|
|
PUBLIC
HEARING AND WORK SESSION SB
173, SB 220, SB 228 WORK
SESSION SB 227 |
|
|
TAPE 73 A-B,
74 A |
MARCH 10,
2003 8:30 AM STATE CAPITOL BUILDING
Members Present: Representative Lane Shetterly, Chair
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
Witness Present: Brenda Rocklin, Oregon State Lottery
John
Phillips, Department of Revenue
Debra
Buchanan, Department of Revenue
Staff Present: Paul
Warner, Legislative Revenue Officer
Dick
Yates, Legislative Revenue Office
Lizbeth
Martin-Mahar, Legislative Revenue Office
Mazen
Malik, Legislative Revenue Office
Kathy
Tooley, Committee Assistant
TAPE 73, SIDE A
|
004 |
Chair Shetterly |
Calls meeting to order at 9:36 a.m. |
OPENED PUBLIC HEARING SB 173
|
022 |
Dick Yates |
Provided a description and
background of SB 173, (Exhibit 1), does
not have a revenue impact, does have a fiscal impact. |
|
030 |
Brenda Rocklin |
Spoke in favor of SB 173, providing background and intent of the
bill, (Exhibit 2). |
|
055 |
Chair Shetterly |
This bill applies to prizes awarded on or after January 1, 2003; are
you going to catch up on those when this becomes effective? |
|
058 |
Rocklin |
Answered affirmatively. |
|
062 |
Chair Shetterly |
Closed Public Hearing on SB 173. |
WORK SESSION SB 173
|
063 |
Rep. Verger |
MOTION: MOVED SB 173 TO THE
HOUSE FLOOR WITH A DO PASS RECOMMENDATION ROLL CALL: MOTION PASSED 8-0-1 REPRESENTATIVES VOTING AYE:
Barnhart, Berger, Farr, Hopson, Scott, Verger, Williams, Chair
Shetterly. EXCUSED: Hass Rep. Berger will carry the bill. |
OPENED PUBLIC HEARING SB 220
|
088 |
Lizbeth Martin-Mahar |
Description and provided background on SB 220, (Exhibit 3), does not
have revenue or fiscal impact. |
|
105 |
Debra Buchanan |
Spoke in favor and provided background and intent of SB 220, (Exhibit
4). |
|
118 |
Chair Shetterly |
When you say trust, I assume these are commingled trusts? |
|
120 |
Buchanan |
Answered affirmatively. |
|
124 |
Chair Shetterly |
Why didn’t we connect with this, is it outside the definition of
personal taxable income when the changes were made in 1997 at the federal level? Why didn’t the rolling reconnect pick this
up? |
|
127 |
Buchanan |
It’s really a change in the filing, like multiple filings for
non-resident shareholders of an S Corporation. |
|
131 |
Chair Shetterly |
This doesn’t change how much is taxed? |
|
133 |
Buchanan |
It should not. |
|
135 |
Rep. Barnhart |
This reduce the amount of returns coming to your office and the cost? |
|
137 |
Buchanan |
Answered affirmatively. |
|
140 |
Rep. Verger |
Who is paying the tax and claiming the income? |
|
142 |
Buchanan |
Under current law, the funeral home would take payment, invest it and
hold in trust until needed. Earnings
under prior federal law would flow to the person making payment and be
reported on an individual return. |
|
148 |
Rep. Shetterly |
Under Oregon law, those earnings would be reported by the trust and
not by all of the individual trust beneficiaries? |
|
150 |
Buchanan |
Answered affirmatively. |
|
153 |
Rep. Barnhart |
What assumption do you make about what the tax rate going to be? |
|
156 |
Buchanan |
That’s one of the simplification issues in the bill. The trust is treated as though filing as an
individual resident, reporting under the graduated rates. |
|
164 |
Rep. Verger |
You said make payments, if make one payment it is payment in full? |
|
170 |
Buchanan |
Whatever payments are made by the individual is held in trust until
needed. The amounts held in trust are
invested, there is no difference. |
|
174 |
Chair Shetterly |
At the Federal level, the brackets for trust are substantially
compressed? Are they paid at trust
rates or individual rates. |
|
178 |
Buchanan |
Unknown, will find out. |
|
181 |
Chair Shetterly |
Oregon treats them as individual? |
|
183 |
Buchanan |
Answered affirmatively, true for all the trusts. |
