|
|
WORK SESSION: SB 171 PUBLIC HEARING: SB 2542 |
|
|
TAPES 106, 107 A-B |
APRIL 28, 2005 9:00 AM STATE CAPITOL BUILDING
Members Present: Senator Ryan Deckert, Chair
Senator Gary George
Senator Rick Metsger
Senator Floyd Prozanski
Senator Charles Starr, Vice Chair
Witnesses Present: Rick Willis, PUC
Lincoln Cannon, Oregon Forest Industries Council
Staff Present: Paul Warner, Legislative Revenue Officer
Lizbeth Martin-Mahar
Barbara Guardino, Committee Assistant
TAPE 106, SIDE A
|
005 |
Chair Deckert |
Calls meeting to order at 9:04 a.m.
|
|
WORK SESSION, SB 171 |
||
|
016 |
Paul Warner |
Gives overview of SB 171-A, which came from the Business and Economic Development Committee with 3 recommendations from the Public Utility Commission. Those recommendations appear in Section 3 of the bill: Recommendation 1 – regarding consolidation of federal returns Recommendation 3 – five-year time period for the commission to order a new filing for general rate revision Recommendation 2 – additional information the PUC would receive and incorporate into its decisions. This is in section 8 of the bill.
|
|
030 |
Warner |
Explains SB 171-A7 amendment (EXHIBIT 1), which cleans up the language in Section 3 and excludes consideration of water districts.
|
|
042 |
Warner |
Explains SB 171-A8, deletes pages 3-5 of the bill (EXHIBIT 2). Explains SB 171-A9, (EXHIBIT 3) which replaces A8 and adds a section. It also deletes recommendations 2 and 3.
|
|
061 |
Sen. Prozanski |
Discovers SB 171-A9 is missing page 3.
|
|
077 |
Sen. Metsger |
Explains key elements of SB 171-A9, of which he is a sponsor. Eliminates recommendations 2 and 3 for the PUC. Included now is the requirement that when PUC sets the rates for utilities, it looks at them as stand-alone corporations with no unregulated business interests. The bill will allow them to collect taxes based only on their regulated activities in Oregon. Currently, when they file their returns they are allowed to consolidate with other unregulated business interests. They use Oregon tax dollars to offset those, so Oregon State Treasury never gets paid.
|
|
113 |
Sen. Metsger |
Explains why he put the net benefits standard in this bill. |
|
117 |
Rick Willis |
Testifies in support of SB 171-A on behalf of PUC. Commission supports: 1) requiring utilities to file stand-alone returns 2) codifying in state statute the net benefit standard, and 3) exempting small cogeneration facilities.
|
|
144 |
Sen. George |
Asks if anyone supports the bill besides the PUC.
|
|
147 |
Sen. Metsger |
Responds, everyone involved supports the cogeneration piece; net benefit standard had no opposition; deconsolidated tax return was opposed by Northwest Natural and PacifiCorp. PGE never officially went on the record for deconsolidation but is neutral.
|
|
159 |
Sen. Prozanski |
Asks for more information about the parameters of the cogeneration section of the bill.
|
|
162 |
Willis |
Responds, this provides an incentive for small power facilities under 50 megawatts to generate power and not have them under the full authority of the PUC.
|
|
182 |
Sen. Metsger |
MOTION: MOVES ADOPTION OF SB 171-A9 AMENDMENTS.
|
|
185 |
Sen. Prozanski |
Asks follow-up questions on regulation of the smaller cogeneration plants.
|
|
189 |
Willis |
Responds, they would not come under full regulation of the PUC, but the PUC would still exercise some safety regulations. Any citing of a new facility would go through a public process through the Dept. of Energy.
|
|
219 |
Warner |
Comments in regard to the revenue impact of SB 171-A9. Will release a statement that it is indeterminate. There will be years when revenue is positive and when it is negative.
|
|
232 |
Chair Deckert |
ROLL CALL VOTE: 3-2-0 MEMBERS VOTING AYE: METSGER, PROZANSKI, DECKERT MEMBERS VOTING NO: GEORGE, C. STARR
|
|
236 |
Sen. Metsger |
MOTION: MOVES SB 171-A AS AMENDED TO THE SENATE FLOOR WITH A DO PASS RECOMMENDATION.
|
|
239 |
Sen. Prozanski |
Will support this motion but will check on the cogeneration issue pertaining to smaller facilities.
|
|
244 |
Sen. George |
Does not see any advantage for ratepayers and is concerned this would have a chilling effect on investments. Will vote no.
