49:17
response would be. It, it seems like there's with as much technology as we have today, there ought to be a way to integrate data so that when someone becomes deceased, something like that just automatically gets updated. Is there not a way to do that? Like I said, we've tried to work with
Speaker 120
49:35
our federal partners, and they, they haven't provided us a way to do that. Um, like I said, we'd love to to fix this issue. We just feel like
this bill's not that, that way, but if there was some sort of automated way that we could get that information, that would be
Speaker 124
49:55
great. How would you propose fixing it. I,
Speaker 120
49:57
I don't know. I, I would like to have a group of collectors meet with, uh, meet with Repion Cooper about the issue, and we might can collaborate and figure out a way to do it, uh, but, um, like I said, I'm just, I I worked with Representative uh Nazarenko on the issue. He's another disabled veteran, um,
he's, I think he's uh willing to work as well on this issue. OK, yeah,
Representative David Ray
Unverified
50:22
I guess my only concern would be and I'm, you know, I don't want to put our collectors in a difficult spot, but I know this is an issue that's lingered out there for many years, and I've, I've got constituents similar to Representative Cooper that have contacted me and complained about the same issue. It seems like if this has been an issue for a long time. The collectors have had ample opportunity to offer up an alternative. So, so I think some of because I think
Speaker 120
50:47
you and I have spoke a few years ago about an issue in some of the problem problems is when a disabled veteran moves from county to county. That letter, there's a lag time and that letter didn't, doesn't get to that county. Now we have kind of an interoffice memo that all the collectors are doing it the same way. So over the last couple of years, it hasn't been as big of an issue county to county as it has in the past. OK, thank you, Mr. Chairman. Representative Eve,
Representative Lane Jean
Unverified
51:13
you reckon I for a question. You got it all right Representative Lynch.
Representative Roger D. Lynch
Unverified
51:18
You're for a question. Josh, uh, if it's updating the file, it's important and do you feel like the issue with the collectors, why can't the assessors when they look at the property. Ask that question and update the file. And not have every veteran responsible for responding, the assessors do that anyway. Over a certain time period, I think it's 3 years or 5 or whatever it is. It seems to me that if it's information that you're looking for that you can
get it through the assessor's office. Well, the assessor's office doesn't, they do not receive the letters. The letters only. OK. No, I didn't say for them to ask for to receive the letter to ask the question of the property owner. When they do the assessment. We got, we have
Speaker 121
52:06
any assessors in the room today. Maybe they, they're more uh appropriate to answer that question I bring it up, I
Representative Roger D. Lynch
Unverified
52:13
think it's very easy for the assessor's office to assume that responsibility. You can't have that many totally disabled
veterans in your districts and if it's 100 then that's when they reasses when they assess the property, that's 100 questions. I think it's very easily handled within the local governments to keep the files updated. That, that's my. Oh, that's a good
Speaker 121
52:34
suggestion. I'll take that back to the collectors and assessors. Representative Wooton, you got
Representative Jim Wooten
Unverified
52:45
a question. Thank you Miss Sherman, I have 2, couldn't you change the amendment?
To read the surviving, uh, someone that's a survivor has to report. To the collector that the person is deceased. Or a funeral home. I hate to put it on a funeral home people, but Is there looks like a way to solve that problem of notification where they don't have to do the letter every year. But did not work.
Speaker 132
53:25
I, I'm not sure. I, I would have to ask uh some of my collectors about that representative Wooton follow up if I
Representative Jim Wooten
Unverified
53:33
second is um uh and this might have to be answered by DFA, but, uh, it says fiscal impact, none. doesn't this carry a cost to the county, to the county taxpayers or the county schools, libraries, and that type of thing. Yeah, it's uh it's so.
Speaker 120
53:57
They get the this exemption comes directly from those taxing entities, so it's, it's less money to those, but we're not, we're not, if if a disabled veteran They deserve that, that exemption. We're not arguing the exemption. We want to make sure everybody that's eligible for that exemption receive that benefit.
Speaker 136
54:16
Well, I'm, you know, let me make very clear
Representative Jim Wooten
Unverified
54:20
that I support the veterans and I'm for this bill, but it has fiscal impact, none, and I think
we owe to the taxpayers a reason uh an amount of money that it's gonna cost an individual county or uh then told him Is that not And you
Speaker 120
54:43
may be talking about the, the normal homestead credit uh exemption or that's a credit, uh, the the state does reimburse the counties for that credit. Uh, the state does not reimburse, uh, the counties for this exemption, and I think
Representative Jim Wooten
Unverified
55:03
that's why you see there's no physical impact to the state. So that goes back to the fact that DFA was Mr. Garin comes to the table, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Paul, you gonna go down to the
Speaker 138
55:25
table. Identify yourself and respond to Representative Wooton's question. Thank you, Mr. Chair, members of the committee, Paul Geering, DFA, uh, for our analysis of
Speaker 139
55:36
House Bill 1072, we did provide a fiscal impact that there was no impact to to revenues. The this bill does not change the qualifications. It does not include more individuals that would qualify for the exemption or limit the number of individuals that would qualify for the exemption. The bill only puts a limitation on the ability or The requirement to furnish proof of the exemption to the county.
