|
|
PUBLIC
HEARING AND WORK SESSION SB 222, SB 224, HB 2187 |
|
|
TAPE 69, 70 A |
MARCH 6,
2003 8:30 AM STATE CAPITOL BUILDING
Members Present: Representative Wayne Scott, Vice Chair
Representative
Joanne Verger, Vice Chair
Representative
Phil Barnhart
Representative
Vicki Berger
Representative
Pat Farr
Representative
Mark Hass
Representative
Elaine Hopson
Representative
Max Williams
Members Excused: Representative Lane Shetterly, Chair
Witness Present: John Phillips, Oregon Revenue
Doug
Ebner, Marion County Assessor
Staff Present: Paul
Warner, Legislative Revenue Office
Mazen
Malik, Legislative Revenue Office
Kathy
Tooley, Committee Assistant
TAPE 69, SIDE A
|
021 |
Vice Chair Scott |
Calls meeting to order at 8:35 a.m. |
PUBLIC HEARING ON SB 222
|
030 |
Mazen Malik |
Provided a description and
background of SB 222, (Exhibit 1). |
|
044 |
John Phillips |
Provided background of SB 222, including Measure 50, ordering of
exceptions, (Exhibit 2). |
|
080 |
Vice Chair Scott |
Closed Public Hearing on SB 222 |
WORK SESSION ON SB 222
|
074 089 100 |
Rep. Hass |
MOTION: MOVED SB 222 TO THE
HOUSE FLOOR WITH A DO PASS RECOMMENDATION ROLL CALL: MOTION PASSED 8-0-1 REPRESENTATIVES VOTING AYE:
Barnhart, Berger, Farr, Hass, Hopson, Scott, Verger, Williams. EXCUSED:
Chair Shetterly. Discussion regarding consent calendar candidacy. |
|
|
|
Rep. Farr will carry the bill. |
PUBLIC HEARING ON SB 224
|
111 |
Malik |
Provided a description and
background of SB 224, (Exhibit 3). |
|
130 |
Phillips |
Provided background and scope of the measure; discussed Director of
Revenue authority to add omitted property, 5 year limitations, (Exhibit 4). |
|
160 |
Rep. Hass |
Define “centrally assessed properties”. |
|
178 |
Phillips |
Defined centrally assessed properties. |
|
186 |
Rep. Hass |
What is the relationship of “omitted property”. |
|
188 |
Phillips |
Described “omitted property”. |
|
203 |
Rep. Verger |
That seems very lenient to only assess 5 years taxes. What about non-profit property that might
fall into the category and goes to court?
If a non-profit prevails, and then a later time another does not
prevail, does this bill go back 5 years and assess taxes on the first
property? |
|
212 |
Phillips |
That is a known situation.
This bill deals with omitted property, not known to the assessor. |
|
230 |
Rep. Barnhart |
Why 5 years? Why not 10 or 3?
|
|
242 |
Phillips |
Don’t know the history of 5 years.
Not in the bill to determine intent of the omission. Policy decision is to find a balance; could
be the taxpayer or the assessor’s mistake. Five years is closely related to 5
year foreclosure process. |
|
280 |
|
Question and discussion regarding frequency of large omissions? |
|
339 |
Rep. Barnhart |
Five years conforms to the other statute and a number of convenience. |
|
342 |
Phillips |
Five years puts taxpayers on an equal playing field, it’s our
interpretation and what we have been doing. |
|
349 |
Malik |
Five years is part of a court case. |
|
358 |
Hopson |
If makes no difference if it was purposeful or accidental? |
|
345 |
Phillips |
Answered affirmatively.
Discussed situations of omissions that were purposeful and those where
taxpayer was unaware of discrepancy. |
|
378 |
Rep. Hopson |
They are treated exactly the same? |
|
380 |
Phillips |
Answered affirmatively. |
|
362 |
Rep. Verger |
It’s difficult to do a great deal to a residence when permits are
required, it seems 5 years gives the assessor a lot of time to discover
omitted property and assess. Three years
seems more reasonable for the taxpayer to be charged. |
|
395 |
Rep. Berger |
Five years isn’t on discovery, but how far back you can go to collect
omitted taxes? |
|
415 |
Phillips |
Answered affirmatively. |
|
420 |
Rep. Barnhart |
Expressed opposite view on period of time. If a business manages to hide construction without a permit for
25 years, they should pay for the 25 years.
