Department of Marine Resources; exempt certain leases from any county or municipal tax levy upon leasehold interests.
Summary
House Bill 1095 amends Section 29-15-11 of the Mississippi Code to create a tax exemption for certain leases and subleases granted by or through the Department of Marine Resources. Under current law, lessees of state public trust tidelands or submerged lands are generally responsible for county or municipal taxes on the leasehold interest. The bill adds an exception for leases and subleases issued under specified Marine Resources statutes, removing those leasehold interests from county and municipal tax levies.
In practical terms, the bill shifts the tax treatment of certain coastal or waterfront lease arrangements administered by the Department of Marine Resources. It applies to leases and subleases authorized under Sections 49-15-27, 49-15-37, and 49-15-46, and takes effect immediately upon passage. The measure is narrow in scope, focused on leasehold interests rather than changing ownership of the underlying tidelands or submerged lands.
Impact
HB1095 changes Mississippi tax law by carving out a specific exemption from county and municipal ad valorem levies on leasehold interests tied to certain Department of Marine Resources leases and subleases. It narrows the general rule in Section 29-15-11 that lessees of public trust tidelands or submerged lands are responsible for local taxes, and it likely reduces local tax revenue associated with those covered leases while benefiting affected lessees and sublessees.
Sentiment
The bill appears to have been broadly supported and noncontroversial in the legislature. It passed the House 120-0 and the Senate 51-0, indicating unanimous approval in both chambers. No committee transcript was provided, but the voting history suggests the measure was viewed favorably as a targeted technical or policy adjustment rather than a contentious tax overhaul.
Contention
No explicit opposition is reflected in the available record, and the unanimous votes suggest little to no legislative contention. The only likely area of policy tension is the fiscal effect on counties and municipalities, which lose the ability to levy taxes on the covered leasehold interests, versus the benefit to leaseholders and the Department of Marine Resources’ leasing program. Any debate would likely have centered on local revenue impacts and whether the exemption should apply to these specific marine-related leases.