Video & Transcript Research : 'conformity'
Page 2 of 116
AZ
Transcript Highlights:
- It fully conforms to the Trump tax cuts.
- on January 14 because it enacts full conformity.
- We saw a similar bill on this conformity before.
- It can't pay for the tax conformity deal. It can't pay for her tax conformity bill.
- So what we're doing now is conforming to part of the 2022 law and conforming to parts of H.R. 1, putting
Keywords:
individual income tax, subtraction, Arizona Revised Statutes, retirement benefits, adoption costs, charitable contributions, health insurance, premium payment, Arizona State Retirement System, contingent annuitant, long-term disability, benefits limitations, disability compensation, social security, retirement system, elected officials, ASRS, eligibility waiver, age 65, education savings
Summary:
The committee first heard House Bill 2785, a tax conformity measure that would update Arizona statutes to conform to the Internal Revenue Code as of January 1, 2026, including retroactive provisions for tax year 2025. The sponsor and supporters said the bill would align state law with tax forms already issued by the Department of Revenue, provide certainty to filers, and deliver about $440 million in tax relief through provisions such as no tax on tips and overtime, a larger standard deduction, and a $6,000 senior deduction. Opponents argued the bill would significantly reduce state revenue, disproportionately benefit higher-income taxpayers, and should be considered alongside a broader budget plan. After debate and an amendment addressing retroactivity and foreign dividends, the committee approved HB 2785 on a 5-4 vote.
The committee then took up several Arizona State Retirement System and education savings bills. HB 2089 clarified the health insurance premium benefit subsidy for retirees and passed unanimously. HB 2090 changed the disability determination period for long-term disability benefits from 24 months within a five-year period to a straight 24-month period and passed 8-1. HB 2092 allowed employees over age 65 to waive ARS participation within 30 days of becoming eligible and also passed 8-1. HB 2477 conformed Arizona’s 529 education savings plan to federal law, including expanded uses and a permanent rollover to ABLE accounts and Roth IRAs; testimony supported the cleanup and simplification, but some members raised concerns about the Roth rollover and possible use of transferred ESA funds. HB 2477 passed 5-3 with one present vote, and the committee then adjourned.
MN
Transcript Highlights:
- don't conform to?
- We'll explain what tax conformity means and how Minnesota addresses federal tax conformity.
- <00:16:33.920>
These non-conform adjustments. These non-conform adjustments. - of<00:46:50.400>
conformity conformities uh out of conformity conformities uh out of conformity - . conformity. conformity.
TX
Transcript Highlights:
- Stop their non-conforming use.
- Stop a non-conforming use as long as a person does not discontinue a non-conforming use for longer than
- Before requiring them to stop a non-conforming land use, which could lead to prolonged non-conformity
- Because if the person's non-conforming rights—if the property owner is no longer using their non-conforming
- the non-conforming use.
Keywords:
zoning, public notice, local government, residential development, protests, water conservation, municipal utility districts, Texas Commission on Environmental Quality, environmental regulation, groundwater management, nonconforming uses, zoning regulations, land use, property rights, municipal authority, municipal moratorium, development moratorium, property development, subdivision, site plan
AZ
Transcript Highlights:
- They said conform to those; let's add those into Arizona tax law.
- across the conformity in alignment, but only for tax year 2025.
- across the conformity in alignment, but only for tax year 2025.
- Our bill before did not include conformity on SALT.
- So we should not conform to all of these things.
Bills:
SB1638
Keywords:
taxation, income tax, internal revenue code, deductions, tax benefits, retroactive, standard deduction, 1182, all
Summary:
The Senate Finance Committee took up SB 1638, a tax conformity bill that would update Arizona’s tax code to the Internal Revenue Code as of January 1, 2026 and incorporate federal changes from 2025. The bill also included individual income tax subtractions for tips, overtime, seniors, and auto loan interest, along with changes to the standard deduction and charitable contribution deduction. Committee discussion focused heavily on whether Arizona should conform broadly to federal changes or limit the bill to more targeted, temporary provisions.
