Transcript Highlights:

• It happens not just in tax refunds, as my colleagues have indicated.
• DEADLINE TO CLAIM A TAX REFUND OR CREDIT FOR AT THAT TAX YEAR IS ALSO EXTENDED.
• His policy is essentially adding a massive tax to everyday families.
• HIS POLICY IS ESSENTIALLY ADDING A MASSIVE TAX TO EVERY DAY FAMILIES.
• The Bipartisan Policy Center goes on to...

Transcript Highlights:

• These differences sometimes have policy reasons behind them, but some are more arbitrary.
• </c> between Minnesota's property tax refunds between Minnesota's property tax refunds for<00:09:25.200
• > differences sometimes have policy differences sometimes have policy reasons<00:09:29.440><c> behind
• for the most provide the largest refunds for the most struggling<00:10:23.680><c> motans.
• standpoint, we've always public policy standpoint, we've always uh<00:17:09.439><c> supported.

Transcript Highlights:

• any amount of refund they received from PTR would be subtracted from the refund available under this
• I think that among House Research, we... refund available under this bill. refund available under this
• </c> asserts that potentially these refunds asserts that potentially these refunds could<00:11:39.320
• </c> sort of similar to how other tax refunds sort of similar to how other tax refunds at<00:11:44.080
• </c> tax refund for homeowners. tax refund for homeowners.

Bills: HF4906 , HF3971 , HF4777 , HF2109 , HF2988

Committee: House Taxes

Transcript Highlights:

• Pharmacies would be able to apply for and receive refunds throughout the year.
• I do want to say that the advocates, when they moved the renters' refund...
• So last year, 323,000 renters took the refund.
• Iowa has no limit on their refundability. We're hoping that the 25% stays in.
• This is a complex, very important policy area.

Bills: HF2730 , HF2257 , HF2768 , HF1932 , HF2437

Committee: House Taxes

Transcript Highlights:

• With this bill, we gives you a refund.
• . refund. refund.
• The harmful impact of federal policies.
• As Department of Revenue on this policy.
• also a limit on the refund of $1,000, and the bill would increase the limit on the refund to $2,500.

Bills: HF4119 , HF3959 , HF3792 , HF3913 , HF3752

Committee: House Taxes

Transcript Highlights:

• California Policy Center doesn't often wade into tax credit legislation.
• Refundable Cal Competes credits will help them get there. Cal Competes...
• Refundable Cal Competes credits will help them get there. Cal Computers.
• Refundable Cal Competes credits will help them get there.
• These credits are not refundable.

Committee: Senate Revenue and Taxation

Transcript Highlights:

• That's really a policy choice, not a legal choice.
• The refund to taxpayers totaled $29 million.
• And even with that refund, income tax revenue retained by the state after the refund was substantially
• So he also followed that up by saying, well, you think about policy choices, and there are policy choices
• Policy choices.

