Repealing the act of July 13, 1953 (P.L.377, No.85), known as the Use and Storage Tax Act.
HB1005 would repeal Pennsylvania’s 1953 Use and Storage Tax Act in its entirety. The bill is a straightforward repeal measure: it removes the statutory authority for the tax on the storage, use, or other consumption in Pennsylvania of tangible personal property purchased for that purpose. The repealed act contains the full framework for the tax, including definitions, exemptions, collection duties, filing requirements, enforcement powers, penalties, liens, and the use of proceeds for public school purposes.
Because the bill repeals the underlying act rather than amending individual provisions, it would eliminate the existing use-and-storage tax regime and the Department of Revenue’s authority to administer and enforce it under that act. The bill also provides that it takes effect in 60 days, which would end future application of the repealed tax after the effective date, while the repealed act’s own savings language indicates that existing liabilities, proceedings, and enforcement actions would not be disturbed for matters already accrued under the prior law.
The bill’s impact on state law would be significant because it removes a long-standing tax statute that applies to tangible personal property brought into or used in the Commonwealth. It would affect consumers, sellers maintaining a place of business in Pennsylvania, and the Department of Revenue, as well as related enforcement mechanisms such as assessments, liens, penalties, and recordkeeping obligations tied to the tax. The repeal would also end the statutory dedication of those tax proceeds to public school purposes under the repealed act.
No committee transcript or vote history was provided, so there is no recorded debate or roll-call evidence in the supplied materials to indicate support or opposition. Based on the bill text alone, the measure appears to be a clean repeal with no alternative policy framework replacing the tax, suggesting the central policy question is whether Pennsylvania should continue or eliminate this revenue source and associated compliance structure.
The main point of contention, if any, would likely be fiscal and administrative: supporters of repeal may view the tax as outdated or burdensome, while opponents may be concerned about lost revenue for public school purposes and the removal of an existing tax mechanism. The bill text itself does not identify any specific exemptions, carveouts, or replacement funding, so the practical debate would likely focus on revenue loss, tax policy, and the effect on consumers and businesses that currently collect or pay the tax.
HB1005 would repeal the Use and Storage Tax Act, eliminating Pennsylvania’s statutory tax on the storage, use, or other consumption of tangible personal property purchased for that purpose. This would remove the Department of Revenue’s authority under that act to register sellers, require monthly returns, assess deficiencies, impose penalties, file liens, and enforce the tax against consumers and sellers maintaining a place of business in the Commonwealth. The repeal would also end the act’s direction that collected revenues be used for public school purposes, while leaving existing accrued liabilities and proceedings to be handled under the act’s savings language and general law.
No committee discussion or recorded votes were provided, so there is no direct evidence of legislative sentiment from the supplied materials. The bill’s structure suggests a clear repeal proposal rather than a compromise measure, which typically indicates a policy choice to fully remove the tax rather than modify it. In the absence of debate records, the most defensible characterization is that the bill is neutral in presentation but potentially controversial in substance because it affects state revenue and tax administration.
The likely contention centers on whether repealing the tax would reduce burdens on consumers and businesses or instead create a revenue gap for the Commonwealth, particularly because the repealed act dedicates proceeds to public school purposes. Supporters of repeal would likely emphasize simplification and relief from an older tax regime, while opponents would likely focus on the loss of a revenue stream and the removal of enforcement tools used by the Department of Revenue. Because no transcripts or votes were provided, no specific legislators, agencies, or stakeholder groups are identified in the record, but the affected parties would include taxpayers, sellers, and school-funding interests.