Transcript Highlights:

• </c> a great service to Minnesota taxpayers a great service to Minnesota taxpayers who<01:37:42.719><
• If it works for taxpayers in 48 other states, it can also work for Minnesota taxpayers.
• </c><01:53:20.199><c> these</c> it provides guidance to taxpayers these it provides guidance to taxpayers
• That division has hosted 56 classes serving 5,200 taxpayers.
• </c><01:54:19.560><c> and</c> will be expensive both for taxpayers and will be expensive both for taxpayers

Keywords: 1187, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• Taxpayers need to know how to comply with our tax code.
• Taxpayers need to know how to comply with our tax code.
• Taxpayers deserve certainty.
• The taxpayers that pay the property tax would be the taxpayers that would benefit if we eliminated a
• that pay the property tax would be the taxpayers that would benefit if we eliminated a school The taxpayers

Bills: HB2143, HB2273, HB2290, HB2373, HB2784, HB2794, HB4037

Keywords: public safety, retirement system, investments, trust fund, board of trustees, financial report, income tax rebate, Pinal County, taxpayer eligibility, state revenue, financial assistance, transaction privilege tax, business location, tangible personal property, shared vehicle, sourcing, income tax, veterans, donations, tax refunds

Transcript Highlights:

• I think it's good for taxpayers.
• If we piggyback... ...this tax relief on to taxpayers and so that taxpayers can have certainty when they
• So maybe 1% or 2% of taxpayers. Mr.
• Those changes for e-file. 90% of our taxpayers, 92% roughly of our taxpayers, e-file, so it's really
• That is treating every taxpayer the same, and to treat taxpayers differently because of the way they

Keywords: 1182, all

Summary: The joint House Ways and Means and Senate Finance committees met to hear identical conformity bills, HB 2153 and SB 1106, which would align Arizona tax law with the federal Internal Revenue Code as of Jan. 1, 2026, including some retroactive provisions for tax year 2025. Staff explained that the bills would exclude three federal provisions: the higher federal SALT deduction, the new senior deduction as written in H.R. 1, and the deduction for interest on new car loans. They would instead include a $6,000 retirement-income deduction for taxpayers age 60 and older, a $6,000 Roth IRA contribution deduction, a higher dependent tax credit, and a deduction for child and dependent care expenses above the federal credit. JLBC estimated the package would reduce general fund income tax revenue by about $441.3 million in FY 2026. Members also discussed that the Department of Revenue’s forms had been issued assuming full conformity, and staff and supporters argued the bills were needed quickly to avoid confusion and amended returns during filing season. Committee members and sponsors largely framed the bills as tax relief and a way to provide certainty for taxpayers and preparers. Supporters said the package would help families, seniors, and workers, and noted that the Arizona version was negotiated to keep the overall tax relief roughly comparable to full conformity while shifting benefits away from the SALT deduction and toward child credits, retirement income, and child care. The sponsors also criticized the governor’s executive action and urged prompt passage so taxpayers would know how to file. Opponents argued the bills would reduce state revenue, worsen the budget outlook, and disproportionately benefit higher-income taxpayers and corporations. Several witnesses and members also raised concerns about the child care deduction, the retirement-income deduction, and the business expensing provisions, while supporters responded that the bill was designed to help working families and encourage saving and investment. Public testimony was mixed. The Arizona Society of Certified Public Accountants and the Arizona Free Enterprise Club supported the bills, emphasizing early conformity, filing certainty, and reduced confusion for taxpayers and software providers. Opponents included Save Our Schools Arizona, the Arizona Center for Economic Progress, Opportunity Arizona, and several individuals, who argued the package would deepen budget problems and favor the wealthy. One witness objected to a federal school-choice-related provision she said was being tied to the bill, though committee members said the measure before them was a tax conformity bill and not a school finance bill. The hearing included extended debate over the fiscal impact, the governor’s prior requests for some of the same tax changes, and whether taxpayers would need to file amended returns if the legislature later changed course. The transcript ends during testimony from NFIB, with no final committee vote or action shown in the excerpt.

Transcript Highlights:

• What this bill does is it ensures that no taxpayer dollars are used.
• mine ...utilizing taxpayer dollars.
• So to me, this isn't just about protecting private taxpayer or public taxpayer dollars.
• So to me, this isn't just about protecting private taxpayer or public taxpayer dollars.
• Private taxpayer or public taxpayer dollars. This is an expansion far beyond that.