Two amendments were considered. The chair’s amendment was described as clarifying only, addressing retroactivity and foreign dividend language, and it was adopted. Senator Epstein’s amendment would have removed the broader conformity provisions and the modified charitable deduction, limited the standard deduction change to tax year 2025, and kept the individual subtractions; she argued the business-related conformity items mainly benefited corporations and should be negotiated in the budget. Opponents said the amendment would create unnecessary recalculations and uncertainty for taxpayers and businesses, while supporters of the underlying bill said conformity was needed quickly to match Department of Revenue forms and avoid filing-season confusion. Epstein’s amendment failed.
Public testimony split along similar lines. Business and tax group representatives supported prompt conformity, saying taxpayers and small businesses needed certainty and that the department’s forms should be codified. Opponents argued the bill would reduce state revenue substantially and mainly benefit higher-income taxpayers and corporations, while diverting money from education, child care, and health care. After debate, the committee voted to move SB 1638 as amended with a do-pass recommendation, passing it by about 4-3, and then adjourned.
AZ
Transcript Highlights:
- Now there are some minor differences between this and full conformity.
- Some minor differences between this and full conformity.
- bill, does that mean..." "...portion of the full conformity bill.
- address that criticism that she mentioned with full conformity.
- address that criticism that she mentioned with full conformity.
Summary:
The House convened with prayer, the Pledge of Allegiance, approval of the prior journal, and introductions of the Doctor of the Day and student guests, including JAG students and Hila Ben High School visitors. Attendance was recorded at 49 present, 3 absent, and 8 excused. The chamber then moved into Committee of the Whole to consider HB 2153, the annual tax conformity bill, which was described by supporters as aligning Arizona tax law with recent federal changes and providing relief through no tax on tips and overtime, a 25% increase in the child tax credit, a new child care expense deduction, and expanded senior retirement-income deductions. Opponents argued the measure would primarily benefit wealthy individuals and corporations, leave out some seniors without retirement accounts, and reduce revenue needed for public services.
HB 2153 drew extensive debate and multiple questions about its effects on seniors, small businesses, wages, child care, and the timing of tax filing forms already issued by the Department of Revenue. Supporters emphasized taxpayer certainty, conformity with federal forms, and economic growth; critics said the bill was fiscally irresponsible and unfair. The Committee of the Whole approved the bill 31-26, and the House later adopted the report and referred the bill to engrossing.
The House then took up the Senate mirror measure, SB 1106, substituted for HB 2153, and held floor explanations of vote. After further debate along similar lines, the House passed SB 1106 by a vote of 31-27 with 2 not voting and transmitted it to the Senate. The remainder of the session included personal privilege remarks, committee schedule announcements, a long list of first-read bills and referrals, and finally a motion to adjourn until Tuesday, January 20, 2026.
AZ
Arizona 2026 Regular Session
01/15/2026 - House Republican Caucus Calendar #1
Transcript Highlights:
- So there's a concept called simple conformity and then full conformity.
- That we always conform to that by virtue of what we call simple conformity, unless you actively decouple
- And so the department always assumes simple conformity.
- So DOR always assumes simple conformity.
- You need explicit statute to conform to those.
Summary:
The caucus focused on HB 2153, a tax conformity bill that would align Arizona statute with the Internal Revenue Code as of January 1, 2026, including retroactive provisions affecting tax year 2025. Staff explained that the bill excludes three federal provisions from H.R. 1: the additional $6,000 senior deduction, the increase in the state and local tax (SALT) deduction to $40,000, and the deduction for interest on new car loans. It also adds several Arizona-specific provisions, including a $6,000 deduction for certain retirement distributions for taxpayers age 65 or older, a $6,000 deduction for Roth IRA contributions, an increase in the dependent tax credit from $100 to $125, and a deduction for child and dependent care expenses above the federal credit. JLBC’s fiscal note was cited as a negative $441.3 million in year one, declining over the next two years.