|
177 |
Chair Shetterly |
Closed hearing on SB 220. |
WORK SESSION SB 220
|
188 |
Rep. Verger |
MOTION: MOVED SB 220 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, Chair
Shetterly. Rep. Hass will carry the bill. |
|
203 |
Chair Shetterly |
Closed Work Session on SB 220 |
PUBLIC HEARING SB 227
|
210 |
Mazen Malik |
Provided a
description and background of SB 227,
does not have revenue or fiscal impact (Exhibit 5). |
|
236 |
John Phillips |
Described policy conflict in the statutes, (Exhibit 6). |
|
270 |
|
Questions and discussion on ORS 311.250, and ORS 306.245. |
|
288 |
|
Discussion on tax rates. |
|
310 |
Chair Shetterly |
The language in Section 4 that is being deleted is the comparative
view of value and taxes and expresses what the practice is now? |
|
315 |
Phillips |
There were two approaches to the concept. ·
Remove
the reference to the tax rates. ·
Remove
the section since it is covered elsewhere. |
|
320 |
Chair Shetterly |
It’s covered in the rule, not statute? |
|
322 |
Phillips |
Answered affirmatively. |
|
324 |
|
Discussion of statutory vs. rule changes in maintaining look back. |
|
349 |
|
Questions and discussion regarding real market vs. total assessed
value. |
|
367 |
Rep. Barnhart |
In terms of streamlining, makes sense to leave it to the department,
rather than statute, the bill is a good idea. |
|
375 |
Chair Shetterly |
Felt the comparative assessment information is worthwhile. Important
education function that the statement provides. |
|
380 |
Phillips |
Review of real property tax statement, (Exhibit 7) Questions and discussion regarding tax statement. |
TAPE 74, SIDE A
|
010 |
Rep. Verger |
Why did you want to this eliminated? |
|
015 |
Phillips |
Discussed DOR’s position on bill. |
|
030 045 |
|
Discussion of ORS 311.250 requirements for tax statements. Discussed ORS 306.245 requirements for tax statements. |
|
052 |
Rep. Scott |
Does SB 227 change the tax statement at all? |
|
060 |
Chair Shetterly |
SB 227 will no longer statutorily require “last years assessed value”
to be part of the statement, but it will be under administrative rule. |
|
064 |
Rep. Berger |
Understood differently, it is rate that is not on the tax statement. A taxpayer couldn’t multiply the rate even
if it were there because there are several different rate and it would be
confusing. |
|
073 |
Phillips |
Answered affirmatively. |
|
083 093 |
Chair Shetterly Chair Shetterly |
Questioned if the Committee wanted to recede from statutory requirement
to have comparative information as to value and taxes be deleted and left to
rule. Another option would be to
amend 311.250 to include look back information as to value and taxes imposed
so it is all in one statute. Expressed discomfort in deleting the legislative requirement for look
back in statute. |
|
100 |
Phillips |
To clarify, it is the will of the Committee to remove Section 4 from Chapter
306 and place a requirement for prior years assessed and real market values
into ORS 311.250? |
|
123 |
Chair Shetterly |
And include the taxes imposed. |
|
128 |
Chair Shetterly |
Closed Public Hearing on SB 227. |
OPEN PUBLIC HEARING SB 228
|
138 |
Malik |
Described intent and background of SB 228, (Exhibit 8). |
|
157 |
Phillips |
Provided background on Section 1, and testified in support of SB 228,
allows for discussion with lessor and lessee regarding valuation of a
property without violating confidentiality laws, (Exhibit 9). |
|
213 |
|
Questions and discussion regarding definitions and clarifying
language by Legislative Counsel’s Office? |
|
233 |
Rep. Verger |
Why does, a power of attorney, create difficulty or confusion? |
|
238 |
Phillips |
It’s authority to talk to person other than taxpayer, regarding a
property tax account, not power of attorney. |
|
258 |
|
Questions and discussion on lessor, lessee authority to appeal tax values?