Bills: HB3057, HB3130, HB3310, HB3314, HB3985, HB4113, HB4486

Keywords: government reporting, information technology, child welfare, environmental policy, state agency compliance, gender transition, minors, health services, punitive damages, parental rights, health care providers, purchasing, compliance, state employees, longevity pay, contract management, marijuana tax, public service impact tax, county funding, voter approval

Summary: The committee opened with prayer and then took up several bills, beginning with HB 3057, a government efficiency cleanup measure that removes more than 50 obsolete statutory report requirements. A member raised a concern that the bill might inadvertently remove language related to a child abuse response team, and the sponsor said that would be corrected before floor consideration. HB 3057 was then approved 14-0 and sent to the floor. Members then debated HB 313, which prohibits state funds from being used for gender reassignment surgeries. The sponsor said the bill is intended to ensure taxpayer dollars are not used for such procedures, while opponents argued it goes beyond funding restrictions and could affect adults, referrals, private conversations, and medical judgment. Supporters framed it as protecting children and public funds. After debate, the bill passed 16-3. The committee also approved HB 4113, clarifying that people with felony convictions regain voting rights after completing incarceration, parole, supervision, and probation, and HB 3310, the Agency Accountability and Budget Transparency Act, both by 15-0 votes. The committee next considered HB 3314, a county-option marijuana public safety impact fee allowing a 15% tax on retail marijuana sales. Questions focused on the 5% petition threshold and who should initiate the tax request, and the sponsor said he was open to changes. The bill passed 12-3. Members then debated HB 3985, which would create a private cause of action against certain large municipalities, mainly in the two largest metro areas, for failing to enforce laws related to issues such as camping, loitering, and panhandling. Opponents said it intrudes on municipal home rule and could raise constitutional issues; supporters said it would encourage cities to enforce their own laws. It also passed 12-3. Finally, the committee approved HB 4486, authorizing a Gold Star Family Memorial Monument funded by the Woody Williams Foundation, after discussion about how it fits with existing veterans memorials at the Capitol. The bill passed 14-0. The chair announced the committee would meet again on Tuesday and then adjourned.

Transcript Highlights:

• Taxpayers need to know how to comply with our tax code.
• Taxpayers deserve certainty.
• Taxpayers deserve certainty.
• The taxpayers that pay the property tax would be the taxpayers that would benefit if we eliminated a
• that pay the property tax would be the taxpayers that would benefit if we eliminated a school The taxpayers

Summary: The committee first took up House Bill 2290, which would clarify transaction privilege tax sourcing rules for tangible personal property by specifying that servers are not used to determine where an order is received and by defining business location. The sponsor and supporters argued the bill simply codifies existing origin-based treatment for Arizona businesses and provides certainty, while the League of Arizona Cities and Towns and ATRA warned it would shift revenue, create compliance problems, and potentially subject businesses to multiple tax rates depending on distribution or pickup locations. The Department of Revenue said it was neutral, noted a 2023 draft ruling had reflected a legal analysis of the issue but was never finalized, and said the bill would address a real need for clarity. After extensive debate over examples involving feed stores, Target, pizza delivery, and online orders, the committee voted 5-3 with one absent to return HB 2290 with a do pass recommendation. The committee then heard House Bill 2373, which would add a space on the individual income tax return for taxpayers to voluntarily contribute part of a refund to the Veterans Donations Fund or Veterans Service Organization Fund. The sponsor and a veterans policy advocate said the measure would give taxpayers a simple way to support veterans organizations, with examples from Colorado and local veterans projects. The bill passed unanimously, 8-0 with one absent, and was returned with a do pass recommendation. Finally, the committee considered House Bill 2143, a technical PSPRS measure that would limit the 5% ownership cap to publicly traded corporations. PSPRS representatives said the change would align the statute with its intended purpose, reduce unnecessary workarounds and legal costs, and preserve broader investment flexibility while maintaining other risk controls. Members discussed how the cap compares with ASRS and other retirement systems, and the bill was still under discussion at the end of the transcript.