Bills: H5006 , H5007

Committee: Joint Special Joint Committee on Initiative Petitions

Summary: The Special Joint Committee on Initiative Petitions held a public hearing on two proposed ballot initiatives: one to reduce the state personal income tax rate from 5% to 4% over three years, and another to revise the state tax collection cap law (62F) so the cap would be based on the prior year’s actual collections plus wage-and-salary growth and would include surtax revenue. Committee chairs outlined the hearing process and noted that the measures would need additional signatures to qualify for the 2026 ballot if not enacted by the legislature. The committee’s expert witness, Doug Howgate of the Massachusetts Taxpayer Foundation, said the income tax proposal would lower the base rate in stages beginning in 2027 and would ultimately reduce state income tax collections by about $5.4 billion annually when fully implemented. He estimated savings would vary by income level, from a few hundred dollars for lower- and middle-income households to about $10,700 for taxpayers at the surtax threshold. He argued the proposal would improve tax competitiveness but would also require major budget adjustments, likely including reserve use, spending cuts, and possibly new revenue measures; he cited prior downturns and said the state’s rainy day fund is stronger than in past recessions, though spending growth and health care costs remain concerns. On the 62F proposal, he said rebasing the cap to prior-year collections would make refunds more likely, with modeled refunds totaling about $7.9 billion without the surtax and $10.1 billion with it over the last decade, and warned it could reduce stabilization fund deposits and constrain recovery after recessions. Proponents of both petitions, including representatives from Taxpayers for an Affordable Massachusetts, NFIB, Pioneer Institute, and the Mass Opportunity Alliance, argued that Massachusetts faces an affordability and competitiveness crisis and that lower taxes would help families, small businesses, job creation, and outmigration. They said the income tax cut would put about $1,300 a year back into the hands of average families, help pass-through businesses reinvest, and improve the state’s ability to compete with lower-tax states such as North Carolina. Their economist, Rebecca Paxton, presented a model projecting average annual revenue losses of about $680 million during the phase-in and a total net income tax revenue impact of $2 billion to $2.2 billion, while saying long-term revenue growth would be stronger after implementation. The hearing ended with committee questions and a brief dispute over a planned voter testimonial video, which the chairs said was not appropriate for the hearing at that point.

Transcript Highlights:

• </c><00:14:38.880><c> I'm</c> you have to apply and get a refund I'm you have to apply and get a refund
• </c> about that uh and what impact our policy about that uh and what impact our policy has<00:24:23.000
• policy in line with best practices.
• policy in line with best practices.
• of the current refund model for large-scale data centers.

Committee: Senate Taxes

Transcript Highlights:

• </c> most um every dollar of a tax refund most um every dollar of a tax refund that<00:16:40.319><c>
• Would I be eligible for a refund under your proposal?"
• </c><01:11:30.320><c> if</c> single mom doesn't get a tax refund if single mom doesn't get a tax refund
• </c><01:14:49.880><c> under</c> would I be eligible for a refund under would I be eligible for a refund
• We are seeing the impacts of irresponsible trade policy in real time.

Transcript Highlights:

• Pharmacy refund timing.
• Pharmacy refund timing.
• . refund. refund.
• Um the R&amp;D credit refundability refundability refundability uh<00:32:57.919><c> as</c><00:32:58.240
• Chair. ...freestanding refund to a refundable income tax credit.

Transcript Highlights:

• That's really a policy choice, not a legal choice.
• The refund to taxpayers totaled $29 million.
• And even with that refund, income tax revenue retained by the state after the refund was substantially
• So he also followed that up by saying, well, you think about policy choices, and there are policy choices
• Policy choices.

Summary: The Special Joint Committee on Initiative Petitions held a public hearing on two proposed ballot initiatives: one to reduce the state personal income tax rate from 5% to 4% over three years, and another to revise the state’s tax collection cap/62F process so it would be based on prior-year collections plus wage growth and include surtax revenue. The committee chair and House co-chair outlined the hearing process, and the first witness was Doug Howgate of the Massachusetts Taxpayer Foundation, who testified as the committee’s subject-matter expert on both measures. He said the income tax proposal would lower taxes broadly but would reduce state revenue by about $5.4 billion when fully implemented, with an estimated $800 million hit in FY27, and he discussed possible effects on competitiveness, taxpayer savings, and public finances. On the 62F proposal, he said the revised cap would make refunds more likely, could have produced several large refunds in recent years, and would reduce stabilization fund deposits and constrain recovery after recessions. Committee members questioned Howgate about competitiveness, outmigration, prior tax ballot measures, spending growth, MassHealth, and the interaction between the income tax and surtax. He emphasized that taxes are only one part of the state’s overall competitiveness and that housing, public services, and other factors also matter. He also noted that the surtax is constitutionally restricted but can still support ongoing spending choices. After his testimony, the committee moved to the proponents’ panel. Proponents of both initiatives, including representatives from Taxpayers for an Affordable Massachusetts, the National Federation of Independent Business, Pioneer Institute, and the Mass Opportunity Alliance, argued that the measures would improve affordability, help retain residents and businesses, and support job growth. They cited polling support, outmigration, small-business reinvestment, and comparisons to lower-tax states such as North Carolina. Their economist, Rebecca Paxton, said her model showed smaller revenue losses than critics claim and projected that the revised revenue cap would not create additional annual revenue losses while producing more regular taxpayer refunds. Committee members pressed the panel on competitiveness, prior ballot initiative implementation, and whether the measures would actually address broader affordability pressures; the hearing ended with the committee continuing to take questions from the proponents.