|
|
250 |
Chair Deckert |
ROLL CALL VOTE: 3-2-0 MEMBERS VOTING AYE: METSGER, PROZANSKI, DECKERT MEMBERS VOTING NO: GEORGE, C. STARR
|
PUBLIC HEARING, HB 2542
|
285 |
Linc Cannon |
Testifies in support of HB 2542-A on behalf of OFIC (EXHIBIT 4). His accountants repeatedly express concerns that not reconnecting would be costly and cumbersome because they would have to keep two sets of books. His written testimony contains an example of this. Also, regarding the American Jobs Creation Act of 2004, qualified production activities income and extraterritorial income should be considered separately. The2004 AJCA consists of nine titles. The first title deals with this exclusively, so it is clear Congress intended a tradeoff. Under this, OFIC members are both winners and losers.
|
|
355 |
Cannon |
A total reconnect is a wash between positive and negative revenue impact. Believes this bill is good tax policy. Urges the committee to pass it.
|
|
358 |
Chair Deckert |
Asks Cannon to respond to the health savings account issue.
|
|
360 |
Cannon |
Cannot respond to this.
|
|
366 |
Sen. George |
Asks if OFIC has seen the minority report filed in the House Revenue Committee.
|
|
370 |
Cannon |
Responds, OFIC opposes the minority report.
|
|
380 |
Sen. Prozanski |
Asks Cannon to elaborate on his testimony concerning seeing this reconnect package as an overall plus. (inaudible)
|
|
387 |
Cannon |
Responds, adding up the pluses and minuses could result in a varied revenue impact. It’s bad tax policy. It makes sense to reconnect to the entire federal tax code. There are other ways to raise revenue, and cherry picking doesn’t work very well.
|
|
410 |
Sen. Prozanski |
Asks if Cannon believes this body should look at alternative tax expenditures (inaudible) raising revenues through review of those that are on the books now.
|
|
415 |
Cannon |
Responds, a lot of those are on the books for good reasons. In 1999 the House Revenue Committee went through an exhaustive review of tax expenditures and got rid of one. A review is always a good idea, but most of these reconnects are there because previous legislatures thought they were a good idea.
|
|
442 |
Chair Deckert |
Does not buy the notion that just because Congress enacts something that Oregon automatically must be connected to it. These are policy decisions.
|
|
453 |
Cannon |
Congress carefully thinks out and balances these policy decisions. OFIC believes it is good policy to stay fully connected to the federal tax code.
|
TAPE 107, SIDE A
|
027 |
Chair Deckert |
If Congress increased taxes on forest owners, would OFIC support that reconnect?
|
|
039 |
Willis |
Responds, Congress did increase forest owners’ taxes by eliminating the extraterritorial income exclusion and passing the production activities tax. As an industry we may or may not be gainers and losers, but as individual companies there are gainers and losers.
|
|
047 |
Lizbeth Martin-Mahar |
Refers committee to exhibit 6 distributed to the committee on April 26: HB 2542A – Reconnect Bill: Section by Section Description. A common component is that the current law is being changed. The connection date will be moved from December 31, 2002 to December 31, 2004 to connect to federal legislations in the CPA report. In addition, a rolling reconnect to federal law will be reestablished. Last session members temporarily delayed that reconnect on specific items.
|
|
083 |
Chair Deckert |
Asks if there is any major tax legislation in play, and when is the end date for reconnection.
|
|
090 |
Martin-Mahar |
Responds, under current law, if this legislation were passed without reestablishing a rolling reconnect, Oregon would be disconnected from federal changes throughout the rest of 2005. That was put into play so lawmakers would have this discussion this session. Also, there is some pending legislation concerning military death benefits.
|
|
105 |
Martin-Mahar |
Returns to discussion on April 26 exhibit 6. Section 1: Changes Oregon’s date reference for statute pertaining to the definitions of S-corporations. Section 2: Date references Sections 3-11, and sections 13 and 15, update dates from December 31, 2002 to December 31, 2004. Section 12: Connects to Oregon’s definition for a qualifying child.
|
|
127 |
Chair Deckert |
Asks, what is the Oregon fiscal impact on that component?
|
|
130 |
Martin-Mahar |
Refers to April 26 exhibit 1, Revenue Estimates of the Major Components of Federal Legislation, Recommendation C, page 2, near the bottom, entitled Expansion of Definition of Qualifying Child. |
|
|
|
|
|
142 |
Martin-Mahar |
Section 14: Connects Oregon’s definition for the disabled child to the federal definition. There is no federal age restriction, while in Oregon the age is 18. This is a policy change because it eliminates the age restriction.
