Georgia House Bill HB586

Georgia 2025-2026 Regular Session

• Introduced: 2/21/25
• Report Pass: 3/6/25
• Engrossed: 3/6/25
• Refer: 3/10/25
• Report Pass: 3/13/25
• Enrolled: 4/9/25
• Chaptered: 5/9/25
• Passed: 5/9/25

Caption

Revenue and taxation; intangible recording tax; revise notes

Summary

HB 586 amends Georgia’s intangible recording tax laws as they apply to notes secured by real estate. The bill revises the definition of a “long-term note secured by real estate” by changing the maturity threshold from more than three years to more than 62 months, and it makes corresponding updates to related recording and disclosure requirements for security instruments and bonds for title. Under the bill, instruments conveying, encumbering, or creating a lien on real estate must still state the amount of the secured note and its due date, but the new 62-month threshold changes when a statement of that fact may be used instead of a specific due date. The bill also updates the rule for sellers who retain title as security for the purchase price, requiring recording and payment of the intangible recording tax when any part of the purchase price falls due more than 62 months from the date of the instrument. It repeals conflicting laws and otherwise leaves the overall tax framework in place.

Impact

HB 586 changes state tax and recording law by narrowing and clarifying when the intangible recording tax applies to long-term real estate-secured debt. It affects lenders, borrowers, title companies, real estate sellers using bonds for title, and county recording practices by updating the statutory timing threshold and the information that must appear in recorded instruments. The bill amends Code Sections 48-6-60, 48-6-66, and 48-6-68 of the Official Code of Georgia Annotated.

Sentiment

The bill appears to have broad support and little visible opposition. It passed the House overwhelmingly, cleared a Senate motion to engross, passed the Senate substitute, and then was agreed to by the House with no dissenting votes. The voting pattern suggests the measure was viewed as a technical or administrative update to tax and recording rules rather than a controversial policy change.

Contention

No committee debate or transcript was provided, and the voting history shows minimal resistance. The only notable point of possible contention is the policy choice to extend the threshold from three years to 62 months, which affects when the intangible recording tax and related recording requirements are triggered for real-estate-secured notes. Any concerns would likely come from affected lenders, real estate practitioners, or tax administrators focused on compliance timing and recording obligations, but the available record does not show organized opposition.