Representative Jim Wooten
Unverified
56:09
Let me ask you, so You're, you're stating that there's no fiscal impact to the state. So you did not look at it from the standpoint, y'all do not do beyond the be beyond the revenue that's come to the state. is, is this, is this bill, uh, Representative Cooper going to cost each individual county a certain amount, or am I missing
Speaker 140
56:41
something? Representative, I don't think you, um, I think the issue is,
Speaker 139
56:45
is that this bill does not change the qualifications to claim the exemption. No more people or no less people would qualify for the exemption, so there should not be any impact to local real estate and real and personal. property taxes because no more or no less people can qualify for the exemption. What the bill does is it limits that the proof. That you qualify for the exemption is only to be
Representative Jim Wooten
Unverified
57:14
submitted on one occasion. I'll take this up with DFA afterwards. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you, sir. Representative
Representative Ry
Unverified
57:23
Ryan, do you still have a question? You reckon, sir? I do. You know, uh, Representative Lynch mentioned the part of the sessors going through this property over 3 years now, every 4 years, which is, is something to consider, but that would be 4 years that these folks would have to wait in between time. Now, if you actually did this
through the county collector and put some type of a notice inside that notice that goes out every year on property. asking a question. OK. I am. I'm, I'm saying that I think that it would be more appropriate, uh, Mr. Chairman, if. If this, if this went out with the collector. OK. Yes, sir. Yes. And, and, and you know, uh, follow-ups sir, please go ahead. This man that's here today, I, I wonder about that situation,
sir, because if his father actually was out there for a couple of years and he was drawing this exemption. Those two years and then all of a sudden he doesn't get that exemption. It makes you wonder if he hadn't moved
Speaker 121
58:31
around, why, why that changed. Fashion Thank you, sir. I think I heard a question
Speaker 120
58:37
there, Mr. Chairman. Uh, I'll uh I'll say this, uh, our collectors work really hard to
the DAV does not turn in their, their letter. They call, text, email, they do whatever they can to, to accommodate those disabled veterans. So like I said in my opening comments, uh, we do our best to accommodate them. Uh, we just feel like the collects Association feels like they're. shouldn't be a bill to allow this to happen. Well, like I said, we'll continue working with uh the sponsor and, and the disabled veterans and we normally uh take care of if there's any issues that arise.
Speaker 19
59:19
Reverend McClure, you have a question for Mr. Curtis. I got 2 quick questions, uh, Mr. Curtis, uh, an election integrity bills that were ran
Representative Rick McClure
Unverified
59:26
before, I think the notification death notification is now going to all the county clerks and perhaps cross communication within the courthouses would relieve that issue of notification of death. Would you agree with that? I would, I would have to uh ask my collectors that it
Speaker 146
59:41
sounds really easy. It sounds like I should be able to say yes automatically, right? Uh, but I'll just have to talk to my
Speaker 120
59:50
collectors, collectors on that. And I would, I, and I, that's one reason I would wish I would have known this bill was here today. It was on the deferred list and I just missed it. Uh, I didn't, didn't see the amendment, but uh I would love for y'all to hold
Speaker 148
1:00:04
off on that and let the collectors get here. OK, so,
Representative Rick McClure
Unverified
1:00:08
so it leads me into the second question. I see this as two issues. One, we have an administrative issue. at, at, at the courthouse. And we have the personal issue. Of a veteran and a spouse and a
spouse is most of um more than likely is a 100% caregiver. So when I weigh those two. In my opinion, I'm going to go with our, our veterans and their spouses. So would you agree that probably in our service back to them, we should be doing our part
Speaker 128
1:00:39
to make that easy for them, so I just got a text
Speaker 120
1:00:44
from the Garland County collector, uh, they have over 1000 veteran disabled veterans, and they exempt uh $1.5 million for our
veterans. So, uh, uh, collector Rebecca Talbot does an outstanding job finding those disabled veterans. accommodating them to get their letters. The bottom line is the collectors have to have that letter stating that they are eligible for that exemption, and they want to give that exemption out to every single eligible veteran. Thank you. Representative McGrew, you'll recognize. Thank you,
Chairman. Uh, I'm from Garland County, so
Representative Richard McGrew
Unverified
1:01:24
Rebecca Talbot is my tax collector, and she does a wonderful job, great lady, but my question would be, you know, to me it's, it's, and also Garland County and Hot Springs Village has a huge population of retired veterans and uh I can't understand why we would ever stop these deductions from this gentleman's dad twice, so my question would be how many, how much money you gave this amount of money how much money are we not giving back to the veterans that they deserve simply because they forgot a
letter. Well, I know the disabled veterans association,
Speaker 120
1:01:57
I know our uh veterans officers, veterans service officers in the county, educate on this daily. I just got another number Plai County is 9.6 million. So they, they educated on this daily, uh, the collectors talk about it. Uh, I know the state office uh sends out letters notifying. So I feel like I don't feel like we're missing, uh, I'm, I'm not gonna say we're
not missing anybody, but I don't feel like we're missing very many folks if, if that's fair, does that answer your question? Well, I
Speaker 121
1:02:31
guess not very many as you could be a huge number to me if we're stopping one.
Representative Richard McGrew
Unverified
1:02:36
Veteran that's lost their limbs in battle for technical I leave a little letter from receiving their money. It's a disgrace. Well, no matter what, they would have to send one letter
Speaker 120
1:02:46
just so we know and that's the whole point of this. We have to know they've sent the letter. You just making them send it every
Representative Richard McGrew
Unverified
1:02:55
year. So if they simply forget a year, You're keeping that money from him and to me that's a disgrace and and I think they deserve it and I think the technicality of of the wife coming in and the death penalty can be worked out through, through the tax collector that that this bill would fix a big part of
it. Thank you. Thank you, Representative Ray you recognized. Thank
Representative David Ray
Unverified
1:03:20
you, Madam Chair. So, Mr. Curtis, I look, I'm, I'm sympathetic to
the argument that there may be legitimate reasons why the collectors want the letter to be sent more often than one year, and I appreciate your offer to work with Representative Cooper on his bill. But If I'm just being honest, I, I can't help but notice that Representative Cooper filed this bill on December 20th of 2024. You're right it's currently March 18th of 2025. There's been ample time. I mean,
if this is some white hot fire issue that the collectors are really concerned about and can you maybe Representative Cooper can address this in his closing. Maybe you can speak to it as well. I mean, what efforts have been made by the collectors to Reach some sort of accommodation on this piece of legislation. I, I've had one conversation. I
Speaker 120
1:04:20
know his collectors had a couple conversations I've had, I think there's been a member of this general assembly that's that's
