Transcript Highlights:

• <01:35:21.320><c> of</c><01:35:21.440><c> Newport</c> taxpayers of Newport taxpayers of Newport questions
• </c><02:03:37.800><c> still</c> increase this year our taxpayers still increase this year our taxpayers
• </c> uh preco levels uh even as taxpayer uh preco levels uh even as taxpayer spending<04:06:48.439><c
• </c> focused their attention on taxpayer focused their attention on taxpayer Equity<05:03:21.280><c>
• </c> students and to the property taxpayers students and to the property taxpayers um<05:32:08.200><c

Summary: The Education Funding Committee met in executive session and first took up HB 193, which limits the maximum credits per course eligible for the Dual and Concurrent Enrollment Program. Representative Ladd said the bill clarifies that eligible courses may not exceed four credits and was requested by the community college system. Representative Earth offered an amendment to make the bill effective on passage, which the committee adopted 18-0. The committee then approved HB 193 as amended by an 18-0 OTPA vote and placed it on the consent calendar. The committee next retained HB 295, concerning School Building Aid program funds, after Representative Spillsbury said the building aid bills were complex and needed more work. The motion to retain passed 18-0, with the chair explaining that retained bills can be revisited later and that related language could be moved among building aid bills. HB 354 was not acted on because the chair said the Department of Education and others had suggested possible changes that should be worked out first. HB 366, another school building aid bill, was also retained 18-0 for the same reasons as HB 295. The committee then considered HB 494, which funds the math learning communities program. Representative Earth offered an amendment to flat-fund the program, reducing the proposed increase by a net $50,000 and keeping funding at current levels for the biennium. After discussion about budget pressures and the program’s role in supporting math instruction and professional development, the amendment passed 18-0, and the bill as amended was approved 18-0 and placed on consent. Finally, the committee took up HB 515, which would repeal charter public school eligibility for state school building aid. Representative Popovici-Muller moved inexpedient to legislate, arguing charter schools should not be treated differently from other public schools, while Representatives Luno and Damon opposed the motion, saying charter schools differ in governance and financial risk and should not receive limited state building aid. The motion failed 10-8, so HB 515 was sent to the regular calendar. The committee assigned Representative Damon to the minority report and Representative Popovici-Muller to the majority report, with a noon deadline the next day. The committee then began HB 716, an appropriation for the dual and concurrent enrollment program. Representative Ladd described the program as a successful affordability measure that saves families money and supports college access. Representative Earth offered an amendment to flat-fund the program at current levels, reducing the proposed increase by $500,000 in each year of the biennium. Shannon Reed of the Community College System said the change could limit enrollment or the number of funded courses, though students could still take additional courses at their own expense. Representative Ladd explained the program’s tuition structure and said the funding would help meet demand; the transcript cuts off before the final vote on HB 716.

Transcript Highlights:

• I have taxpayers are not well served.
• So, I'll right out right from taxpayers.
• </c><00:39:12.560><c> So</c><00:39:12.800><c> I'm</c> as it relates to our taxpayers.
• So I'm as it relates to our taxpayers.
• We are making sure that the taxpayers.

Transcript Highlights:

• Over the last decade, Arkansas has returned billions of dollars to its taxpayers.
• Under this bill, income above $26,400 for taxpayers in the lower table will be taxed at 3.7%.
• The benefits reach more than a million Arkansas taxpayers.
• For the average taxpayer, to put this in real-world For the average taxpayer, to put this in real-world
• At the end of the day, this bill benefits over one million Arkansas taxpayers.

Committee: All REVENUE & TAXATION- HOUSE SALES, USE, MISC. TAXES & EXEMPTIONS SUBCOM.

Summary: The committee heard House Bill 1001, sponsored by Representative Les Eaves, which would lower the individual income tax rate to 3.7% retroactive to the current year and reduce the corporate rate to 4.1% beginning in 2027. Eaves argued the bill continues Arkansas’s recent tax-cut strategy, would provide broad relief to working families, and would keep the state competitive while preserving future surpluses rather than cutting existing services. He and Representative Bray emphasized that prior tax cuts have benefited taxpayers and supported economic growth. Several opponents testified against the bill, including representatives from Arkansas Appleseed, Arkansas Advocates for Children and Families, a pastor, and individuals speaking about disability services and food insecurity. They argued Arkansas cannot afford further revenue reductions given needs in public education, early childhood care, Medicaid and food assistance, rural hospitals, and supported living services. Witnesses said the tax cut would disproportionately benefit higher earners while providing little or no relief to lower- and middle-income families, and urged the committee to prioritize public investments over tax cuts. After debate, the committee adopted a motion to limit witness testimony to five minutes each. Representative Eaves closed on the bill and moved to pass it. Following discussion, the committee voted to pass HB 1001, and the meeting adjourned.