The challenge is determining intent of taxpayer, 5 years may be a
reasonable compromise without looking at intent. |
TAPE 70, SIDE A
|
002 |
Rep. Verger |
This would be a deliberate attempt on the part of that business. Accidental omissions could happen, would
not want it to be a witch hunt. |
|
011 |
Rep. Williams |
Having bill have no intent and five years seems to be a reasonable
balance. Proof issues to determine
intent would probably exceed value of additional tax revenue. Want property to be freely transferable. Would support bill as it reads currently. |
|
032 |
Rep. Barnhart |
Would concur. |
|
033 |
Rep. Farr |
What proof is required that the improvement has been there for 5
years? |
|
040 |
Phillips |
Discussed claim and notice process, opportunity for response and appeals. |
|
042 |
Rep. Farr |
Would appeals process eat up additional revenue from 5 years of taxes? |
|
057 058 |
Phillips |
Five years starts when notice process starts, value is added to the
role, starts at that point, not during appeals process. Questions and discussion regarding process. |
|
065 |
Rep. Scott |
SB 224 has to do with central property rather than residential. |
|
068 |
Rep. Verger |
Is there cost to the appeals process? |
|
069 |
Phillips |
Yes. Staff time and other. |
|
071 |
Rep. Verger |
Who pays the cost? |
|
076 |
Phillips |
Depends on the appeal, discusses tax court. |
|
087 |
Rep. Verger |
There is no added expense to the person, when property changes hands
and omission was made without knowing? |
|
092 |
Phillips |
There is a filing fee, defers to County Assessor |
|
098 |
Doug Ebner |
Discussed filing with tax magistrate, with protections for new owners. |
|
115 |
Vice Chair Scott |
Closed public hearing on HB 224 |
WORK SESSION ON SB 224
|
116 |
Rep. Williams |
MOTION: MOVED SB 224 TO THE
HOUSE FLOOR WITH A DO PASS RECOMMENDATION ROLL CALL: MOTION PASSED 7-1-1 REPRESENTATIVES VOTING AYE:
Barnhart, Berger, Farr, Hass, Hopson, Scott, Williams. VOTING NO: Verger. EXCUSED: Chair Shetterly. Rep. Williams will carry the bill. |
|
130 |
Vice Chair Scott |
Closed the work session on SB 224. |
WORK SESSION ON HB 2187
|
131 |
Vice Chair Scott |
Open work session on HB 2187 |
|
135 |
Mazen |
Provided a description and background of HB 2187, (Exhibit 5),
discusses revenue and constitutional impact. |
|
172 |
Rep. Berger |
Discussed Shiloh case.
Supportive of this bill. |
|
195 |
Rep. Hass |
Revenue shift caused by court decision, not by this legislation, so
whether this is done or not, that shift will occur? |
|
186 |
Mazen |
Answered affirmatively. This
bill tries to codify into law. |
|
204 |
Rep. Berger |
MOTION: MOVED HB 2187 TO THE
HOUSE FLOOR WITH A DO PASS RECOMMENDATION ROLL CALL: MOTION PASSED 9-0-0 REPRESENTATIVES VOTING AYE:
Barnhart, Berger, Farr, Hass, Hopson, Scott, Verger, Williams. EXCUSED: Chair Shetterly. Rep. Berger will carry the bill. |
|
221 223 |
Vice Chair Scott Vice Chair Scott |
Closed work session on HB 2187. Meeting adjourned at 9:15 a.m. |
Tape Log Submitted by,
Kathy Tooley, Committee
Assistant Reviewed by Kim Taylor James
Exhibit Summary:
1.
Malik,
“Staff Measure Summary SB 222”, 2 pages
2.
Phillips,
“Testimony SB 222”, 2 pages
3.
Malik,
“Staff Measure Summary SB 224, 2 pages
4.
Phillips,
“Testimony SB 224”, 1 page
5.
Malik,
“Staff Measure Summary HB 2187”, 2 pages