talked to him as well, uh, but You're right, it's been on the deferred list. I didn't think he was gonna run it, uh, because of his opposite, because of his own collector's opposition, uh, but Um, I
Speaker 121
1:04:39
should have, I should have caught it and had the collectors here if that's. Mhm. Any other members ques any other questions,
members? Seeing none. Thank you. um, and with that we have one person to
speak for the bill, uh, Crystal Taylor, if you will come to the end of the table and please introduce yourself and who
Speaker 163
1:05:19
you represent. Yeah There we go. Crystal Taylor, uh, I am the former circuit clerk of Faulkner County and also the daughter of a 100% disabled veteran and well
deceased, disabled veteran, and also the daughter of a spouse of 100% disabled veteran. You're recognized. So, this is an issue that I had actually discussed with some of my representatives and also senators. I have been dealing with this issue for several, well, many years, uh, to where this letter, this, it's a very burdensome letter that's required every year and my parents have forgotten, uh, in
the past to, well, first of all, they don't get the letter every year and then they don't know what to do to go find the letter. And then they forget, you know, what time of year they're supposed to do this because they're not really supposed to be paying taxes every year, so they're not thinking about that. Um, they're, you know, they're working on other issues, um. Issues with their disabilities and, you know, going to the doctor and You know, there's a lot of burdensome things, you know, that they're dealing with
already. Uh, so I'd actually spoken to them about this, why is this letter required every year? Why do we have to do this every year? Um, my father was uh 100% total and permit disabled from the time that I was a young girl, um, So all these years, he's never been anything else. Uh, there was never any hope for him to ever be anything else. So, I didn't understand this letter and now my mom is still having to deal with it. Um, it looks
like her taxes, maybe last year were around 1100 to $1200. Uh, she's got a mortgage, um, she gets, you know, a veteran's mortgage, but, uh, they actually, if they don't get the letter in time, the mortgage company escrows that money from her and raises her house payment, and she didn't even know it. She didn't even see it. I had to look at her mortgage statements and say, hey, mom, why are you paying taxes? Why are they escrowing your taxes, your You're not supposed to do this and I, I'm not sure, so I had to
go check with my collector to find out what was going on and the collectors, I mean, our collector was great in Faulkner County. Uh, she did help me, uh, we had to uh submit a form. I think that went to John Boseman's office, um, to show that he was uh and that she was disabled, um, and eligible for that. Um, but I guess my what I don't understand too. We were looking at some studies and it said that 0.6% of the
Veterans actually changed their disabled status. So that's what 99. We were looking at some studies and it said that 0.6% of the Veterans actually changed their disabled status. So that's what 99.4% that do not change, OK? Isn't that burdensome upon the veteran's office to have to provide letters for 99.4% of veterans when they could just simply do a 0.6%. Letter to the collectors stating this person is no longer eligible. I mean, I don't
understand government sometimes in the processes, um, it seems backwards of what it should be, so. Thank you. I appreciate you being here.
Members, do we have any questions? CNN. Thank you for your
testimony. Members, um, I don't see anybody else signed up to speak for or against. Are you the speaker. Would you like to speak for or against OK, if, if you go down to the end of the table.
If you will introduce yourself for the record. And who you represent. Push
Speaker 167
1:09:22
the button, please. My name is Joyce Dennington. I am uh the assessor for Miller County, Arkansas, and I too am a daughter of a 100% service connected disabled veteran. My father spent over 2 years in the hospital here at the
Veterans Hospital in Little Rock when I was a small child. And if I'm understanding Josh's point. The concern is. The spouse being eligible to continue with this deduction. Uh, I would, I would have a question as to how many actually. Once they're 100% disabled ever changes that status for the veteran their self. My situation was my mom. was a victim of dementia.
And unless you have good family care. And someone that takes care of their business. I can say that being a very. thing that would happen where they would not continue with that. But one of the suggestions I would think is maybe our local Veterans Administration can send a list once a year of who is eligible. That would seem very quite simple and just to address the assessor issue. I get that
information from her. Collector. She sends me a list who qualifies for that. 99% of the time we do not speak to an owner. Our deeds come through the circuit clerk's office and that's how we work it. And there, there's no information on that available. So I would have to disagree with my colleague over here and I would Strongly support this bill just for my information and to that I would, if you have any questions, I'd be happy to try to answer them. Thank you, Representative
Chair
Unverified
1:11:10
Wooten, you're recognized for a question. And Chairman, I have a question
Representative Jim Wooten
Unverified
1:11:15
of you. We vote on this today. Yes, it has no physical impact, so
we will be voting today motion at
Representative Jim Wooten
Unverified
1:11:21
the appropriate time. OK, thank you. Does anyone have
any questions? See you then, thank you for coming. I
appreciate it. Is there anyone else in the audience to speak for against the bill? Yes, so what do you want to speak for or against? OK, if you'll give us your name. And who you represent and you'll
Speaker 170
1:11:40
be recognized. My name's Kelly Collier, and I, I guess I represent myself. I'm from Johnson County. Oh, I'm a disabled veteran, sorry. Um, the biggest thing that I, I, it seems like all we're asking for is a clarification. Do we provide the letter one time going forward, they, the assessor has it going forward unless there's a change, someone passes away, obviously, the VA rep for each county would get that notification of a death, so that would be, seems like a real
simple thing, but it looks like all this is is a clarification. We're sending this letter one time, having just gone through this process myself. Obviously my collector in Johnson County, she's great. I went to high school with her, kind of hard to get around that, but, uh At the same time, she said in 3 years I would have to resubmit the letter and so Seems strange and it is true that some people do get changes in, in status, but I'll be honest, it generally goes the other way, not down. It's
generally if you're at 90%, sometimes you get bumped up to 100. Generally doesn't go the other direction, so. I will tell you this, it's a challenge to get that letter from the VA. It's, it took me, what, 2 years? It took us 2 years to get this thing, the proper, we had several letters that said I was 100%, but it took 2 years to get the one that says permanent and total 100% going forward from this day forward. So
You know, I just think I'm, I'm, I'm not the smartest guy in the world, but I'm also not the dumbest, you know, I think about someone like my Mema who's 95 years old, who literally can do nothing for herself. You know, I think that's who I
Speaker 172
1:13:24
think about, so. Anyway, that's my input. Thank you for your testimony.
Members, are there any questions? See you then, thank you for your testimony. Thank you for being here. Is there anyone in the audience that would like to speak for or
against the bill? Saying none members with that.