|
|
157 |
Martin-Mahar |
Sections 14(a) and 14(b): Requires personal income taxpayers to elect the same deduction on their Oregon tax returns as was claimed on their federal tax returns. This would be an additional revenue. Refers to April 26 exhibit 1 under American Jobs Creation Act, middle of page 2, Civil rights tax relief. Mostly low income people would benefit from this add back.
|
|
211 |
Martin-Mahar |
Section 15(a) and (b): Requires corporate excise taxpayers to elect the same deduction. Page 2, section 16: Establishes an implementation date, lists legislation that Oregon will connect to.
|
|
245 |
Martin-Mahar |
Dividend Received Deduction Section 17, 18 (a-c): Directs members’ attention to diagram (EXHIBIT 5), Current Law Dividends Deduction Calculations. The Dept. of Revenue looked at dividends received, and in particular, Real Estate Investment Trusts (REITS). That led to consideration of all the dividends and the connection between federal and Oregon law deduction liability. Explains Box H on page 1, Dividends not receiving a federal deduction. |
|
|
|
|
|
284 |
Chair Deckert |
Asks for clarification concerning a REIT or corporation receiving dividends.
|
|
293 |
Martin-Mahar |
Responds, it would be like a C-corporation receiving dividends from a REIT. The Oregon dividends received deductions do not always parallel the federal deduction. Box H clearly has a big disconnect. On the federal level there is no dividend deduction, but Oregon allows a 70-80% dividend deduction.
|
|
338 |
Martin-Mahar |
Continues explanation of Box H with reference to page 2. On the federal level, that deduction is 85%. With the 2004 AJCA, Oregon has to decide whether it is going to reconnect. Oregon under current law is already giving a 70-80% dividend deduction for foreign earnings that are repatriated back to their parent corporations. |
|
|
|
|
|
386 |
Chair Deckert |
Asks Martin-Mahar to review items 1-9 (box H page 2). Follow-up questions on Box H. |
|
|
|
|
|
396 |
Martin-Mahar |
1) Dividends received from a REIT 2) Income from controlled foreign corporations
|
|
422 |
Martin-Mahar |
DOR does not know what type of dividend they have received when they look at their data. They rely somewhat on federal data. They believe REITs are the majority of that dividend deduction. The others are not significant.
|
|
481 |
Chair Deckert |
Summarizes, items 3-9 don’t create a great deal of activity.
|
TAPE 106, SIDE B
|
033 |
Martin-Mahar |
Refers to the pink box items at the bottom of Box H. No. 8, Foreign dividend gross-up for taxes paid; and No. 9, Certain taxable distributions from DISC. They do not receive a dividend deduction under current law. |
|
048 |
Chair Deckert |
Asks for an example of a DISC.
|
|
052 |
Martin-Mahar |
Sales corporations are created to deal with just the sales overseas. It is a way to have sales categorized. Oregon has never recognized this for an exclusion or a dividends deduction. DOR has been examining this disconnect.
|
|
073 |
Martin-Mahar |
Refers to April 26 exhibit 1, page 2: Recommendation C, Tax reform and Simplification for Business. This additional revenue is brought in because the federal government gives a huge incentive for corporations to bring earnings back to the U.S. It has to be above a base level that firms have already repatriated back to their parent corporations. Federal revenue impact indicates a loss of revenue in the outer years. |
|
|
|
|
|
092 |
Sen. George |
The Legislative Revenue Office report on the revenue impact didn’t even attempt to forecast what that increased investment in manufacturing would do for the overall ability to raise money from the jobs created by that reinvestment.
|
|
097 |
Martin-Mahar |
That is correct. There has been no analysis for this provision. Continues with overview: This bill also deals with income tax benefits from tsunami relief contributions. Allows Oregon taxpayers to claim their contributions up through January 2005. This is a wash; there is no revenue impact. Concludes, this bill takes effect 90 days after the end of session.
|
|
117 |
Martin-Mahar |
Returns to Components, April 26 exhibit 1, page 1. Begins overview with Corporate Tax Revenue: Changes with Automatic Connection to Oregon Law – American Jobs Creation Act of 2004: Business Tax Incentives (Depreciation Changes) Depreciation changes initially cause a net loss, but then in the outer years it becomes positive.
