|
|
WORK
SESSION SB 228-A, INFORMATIONAL
PRESENTATION |
|
|
TAPE 179, 180
A |
JUNE 3,
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: Debra Buchanan, Oregon Department of
Revenue
Staff Present: Paul
Warner, Legislative Revenue Officer
Mazen
Malik, Legislative Revenue Office
Lizbeth
Martin-Mahar, Legislative Revenue Office
Kathy
Tooley, Committee Assistant
TAPE 179, SIDE A
|
004 |
Chair Shetterly |
Calls meeting to order at 9:33 a.m. |
OPENED WORK SESSION ON SB 228
|
005 |
Chair Shetterly |
Explained SB 228 returned from the House floor to Committee for
amendment. |
|
009 |
Mazen Malik |
Described the -A7 amendments, (Exhibit 1) is a compilation of three
amendments. Provided background on
the bill, (Exhibit 2). |
|
029 |
Chair Shetterly |
Questions and discussion with Debra Buchanan, as to whether the –A7
amendments work administratively, providing the information Multnomah County
needs while protecting confidentiality? |
|
037 |
Chair Shetterly |
MOTION: MOVED ADOPTION OF THE
–7 AMENDMENTS INTO SB 228. ORDER: HEARING NO OBJECTION,
THE CHAIR SO ORDERS. (ALL MEMBERS PRESENT). |
|
040 |
Chair Shetterly |
MOTION: MOVED SB 228, AS
AMENDED, 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. Barnhart will carry the bill. |
|
046 |
Chair Shetterly |
Closed the Work Session on SB 228. |
INFORMATIONAL PRESENTATION
|
060 062 |
Lizbeth Martin-Mahar Martin-Mahar |
Provided
presentation on “State Revenue Impact from Federal Law Changes in 2003, H.R.
2”, (Page 1, Exhibit 3). Described
“Reduction in Capital Gains and Dividends Federal Tax Rate”, (Page 1, Exhibit
3). Will not cause Oregon to have a
negative loss in revenue, as it is not an exclusion from the taxable income. |
|
098 |
Rep. Hass |
Does
anyone know why they did 10% for one year? |
|
100 |
Chair Shetterly |
Because
they were limited to what they agreed it was going to cost, The sunsets are in
to limit the costs. |
|
104 |
Martin-Mahar |
Discussed
sunsets on taxable rates and dividends. |
|
107 |
Martin-Mahar |
Discussed
“Accelerate Some Previously Enacted Tax Reduction in 2001”, Page 1, Exhibit
3). |
|
171 |
Martin-Mahar |
Discussed “Depreciation Incentive for Businesses”, (Page 1, Exhibit
3) |
|
210 |
Martin-Mahar |
Discussed “State Fiscal Relief Fund of $20 billion”, (Page 1, Exhibit
3). Oregon will receive about 1%. |
|
218 |
Martin-Mahar |
Described “Breakdown of Oregon Feedback effects from Federal Stimulus
Package”. (Page 2, Exhibit 3) |
|
270 |
Rep. Barnhart |
Primary effect on Oregon income tax is a result of the federal tax
deduction in Oregon’s income decreasing which increases the Oregon net income
which results in more Oregon taxes being paid. Are there other effects? |
|
281 |
Martin-Mahar |
That’s all that is captured here, will be discussing further in
presentation. |
|
292 |
Martin-Mahar |
Described “Oregon Tax Impact from Federal Jobs and Growth Tax Relief
Act of 2003 (H.R. 2), (Page 3, Exhibit 3).
Discussed static effects. |
|
323 |
Martin-Mahar |
Discussed, “OTIM Dynamic Feedback Effects”, (Page 3, Exhibit 3). |
|
339 |
Martin-Mahar |
Discussed, “Total Static and Dynamic Impact”, (Page 3, Exhibit 3) |
|
342 |
Martin-Mahar |
Discussed, “Total Depreciation Impact by Biennium”, (Page 3, Exhibit
3). |
|
357 |
Martin-Mahar |
Discussed, “Reduction in Federal Tax Liability”, (Page 3, Exhibit 3). |
|
370 |
Martin-Mahar |
Discussed, “Total Depreciation Impact and Positive Feedback Effects”,
(Page 3, Exhibit 3). |
|
370 |
Rep. Verger |
The window of opportunity on the depreciation schedule without the
bonus is very short for business 2003-05 is it? |
|
394 |
Martin-Mahar |
Answered affirmatively, but extends an additional year from current
law. |
|
400 |
Rep. Hass |
Did you do a feedback on the dividends and capital gains? |
|
404 |
Martin-Mahar |
Answered affirmatively, that was part of the components. Section 2 and Section 1 together became
the total personal income tax reductions. |
|
410 |
Martin-Mahar |
Discussed “Revenue Impact on State Income Tax Revenue from the New Multnomah
County Local Tax” (Exhibit 4). |
|
440 |
Martin-Mahar |
Multnomah will not be added back as local income tax. |
|
468 |
Martin-Mahar |
Discussed “Oregon Income Tax Reduction Due to Multnomah County Income
Tax Deduction”, (Exhibit 4), and revenue lost to Oregon income taxes. These
are estimates that will be incorporated into current law. |
|
501 |
Rep. Hass |
Can you refresh as to why there are tax reductions here. Is that because of the total taxes paid? |
|
504 |
Martin-Mahar |
As far as Multnomah county? |
|
505 |
Rep. Hass |
Answered affirmatively. |
|
506 |
Martin-Mahar |
It’s our connection to the federal tax code, which allows local
income taxes to be deducted on federal returns and Oregon conforms to that
code. |
TAPE 180, SIDE A
|
043 |
Rep. Verger |
For clarification, thought it was added back into state taxes. |
|
045 |
Martin-Mahar |
Oregon ads back state income taxes, but law does not say “all income
taxes in Oregon”, not clear legally that all state income taxes would be
added back. According to Legislative Counsel, that would not include
Multnomah County income tax.
Additional legislation would be needed to include. |
|
053 |
Rep. Barnhart |
It may be time for another amendment to the Oregon tax code. |
|
060 |
Paul Warner |
These numbers mean the close of session forecast is down $52 million
down from May 15 forecast. These
numbers will go into the final budget as a -$52. |
|
068 |
Rep. Hass |
Where are you getting $52? |
|
067 |
Warner |
That would be summing up -$38.5 from the federal package and -$13.9
for Multnomah County deduction. |
|
075 |
Vice Chair Verger |
Meeting adjourned at 10:10 a.m. |
Tape Log Submitted by,
Kathy Tooley, Committee
Assistant
Exhibit Summary:
1.
Malik,
“SB 228-A7 Amendment”, 1 page
2.
Malik,
“Staff Measure Summary SB 228-A7”, 1 page
3.
Martin-Mahar,
“State Revenue Impact from Federal Law Changes in 2003, H.R. 2”, 3 pages
4.
Martin-Mahar,
“Revenue Impact on State Income Tax Revenue from the New Multnomah County Local
Tax” (Exhibit 4), 1 page