Representative Luton, you're recognized. This is a oh, sorry, would
you like to close for your bill, Representative Cooper? Thank you, Madam Chair. Um I, I did have
Representative Cameron Cooper
Unverified
1:13:59
several conversations with, with my county collector on this and I love her to death. She's a close friend of my family. Um, I asked for numbers on how many veteran statuses had
changed in our county and there there is no information on that. There's no number available. We don't know if it was one or or 10. It's, it's just not there. I'm gonna say probably not any or if it was, it was a very, very small number, 100% total and permanent disability. It's kind of clear what that means, right? It's kind of, kind of plain language. Representative Wootton. You, you had some questions about the fiscal impact. This bill doesn't have a fiscal
impact because this bill doesn't change how many veterans qualify for that. There is a fiscal impact on this law on 263306, but that law was passed a long time ago. I'm not sure what year it was passed, but my bill itself doesn't have a fiscal impact. I think uh the concerns on this are are really just making things too complicated. I mean that several members here on the committee, you, you've suggested some good suggestions on, on how
these concerns could be mitigated, um. Internally through through the county officials, and I appreciate that. Um. You know, as mentioned, state law is silent on how often this letter should be submitted. The assessment coordination division has no rules on this issue. The Attorney General's opinion that I quoted said that legislative clarification is needed. Essentially, the county collectors have been left to make their own rules on this and
theoretically 75 counties could be handling this 75 different ways. Maybe not now, but possibly in the future. The last gentleman who testified here, he said that his collector said he would have to resubmit in 3 years. So that's an example of of one county doing it differently than other counties. I think bringing consistency across the state is almost as big a factor with this bill as helping veterans. This bill was an idea that was brought to me by a constituent.
Constituent brings me an idea and wants me to champion something and I think it's a good cause. I'm gonna do it. Doesn't matter what any kind of lobbying group says about it, I'm gonna go with my constituents. We're trying to help these men and women who may be mentally or physically unable to acquire this paperwork and get it filed in a timely manner. There's really no good reason to require them to annually file file this paperwork when they have a permanent disabled status that is not going to change. I also want to make clear that uh
the law 263306, there are penalties for fraud. There are penalties in that law. Um, if it, if, if an individual is guilty of evading or violating any provision of this section or attempting to secure benefits under this section to which he or she is not entitled, they should be guilty. a violation upon conviction shall be found in any sum not less than $100 nor more than $1000 and I would venture to say that also if they weren't paying their property tax because they were fraud fraudulently claiming this exemption. They're also
going to be guilty of being late on paying that property tax would be subject to any fees, penalties, or interests associated with that. So it's already illegal. I don't know how we can make it more illegal to commit fraud when it comes to this. We owe it to our disabled veterans to help ease this burden. They have paid so much to ask for so little. So I hope you agree with me and I hope for a good
vote. Thank you, Representative Cooper. Representative Cooper is closed for the bill. Representative Wooton you recognized for motion.
Representative Jim Wooten
Unverified
1:17:53
I agree with McCrew, um, make a motion to pass as amended. As amended as
amended, yes ma'am. Thank you. We have a motion on the floor for a pass as amended. Any discussion on the motion? Seeing no discussion. All in favor say aye. I say nay.
Congratulations represent Cooper, you passed your bill. Thank you. And with that members, we're gonna hear the last bill of the day, which is going to be
Representative Ray and HB 1538, and there is a physical impact on this, so we will be just debating the bill. But thank you. And Representative Ra you recognize yourself when you get to the end
Representative David Ray
Unverified
1:18:48
of the table. Thank you, Madam Chair. State Representative David Ray, District 69, um, appreciate the opportunity to present this bill. This is House Bill 1538.
This is a law that deals with the topic of net operating loss. If any of you suffer from insomnia, um, I highly recommend that you take up reading about net operating laws it will cure your insomnia. Almost instantly, um. So what this bill would do is it would extend our net operating loss provision from 10 years to 20 years. Um, in 2016, if those of you that were around when we created the Uh, I say we, I'm using the
royal we. I was not in the legislature at the time. The tax reform and relief task force, um, under Governor Hutchinson, we did a big study of the tax code and what changes we might make and uh that led to the creation of a really helpful publication called The Roadmap to Tax Reform by it was it was a joint project between the tax foundation and the Arkansas Center for Research. Economics, which is housed at
UCA in 2023, they did an update to that publication, um, that I'm holding here called the Future of tax reform. They explained this a lot better than I could, so if it is OK with the committee, I'm just going to share some of their observations on this topic. So When a corporation determines it's uh taxable income for income tax purposes. It starts by deducting business expenses, things like wages, supplies, rent, asset depreciation and other costs from its gross
revenue. Uh, if the difference between the revenue and all of the deductions is positive, then the company earned a profit and that corporate income tax is subject to income tax. If the company has more deductions than revenue than the firm operated as a at a and is not subject to tax. Um, for almost every business, larger, whether it's large or small, new or old, success is realized in fits and starts. It is, it is not common at all for a nascent firm that's trying to get off the ground to not earn
any profit at all in the early years of its existence, but unprofitability in the short term is no guarantee that a business will fail in the long term, just like uh profitability in the short term is no guarantee of long-term success. So net operating losses or provisions are really designed to help smooth out um these fits and starts and these uh these seasons of profitability and unprofitability. Um, Of all of the forces that impact
the company's operations and their business making decisions. The tax code should be the least disruptive of them. Um, net operating loss provisions allow businesses to use losses in one year to offset taxable income in another, uh, they reduced the tax code's adverse impact on economic growth and a well designed net operating loss provision increases the tax code's neutrality by ensuring that entrepreneurs are not unnecessarily punished for taking risks while also providing latitude for
innovation. The, the two categories of businesses that really benefit the most from net well structured. Net operating loss provisions or startups, as I mentioned, those trying to get off the ground who may not be profitable in the early years and also industries that are highly correlated with the business cycle that go through, you know, extreme swings of, you know, good years and down years, um, essentially these provisions allow businesses to smooth their income across good years and bad years. So how does Arkansas
compare to other states when it comes to our net operating loss provisions. Very poorly, um, there are 17 states and the District of Columbia that conform to the federal net operating loss provisions which are unlimited uh and up to the business could take up to 80%. Oh no. There's an additional 13 states that don't conform to the federal provision, um, but, but they do limit, uh, they, they do allow for net operating loss to carry forward 20 years.