|
|
142 |
Chair Deckert |
Asks, since the federal bonus depreciation was a three-year temporary component, what would Oregon be connecting to? Isn’t it phased out?
|
|
142 |
Martin-Mahar |
That is correct. It would be very difficult to change it.
|
|
146 |
Chair Deckert |
Why is there a positive fiscal impact to this? Does not see how it would factor into the committee’s discussion because it’s gone from the federal books.
|
|
149 |
Martin-Mahar |
The important thing to think about with depreciation is that it is when the cost of the property is going to be taken as a depreciation expense. This just changes the timing.
|
|
160 |
Martin-Mahar |
This just changes the timing. Positives will never be bigger than the negatives. Look at the overall impact. |
|
178 |
Chair Deckert |
Persists in wondering why this would be a positive fiscal for Oregon.
|
|
193 |
Warner |
Explains, these numbers are not part of a revenue impact from the bill. This is the result of federal legislation. Page 1 of April 26 exhibit 1 is background information; page 2 is the bill. Some of these provisions have been automatically connected, and the committee has to decide whether to continue them.
|
|
213 |
Martin-Mahar |
Continues, the sales tax deduction wasn’t part of HB 2542 at first, so she originally put it on the front of the sheet. Once an add back was added in, it was placed on side 2. Highlights items on side 1, the corporate side, first section: Corporate Tax Revenue.
|
|
233 |
Martin-Mahar |
Discusses Medicare Pres. Drug, Improvement and Modernization Act of 2003. Indirect tax effect from reductions in employer costs. This component will be incorporated into the May forecast. |
|
|
|
|
|
260 |
Martin-Mahar |
PERSONAL INCOME TAX REVENUE: Changes with Automatic Connection to Oregon Law. Deals with small companies. Medicare Pres. Drug, Improvement and Modernization Act of 2003. The major component is establishing health savings accounts. This appeared in the March revenue forecast as a reduction.
|
|
286 |
Martin-Mahar |
Working Family Tax Relief Act of 2004 OFFERS extended child care tax credit and marriage penalty relief. This is incorporated into the March forecast.
|
|
307 |
Martin-Mahar |
Page 2, Recommendations C & HB 2542A: CORPORATE TAX REVENUE: Changes Which Need Legislation. The 2004 AJCA repeals the ETI exclusion. This exclusion is phased in through 2007. This is the big tradeoff in Congress as far as needing an ETI exclusion repeal. Congress then allowed an additional deduction. This is the major component in the House Revenue Committee minority report. Full implementation occurs in the 2009-11 biennium.
|
|
362 |
Martin-Mahar |
Business Tax Incentives: S-corporation law changes. The impact is less than $1 million. Tax Reform and Simplification for Business: Incentives to reinvest foreign earnings in U.S. Misc. tax reform provisions Discusses positive revenue provisions, to total $10.7 million in 2005-07 biennium.
|
|
399 |
Martin-Mahar |
Medicare Pres. Drug, Improvement and Modernization Act of 2003. A major component that is part of the minority report is excluding federal subsidies for certain drug plans from income from employers. Allows employers to receive subsidies for keeping their prescription drug plans for retirees. They no longer have to report these subsidies on their corporate taxable income. |
|
|
|
|
TAPE 107, SIDE B
|
025 |
Martin-Mahar |
PERSONAL INCOME TAX REVENUE: Changes Which Need Legislation. Civil rights tax relief has very little revenue impact. Attorney fees for civil rights cases are a deduction. Military Family Tax Relief Act of 2003: Connects with additional death benefits death benefits. Expansion of Definition of Qualifying Child. This allows grandparents and step-parents to claim the working family tax credit.
|
|
043 |
Chair Deckert |
Committee will lay this bill aside for about a month. Closes public hearing on HB 2542-A. Adjourns meeting at 10:30 a.m. |
Tape Log Submitted by,
Barbara Guardino, Committee Assistant
Exhibit Summary:
1. SB 171-A, Amendment SB 171-A7, 4/18/05, Legislative Counsel, 1 pp.
2. SB 171-A, Amendment SB 171-A8, 4/25/05, Legislative Counsel, 1 pp.
3. SB 171-A, Amendment SB 171-A9, 4/27/05, Legislative Counsel, 1 pp.
4. SB 171-A, testimony of Lincoln Cannon, Oregon Forest Industries Council, 4/28/05, 2 pp.
5. HB 2542, Current Law Dividends Deduction Calculations, 4/26/05, Martin-Mahar, 2 pp.