Transcript Highlights:

• One is the fiscal problems associated with this tax shift to other taxpayers who are paying higher taxes
• One is the fiscal problems associated with this tax shift to other taxpayers who are paying higher taxes
• state general fund, through state aid to schools, is what makes this whole deal work because the taxpayers
• You mentioned the tax shifts to other taxpayers, and I understand that.
• ... ...and that's what we're discussing here today as the state property taxpayers.

Committee: House House Ways & Means Committee of Reference

Summary: The House Ways and Means Committee first took up Senate Bill 1293, which would limit Government Property Lease Excise Tax (GPLET) abatements so they cannot reduce the portion of property taxes that would otherwise go to school districts. The sponsor and supporters, including the Arizona Tax Research Association and the National Federation of Independent Business, argued that GPLET shifts costs to the state general fund and other taxpayers through school finance backfilling, while city representatives from Phoenix and Mesa and the Greater Phoenix Economic Council said GPLET is an important redevelopment tool that helps projects move forward in difficult urban areas and eventually returns properties to the tax rolls at much higher values. After extended questioning about tax shifts, school district impacts, and whether cities could act without affecting other jurisdictions, the committee voted 5-3 to return SB 1293 with a do pass recommendation. The committee then heard Senate Bill 1294, a clarifying measure concerning property classification after destruction by fire, flood, or other verifiable accident. The sponsor said the bill was intended to refine language adopted the previous year and to reflect discussions with assessors and ATRA. With little opposition, the committee approved SB 1294 on a 6-1 vote, with one member present and one absent. Finally, the committee considered Senate Bill 1430, the annual technical corrections bill for tax statutes administered by the Department of Revenue. The sponsor offered an amendment to remove a disputed unclaimed-property provision after concerns were raised, and the department supported the bill as amended. The committee adopted the amendment and then passed SB 1430 as amended on a 7-0 vote, with one member present and one absent, before adjourning.

Transcript Highlights:

• , their real property taxpayers, are taking a big hit.
• Right, that we're not making other taxpayers make up the difference of these property tax abatements.
• You know, the taxpayers didn't, like, vote on the TIF.
• I have concerns about the fact that, you know, the taxpayers didn't, like, vote on the TIF.
• Hurts the taxpayers, Rep. Murphy said. Well, it did.

Committee: House Special Committee on Property Tax Reform

Summary: The Special Committee on Property Tax Reform met for an open discussion, with no public testimony, to reset its work after the prior combined bill was separated back into two standalone measures. The chair outlined the current direction: House Bill 2780 would include Murphy’s Hancock fix, levy-by-subclass, commercial protection language, the 275-to-150 levy adjustment, and abatement provisions; House Bill 2668 would carry clear ballot language, no-tax-increase ballot measures, clarification of SB 190, and the SB 3 fix. Members also discussed whether additional ideas, such as taxpayer appeal protections and electronic filing, might be added later if they can be worked out. A major portion of the meeting focused on the Hancock-related “275 fix,” with members clarifying that the proposal would not move all districts to 275, but would prevent two known districts below that level from being forced down and losing significant revenue. Several members raised concerns about confusion in the field and the need to communicate clearly to school districts and superintendents what the proposal would and would not do. There was also discussion of new construction under Hancock, including whether certain redevelopment or replacement projects should count as new construction and how that affects school and other local taxing entities. The committee spent substantial time debating tax abatements, especially TIFs and similar economic incentives. Supporters of the language said the intent is to prevent taxing jurisdictions from treating abated revenue as if it were still available and then shifting the cost to other taxpayers; opponents questioned whether the language would improperly reduce revenue that communities had already decided to collect. Members also discussed whether the language should apply only to the entity adopting the abatement, and whether some abatements are better handled through separate legislation. Several members urged that any new ideas be referred through committee so they can receive proper vetting and fiscal analysis, and there was broad agreement to keep the main bills relatively streamlined while continuing to work on additional concepts separately.