Transcript Highlights:

• </c><00:32:38.159><c> tax</c> uh when you have a a refundable tax uh when you have a a refundable tax
• </c> so by doing it as a non-refundable so by doing it as a non-refundable credit,<00:33:02.640><c> it's
• </c><00:33:18.320><c> tax</c> you have uh if we did a refundable tax you have uh if we did a refundable
• If a tax credit is refundable<00:33:25.279><c> fully</c><00:33:25.679><c> refundable</c><00:33:26.320
• ><c> that</c><00:33:26.480><c> means</c> refundable fully refundable that means refundable fully refundable

Bills: HB2245 , HB1618 , HB1985 , HB2079 , HB1921 , HB2232 , HB1567 , HB1984 , HB2608 , HB2435 , HB1623 , HB1774

Committee: House Energy & Environmental Protection

Summary: The committee heard testimony on several bills related to cesspools, wastewater, and clean water protections. On HB 2245, which would require additional denitrification capacity in wastewater systems near shorelines, the Department of Health offered comments, DLNR supported the bill, and multiple environmental and ocean groups testified in strong support, emphasizing nitrogen pollution from cesspools, reef damage, and the need to prioritize shoreline systems. Testifiers said the bill should move forward, with technical issues such as GIS mapping to be worked out later. No member questions or votes were taken on this measure. On HB 1985, concerning the Hawaii Green Infrastructure Authority and accessible conversion loans for cesspool homeowners, HGI supported the bill and suggested making the program a revolving loan fund; DLNR and the Public Utilities Commission also supported it, while the Department of Health supported the concept. Committee discussion focused on program design, possible forgivable loans for low-income homeowners, and whether the program should be administered through existing infrastructure rather than a new procurement process. The committee then moved to HB 1985’s companion discussion on cesspool conversion outreach and deadline extensions, where DLNR and DOH supported outreach but DLNR and ocean advocates expressed reservations about extending deadlines, especially for financial hardship, saying that issue would need careful work. The committee also heard testimony on HB 2079, which would reestablish the accessible upgrades inversion or connection income tax credit. The Department of Taxation raised administrative and fraud concerns about refundable credits, explaining that nonrefundable credits reduce tax debt while refundable credits can function like cash payments and require more oversight. DOH, DLNR, OPSD, counties, Hawaii Realtors, and environmental groups supported the bill, with one ocean coalition witness saying tax credits could help homeowners but grants would be preferable. Members asked about the difference between refundable credits and grants and about whether the credit would cover sewer connections versus individual wastewater systems. The committee then heard brief testimony on HB 1921, allowing certain priority-three cesspools to add a bedroom, with support from Hawaii Realtors and some other groups and no opposition discussion. HB 2232, preserving state water-quality protections at least as strong as the federal Clean Water Act, drew support from DOH and ocean advocates, with no questions. The committee also began hearing energy-related bills, including HB 1567 on energy equity and HB 1984 on self-certification for distributed energy resources, with a mix of support and some opposition or requested amendments, but no votes were taken in the portion provided.

Transcript Highlights:

• The bill requires a district to refund 20% of the fee...
• They didn't want to be subject to refunding.
• Are we expecting one thing in one policy and a different thing in another?
• policy and we are happy to do this work.
• Anacortes is a leader in permitting reform and housing policy.

