House Bill 1079 would exempt menstrual products from North Carolina’s sales and use tax. The bill defines “menstrual products” to include tampons, panty liners, menstrual cups, sanitary napkins, and similar personal hygiene items used in connection with the menstrual cycle. It then adds those products to the list of retail sales and use tax exemptions in G.S. 105-164.13.
The exemption would take effect October 1, 2026, and would apply only to sales made on or after that date. In practical terms, the bill would reduce the cost of these products for consumers and remove state sales tax from retailers’ collection obligations for qualifying items. The bill does not appear to change local tax rates or create a refund mechanism for prior purchases; it simply amends the tax code to classify menstrual products as exempt going forward.
HB1079 would amend North Carolina’s tax statutes by adding a new definition of “menstrual products” in G.S. 105-164.3 and creating a new sales and use tax exemption in G.S. 105-164.13. The main affected parties would be consumers who purchase menstrual hygiene items and retailers that sell them, since retailers would no longer collect state sales tax on qualifying products after the effective date. The bill would also modestly reduce state tax revenue associated with these purchases.
The available record shows no committee debate or recorded votes, so there is no direct evidence of formal support or opposition in the materials provided. Based on the bill’s subject matter and its straightforward tax exemption design, it appears to be a targeted consumer-relief measure rather than a broad tax overhaul. The absence of recorded controversy suggests the bill may have been treated as a relatively narrow policy proposal, though the legislative history provided is too limited to assess broader chamber sentiment.
No specific points of contention are documented in the provided transcripts or vote history. If debated, likely issues would involve the revenue impact of removing sales tax, whether the exemption should be limited to certain products or income groups, and how broadly “similar tangible personal property” should be interpreted. However, none of those concerns are attributed to any legislator or committee in the materials supplied.