Pennsylvania Senate Bill SB621

Pennsylvania 2025-2026 Regular Session

• Introduced: 4/11/25
• Refer: 4/11/25

Caption

Prohibiting tax deductions for anti-union activities.

Summary

SB 621 would amend Pennsylvania’s Tax Reform Code of 1971 to create a new article prohibiting certain corporations and other taxable domestic and foreign entities from deducting business expenses tied to anti-union activity. The bill targets expenses incurred to influence employees regarding labor organizations, including costs associated with unfair labor practice complaints, settlements, findings of coercion or interference, certain meetings or trainings about labor organizations, and amounts reportable under federal labor-management disclosure rules. The bill also defines the entities covered and carves out several exceptions. It would not treat as prohibited expenses direct communications or negotiations with employee representatives, shareholder communications required by securities law, voluntary recognition of a union, labor-management partnership or grievance procedure communications under a collective bargaining agreement, expenses paid by a labor organization itself, or legally required employee notices and postings. The new deduction ban would apply to taxable years beginning on or after the effective date, and the act would take effect immediately.

Impact

If enacted, SB 621 would change Pennsylvania tax law by disallowing state tax deductions for specified expenses connected to union-avoidance or anti-union campaigns by corporations and similar entities subject to Articles III, IV, or VI of the Tax Reform Code. It would affect domestic and foreign corporations doing business in Pennsylvania and would likely require taxpayers and the Department of Revenue to distinguish between ordinary labor-relations costs and expenses deemed to be aimed at influencing workers against unionization. The bill would also incorporate federal labor-law concepts and Pennsylvania labor-relations provisions into state tax administration.

Sentiment

The available context shows the bill was introduced by a group of Democratic senators and referred to the Senate Finance Committee, but there are no recorded committee transcripts or votes in the provided material. Based on the bill’s sponsor list and subject matter, the measure appears to be part of a pro-labor policy approach and likely intended to discourage employer spending on union-avoidance efforts. Because no recorded debate or vote history is included, there is no documented bipartisan or public sentiment in the supplied record.

Contention

The main point of contention is likely whether Pennsylvania should use the tax code to penalize employer spending on anti-union activity. Supporters would view the bill as preventing companies from subsidizing union-busting with tax deductions, while opponents may argue it is a government intrusion into employer speech and labor-relations strategy, and that it could create compliance and classification disputes over what counts as an anti-union expense versus permissible labor-relations communication. The bill’s reliance on federal labor-law findings and state labor-board actions could also raise concerns about administrative complexity and litigation over deductions.