Committee: Senate Local Government

Transcript Highlights:

• I'm the Director of Policy at Housing Opportunities Made Equal.
• I'm Molly Bowers, and I'm a policy analyst at the Virginia Housing Commission.
• And they're often charged a flat refundable—sorry, yeah, refundable application deposit that is supposed
• And out of 117 property management companies analyzed, 81 of those had standard pet policies.
• Ten of them had case-by-case policies, and 63% of them had non-refundable one-time fees at the beginning

Transcript Highlights:

• The California Policy Center doesn't often wade into tax credit legislation.
• Refundable Cal Competes credits will help them get there.
• Refundable Cal Competes credits will help them get there.
• These credits are not refundable.
• SB 1120 provides a targeted fix by allowing refunds...

Committee: Senate Revenue and Taxation

Summary: The committee heard several tax and revenue measures. SB 1277, by Senator Grove, proposed a California Cost of Living Tax Credit modeled on the 2022 middle-class tax refund to provide direct relief to low- and middle-income Californians facing high housing, gas, energy, and general living costs. Supporters said it would help working families, farmworkers, teachers, and others; opponents, including the California Tax Reform Association and the California Teachers Association, argued California already has a progressive tax system, that refundable credits are costly and can be difficult to administer, and that the bill would reduce General Fund revenues and Proposition 98 funding. The bill was held on call after extensive debate and no motion was made at that time. The committee then heard SB 1287, which would create a targeted tax credit to encourage private investment in short-line railroad infrastructure. The author and rail industry witnesses said the credit would support safety, bridge and track upgrades, emissions reductions, freight efficiency, and rural and agricultural supply chains, while opponents argued a direct grant program would be preferable to a tax credit. The bill was accepted with committee amendments and placed on call after a motion to move it forward. SB 1407 would exempt military retirement pay and surviving spouse benefits from state income tax, with the author, State Treasurer Fiona Ma, and veterans’ groups arguing it would help retain veterans in California, support second careers, and keep federal retirement dollars in the state. The California Teachers Association and California Tax Reform Association opposed it as another tax expenditure that would reduce General Fund revenue. The committee approved the bill on a due pass as amended vote to the Senate Committee on Military and Veterans Affairs, with several members voting aye and others not voting, and the bill was placed on call. The committee also heard SB 1349, which directs the Legislative Analyst’s Office to review major tax expenditures and evaluate their costs, beneficiaries, and effectiveness. Supporters, including CTA, AFSCME, cities, counties, and many teachers, said the state needs more accountability for roughly $94 billion in annual tax expenditures and their impact on schools and the budget. The bill was moved with committee amendments and placed on call. Additional measures discussed included SB 1078, authorizing Santa Cruz County to seek voter approval for a temporary local sales tax increase to fund health care and safety-net services; SB 1120, extending the California Competes Tax Credit through 2035 and making it refundable for certain strategic industries; and SB 1275, which would convert the state sales tax on vehicle purchases into a deductible vehicle license fee to reduce Californians’ federal tax burden. SB 1120 and SB 1275 both received support from business and industry witnesses, with no opposition testimony noted, and were moved on call or with a due pass as amended vote as the committee continued through the file.

Transcript Highlights:

• The California Policy Center doesn't often wade into tax credit legislation.
• I mean, what we did have, budget surpluses, we did move forward and give refunds.
• Refundable Cal Competes credits will help them get there.
• These credits are not refundable.
• These credits are not refundable.