Um, so if you add those two categories together, that's 30 states of the 50 that allow for at least 20 years. Arkansas is really an extreme outlier. We only allow 10 years to be carried forward for net operating loss. We are in a category with Michigan, Montana, New Hampshire, and Vermont. So there's only 4 states that are as restrictive as we are, and only one state that's more restrictive, and that's um that's Rhode Island. I don't think they're really a.
model for competitive tax policy. The last time I checked, um, so by having a weak net operating loss provision, we effectively put companies with high profit uh that that that have profitability that's highly correlated to the business cycle at a disadvantage compared to their peer companies. Um, smoothing the business income over time is a better reflection of a company's profitability, and I want to give you um an example. That's laid out here in, in
this, in this book. So consider 3 examples. I'm gonna give you 3 different examples of different companies. Um, one is a convenience store, one is a jewelry store and one's a hardware store. So the convenience store, an example number example A, they have a, uh, they aren't a consistent if some if the if uh Sorry, if somewhat small profit throughout all periods of the business cycle. So let's say after 10 years, the convenience store earns $500,000 of profit.
It would have an effective tax rate of 5%. Um, the jewelry store is a well established, but it has large periods of large profit during great economic growth, but they struggled during recession. So in this scenario after 10 years, the jewelry store would have the same $500,000 in profit, but their effective tax rate would be 7%. And then there's the hardware store, which in this scenario is an upstart business that's just
getting started. They lose money in their first two years, but they managed to break even in their 3rd year. Um Maybe during home building might slow during a recession, uh, the store Uh, so in this scenario, the, the The hardware store would earn the same $500,000 after 10 years and it's effective tax rate would be 8%. So, um, that just gives you an example of how this net operating loss provisions help
decrease that disparity in different kinds of businesses and how they experience profitability. So, um, I know the hour is getting late and people probably want to go to lunch and we're not going to take a vote on this today, but I wanted to introduce this concept because it's an area of our tax code where we really lag behind other states. It's been identified over and over in the tax reform. relief task force back in 2016, uh, it was identified in the 2023 update to the book, um,
and, uh, this is a bill that has been endorsed by the state chamber. They recognize the value that um it would bring to improving our tax code and so I just want us to all keep it in mind and not forget about it. The next time we, we take on a big round of tax reform package. This is something that we really ought to take a look at. And that's my explanation of the bill.
Thank you, Representative Ray, Um, as someone who sat on that tax reform task force, um, I
will say this was one of our main, uh, goals was that we were trying to make a much more friendly business environment state of Arkansas so that we could have prosperity and this was one of our main goals is we thought this is something that we should have done, and you're correct that was happened in 2016, um, and nothing's been done about it. So I think it is something that we need to have this conversation about and just for the members, I want you to look at what the physical impact is. The physical impact is nothing
for 10 years. Then we start having physical impact in year 32037. So I think as people trying to develop tax policy, we need to be asking ourselves when we go through this net operating loss, how much extra revenue is being brought into the state in those 10 years to offset those losses in revenue and with that I'd like to ask DFNA if they could
Representative David Ray
Unverified
1:27:51
go to the end of the table and answer a question. Madam Chair, if I could, while I'm, while we're waiting on them, I think you raised a great point, and this is the type of bill that would specifically benefit from some type of dynamic scoring because it, it would have a positive impact on new businesses' ability to start in the state and generate more tax revenue and Paul, if you'll introduce yourself
Speaker 183
1:28:15
for the record, please. Thank you, Madam Chair,
Speaker 139
1:28:18
members of the committee, Paul Gehring, DFA. Thank you, Paul. My
question is, when you're looking at the physical impact, do Do you take any of that into consideration about how much
might actually be brought back into the, you know, the growth in the economy.
Speaker 139
1:28:34
The fiscal impact is based upon the static of what our estimate is for purposes of those, those net operating loss carry forwards that would that would we anticipate would drop off and not be allowed to be claimed beginning in fiscal year 2037, so it is not a dynamic score.
And one note, I did want to mention is that as a result of the tax reform task force, uh, legislation was enacted to extend the net operating loss carry forward period first. to 8 years and then to 10, uh, just so, so that we have been able to make have some improvements in our legislation to with regards to net operating losses because they were rather Short term period before those recent changes um by the General Assembly. If my memory starts, was it 3 years? I think it was
Speaker 186
1:29:24
went to from 5 years to 8 and then from 8 to
10. Yes, ma'am, but still some of the most restrictive
in the country. And from someone who's looking at running an operation and if you're have a business that is cyclical because of the, you know, economy. I mean, it really does make it hard when you're trying to budget, trying to figure out what you're gonna reinvest back in the company. Are you gonna be able to hire more people? Can you open another location when, uh, you're not able to carry forward these losses and that's, that's
just standard in my opinion, Business 101, um, but I just wanted to make sure that people understood that this is static, that it does not have any dynamic scoring in it and that it really only reflects based on what it is now, doesn't look like there's new business that comes in or it's generated from something like this. That's really what my, I wanted you to clarify. I agree that that is correct. OK. And with that,
Speaker 184
1:30:16
uh, Representative Lundstrom, you're recognized for the question. Thank you,
Chair. Um, When I look at the physical impact, I say we don't have a
Representative Robin Lundstrum
Unverified
1:30:27
physical impact till 2037. This is 2025. I'm a little bit concerned that we're making decisions. 10 years down the road, we don't even know for sure. But it's it's a little bit disconcerting to me that we're automatically saying, well, this time's out, so we're gonna start going after this money, not you, Paul, but I'm just wondering I think this bill is exactly what we need. We don't need to be bringing in 1326 million, 37,
48, another 100 million of the taxpayer money when we could have that plowing back into our economy and into our businesses. Wouldn't you agree, Representative Ray? I don't want to put Paul on that. Yes, I do agree. Thank you. I, I'm wondering if we shouldn't already pass this so people can plan and this is a question for the chair. If there's no physical impact right now, why would we not pass this? And go ahead and put it in the book so that it's never. An issue. For the next 20 years.
