This bill provides for a decrease in business equipment property tax rates if state tax collections on income tax and corporate license tax are met. This bill also provides a 90% reimbursement to local governments through the entitlement share. The Governor has a proposal to eliminate this tax, but does not provide for a reimbursement mechanism. Without the reimbursement, this tax burden will be shifted primarily to residential property tax payers. Missoula County recommends that any reduction in business equipment property taxes includes a reimbursement mechanism to avoid the potential shift in tax burden to residential payers.
Missoula County supports Senate Bill 372 - Lower business equipment tax -- phase more reduction on state economic growth, before Senate Taxation tomorrow morning. SB 372 provides for a decrease in business equipment property tax rates if state tax collections on income tax and corporate license tax are met. This bill also provides a 90% reimbursement to local governments through the entitlement share. The Governor has a proposal to eliminate this tax, but does not provide for a reimbursement mechanism. Without the reimbursement, this tax burden will be shifted primarily to residential property tax payers. Missoula County recommends that any reduction in business equipment property taxes includes a reimbursement mechanism to avoid the potential shift in tax burden to residential payers. Please support SB 372. Respectfully, Dale Bickell on behalf of the Board of County Commissioners
Linda Stoll mentioned that you were concerned with Missoula County's support of SB 372, Senator Tudvedt's business tax reduction bill. I hope to clarify our position with you because I seriously doubt we disagree on the underlying issue. Our biggest concern related to any proposal to reduce the business equipment tax is that it could represent a significant cost shift to residential taxpayers. Should the legislature make the policy decision to reduce the business equipment tax, the County hopes that it is accompanied by a reimbursement to local governments to avoid this cost shift. Senator Tudvedt's bill appears to provide a 90% reimbursement, where other proposals either have no reimbursement or a capped reimbursement. Our position is that residential taxpayers are already at the limit of what they can afford related to property taxes and reducing the business equipment tax without a reimbursement mechanism will further overburden these taxpayers.
Senator Erickson's response: Hi Dale, Thanks for the clarification. There are various political considerations that will go into these two bills and I sure don't know how it will all play out. But rest assured that my first concern, if a bill passes, is that reimbursement occurs. But of course I will steadfastly oppose any business equipment tax reduction bill on the grounds that all such bills eventually either decrease services or shift taxes. Ron
This bill provides for a decrease in business equipment property tax rates if state tax collections on income tax and corporate license tax are met. This bill also provides a 90% reimbursement to local governments through the entitlement share. The Governor has a proposal to eliminate this tax, but does not provide for a reimbursement mechanism. Without the reimbursement, this tax burden will be shifted primarily to residential property tax payers. Missoula County recommends that any reduction in business equipment property taxes includes a reimbursement mechanism to avoid the potential shift in tax burden to residential payers.
ReplyDeleteSent the following to Senator Erickson
ReplyDeleteMissoula County supports Senate Bill 372 - Lower business equipment tax -- phase more reduction on state economic growth, before Senate Taxation tomorrow morning. SB 372 provides for a decrease in business equipment property tax rates if state tax collections on income tax and corporate license tax are met. This bill also provides a 90% reimbursement to local governments through the entitlement share. The Governor has a proposal to eliminate this tax, but does not provide for a reimbursement mechanism. Without the reimbursement, this tax burden will be shifted primarily to residential property tax payers. Missoula County recommends that any reduction in business equipment property taxes includes a reimbursement mechanism to avoid the potential shift in tax burden to residential payers. Please support SB 372.
Respectfully,
Dale Bickell on behalf of the Board of County Commissioners
Vickie Zeier wrote:
ReplyDeleteMACCR will oppose the bill. This bill is requiring us to police documents before we record.
Senator Erickson,
ReplyDeleteLinda Stoll mentioned that you were concerned with Missoula County's support of SB 372, Senator Tudvedt's business tax reduction bill. I hope to clarify our position with you because I seriously doubt we disagree on the underlying issue. Our biggest concern related to any proposal to reduce the business equipment tax is that it could represent a significant cost shift to residential taxpayers. Should the legislature make the policy decision to reduce the business equipment tax, the County hopes that it is accompanied by a reimbursement to local governments to avoid this cost shift. Senator Tudvedt's bill appears to provide a 90% reimbursement, where other proposals either have no reimbursement or a capped reimbursement. Our position is that residential taxpayers are already at the limit of what they can afford related to property taxes and reducing the business equipment tax without a reimbursement mechanism will further overburden these taxpayers.
Best regards,
Dale
Senator Erickson's response:
ReplyDeleteHi Dale,
Thanks for the clarification.
There are various political considerations that will go into these two bills and I sure don't know how it will all play out. But rest assured that my first concern, if a bill passes, is that reimbursement occurs.
But of course I will steadfastly oppose any business equipment tax reduction bill on the grounds that all such bills eventually either decrease services or shift taxes.
Ron