Committee: Senate Revenue and Taxation

Summary: The committee heard several tax and revenue-related bills. SB 1277, by Senator Grove, proposed a California Cost of Living Tax Credit modeled on the 2022 middle-class tax refund to provide direct relief to low- and middle-income Californians facing high housing, fuel, and utility costs. Supporters argued it would help families struggling with affordability, while opponents, including the California Tax Reform Association and CTA members, said California’s tax system already provides relief and that the bill would reduce General Fund revenue and harm schools. After extended debate, the bill was put on call and later failed on a 1-4 vote, though reconsideration was granted. SB 1287, by Senator Retado, would create a performance-based tax credit for short-line rail investments; supporters said it would improve freight efficiency, safety, emissions, and rural access, while opponents preferred direct grants. The bill was placed on call and later passed 5-0 to Transportation. SB 1407, by Senator Archuleta, would exempt military retirement pay and survivor benefits from state taxes; the author, State Treasurer Fiona Ma, and veterans’ groups said it would help retain veterans and their economic contributions in California, while CTA and CTRA opposed on General Fund grounds. The bill passed 5-0 to Military and Veterans Affairs. SB 1349, by Senator Gonzalez, would direct the LAO to review major tax expenditures for effectiveness and impacts on schools and the budget; CTA and CTRA supported it as a way to increase accountability, and it passed 4-1 to Governmental Organization. SB 1120, by Senator McNerney, would extend the California Competes Tax Credit through 2035 and make credits refundable for certain strategic industries; business and industry witnesses said this would help startups and manufacturers monetize credits and attract investment, and it passed 5-0 to Appropriations. SB 1275, also by Senator McNerney, proposed converting the state sales tax on vehicle purchases into a deductible vehicle license fee to reduce Californians’ federal tax burden; the LAO provided technical testimony, and the bill passed 4-0 to Transportation. The committee also heard SB 1078, by Senator Laird, to let Santa Cruz County voters consider a temporary local tax increase for health and safety-net services, but it was put on call. Later, the committee returned to SB 1314, by Senator Min, addressing youth tobacco and illicit smoke shop sales, but the transcript cuts off before final action on that bill.

Transcript Highlights:

• The average refund, I believe, was $750.
• They tend to have a smaller refund amount than families.
• The percentage of refunds to households with at least one ITIN holder in the household.
• So my question is the federal immigration policy impacts.
• federal policy or our policy on SNAP, I think.

Committee: House Finance

Summary: The House Finance Committee held a work session that began with welcoming new member Rep. Janice Zahn, who introduced herself as representing the 41st Legislative District. The committee then received a Department of Revenue update on the Antio-related legislation. DOR explained the Washington Supreme Court’s Antio decision on the B&O deduction for investment income, the department’s post-decision guidance, and the 2025 legislative changes in HB 2081 and SB 5167, including an expanded voluntary disclosure agreement for entities with unreported investment income. DOR said the expanded program offers broader penalty and interest relief and applies to both registered and unregistered businesses, but participation has been minimal so far because additional implementation questions remain unresolved. The committee next heard the annual update on the Working Families Tax Credit. DOR reported record participation in 2025, with about $205 million refunded through the first 10 months and a major increase in applications after TurboTax integrated the credit. Officials said the program reached more than 409,000 children this year, but demographic response rates fell because TurboTax did not present optional demographic questions. DOR also discussed outreach efforts, the end of funding for community outreach partners after 2025, and challenges including fraud involving third-party preparers, turnover in eligible households, immigration-related reluctance among ITIN holders, data-sharing barriers, and difficulty verifying self-employment income. Members asked about fraud remedies, and DOR said it can pursue recipients for fraudulent refunds and may work with law enforcement, but the statute does not provide direct penalties against preparers. The final DOR presentation covered implementation of Engrossed Substitute Senate Bill 5814, which expanded retail sales tax to certain services effective October 1. DOR described its outreach and guidance process, including 16 listening sessions, an online survey, a centralized guidance page, special notices, and about 95,000 direct taxpayer contacts. Officials said ruling requests surged sharply around the effective date, especially for live presentations, advertising, and software/IT services, and formal rulemaking is expected after the 2026 session. Committee members questioned whether the fiscal note anticipated impacts on schools and nonprofits and whether the department’s estimates should be revisited. The committee then heard stakeholder testimony from Expedia, T-Mobile, and the Construction Industry Training Council, followed by Clover Park School District and Seattle Theatre Group/Inspire Washington. Witnesses argued that SB 5814 creates complexity, uncertainty, and competitive disadvantages for Washington businesses and nonprofits, especially for digital advertising, IT, training, and live presentation services. School and nonprofit representatives said the tax raises costs for education, apprenticeship, arts, and cultural programming, with Clover Park warning of a roughly $1.2 million annual hit to special education-related contracted services. No votes were taken; the meeting ended with the chair saying the committee would continue working on SB 5814 issues in the next legislative session.