Transcript Highlights:

• Tax dollars, property tax money, by the taxpayers of the city of Austin.
• So that is not the way we should be treating taxpayers.
• But that's not the way taxpayers look at it when that tax comes down to them.
• Poor taxpayers.
• Middle-income taxpayers, wealthy taxpayers—they deserve laws that are clear and that they understand.

Bills: HB9 , HJR1 , SB1331 , SB1375 , SB1443 , SB1578 , SB2251 , SB2519 , SB2553 , SB2655 , SB2764 , SB2907 , SB3030 , SB3033 , SB3035 , SB3036 , SB3037 , SB3043 , SB3047 , SB3050 , SB3051 , SB3056 , SB3057 , SB3063 , HB9 , HB467 , HB331 , HB 1244 , HB1399 , HB2559 , HB2730 , HB3307 , HJR1 , HJR99 , SB3048 , SB3052 , SB3053 , SJR78 , HB1327 , HB2723

Committee: Senate Local Government

Transcript Highlights:

• It shifts to Medicaid and onto Minnesota taxpayers.
• Estimates put that shift at taxpayers.
• </c> onto Medicaid and Minnesota taxpayers. onto Medicaid and Minnesota taxpayers.
• </c><00:18:56.520><c> And</c><00:18:56.720><c> we</c><00:18:56.880><c> are</c> taxpayers fit the bill
• And we are taxpayers fit the bill.

Summary: Senators and House members held a press event in support of HF 4188, a bill addressing commercial insurance coverage for home care nursing for medically complex children who also receive medical assistance. Speakers said the issue arose after Medica and HealthPartners began imposing caps on coverage that had been provided for years under Minnesota law, and argued that the change would shift costs to Medicaid and taxpayers, create budget pressure, and force families to reduce other needed services. They emphasized that home care nursing is distinct from short-term home health visits and said the bill would prohibit quantity limits and clarify that insurers must continue covering authorized nursing care. Parents and family members described the impact on children who depend on continuous skilled nursing to remain safely at home, including one family whose child Nash has spent extensive time hospitalized and another speaker who said her niece Isabel’s care showed how many nurses, aides, and hospice workers are involved in these cases. Testimony stressed that the coverage caps could lead to more hospitalizations, ICU stays, and trauma for children and families, while costing more overall than home care. Several lawmakers, including Sen. Matt Klein and Rep. Robert Bierman, said the statute’s original intent was clear in 2010 and that the plans’ reinterpretation and the Commerce Department’s response should be corrected. Lawmakers said the Commerce and Consumer Protection Conference Committee has completed its work but is being kept open for the remaining days of session in hopes of resolving the issue this year. In response to questions, supporters said the bill is intended as a clarification rather than a new mandate, that it would simply bar caps on already-authorized home care nursing, and that they believe there is support to move it through the House and Senate before adjournment.

Transcript Highlights:

• So is that taxpayers' money? Thanks for the question. Yes, that's exactly what I said.
• By funds that came from state taxpayers. Is that correct? Thank you for the question.
• Haven't been using taxpayer dollars to pay for these to be individuals.
• It's ultimately going to save taxpayer money.
• And as it stands today, taxpayer dollars are going toward repaying those loans.

Bills: HB2997 , HB2021 , HB3041 , HB1823 , HB3372 , HB1427 , HB3127 , HB3128 , HCR1020 , HB4198 , HB3000 , HB3001 , HB3002 , HB3003 , HB3004 , HB3005 , HB3006 , HB3007 , HB3008 , SB392 , HB3320

Keywords: motor vehicles, administrative fines, license regulation, state agencies, employment levels, after-school programs, grant funding, community organizations, child care, Oklahoma Department of Human Services, credit card transactions, payment methods, service charge, consumer rights, financial regulation, housing finance, Oklahoma Housing Finance Agency, publication requirements, housing policy, state regulations

Transcript Highlights:

• But more important, it includes 10 members of taxpayers, including businesses, including CPAs, including
• Eric Lundberg here, fifth-generation taxpayer, and I oppose this bill.
• Eric Lundberg here, fifth-generation taxpayer, and I oppose this bill.
• We the taxpayers have been taxed enough already, and this is just an attempt to rob Peter to pay Paul
• The six-month grace period is included for taxpayers with qualifying existing contracts whose business

