|
|
PUBLIC HEARIBNG, SB 480 |
|
|
TAPES 36 A-B, 37 A |
FEBRUARY 15, 2005 8:30 AM STATE CAPITOL BUILDING
Members Present: Senator Ryan Deckert, Chair
Senator Rick Metsger
Senator Floyd Prozanski
Senator Charles Starr
Members Excused: Senator Gary George
Witness Present: Debra Buchanan, Oregon Dept. of Revenue
Jody Wiser, Tax Fairness Oregon
Arthur Towers, Service Employees Union Local 503
Staff Present: Paul Warner, Legislative Revenue Officer
Barbara Guardino, Committee Assistant
TAPE 36, SIDE A
|
005 |
Chair Deckert |
Calls meeting to order at 8:33 a.m. Committee will discuss what to include in the tax amnesty bill. Directs members’ attention to SB 480 Tax Compliance (EXHIBIT 1).
|
|
PUBLIC HEARING, SB 480 |
||
|
026 |
Paul Warner |
Discusses exhibit 1, key elements of redraft of SB 480, which will be developed as an amendment. Two distinct parts: abusive tax shelters and general amnesty. Unlike California’s amnesty program, suggests they be run concurrently.
|
|
046 |
Warner |
Abusive Tax Shelters: · Personal & corporate taxpayers · Listed and tax shelter transactions as defined in IRS code · DOR sets rules for transactions with “no economic substance”
|
|
072 |
Chair Deckert |
Asks, what does “no economic substance” mean?
|
|
075 |
Warner |
It means the transaction was carried out strictly to avoid taxes. Answers follow-up questions.
|
|
080 |
Sen. Prozanski |
State needs to give non-filers as much latitude at first as possible.
|
|
089 |
Chair Deckert |
Is comfortable with giving extra latitude at first.
|
|
094 |
Warner |
· Promoter (of questionable transactions) must register in Oregon if they have registered in other states
|
|
115 |
Sen. Prozanski |
Asks questions concerning registering these promoters here.
|
|
118 |
Warner |
Responds, DOR wouldn’t have to carry out a separate compliance and monitoring system. They will get information from other states. Responds to follow-up discussion.
|
|
145 |
Chair Deckert |
Promoters in California are probably registered here already.
|
|
150 |
Sen. Prozanski |
Raises more points about registering promoters.
|
|
158 |
Debra Buchanan |
If Oregon is able to piggyback on what another state is doing, it relieves Oregon of the obligation to tell promoters what they must do. It requires less work load. Also DOR can bring back as part of its report that they captured the majority of promoters. |
|
|
|
|
|
178 |
Warner |
· Penalties set at 20% per transaction – cumulative for three types · Voluntary Compliance Initiative (will return with estimates) Different from California is that there would be no appeal rights. |
|
|
|
|
|
245 |
Chair Deckert |
Agrees that those already identified by the system should be given amnesty as another carrot.
|
|
260 |
Sen. Prozanski |
Comments, trade-off is they couldn’t appeal after entering program.
|
|
276 |
Warner |
Notes, July 1, 2006 start date would give Dept. of Revenue time to gear up for it, including publicity (EXHIBIT 2).
|
|
289 |
Chair Deckert |
Questions whether program should begin closer to enactment of law.
|
|
297 |
Buchanan |
Responds, proposed start time shouldn’t coincide with tax season.
|
|
270 |
Chair Deckert |
Asks how early could DOR begin?
|
|
290 |
Sen. Prozanski |
Why not enact an emergency clause?
|
|
315 |
Warner |
Does not believe an emergency clause is possible.
|
|
326 |
Chair Deckert |
Would like to consider enactment within 90 days of sine die – September or October.
|
|
349 |
Warner |
General Amnesty: · Same period as Voluntary Compliance Initiative · Personal income taxpayers only · Non-filers eligible · Amended returns to correct deduction overstatement or income understatement
|
|
369 |
Warner |
· DOR has the right to place applicants under abusive tax shelter program · Those contacted by DOR can apply · Interest & penalty waived for those with no contact with DOR · Those that have contacted DOR can have penalties waived but not interest (two-tiered)
|
|
399 |
Warner |
· Eligible tax years for amended returns: 02-03-04 · Post amnesty penalty at 25% of ordinary penalties – sunset in 2010 for non-filers · Public listing after amnesty period: Top 100 · Waive criminal & civil penalties
|
|
431 |
Warner |
· Establish installment payment program – DOR sets terms · Direct DOR to review whistleblower program · Require amnesty participants to pledge future compliance
|
|
471 |
Chair Deckert |
Comments on issues of perpetuity, waiving interest and penalty for tax protesters. Requiring them to pledge could be a deal-breaker. Favors waiving this requirement.