Transcript Highlights:

• This year, I was grateful to get a tax refund, and that refund made it possible for my son to stay in
• The Commonwealth still needs to enact a comprehensive policy...
• I respectfully urge you to advance these policies with a favorable report.
• , and as a health policy person I certainly do not purport to be a tax policy expert by any means or
• an expert in Massachusetts tax policy.

Committee: Joint Joint Committee on Revenue

Summary: The Joint Committee on Revenue held a public hearing focused largely on tax-credit proposals tied to children, families, caregivers, child care, health care workforce development, and public health. A major portion of the hearing concerned bills to expand the state earned income tax credit and child and family tax credit, including H. 3073/S. 1957 and S. 1975. Testimony from advocacy groups, legal services, tax assistance organizations, and health providers supported increasing the EITC match from 40% to 50% of the federal credit, expanding eligibility to immigrant and mixed-status ITIN filers, larger families, younger and older workers, and SSI recipients, and raising the child and family tax credit to $600 per child with inflation adjustments and possible advance payments. Witnesses said these changes would reduce poverty, improve health and educational outcomes, and help families meet basic expenses; committee members asked questions about ITIN filers and expressed support for the policy goals. The committee also heard extensive testimony on S. 1938/H. 3159, An Act Supporting Family Caregivers. Speakers described the scale of unpaid caregiving in Massachusetts and supported a package that would create a refundable tax credit, respite vouchers, workplace and housing protections, unemployment insurance access for those who leave work to care for relatives, a permanent advisory council, and a provision allowing spouses to be paid caregivers under MassHealth. Several witnesses shared personal caregiving experiences, and committee members responded favorably, noting the emotional and financial strain on caregivers and the importance of supporting them as Medicaid and long-term care systems face pressure. Additional bills discussed included H. 3174 on a child and dependent care tax credit, which was presented as a way to offset the high cost of child care; H. 3197/S. 2019 to improve the financial security of family child care providers through a tax credit; H. 3218/S. 1960 to create tax credits for health care preceptors to address workforce shortages; S. 2064 to establish a living organ donor tax credit; S. 2034 to promote healthy alternatives to sugary drinks through a tiered tax; H. 3015 to create a tax-return checkoff for the YMCA Youth and Government Program; and several public testimony ideas including vaccination, literacy, and grade-improvement tax credits. No votes or formal committee actions were taken during the hearing, which ended after all testimony was heard.

Transcript Highlights:

• So what evidence led us to this policy?
• no return on investment if we're giving a full refund.
• a refund.
• Many of these folks you would have to give a refund to that would request the refund.
• option, but the refund option has been significantly dialed back.