|
|
269 |
Buchanan |
Provided background on Sections 2-5 which deals with unintended
consequences of 1999 legislation, (Exhibit 10). Provided examples about representation which limits the ability
of the DOR to disclose information or talk about a tax return with anyone not
on file as an authorized representative under statute. |
|
306 |
|
Questions and discussion regarding power of attorney. |
|
352 |
Rep. Williams |
With the new bill, how are you going to police the level of
designation. How do you know the
person on the phone is who they say they are? |
|
367 |
Buchanan |
If the person gives enough information to indicate they are aware of
situation, information off the tax return, or billing notice, can assume some
sort of communication from the taxpayer, although could be wrong. |
|
390 |
Chair Shetterly |
Clarified balance, rules are also for protection of the taxpayer. |
|
387 |
|
Questions and discussion regarding signature on tax return for
parent/minor. |
|
400 |
Rep. Williams |
Before Legislature made change which led to the inadvertent problem,
did the department have rules for disclosure and verification? |
|
424 |
Buchanan |
Generally DOR requested authorization to represent to have on file. If
a person called and could determine this person had permission, DOR would
talk to them. |
|
444 |
Rep. Verger |
For the protection of DOR, there is nothing wrong with written
confirmation, it also provides protection for the taxpayer. |
TAPE 73, SIDE B
|
010 |
Berger |
Appreciate what the DOR is trying to do when a person is trying to
help a relative. Also concerned about
vulnerability. What would someone be
trying to do that would be nefarious? |
|
018 |
Buchanan |
Discussed scenario of a wealthy mother who is going to get a very
large refund, person calls and asks when a refund will be sent, and then
intercepts the refund. DOR exercises
caution in disclosing information. Bill
is an effort to operate as a good business to help taxpayers get information
they need to comply with tax laws. |
|
032 |
Rep. Williams |
Have reservations, but recognize DOR has a customer service issue, and
need for flexibility to help constituents. Would support with some reservation, but would like to see
administrative rules for management. |
|
070 |
Rep. Farr |
Even if the paperwork is filed, you still don’t know with whom you
are speaking. The customer service
issue outweighs the downside. |
|
087 |
Chair Shetterly |
Discussed language “or by implication” of concern to the Committee. Isn’t there a place on the form which
includes a person you may contact about the filing, short of formal filing of
a power of attorney? |
|
108 |
Buchanan |
Used prior to this law, an “Authorization to Represent”. DOR is prohibited by law from disclosing
confidential information and the penalties are Class C felony, $100,000 fine
and loss of employment. |
|
120 |
Chair Shetterly |
Willing to move if Committee is comfortable. |
|
127 |
Chair Shetterly |
Closed Public Hearing on SB 228. |
WORK SESSION ON SB 228
|
144 |
Rep. Farr |
MOTION: MOVED SB 228 TO THE
HOUSE FLOOR WITH A DO PASS RECOMMENDATION |
|
148 |
Rep. Barnhart |
Concerned words “by implication” may be too broad, may need amendment
that takes care of mother/child and similar common situations. |
|
159 |
Rep. Farr |
WITHDRAWAL: REP. FARR WITHDREW THE MOTION TO MOVE SB
228 TO THE HOUSE FLOOR WITH A DO PASS RECOMMENDATION. |
|
172 |
Chair Shetterly |
Closed Work Session on SB 228. |
|
175 |
Chair Shetterly |
Meeting adjourned at 9:43 a.m. |
Tape Log Submitted by,
Kathy Tooley, Committee Assistant Reviewed by Kim Taylor James
Exhibit Summary:
1.
Yates,
“Staff Measure Summaries SB 173, Fiscal Impact SB 173”, 3 pages
2.
Rocklin,
“Testimony SB 173”, 1 page
3.
Martin-Mahar,
“Staff Measure Summaries SB 220”, 2 pages
4.
Buchanan,
“Testimony SB 220”, 1 page
5.
Malik,
“Staff Measure Summaries SB 227”, 2 pages
6.
Phillips,
“Testimony 227”, 2 pages
7.
Phillips,
“Property Tax Statement”, 1 page
8.
Malik,
“Staff Measure Summaries SB 228”, 2 pages
9.
Phillips,
“Testimony SB 228”, 2 pages
10.
Buchanan,
“Testimony SB 228”, 1 page