As the chair in my opinion. In the chair is my opinion.
I think this is good policy. I think it is something that the state has been trying to work for. For several years is moved forward. It it is good business in my opinion, the impact is not into 10 years, and I think we possibly could take a vote on it because there's no physical impact at the current moment, and what I mean by current moment, I'm not talking about 5 years down the line. I'm talking about 10 years down the line,
um, and, and that's my opinion, um, and I will leave that out there and we can discuss it as a committee if that's something that we feel that we could do and I Representative Eve you, did you have a question? OK. But I mean that's my opinion. If um That we want to take a vote, we can take a vote. If we never
Representative Robin Lundstrum
Unverified
1:32:26
have it, we're not gonna miss it. We don't get addicted to what we don't have, and that's, that's a
specific issue for making us competitive in Arkansas. So I would implore the committee to go ahead and push this thing forward. I would say that
I agree that we could take a
vote. And with that, Is there anybody here to speak for any more questions, should I say? Nobody signed up for it. With that representative Ray. Would you like to close for your bill?
Representative David Ray
Unverified
1:33:07
Yeah, thank you committee. I appreciate the the recognition that this is something that's that's long been needed in our state to really just bring us into Bring us into alignment with where almost all the other states are, you know, it's, it's sort of shocking that we were at 5 years with Rhode Island, which is dead last in the country, um, you know, this permits productive risk taking for businesses, helps businesses get off the ground and removes government from the equation of a business's success. So, um, I think it's, it's a great idea
and I don't wanna, I don't want to put anybody in an uncomfortable position, but if, you know, if the committee, if, if the chair says we can take a vote on it. Then, you know, I'm fine moving ahead and and letting the whole body consider this policy, so if, if the chair will take the motion, I, I'd move to pass. I will
take that motion and members, is there a discussion on the motion? Representative Avis, you're recognized. I absolutely support this bill, but
Representative Les D. Eaves
Unverified
1:34:03
if we start down this road of letting bills out of this committee that have a fiscal
impact regardless of which year they start, then where does it end? We've had a conversation a couple of weeks ago about not letting a bill out of here that just had an impact to state central services that we had to discuss. Again, I, I Fully support the bill, would likely vote for it on the floor, but I want the committee to understand that we are violating our own rules at this point. Thank you, Representative
Wooton, you're recognized. And, and I agree, I support it,
Representative Jim Wooten
Unverified
1:34:39
but what I'm worried about is 12 years down the road, we're going to lose $13 million in revenue and we're binding another session, another unit, another uh session of the legislature to comply with this law and And like I said, I support it, but I agree with Representative Eaves. Where, where do we draw the line and I understand, you know, we've got over a billion
dollars, um, exemptions right now. So, I just urge you to be cautious in what you do. Thank you, Madam Chair Representative Lindstrom, you're recognized. Thank you. um.
Representative Robin Lundstrum
Unverified
1:35:22
I'm for this. I think Representative Eaves has a good point as much as I hate to admit it, um, the If we need to wait, I will hold my due pass until the proper time. I, but I can't pop somebody's gonna have to talk me off the ledge of believing that
we can't do this in this session. So thank
Representative Rick McClure
Unverified
1:35:49
you. Representative McCurry, you recognized. I agree with all of you. But we're headed down the road with the attempt to eliminate an income tax. We do not know where we'll be those years down the road. That fiscal impact is projected on today's rates, not what the rates will be 2 years, 35 years. So you may be have no physical,
physical impact at that point in time, so. Madam, what are the guidelines that we have to abide by. If we don't even know that there will be an impact 10 years from now. Well, I
think that's where that's the quandary we're at. We're at looking at a static. Analysis. We're not looking at a dynamic analysis. So we really don't know. And, you know, although there's no, I do agree that there is no current fiscal impact for 10 years. We do have some questions
about what will be the um impact in 10 years, whether it's what's on here, whether it's less, whether it's more, we don't know because we don't know what that dynamic scoring might look like what might be brought back in, um. Personally If the committee doesn't feel comfortable enough
to vote on this today because of the unknown questions. I am OK to put it in the mix that we can talk about once we know what we've
got and we can look at. If it's something that we might be able to do, I'm OK with that. But
You know, just realize what representative these is saying is correct. We've got other bills that are gonna come to us too. They're gonna be similar to this. So this is not just the first one. That will be coming. That will be similar to this. And with
that representative Ry you're recognized for question. thank you Mr. Chairman. I just
Representative Ry
Unverified
1:37:40
wanted, just a question. Um, can we let all of, could we let this
bill go through with the rest of them in due time, but maybe encourage. Representative David to put on an emergency clause on this where it could affect this year possibly. As a committee member, can I
Representative David Ray
Unverified
1:38:01
chime in on the discussion? I think, um, you know, Representative Eve's point is well taken. Um, I understand, and that's why, that's why I prefaced what I said was I don't want, I don't want to make anybody uncomfortable, um, with this process because I know, um, you know, we, we, I don't wanna,
I don't want my bill to be treated differently than than other bills, um, and so that's that that point is well taken. I, I'm happy to withdraw my Du pass motion, um, and, and just delay that and, and we can continue having conversations about this. It seems like the committee's. Very supportive of the policy, you know, we just need to figure out a way to make it work with with everything else we're doing, so I appreciate that
and, and I do agree. I think everybody. I want to say everybody, most everyone on the committee
understands the benefit of extending this. Net operating loss for businesses. And I do appreciate the member's willingness to listen. And um we can bring it up when we have the rest of the bills. Like I said, there are other bills are gonna be similar. They're gonna come through and we, and we can decide what might be best at that time, Representative Eaves. I just wanted to clarify, especially for Representative Ray,
Representative Les D. Eaves
Unverified
1:39:11
I'm 100% in favor of this. I just think it puts us in a weird spot since there are other other bills that we have uh
Talked about and discussed that we didn't take a vote on that did have a fiscal impact, so I don't know how we would go tell those people, you know, this one did, but it was going to be down the road. So I mean, I would certainly and absolutely encourage this bill to be part of the conversation that we look at toward the end of session as one of the things that we should pass out of
Representative David Ray
Unverified
1:39:40
here and thank you for bringing the bill to our attention. Sure, absolutely, um, don't disagree with anything you said, so, um, you know, unless there's other discussion, I'll withdraw my motion for now and we can keep having these conversations
Speaker 160
1:39:51
with any other questions? He's Is anybody
here to speak for or against, we've already made the motion, so it doesn't matter. All right. With
members with that. I appreciate it, good conversations, we're done.