Summary: The committee first heard AB 1159, which would update California student data privacy law for educational technology and college-level platforms. The author and supporters argued that students’ personal information is being collected and used far beyond educational purposes, including sensitive health and demographic data, and said the bill would limit misuse and add stronger privacy protections. Support came from privacy, labor, education, and civil rights groups, while opposition from college store and industry representatives focused on narrowing the definition of “operator,” preserving institution-related communications, and concerns about the bill’s private right of action. Members raised questions about how the bill would affect scholarships, financial aid, adult students, consent, and litigation; the author said the bill includes a right to cure and notice to the Attorney General. The committee voted 4-0 to pass the bill to Appropriations, with the measure placed on call. The committee then took up AB 1709, which would set a minimum age of 16 for social media accounts on platforms with specified addictive design features and create a youth safety commission. The author, pediatric and safety advocates, and several public supporters argued that social media companies intentionally design compulsive features that harm youth mental health, sleep, and development, and that the bill is a necessary product-safety response. Opponents argued the bill is overbroad, may be ineffective, raises First Amendment concerns, and could cut off vulnerable youth from important online support networks. Members focused heavily on possible amendments, especially a non-addictive feed option for younger users and strengthening the commission; the author said he was open to those changes and to further work with the committees. The bill was moved to Judiciary on a 5-0 vote and placed on call. At the end of the excerpt, the author began presenting a third measure, AB 2076, which would strengthen California’s Parents’ Accountability and Child Protection Act by adding nitrous oxide to the list of age-verified dangerous products, banning purchase with gift cards or store credit, and increasing penalties for large sellers. The author described nitrous oxide as increasingly accessible to minors online and cited enforcement gaps in the current law, but the transcript cuts off before testimony or action on that bill.

Transcript Highlights:

• Historically refundable credit. Good morning.
• Refundable Cal Competes credits will help them get there.
• Refundable Cal Competes credits will help them get there.
• These credits are not refundable.
• SB 1120 provides a targeted fix by allowing refunds...

Summary: The committee heard Senate Bill 1277, which would create a California Cost of Living Tax Credit modeled on the 2022 middle-class tax refund to provide refundable relief to low- and middle-income Californians facing high housing, fuel, energy, and general living costs. Senator Grove and supporters, including the California Policy Center and some local government representatives, argued the bill would put direct relief into the hands of working families. Opposition came from the California Tax Reform Association and the California Teachers Association, which said California already has progressive tax credits and that the proposal would be costly to the General Fund and reduce money for schools and other services. After extended debate, the bill was not advanced; a roll call vote on a motion to pass it to Appropriations failed 1-4, and the bill was held/fails on the floor with a request for reconsideration noted. The committee then heard SB 1287, which would create a capped tax credit to encourage private investment in short-line railroad infrastructure. The author and rail industry witnesses said the measure would improve safety, reliability, emissions, and freight movement, especially for rural communities and agriculture, and that it was a public-private partnership rather than a handout. Opposition from CTA and the California Tax Reform Association argued a direct grant program would be preferable to a tax credit. The bill was accepted with committee amendments and placed on call without a final vote in the transcript. Members also considered SB 1407, which would fully exempt military retirement pay and surviving spouse benefits from state income tax, increasing the prior partial exemption. The author, State Treasurer Fiona Ma, and veterans’ groups said the change would help retain veterans in California, support local economies, and align California with most other states. CTA and CTRA opposed on General Fund grounds. The committee approved the bill on a due-pass-as-amended motion to the Committee on Military and Veterans Affairs, with the roll call showing support and the bill placed on call. Later, the committee heard SB 1349, directing the Legislative Analyst’s Office to review major tax expenditures and evaluate their goals, beneficiaries, and effects on revenues and Proposition 98 funding. CTA, CTRA, and several local government and labor supporters backed the bill as a way to improve accountability for roughly $94 billion in annual tax expenditures. The bill was accepted with committee amendments and placed on call. The committee also heard SB 1078, authorizing Santa Cruz County to ask voters for a temporary half-cent sales tax to help fund health care and safety-net services amid federal cuts; it was placed on call. SB 1120, extending the California Competes Tax Credit through 2035 and making it refundable for certain strategic industries, received strong support from business and manufacturing groups and was passed on a due-pass-as-amended motion to Appropriations. Finally, SB 1275, which would replace the state sales tax on vehicle purchases with a vehicle license fee structure intended to increase federal deductibility for Californians, was passed 4-0 as amended to the Committee on Transportation.