Summary: House Finance met in executive session on Gross Substitute Senate Bill 6346, the proposed “millionaires’ income tax” package. Staff reviewed the bill and a long list of amendments affecting the new income tax, related business tax changes, and several exemptions and implementation provisions. The committee adopted amendments to exempt diapers from sales tax, allow certain tribal income treatment clarifications, create an advisory group to help implement the tax, move up the repeal date for some business tax changes, and require the measure to go to the voters; several other amendments on federal conformity, agricultural income, pass-through entities, and the marriage threshold were rejected or withdrawn. The committee then adopted the striking amendment as amended and advanced the bill on a 9-6 do pass vote, with supporters arguing it would fund education, health care, child care, and tax relief, and opponents warning about competitiveness, capital flight, and the state’s spending growth. The committee then held a public hearing on Senate Bill 6097, which would add federally recognized Indian tribes as eligible entities for county Conservation Futures Program funding. Staff said the bill would not change the tax levy structure and would have no state revenue impact, while tribal witnesses said it would improve voluntary conservation partnerships for habitat, farmland, and open space. Members asked about the bill’s scope, and staff confirmed it applies only to federally recognized tribes. House Finance also heard Senate Bill 6162, a property tax reform measure that would consolidate the state school levy, expand senior and disability property tax exemptions, raise income thresholds, and simplify the application process with a standard deduction. The prime sponsor and county assessors supported the bill as a way to help seniors, disabled persons, and disabled veterans stay in their homes and reduce administrative burden, while several testifiers opposed it as a tax shift that would raise costs for others and potentially strain local revenues. Finally, the committee heard Senate Bill 6113, an administrative and technical tax cleanup bill related to last year’s tax changes; the Department of Revenue supported it and noted a possible clarifying amendment, while nonprofits, schools, libraries, health care groups, workforce training providers, and trade associations asked for additional exemptions for live presentations and related educational activities. The chair announced that Senate Bill 6097 would be added to Monday’s executive session, Senate Bill 6114 was removed, and amendments for Monday’s bills were due by 5 p.m. that day.

Transcript Highlights:

• So won't that lead to higher bids and less taxpayer value for highway projects?
• So won't that lead to higher bids and less taxpayer value for highway projects?
• Well, it's a fair amount of money of the taxpayer dollars going to that project tonight.
• Our local taxpayers decided to tax themselves to fund this.
• So the city taxpayers are paying into a contract to bring that service, yes.

Committees: House Transportation , House Joint Committee on Transportation Oversight

Transcript Highlights:

• County jails, as we all know, are funded by local taxpayers.
• The question is who pays, and the answer is clear: Washington taxpayers.
• And the answer is clear: Washington taxpayers.
• Washington taxpayers.
• Please adopt this amendment that helps the taxpayers of Washington.

Summary: The Senate Human Services Committee heard testimony on Senate Bill 5917, which would change how the Department of Corrections and Department of Health distribute abortion medications from state stockpiles. Staff and the bill sponsor said the measure would remove pricing restrictions, allow the medications to be donated or sold more flexibly to health care providers, and help avoid expiration of existing supplies. Supporters, including the Washington State Women’s Commission, the governor’s health policy advisor, DOH, physicians, and Pro-Choice Washington, said the bill would improve access to medication abortion and miscarriage care, especially for people facing barriers. Opponents argued it would expand state involvement in abortion, shift costs to taxpayers, and raise safety concerns. No vote was taken on the bill in the hearing portion shown. The committee also heard Senate Bill 6080, which would require written contracts before local jails accept people in federal custody and would prohibit some out-of-state transfers absent a valid judicial warrant. Senator Cleveland said the bill was prompted by a situation in Clark County and was intended to provide clarity, reimbursement, and accountability for local governments. Supporters from the Latino Community Fund, the Association of Counties, and the City of Vancouver said it would protect taxpayers and local discretion. The sheriffs’ association supported some of the bill’s goals but raised concerns about unintended consequences for routine federal arrests and wanted more clarification. The hearing on SB 6080 was then closed. The committee then heard Senate Bill 6085, which would revise the Institutional Welfare Account, formerly the incarcerated individual betterment fund, to require more input from incarcerated people and their families on how the funds are spent and to change some allowable uses. The sponsor said the bill would ensure the account reflects current needs and supports family contact, reentry, and institutional safety. Testimony was mixed: the Washington State Reentry Council supported the concept but objected to requiring legislative appropriations and to using the funds for reentry services; a Department of Corrections representative supported the intent but raised concerns about removing law library funding without replacement. After testimony, the committee moved into executive session and considered several bills and amendments, including SB 5940, SB 5945, SB 5957, and SB 5966. Multiple amendments were offered and mostly failed on SB 5940 and SB 5945, while one amendment on SB 5945 passed. The committee advanced SB 5940, SB 5957, and SB 5966 with due-pass recommendations, and the transcript ends with the committee adjourning after the final action on SB 5966.