|
TAPE 37, SIDE A
|
036 |
Sen. Metsger |
Comments on pledge signing. DOR would know to look for someone once they have been brought into the system.
|
|
042 |
Warner |
Cites an article concerning a Michigan amnesty case, where 68% remained in the system without signing a pledge.
|
|
066 |
Sen. Prozanski |
Signing your name doesn’t serve a purpose. Once they are in the system they are in.
|
|
066 |
Chair Deckert |
Agrees.
|
|
072 |
Vice Chair C. Starr |
Believes signing a pledge could deter some people from stepping forward.
|
|
091 |
Chair Deckert |
Committee members favor removing this provision 3-to-1. Also would prefer to waive interest and penalties.
|
|
096 |
Vice Chair C. Starr |
Agrees.
|
|
099 |
Chair Deckert |
Removing interest is a bigger carrot, followed by a bigger stick.
|
|
115 |
Jody Wiser |
Presents written testimony paraphrased (EXHIBIT 3). Includes Questions and Suggestions. Tax Fairness Oregon did not suggest a general tax amnesty in its legislative agenda. There is no evidence in most states that it brings in new tax dollars. Questions: Departments have to divert their normal work load to amnesty. Asks committee to consider increasing DOR budget 15% in order to collect these delinquent taxes.
|
|
158 |
Wiser |
Continues testimony with questions: Speeding revenue that would otherwise be collected anyway? When does a “notice of deficiency” get issued in the audit/collection process? These people should not be eligible for amnesty.
|
|
185 |
Wiser |
What are the current penalties which taxpayers are being relieved from? Questions implementation time frame.
|
|
200 |
Wiser |
Suggestions: Comments on advertising before amnesty period.
|
|
220 |
Chair Deckert |
Comments concerning advertising.
|
|
233 |
Wiser |
Asks committee to leave in the segment about people who re-fall out of the system – make them pay penalties. Make them pay penalties or they’ll think they won.
|
|
266 |
Wiser |
Urges committee to increase DOR’s budget and consider leaving in a penalty and instigate a way to track people.
|
|
299 |
Chair Deckert |
The penalty is the big question.
|
|
322 |
Sen. Prozanski |
Suggests looking at a nominal penalty.
|
|
339 |
Buchanan |
Currently, the first level of penalty is 5%. After 3 months there’s an additional 20%. If it goes on longer, it goes up to 50%. Three consecutive years of noncompliance, there’s a 100% per year penalty.
|
|
358 |
Warner |
Adds, if DOR finds taxpayer hasn’t complied, there’s a 125% penalty.
|
|
365 |
Sen. Prozanski |
Suggests leaving penalty at 5%. Majority of those captured will be individuals. Corporations would also pay 5%.
|
|
379 |
Chair Deckert |
Responds, this is a one-time deal and in some ways it is the wrong message to the 95% of taxpayers who are playing by the rules. Would be open to a nominal fee, perhaps $10 or $50.
|
|
413 |
Sen. Prozanski |
Is at the will of the committee on this issue.
|
|
423 |
Chair Deckert |
Asks how much would the average non-filer owe?
|
|
432 |
Buchanan |
Some will be hard-core non-filers who believe tax paying is illegal. There are also those who forgot to file and are afraid. It’s hard to carve out something that’s fair for everyone. Keeping a small penalty structure for everyone could make sense.
|
|
456 |
Sen. Prozanski |
Might DOR want discretion on this?
|
|
470 |
Buchanan |
Would prefer legislature set the policy.
|
TAPE 36, SIDE B
|
030 |
Sen. Prozanski |
Would be comfortable with a maximum 5% penalty. Would also support no penalty.
|
|
035 |
Wiser |
Asks for clarification whether DOR collected $20 million in penalties. Follow-up questions.
|
|
040 |
Buchanan |
Those were penalties that were set up on the system, not those collected. This doesn’t reflect waivers or those who file and don’t owe tax.
|
|
050 |
Chair Deckert |
Data suggests state won’t get that $20 million.
|
|
065 |
Arthur Towers |
Union Local 503 represents front-line workers who collect the taxes. The workers generally favor the tax amnesty program idea. They have insight into mechanics of how the program would work. They are concerned about staffing and the period after amnesty to make sure the stick is big enough. Workers would like to testify before the committee next week.
|
|
083 |
Chair Deckert |
Would like to hear from them as soon as possible.
|
|
096 |
Chair Deckert |
Adjourns meeting at 9:35 a.m.
|
|
|
|
|
Tape Log Submitted by,
Barbara Guardino, Committee Assistant
Exhibit Summary:
1. SB 480, Tax Compliance, Warner, 1 pp.
2. SB 480, It Was Probably Just an Oversight, Warner, 1 pp.
3. SB 480, Questions: Do you wish this to be a general and abusive tax shelter amnesty program …Wiser, 3 pp.