Chairman Livingston and other Republican members argued the bill was needed immediately because the Department of Revenue had already issued tentative forms assuming full conformity, creating confusion for taxpayers and businesses. They said the state needed a signed law as soon as possible to avoid amended returns, inconsistent filing rules, and uncertainty for small businesses. Livingston emphasized that the bill was intended to protect small businesses from having to keep two sets of books and said he was advising taxpayers not to file until the issue was resolved. Members also discussed the practical impact on small businesses, citing testimony that Arizona has about 700,000 small businesses employing well over a million people.
Several exchanges clarified the difference between the governor’s November direction to the Department of Revenue and the bill before the committee. Staff explained that DOR normally assumes “simple conformity” and that the governor’s directive attempted to add “below-the-line” deductions through a worksheet, but that those items still require statutory authorization. Members said the governor’s action was confusing and characterized it as a press release rather than binding law. The committee also discussed the child care provisions, describing them as a federal-style deduction Arizona has not previously adopted and as one of the main new benefits in the bill. The caucus ended without a vote, and members were told the floor would begin at 10 a.m.
MN
Transcript Highlights:
- 38.959>
provisions <00:02:39.800>to, federal conformity uh, provisions to, federal conformity - <00:38:11.600>
However, larger conformity package. However, larger conformity package. - >
decisions context for tax conformity decisions context for tax conformity decisions this<00: - <00:43:05.560>
to state revenues by not conforming to state revenues by not conforming to - <00:46:00.200>
items conformity items conformity items for<00:46:01.320>Section <00:46:
NM
New Mexico 2025 Regular Session
IC - Revenue Stabilization and Tax Policy Aug 14th, 2025
Revenue Stabilization & Tax Policy Committee
Transcript Highlights:
- We use the term conformity, and that's important because where we conform and how we conform is what
- If you conform automatically, then you have to back out or change the things that you don't want to conform
- But that was an example where even though we're a conforming state, we didn't conform in those cases.
- So if you're looking for how does this conform?
- So we're still conforming; we're just specifically conforming to these things.
CA
California 2025-2026 Regular Session
Assembly Revenue and Taxation Committee Jul 14th, 2025
Transcript Highlights:
- Some states use rolling conformity, meaning the state automatically conforms to new and amended federal
- Some use static conformity, also called fixed-date conformity, meaning the states conform to federal
- California uses a combination of static and selective conformity, and we use static conformity by way
- Why conform? Simplification.
- The projects are real; they’ll get built, but the conformity issue is critical: conforming California
Summary:
The Assembly Committee on Revenue and Taxation heard several bills focused on transit funding, veterans’ tax relief, clean energy incentives, housing development costs, and tax conformity. SB 63 would authorize a Bay Area regional sales tax measure for transit agencies facing fiscal shortfalls; supporters said it was needed to avoid major service cuts, while the California Taxpayers Association opposed it on Proposition 13/218 concerns. SB 56 would exclude veterans’ disability compensation from income calculations for the disabled veterans’ property tax exemption, and SB 296 would expand property tax relief for 100% disabled veterans and certain surviving spouses; both drew broad veterans’ support. SB 86 would extend and expand the California Alternative Energy and Advanced Transportation Financing Authority sales and use tax exemption program, including fusion energy, and SB 302 would conform state tax law to federal clean energy credit monetization provisions; both were backed by industry, labor, and clean energy advocates. SB 328 would cap Department of Toxic Substances Control fees on contaminated-soil remediation for infill and master-planned housing projects, with housing groups arguing the current fee structure can make projects infeasible. SB 711 would update California’s tax conformity date to January 1, 2025 to reduce complexity and inconsistencies with federal law, and was supported by tax professionals and business groups.
