To Amend The Requirements Concerning The Information That Shall Be Provided To A City Or County By The Department Of Finance And Administration.
Summary
HB1971 amends Arkansas law governing the confidentiality and disclosure of tax records under the Arkansas Tax Procedure Act. The bill requires the Department of Finance and Administration (DFA), upon written electronic request from a city or county official, to provide a report listing vendors within the requesting jurisdiction that hold sales tax permits under the Gross Receipts Act or Compensating Tax Act. The report must include each vendor’s name and the four-digit North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) code assigned to the vendor.
The bill also sets timing and administrative rules for these requests and reports. Requests must be submitted before August 1 of the calendar year for which the list is requested, the report is to be made available after October 1 and compiled from valid permit holders as of September 1, and the report must be delivered electronically. DFA may charge a reasonable fee based on the number of permit holders, with the fees deposited into the State Central Services Fund to reimburse the agency for its costs. Local governments seeking the report must register for an Arkansas Taxpayer Access Point account or successor portal, and the information received remains confidential and may not be disclosed except as allowed by the statute.
Impact
HB1971 would modify Arkansas Code § 26-18-303 to expand and standardize the information DFA must provide to local governments about sales tax permit holders in their jurisdictions. It affects the confidentiality rules for tax records by creating a specific disclosure pathway for cities and counties, while also imposing confidentiality obligations on the information once received. The bill would take effect January 1, 2026, and would primarily affect DFA, city and county governments, and vendors holding sales tax permits.
Sentiment
Based on the bill text and the absence of recorded committee discussion or votes, the measure appears administrative and procedural rather than controversial on its face. Its stated purpose is to improve the information available to local governments, likely for local tax administration, compliance, or economic analysis. No recorded opposition or support is available in the provided materials, so the overall sentiment cannot be assessed from debate history.
Contention
The main potential points of contention are the scope of tax-record confidentiality and the level of detail DFA must disclose to local governments. Some may view the required vendor-by-vendor reporting, including NAICS codes, as useful for local administration, while others may be concerned about privacy, administrative burden, or the possibility that confidential tax information could be indirectly exposed. The bill also introduces fees, electronic filing requirements, and confidentiality restrictions that could draw questions from local governments or affected businesses, but no specific objections are documented in the provided record.