Again, who are they looking out for? |
7th February 2007
I wrote about this yesterday, but no one seemed to want to discuss it. I’ll keep going on it though, I think it is just that important.
The Helena IR ran this piece yesterday, describing the business groups attacks on the anti-tax cheat bill in the state senate. Senate Bill 220, sponsored by Senator Jim Elliot(D) of Trout Creek, would strengthen the revenue departments ability to collect taxes from out of state businesses and individuals. The increased revenues (est 10 million) would be used to lighten the burden of the business equipment tax for local businesses.
- Businesses that have equipment with a market value of $150,000 or less no longer would owe any property taxes on these items. The current exemption is $20,000.
- It would require taxpayers to file additional reports of potentially abusive tax-avoidance transactions, and it would impose penalties.
- The bill would require corporations to provide information about their tax returns filed in other states.
- It would create a one-time amnesty program later this year to allow those who have evaded taxes through “abusive tax avoidance” schemes to pay back taxes from past years with no criminal or civil penalties.
- The bill would require out-of-state sellers of Montana land worth at least $100,000 either to withhold for taxes either 2.5 percent of sales price or the amount of the capital gains times the highest tax rate.
It is worthy of noting that the last item is already a requirement for in state land sales. To me, this seems like a very fair bill and offers a tax relief that Montana businesses need:
“When we don’t collect taxes properly from out-of-state filers, particularly businesses, we put our Montana businesses at a competitive disadvantage,” Barrett said.
So, again. What’s the problem? I am unclear on what the issue is here. We saw that Republicans tabled similar bills in the house last week and now supposed ‘business groups’ are attacking this bill. Who are these business groups?
On Tuesday, lobbyists speaking for dozens of business trade groups, ranging from certified public accountants to bankers and real estate agents to contractors, opposed Elliott’s bill. They told the committee they were extremely wary about giving the Revenue Department additional powers that they didn’t believe the agency needs.
Oh. OK. Again though. What’s the problem here?
What ‘additional powers’ are these guys talking about here? It’s funny, but you never hear the monied interests howling about ‘additional powers’ when they’re being handed tax break after tax break and the small operators have to bear the burden.
Without reading the bill, this is what jumped out at me:
The first I have concerns about because well,(here’s a real deep thought for you) I just don’t like it. Taxing business equipment, to me at least, is a poor way to generate revenue, no matter what the cap is.
In the second, I’m not real happy about the language, “potentially abusive tax-avoidance transactions” and the “additional reports” that would be required. Don’t get me wrong here, I don’t like loopholes for anyone. The problem I see is that this language is pretty broad. Unless it is more specific in the actual bill, I can foresee a serious case of mission creep. Also, all this extra reporting just sucks more off the bottom line.
I just wish we could make our methods of taxation simpler, and these points for me do the opposite.
You and I have had the discussion on a simplified tax code. We agree there.
Correct again, but the thing is that the revenue generated by this bill raises the cap. If you don’t like business equipment taxes then you must like the idea of raising the cap?
The language potentially abusive tax-avoidance transactions is not bad to me. The numbers show that the Montana tax system is being ripped off by out of state businesses and individuals. If they have to provide additional documentation to show that they are not ripping us off, so be it.
I certainly do like the idea of raising it, but I like the idea of getting rid of it a lot better. With a higher cap you have fewer people complaining about it and therefore a much smaller chance of eliminating it. As for the language, you won’t get an argument from me about reigning in the scofflaws. If they are made to divvy up, that should mean lower taxes for all of us. I’d just like to know what the phrase means.