Several bills were held or sent to suspense, while others advanced with amendments. After quorum was established, SB 63 passed the committee 4-2 and SB 86, SB 302, SB 328, and SB 711 were referred to suspense, with SB 86 and SB 302 later approved out of suspense with amendments. SB 56 was held in committee, SB 296 was made a two-year bill, and SB 284 and SB 723 were held. The committee also approved a number of additional suspense-file bills, including SB 293, SB 359, SB 419, SB 587, SB 603, SB 663, SB 710, and SB 785, while SB 591 was approved with amendments and SB 353 was made a two-year bill. The hearing concluded with the committee adjournment after final roll calls and bill actions.
MN
Transcript Highlights:
- Minnesota is a static date conformity state.
- <01:18:53.520>
with tax logs will be out of Conformity with tax logs will be out of Conformity - uh Minnesota is a static date Conformity uh Minnesota is a static date Conformity State<01:18:59.440
- I'll begin with how Minnesota conformed to the TCJA.
- , choose to fully conform to all enacted federal tax laws, or conform and decouple from provisions we
MO
Missouri 2026 Regular Session
Joint Committee on Administrative Rules Jan 20th, 2026 at 02:00 pm
Joint Committee on Administrative Rules
Transcript Highlights:
- Well, and that's why I think the substantially conform language is important.
- It has to be something that caused it to substantially not conform, one.
- If the application A conforming application or B, submit a new LOI.
- It's completely dependent on what are the guidelines for substantially conform.
- Substantial conforms are in there.
VA
Transcript Highlights:
- Move the substitute, conforming it to House Bill 178, Delegate Anthony's.
- Do we have a motion to conform Senate Bill 122? Motion made and properly seconded to conform.
- I believe we would like to conform this bill. So move, Mr. Chair.
- Without objection, the substitute is adopted and conforming.
- Do we have a motion to conform, excuse me, do we have a motion to conform to this new substitute?
WY
Wyoming 2026 Regular Session
Senate Minerals, Business & Economic Development Committee, February 18, 2026
Minerals, Business & Economic Development
Transcript Highlights:
- Page nine conforming language. 10 conforming language. 11 conforming language. 12 conforming language
- <00:14:30.639>
11 <00:14:31.120>conforming 10 conforming language. 11 conforming 10 - conforming language. 11 conforming language.<00:14:33.040>
12 <00:14:33.440>conforming - 15 conforming language. 15 conforming language.
- So conforming conforming on 20 21 again.
Keywords:
stable token, liquidity, trust account, Wyoming, fund distribution, financial regulation, state commission, decentralized, nonprofit association, merger, conversion, liability, membership, governance, indemnification, banking regulation, special purpose depository institution, conversion process, Wyoming state laws, financial services
HI
Transcript Highlights:
- <00:05:08.640>
to <00:05:09.040>their conforming to their conforming to their their<00: - be conforming. be conforming.
- And so, this conformity letter was extremely clear to let us know that we are out of conformity with
- And so, this conformity letter was extremely clear to let us know that we are out of conformity with
- conformity with the unemployment conformity with the unemployment insurance<00:27:31.320>
security
Summary:
The committee first heard House Bill 2455, HD2, relating to employment practices. Testimony was limited, with support from the Hawaii State Commission on the Status of Women and UPW; the committee noted nine support, zero opposition, and zero comments. No vote was taken on this bill during the portion provided.
The committee then took up House Bill 2165, HD2, relating to the Hawaii Employment Security Law. DLIR supported the measure but requested an amendment moving language in Section 2 from subsection A to subsection C to preserve the legal structure. Members questioned DLIR about a January 8 U.S. Department of Labor letter and whether the bill would keep Hawaii in conformity with federal unemployment insurance requirements. DLIR said the federal guidance requires the state to remove the carve-out for labor-dispute claimants, though unions with hiring halls and members in good standing could still be exempt from work-search requirements under an authorized list. UNITE HERE Local 5 opposed the bill and said the current law already gives the department discretion to exempt striking workers. The committee recessed the bill before any final action was taken in the portion shown.