Agenda
RE-REFERRED TO COMMITTEE
HB1594 Vaught TO CREATE A FARMER SALES TAX IDENTIFICATION CARD; AND TO RELIEVE A SELLER OF SALES TAX REMITTANCE LIABILITY UPON GOOD FAITH ACCEPTANCE OF A FARMER SALES TAX IDENTIFICATION CARD.
REGULAR AGENDA
HB1026 A. Collins TO CREATE THE ARKANSAS PROMISE ACT; AND TO CREATE AN INCOME TAX CREDIT FOR TUITION PAID FOR AN ELIGIBLE STUDENT AT A PUBLIC INSTITUTION OF HIGHER EDUCATION.collins
HB1469 Beaty Jr. TO CREATE THE BROADBAND EXPANSION AND EFFICIENCY ACT; AND TO CREATE A SALES AND USE TAX EXEMPTION FOR MACHINERY AND EQUIPMENT USED IN PRODUCING BROADBAND COMMUNICATIONS SERVICES.
HB1472 Beaty Jr. TO CREATE A SALES AND USE TAX EXEMPTION FOR PARTS PURCHASED TO REPAIR AGRICULTURAL EQUIPMENT AND MACHINERY AND TIMBER EQUIPMENT AND MACHINERY AND PARTS AND SERVICES PURCHASED TO REPAIR A GRAIN BIN.
HB1072 C. Cooper TO CLARIFY THE REQUIREMENTS FOR ESTABLISHING ELIGIBILITY FOR THE PROPERTY TAX EXEMPTION FOR DISABLED VETERANS, SURVIVING SPOUSES, AND MINOR DEPENDENT CHILDREN.
HB1500 Beaty Jr. TO ENHANCE ECONOMIC COMPETITIVENESS BY REPEALING THE THROWBACK RULE.
HB1501 Beaty Jr. TO ADOPT FEDERAL INCOME TAX LAW REGARDING DEPRECIATION AND THE EXPENSING OF PROPERTY; AND TO INCREASE THE AMOUNT ALLOWED FOR THE EXPENSING OF CERTAIN DEPRECIABLE BUSINESS ASSETS TO THE AMOUNT ALLOWED UNDER FEDERAL LAW.beaty
HB1538 Ray TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING THE NET OPERATING LOSS INCOME TAX DEDUCTION; AND TO INCREASE THE CARRY-FORWARD PERIOD FOR THE NET OPERATING LOSS INCOME TAX DEDUCTION.
HB1636 Ray TO AMEND THE ARKANSAS SOFT DRINK TAX ACT, AS AFFIRMED BY REFERRED ACT 1 OF 1994; AND TO PHASE OUT THE SOFT DRINK TAX BASED ON SALES TAX COLLECTIONS FROM SALES OF SOFT DRINKS.
HB1658 Nazarenko TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING THE PAYMENT OF PROPERTY TAXES; AND TO DEFINE "DEPLOYMENT" FOR PURPOSES OF THE EXCEPTION TO THE ASSESSMENT OF PENALTIES RELATED TO PROPERTY TAXES.
HB1665 Wardlaw TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING THE INSURANCE PREMIUM TAX; AND TO REPEAL THE CREDIT ALLOWED AGAINST THE INSURANCE PREMIUM TAX FOR ACCIDENT AND HEALTH COVERAGE BASED ON THE SALARY AND WAGES OF THE EMPLOYEES OF THE INSURER.
HB1670 L. Johnson TO CREATE THE PRECEPTOR TAX INCENTIVE PROGRAM; AND TO PROVIDE INCENTIVES FOR CERTAIN MEDICAL OR COUNSELING PROFESSIONALS TO TRAIN CERTAIN STUDENTS WHO ARE LEARNING TO BECOME MEDICAL OR COUNSELING PROFESSIONALS.
HB1671 L. Johnson TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING THE GROSS RECEIPTS TAX; AND TO CREATE A GENERAL SALES AND USE TAX EXEMPTION FOR SALES TO QUALIFIED NONPROFIT ORGANIZATIONS.
HB1674 L. Johnson TO CREATE AN INCOME TAX CREDIT FOR CONTRIBUTIONS TO CERTAIN RURAL HOSPITAL ORGANIZATIONS; AND TO CREATE THE HELPING ENHANCE ACCESS TO RURAL TREATMENT (HEART) ACT.
HB1685 Underwood TO CREATE THE GROCERY TAX RELIEF ACT; TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING THE SALES AND USE TAXES LEVIED ON FOOD AND FOOD INGREDIENTS, AS AFFIRMED BY REFERRED ACT 19 OF 1958; AND TO EXEMPT GROCERIES FROM STATE SALES AND USE TAXES.
HB1687 K. Moore TO PROVIDE THAT A WATER AUTHORITY IS EXEMPT FROM ALL EXCISE TAXES.
HB1691 Torres TO PROVIDE FOR CERTAIN PROPERTY TO BE EXEMPT FROM TAXATION; AND TO PROVIDE THAT CERTAIN MOTOR VEHICLES USED EXCLUSIVELY FOR PUBLIC CHARITY ARE EXEMPT FROM PERSONAL PROPERTY TAX.
