Continues a portion of the excise tax levied on cigarettes in statute (EN SEE FISC NOTE GF RV See Note)
Summary
HB 669 amends Louisiana’s tobacco tax statutes to continue a portion of the cigarette excise tax in law and to update related definitions in the tobacco tax chapter. The bill restates the cigarette tax structure in R.S. 47:841(B), including the existing layered per-cigarette taxes, and clarifies that the tax in subsection (B)(3) remains the constitutional cigarette tax dedicated to the Health Excellence Fund. It also revises and adds definitions for terms such as cigarette, smoking tobacco, tobacco substitute, vapor products, vending machine, vending machine operator, and wholesale dealer.
The bill is primarily a statutory continuation and cleanup measure rather than a tax increase. It expressly states that the total state excise tax on cigarettes will not increase as a result of the act, and it applies to taxable periods beginning on or after July 1, 2025. The act becomes effective upon gubernatorial signature or otherwise under the normal constitutional process for enactment.
Impact
HB 669 preserves the legal basis for the existing cigarette excise tax and aligns the statute with the constitutional dedication of a portion of that tax to the Health Excellence Fund. It updates tobacco-related definitions to reflect modern products, including vapor products and tobacco substitutes, and clarifies the treatment of wholesale dealers and vending machine operators. The bill affects cigarette distributors, wholesalers, retailers, vending machine operators, and taxpayers subject to Louisiana’s tobacco excise tax, but it does not raise the overall state cigarette tax rate.
Sentiment
The overall sentiment around HB 669 appears favorable and largely noncontroversial, especially in its final stages. The bill passed the House and Senate with strong majorities, and the House later rejected Senate amendments and adopted a conference report unanimously. The only notable resistance appears to have been directed at a Senate amendment, which failed 22-13, suggesting disagreement over a proposed change rather than the underlying bill itself.
Contention
The main point of contention was the Senate amendment offered by Senator Cathey, which was rejected by the Senate. The available record does not include committee testimony, so the specific substance of the amendment is not shown here, but the vote indicates some disagreement over how the bill should be modified. Beyond that, the bill’s core purpose—continuing an existing cigarette tax provision and updating tobacco definitions—does not appear to have generated significant opposition.