In the joint hearing with Commerce and Consumer Protection, the committees heard House Bill 1509, HD2, relating to workers’ compensation. DLIR supported the bill, DHER offered comments and requested an amendment, UPW supported it, and one Zoom testifier described personal experience with delayed care and urged faster decisions. After testimony, the committees voted to pass the bill with amendments. The adopted amendments restored the 7-day treatment-plan deadline from 10 days, changed the effective date to January 1, 2077, and struck the proposed $500 fine for employers who fail to respond within 10 days.
Back in the Labor and Technology agenda, the committee heard House Bill 1515, HD2, also relating to workers’ compensation, with testimony noting seven in support, one in opposition, and one comment, but no action was taken in the excerpt. The committee also heard House Bill 1514, HD2, relating to workers’ compensation vocational rehabilitation plans. A Zoom testifier opposed the bill, arguing the 120-day timeline was unrealistic for complex cases. DLIR said the bill would give the director discretion to extend the vocational rehabilitation plan timeline beyond 120 days with no cap on extensions, and the committee noted five support, four opposition, and zero comments. Finally, the committee began House Bill 2458, HD3, relating to surveillance pricing. OCP said it stood on written testimony, while supporters argued the bill would prevent corporations from using personal data to set prices, especially for groceries. Retail and grocery interests opposed the measure, saying it was too broad and could restrict loyalty programs, promotions, and discounts; one witness asked that a loyalty-program exemption be restored.
AZ
Transcript Highlights:
- Just some conforming material. Just some conforming material.
- This bill now fully conforms...
- Because I think this is going to be what conformity is.
- The fact remains this is conformity with the... ...president, the fact remains this is conformity with
- The fact remains that this is not only conformity with the federal government, it's conformity with her
Summary:
The Senate opened with prayers, the Pledge of Allegiance, a journal approval, and a series of guest introductions recognizing groups at the Capitol for Environmental Day, Women’s and Reproductive Health Day, Arizona Nurses Day, Aerospace Day, and International Mother Language Day, along with a Doctor of the Day and a judicial proclamation honoring Justice Daphne Barak-Erez. The chamber also made temporary committee appointments and referred several bills between committees before moving into Committee of the Whole and later third reading votes.
The main floor action centered on several SNAP-related bills. SB 1002, dealing with public assistance verification, passed the Committee of the Whole after a Kavanagh floor amendment and then passed third reading 17-9-13, with supporters saying it targets fraud and lowers error rates and opponents arguing it duplicates existing checks, adds bureaucracy, and could harm eligible families. SB 1331, on SNAP military employment and training, SB 1333, on SNAP error-rate audit and penalties, SB 1334, on SNAP work requirement waivers and exemptions, and SB 1368, on SNAP purchase restrictions, all advanced from Committee of the Whole and then passed third reading by the same 17-13 margin, with Democrats and some others warning they would increase hunger, burden rural and tribal communities, and restrict access, while supporters said they promote work, accountability, and healthier choices.
The Senate also considered SB 1638, a tax conformity bill. A Sundareshan floor amendment to narrow the bill to standard deduction conformity was debated at length, with supporters saying it would protect most taxpayers from filing confusion and limit revenue loss, and opponents arguing it removed other agreed-upon tax provisions and still left uncertainty. The amendment failed 17-13, the Finance Committee amendment was adopted, and SB 1638 then passed as amended. Finally, SCR 1011, a concurrent resolution calling for a federal constitutional convention on congressional term limits, received a do pass recommendation and passed the Committee of the Whole.
MN
Minnesota 2025-2026 Regular Session
House/Senate Republican Media Availability 2/27/26
Minnesota House Floor Meeting
Transcript Highlights:
- That means tax conformity.
- The question is on tax conformity, how it would hit the state budget. >> Yep.
- The question is on tax conformity, how it would hit the state budget.
- And can you talk about some conformity?
- that we need to do full tax conformity. that we need to do full tax conformity.
MN
Transcript Highlights:
- details the federal conformity details the federal conformity provisions<00:02:39.560>
and amendment is the federal conformity amendment is the federal conformity article<00:04:24.760>- the um conformity and non-conformity items that are contained in the federal conformity article.