Transcript Highlights:

• And there are other taxpayers, too, that do get sales tax. How are they affected?
• Taxpayers who use an individual taxpayer identification number, or an ITIN, including many immigrants
• Taxpayers who use an individual taxpayer identification number, or an ITIN, including many immigrants
• Immigrants in Washington are major taxpayers.
• Immigrants in Washington are major taxpayers.

Bills: HB1717 , HB1859

Committee: House Finance

Keywords: affordable housing, sales tax, housing programs, tax incentives, economic development, religious organizations, development, housing opportunities, land use

Transcript Highlights:

• The City of Fort Lauderdale is self-insured, which means our taxpayers pay out these claims.
• The insurance we do have is all taxpayer-funded.
• Every dollar in, every dollar out, it's taxpayer money, and it's very expensive.
• It represents a significant increase that is extremely costly to the taxpayers in the end.
• But the most important question is, why are the taxpayers footing this bill in the first place?

Summary: The Budget Committee met with a quorum and took up several bills. HB 677, relating to state-covered fertility preservation for employees undergoing cancer treatment, was introduced as coverage for egg and sperm preservation for up to three years, with an estimated fiscal impact of about $813,000. After brief questions and no public testimony or amendments, the bill passed unanimously and was reported favorably. The committee then considered CS/HB 59, which would reform Florida’s wrongful incarceration compensation process by extending the filing deadline from 90 days to two years, removing the clean-hands requirement, and allowing exonerees to choose between the state compensation process and a civil lawsuit; it was supported by the City of Flagler Beach and passed unanimously. CS/HB 1313, which recreates the Resilient Florida Trust Fund in the Department of Environmental Protection before its scheduled termination in 2025, also passed unanimously after supportive testimony from advocacy groups. The committee received a lengthy presentation from the Department of Management Services on the State Group Insurance Program and the recent Revenue Estimating Conference. The presentation covered enrollment, revenues and expenditures, rising medical and pharmacy costs, emergency room utilization, GLP-1 drug spending, and options for tighter formulary and utilization management. Members asked about ER cost growth, GLP-1 coverage and copays, PBM oversight and potential conflicts, avoidable ER visits, cancer screening claims, dental and vision costs, specialty drug biosimilars, and possible savings from more restrictive pharmacy models. DMS said it would follow up on several questions and noted ongoing work on cancer coordination, preventive screening, biomarker testing, and a proposed member-facing benefits platform. The committee also heard extensive testimony on HB 301, which would raise sovereign immunity caps from $200,000 per person and $300,000 per incident to $1 million and $3 million, align limitations periods with private claims, and allow government entities to settle above the caps without a claims bill. Local governments, school-related entities, and county and city associations opposed the bill, warning of major fiscal impacts, higher insurance costs, and pressure on services; several speakers urged smaller increases or a tiered approach. Proponents, including families affected by catastrophic injury or death, argued the current caps are too low and the claims bill process is inefficient and unfair. After debate, the bill passed on a recorded vote, with some members voting no, and was reported favorably.

Transcript Highlights:

• </c> taxpayers. We put it out on the website. taxpayers. We put it out on the website.
• The taxpayers do pay for that, and the taxpayers who are paying the bill should be notified in a timely
• The taxpayers do pay for that and<00:25:54.960><c> the</c><00:25:55.200><c> taxpayers</c><00:25:55.840
• My concern is for the taxpayers.
• That's all I'm saying. taxpayers not having the proper taxpayers not having the proper notification.<

Committee: House Municipal and County Government

Transcript Highlights:

• to get rich on the backs of our taxpayers.
• to get rich on the backs of our taxpayers.
• to get rich on the backs of our taxpayers.
• to get rich on the backs of our taxpayers.
• to get rich on the backs of our taxpayers.

Committee: House Higher Education

Transcript Highlights:

• , If we did this and we expanded it to all taxpayers that would be creating jobs, is this affordable?
• , or potentially still be taxpayers, who seek this credit without an IRB.
• So there will still be taxpayers or potentially still be taxpayers that do seek this credit without it
• There will still be taxpayers or potentially still be taxpayers that do seek this credit without an IRB
• taxpayer account at Tax and Rev, and they can carry it forward for three years.

