Oklahoma Senate Bill SB2056

Oklahoma 2026 Regular Session

• Introduced: 2/2/26
• Refer: 2/3/26

Caption

Electronic money transmissions; increasing fee; modifying tax years credit can be claimed. Effective date.

Summary

SB2056 would increase the fee charged on certain money transmission and wire transfer transactions under Oklahoma’s Financial Transaction Reporting Act. For transactions of $500 or less, the fee would rise from $5 to $10; for amounts over $500, the surcharge would increase from 1% to 3% of the excess. The bill keeps the existing structure that requires the fee to be collected by licensed money transmitters and their delegates, remitted quarterly to the Oklahoma Tax Commission, and deposited into the Drug Money Laundering and Wire Transmitter Revolving Fund. The bill also updates the state income tax credit tied to these fees. Under current law, taxpayers may claim a credit for electronic funds transfer fees paid in certain earlier tax years; SB2056 would revise the statute so the credit applies to tax years 2009 through 2016 and again beginning in 2027, with the same general rules that the credit cannot reduce tax below zero and may be carried forward for five years. The bill also makes conforming language updates and changes the effective date to November 1, 2026.

Impact

SB2056 would amend Title 63 and Title 68 of the Oklahoma Statutes. It would directly affect licensed money transmitters, wire transmitters, their delegates, and customers using electronic money transfer services by increasing the transaction fee they must collect and remit. It would also affect individual and entity income taxpayers who may claim a credit for those fees, by changing the years for which the credit is available. The Oklahoma Tax Commission, the State Banking Commissioner, and the Oklahoma State Bureau of Narcotics and Dangerous Drugs Control would continue to have enforcement, audit, and compliance roles under the statute.

Sentiment

No committee transcript or recorded vote information was provided, so the bill’s sentiment can only be inferred from its text and procedural posture. The bill appears to be a revenue and enforcement measure rather than a broadly controversial policy change, but it also raises the cost of money transmission services, which could draw concern from industry participants and customers. Its referral to the Public Safety Committee and then Appropriations suggests it was treated as both a criminal-enforcement and fiscal matter.

Contention

The main point of contention is likely the increased fee burden on money transmission customers and the businesses that must collect and remit the fee. Supporters would likely emphasize the bill’s role in funding anti-money-laundering enforcement and related state operations through the Drug Money Laundering and Wire Transmitter Revolving Fund. Another possible issue is the tax credit timing: the bill narrows and resets the years for which the income tax credit may be claimed, which could affect taxpayers who rely on that offset. No direct objections or supporter statements are available in the provided materials.