- <00:04:37.560>
and um which detail the um conformity and um which detail the um conformity - in the federal conformity article. in the federal conformity article.
MA
Massachusetts 2025-2026 Regular Session
Joint Committee on Revenue Jun 21st, 2026 at 10:00 am
Joint Committee on Revenue
Transcript Highlights:
- He noted that Massachusetts does not conform in the same way for personal income tax, but does conform
- More recently, the Commonwealth's rushed conformity process led to revenue losses from flawed conformity
- Eight years later, you're still working to correct your incomplete conformity.
- The first piece is that eight rolling conformity states, automatic conforming states, have already acted
- And you've got a lot of static conformity states there, right?
Summary:
The Joint Committee on Revenue held a public hearing on H. 4975, Governor Healey’s bill to manage the impact of the federal “One Big Beautiful Bill” (OB3) on Massachusetts tax law and state revenues. Administration officials, led by Secretary of Administration and Finance Matt Gorowitz, said OB3 would otherwise reduce FY26 revenue by about $442 million and argued for a phased-in conformity approach that would preserve the current-year budget while still adopting selected federal business tax provisions over time. The proposal would phase in the research and experimental expenditure deduction first, delay other major corporate provisions for two years, extend the pass-through entity excise to income subject to the 4% surtax, add a one-year delay mechanism for future federal tax changes over $20 million, limit opportunity zone benefits to Massachusetts investments, and make smaller technical changes to DFML contributions and casino reporting thresholds. Committee members questioned the rationale for phasing in rather than fully decoupling, the effect on the budget if the bill did not pass, and the treatment of opportunity zones, the surtax, and future federal tax changes.
Public testimony was split. MassBudget, Progressive Massachusetts, and several labor and public-sector groups urged the committee to permanently decouple from the federal corporate tax changes rather than delay them, arguing that the bill would still send state revenue to corporate tax breaks, often for investments outside Massachusetts, and that the state should protect funding for schools, health care, human services, and other public services. The Massachusetts Society of CPAs supported the administration’s timing and the research-and-development provisions, citing filing deadlines and the importance of certainty for businesses and startups. Business and tax experts also testified that rushed conformity can create revenue losses and that the governor’s review-and-delay framework was a prudent improvement, though some said decoupling should be the default if the Legislature does not act.
Unite Here Local 26 testified against sections 3 and 4, which would raise the slot-machine jackpot reporting threshold from $1,200 to $2,000, arguing the current threshold helps with problem-gambling intervention, preserves slot attendant jobs, and generates revenue. Several union leaders, including the Massachusetts Teachers Association, AFT Massachusetts, SEIU 509, the Massachusetts Building Trades, the AFL-CIO, and 1199 SEIU, urged permanent decoupling, warning that OB3’s federal tax cuts and related spending reductions would worsen budget pressures, harm public services, and shift costs onto workers, patients, and schools. No votes were taken at the hearing.
MN
Minnesota 2025-2026 Regular Session
February 2026 State Budget and Economic Forecast Presentation - 2/27/26
Minnesota Senate Floor Meeting
Transcript Highlights:
- >> What about tax conformity? >> What about tax conformity?
- Federal tax conformity. conformity. conformity.
- That means tax conformity.
- approach conformity. approach conformity.
- <01:39:41.920>
with conformity, I think just conforming with conformity, I think just conforming
FL
Florida 2026 Regular Session
FL House Floor Session - 2026-05-12 (10:00AM Session)
Florida House Floor Meeting
Transcript Highlights:
- Members, this is a collective bargaining conforming bill.
- Members, this is a collective bargaining conforming bill that we passed February 19, 2026.
- Members, this is the retirement conforming bill that we passed February 19, 2026.
- Members, this is the retirement conforming bill that we passed February 19, 2026.
- Speaker, members, we're going to take up four Senate conforming bills.