Summary: The committee heard testimony on the committee substitute for House Bill 27, which would modernize New Mexico’s research and development tax credit. Sponsors said the bill would allow the credit to be stacked with industrial revenue bonds for qualifying facilities, exclude data centers and national laboratories, permit up to $50 million in transferable credits per year for 2026-2028, and extend the carry-forward period to seven years. Supporters from business, construction, labor, and economic development groups argued the changes would improve cash flow for startups, help attract and retain high-wage jobs, and encourage commercialization of New Mexico-developed technology in sectors such as advanced energy, aerospace, fusion, and advanced manufacturing. Several witnesses emphasized that the bill was intended to keep commercialization and capital investment in New Mexico rather than losing them to other states. Committee members raised concerns about tax policy, fiscal impact, and whether the bill would truly lead to commercialization. Questions focused on the transferability provision, the $50 million annual cap, who could buy credits, whether data centers should be excluded, how the bill interacts with IRBs and other incentives, and whether the labs could benefit. Some members supported the bill’s goals but worried it was too narrowly tailored or could create winners and losers. The sponsors and administration witnesses responded that the bill was designed to tie R&D to physical infrastructure, provide capital to early-stage companies, and protect the general fund with caps and time limits. They also said the bill would not apply to national labs and would not change existing rural-area doubling provisions. After extensive discussion and no opposition testimony, the committee did not advance the bill. Representative Cadena moved to table the committee substitute for House Bill 27, Representative Parra made the second, and the motion passed without opposition, so the bill was tabled.

Transcript Highlights:

• County jails, as we all know, are funded by local taxpayers.
• The question is who pays, and the answer is clear: Washington taxpayers.
• The question is who pays, and the answer is clear, Washington taxpayers.
• Washington taxpayers.
• Please adopt this amendment that helps the taxpayers of Washington.

Bills: SB5917 , SB6080 , SB6085 , SB5940 , SB5945 , SB5957 , SB5966

Committee: Senate Human Services

Keywords: abortion medications, reproductive health, mifepristone, misoprostol, abortion access, medication abortion, early pregnancy loss, miscarriage management, Department of Corrections, Department of Health, health care providers, health care entities, Indian health care providers, pharmacy distribution, wholesale distribution, reproductive rights, women's health, emergency clause, immediate effect, public health

Transcript Highlights:

• If it hasn't been already, I have real questions about whether taxpayer privacy laws have already been
• They reportedly wanted a get-out-of-jail-free card giving them access to sensitive taxpayer data they
• How does one ensure that taxpayer money is well spent?
• Meanwhile despite well-intentioned efforts the IRS's ability to serve taxpayers has barely budged.
• and actually benefit taxpayers? Thank you, Senator. I also enjoyed speaking with you yesterday.

Committee: Senate Finance Committee

Keywords: nomination, Deputy Secretary of Treasury, economic policy, inflation, tariffs, tribal nations, government relations

Summary: The meeting convened to consider the nomination of Mike Falkender for the position of Deputy Secretary of the Treasury. During the session, multiple members voiced concerns regarding current economic policies under the Trump administration, particularly around inflation, tariffs, and the impact on small businesses. Discussions frequently centered on the administration's approach to tariffs and taxation, and how these factors contribute to the rising cost of living and potential job losses. Additionally, the importance of bolstering government-to-government relationships with tribal nations was emphasized, highlighting the need for specialized offices focused on tribal affairs within the Treasury Department.

Transcript Highlights:

• I'm Scott Kaufman, the legislative director for the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association.
• The Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association is proud to support SB 984.
• It is available to taxpayers who file a standard deduction or itemize, but is reduced for taxpayers whose
• For the Franchise Tax Board to ensure that taxpayers pay the correct amount of tax.
• It provides clarity and a uniform standard for taxpayers to follow.

Committee: Senate Revenue and Taxation

Transcript Highlights:

• Now here in Idaho, we believe taxpayer money is sacred.
• And we sure don't believe in turning taxpayer programs into an all-you-can-eat steel buffet for fraudsters
• Now here in Idaho, we believe taxpayer money is sacred. than kids.
• Now, here in Idaho, we believe taxpayer money is sacred, comes from people who work hard, wake up early
• And we sure don't believe in turning taxpayer programs into an all-you-can-eat steel buffet for frosters

Committee: House State Affairs