HB1698 Torres TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING THE INCOME TAX TREATMENT OF EMPLOYER CONTRIBUTIONS FOR AN EMPLOYEE'S MEMBERSHIP IN A HEALTHCARE SHARING MINISTRY OR OTHER MEDICAL COST-SHARING PROGRAM.
HB1699 McCullough TO ADD FIREARM SAFETY DEVICES AND FIREARM STORAGE DEVICES TO THE SALES TAX HOLIDAY; AND TO DECLARE AN EMERGENCY.
HB1702 Wooldridge TO AMEND THE SALES AND USE TAX EXEMPTIONS FOR CERTAIN MACHINERY AND EQUIPMENT USED IN MANUFACTURING; AND TO PROVIDE A SALES AND USE TAX EXEMPTION FOR MACHINERY AND EQUIPMENT USED IN CLOSED-LOOP RECYCLING.
HB1708 Underwood THE KEEP THE BONUS, AXE THE TAX: THE NO-TAX BONUS ACT.
HB1715 Lundstrum TO LIMIT THE INCREASE IN THE ASSESSED VALUE OF REAL PROPERTY AFTER A SALE OR OTHER TRANSFER OF REAL PROPERTY.
HB1732 Vaught TO INCREASE THE AMOUNT OF THE INCOME TAX DEDUCTION ALLOWED FOR A TEACHER'S CLASSROOM INVESTMENT.
HB1738 Crawford TO PROVIDE A SALES AND USE TAX EXEMPTION FOR DISABLED VETERANS.
HB1750 Cavenaugh TO REPEAL THE ARKANSAS CORPORATE FRANCHISE TAX ACT OF 1979; AND TO MAKE CONFORMING CHANGES.
HB1759 Milligan TO INCREASE THE AMOUNT OF TIME A TAXPAYER HAS TO ASSESS TANGIBLE PERSONAL PROPERTY ACQUIRED DURING A CERTAIN TIME PERIOD.
HB1775 Lundstrum TO PROHIBIT THE SEPARATE VALUATION AND ASSESSMENT OF AN ACCESSORY DWELLING UNIT FOR PURPOSES OF PROPERTY TAXES; AND TO AMEND THE METHOD OF VALUATION FOR CERTAIN RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY UNDER ARKANSAS CONSTITUTION, ARTICLE 16, § 5.
HB1787 Warren TO PROVIDE AN INCOME TAX EXEMPTION FOR CERTAIN RETIREMENT BENEFITS RECEIVED BY LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS AND FIREFIGHTERS.
SB379 Crowell TO REPEAL THE LAW REQUIRING THE TAX ADVISORY COUNCIL TO SUBMIT A REPORT.
SB381 Crowell TO REPEAL THE LAW REQUIRING THE DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE AND ADMINISTRATION TO SUBMIT A REPORT CONCERNING THE ACTIVITIES OF THE MULTISTATE TAX COMMISSION AND ARKANSAS'S PARTICIPATION IN THE ACTIVITIES OF THE COMMISSION.
SB382 Crowell TO REPEAL THE REQUIREMENT THAT THE ARKANSAS DEVELOPMENT FINANCE AUTHORITY SUBMIT A REPORT CONCERNING THE CAPITAL ACCESS FUND.
SB383 Crowell TO REPEAL THE ANNUAL REPORT REQUIRED UNDER THE VENTURE CAPITAL INVESTMENT ACT OF 2001.
SB384 Crowell TO REPEAL THE REQUIREMENT THAT THE ARKANSAS DEVELOPMENT FINANCE AUTHORITY SUBMIT A PROGRAM FACT SHEET TO THE LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL AND ARKANSAS LEGISLATIVE AUDIT FOR EACH NEW BOND ISSUE.
SB385 Crowell TO REPEAL THE REQUIREMENT THAT THE RURAL SERVICES DIVISION OF THE ARKANSAS ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION SUBMIT A BIENNIAL REPORT CONCERNING THE ACTIVITIES OF THE DIVISION.
SB387 Crowell TO REPEAL THE LAW REQUIRING OCCUPATIONAL LICENSING ENTITIES TO SUBMIT A REPORT CONCERNING THE NUMBER OF INDIVIDUALS GRANTED AUTOMATIC OCCUPATIONAL LICENSURE AND EXPEDITED OCCUPATIONAL LICENSURE.
SB389 Crowell TO REPEAL THE LAW REQUIRING THE SECRETARY OF THE DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE AND ADMINISTRATION TO SUBMIT A REPORT CONCERNING ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGES.
HB1657 Beck TO AMEND THE ARKANSAS WOOD ENERGY PRODUCTS AND FOREST MAINTENANCE INCOME TAX CREDIT.
Documents
| Title | Type | Pages | Source |
|---|---|---|---|
| Agenda — REVENUE & TAXATION- HOUSE, Mar 18, 2025 | Agenda | 4 | Official source ↗ |
Speakers
Representative Lane Jean
Unverified
Speaker 2
Speaker 6
Representative Howard M. Beaty, Jr.
Unverified
Chair
Unverified
Representative Jim Wooten
Unverified
Speaker 19
Speaker 23
Speaker 22
Representative Ry
Unverified
Representative Johnny Rye
Unverified
Speaker 33
Representative Rick McClure
Unverified
Representative Les D. Eaves
Unverified
Speaker 64
Speaker 67
Representative Roger D. Lynch
Unverified
Representative Andrew Collins
Unverified
Speaker 77
Speaker 78
Representative Mindy McAlindon
Unverified
Representative Randy Torres
Unverified
Representative Cameron Cooper
Unverified
Speaker 104
Speaker 62
Speaker 91
Speaker 115
Speaker 120
Speaker 121
Representative David Ray
Unverified
Speaker 124
Speaker 132
Speaker 136
Speaker 138
Speaker 139
Speaker 140
Speaker 146
Speaker 148
Speaker 128
Representative Frances Cavenaugh Chair
Unverified
Representative Richard McGrew
Unverified
Speaker 163
Speaker 167
Speaker 170
Speaker 172
Speaker 183
Speaker 186
Speaker 184
Representative Robin Lundstrum
Unverified
Speaker 160