Transcript Highlights:

• This bill simply prohibits the use of tax taxpayer money to hire registered lobbyists, and taxpayer-funded
• These taxpayer-funded lobbies.
• You don't have that choice as a taxpayer when they're these taxpayer-funded. lobby groups that have a
• would actually cost taxpayers more money.
• I think it's important pro taxpayer protection and it has to be a taxpayer or resident of that political

Bills: SB5, SB11, SB12, SB9, SB42, SB15, SB5, SB11, SB12, SCR1

Keywords: hemp regulation, consumable products, cannabinoids, occupational licenses, criminal offenses, SB 11, Texas attorney general, election crimes, election law enforcement, criminal prosecution, Election Code, Government Code Chapter 402, local prosecutors, county attorney, district attorney, grand jury, probable cause reports, state election offenses, voter fraud, election integrity

Transcript Highlights:

• </c> remembering that these are taxpayer remembering that these are taxpayer dollars<00:12:19.240><c>
• I'm also okay with my taxpayer money.
• Hershey's</c><00:12:57.080><c> Milk</c> taxpayer dollars buying Hershey's Milk taxpayer dollars buying
• </c><00:13:14.360><c> to</c> I think we owe it to the taxpayers to I think we owe it to the taxpayers
• 00:13:34.640><c> not</c> taxpayers Should someone who's not taxpayers Should someone who's not utilizing

Keywords: 1183, house

Transcript Highlights:

• </c> immigrants that are funded by taxpayers immigrants that are funded by taxpayers exceed<00:01:53.439
• </c> is, do we want to prioritize taxpayer is, do we want to prioritize taxpayer funded<00:02:57.040>
• And what we're seeing and taxpayers.
• So 100% payout from Minnesota taxpayers.
• </c> Minnesota taxpayers Minnesota taxpayers 100%<00:18:36.240><c> 100%</c><00:18:36.799><c> %</c><00

Keywords: 1187, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• They're looking at statutes and how to apply them to a particular taxpayer, group of taxpayers.
• A taxpayer may not claim a tax credit if the taxpayer agrees to swap donations with another taxpayer
• I'm sorry, I mean taxpayers. What taxpayers can use a tax credit program? Who can get money back?
• This isn't about which taxpayers contribute. This isn't about which taxpayers contribute.
• , taxpayers paying for the bill.

Bills: SB1042, SB1043, SB1044, SB1135, SB1136, SB1142, SB1180, SB1221, SB1252, SB1254, SCR1003

Keywords: public funds, virtual currency, bitcoin, investment, Arizona Strategic Digital Asset Reserve Act, state treasurer, retirement system, state payments, cryptocurrency, Arizona law, payment methods, government transactions, property tax, tax exemption, Arizona Revised Statutes, digital currency, workers' compensation, death benefits, burial costs, spousal compensation

Transcript Highlights:

• taxpayers taxpayers $27.7 $27.7 $27.7 million<00:08:43.159><c> as</c><00:08:43.399><c> legislators</
• These are taxpayers' money. Taxpayers have developed a program.
• These are taxpayers' money. Taxpayers have developed a program.
• These are taxpayers' money. Taxpayers have developed a program.
• But our members are indeed taxpayers in New Hampshire, and our organization is a business taxpayer.

Keywords: 1191, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• The cost of abatement is borne by the general taxpayer of the county.
• That's not good for the taxpayer, and so that's how this bill came about.
• So, you know, what's adverse to one taxpayer may not be adverse to the other taxpayer.
• And I would contend... ...you know, what's adverse to one taxpayer may not be adverse to the other taxpayer
• So there are taxpayers who pay into the system and get very little back, and then there are taxpayers

Summary: The House Ways and Means Committee considered several Senate bills dealing largely with cryptocurrency, county tax liens, and tax conformity. SB 1042 would allow state retirement systems to invest up to 10% in virtual currency holdings, and SB 1043 would let state agencies accept virtual currency payments through agreements with providers; both were described as permissive rather than mandatory and were returned with due pass recommendations on 5-3 votes. Members expressed caution about volatility and government involvement in digital assets, but supporters said the bills simply create options and could improve efficiency. The committee then took up SB 1067, which addresses county cleanup assessments for blighted properties in unincorporated areas. Chairman Olson offered an amendment removing the bill’s original mechanism for placing the assessment directly on the property tax bill, while preserving the lien so it survives a tax lien sale. County officials and the County Supervisors Association testified in support, saying counties currently absorb cleanup costs for hazardous properties and the amendment would help make counties whole without broadening property tax use. The amendment was adopted and the bill was returned with a due pass as amended recommendation on an 8-0 vote. SB 1180, on Department of Revenue tax conformity forms and instructions, prompted extended debate over whether DOR should presume conformity with federal tax changes and how to avoid an automatic tax increase without legislative action. Chairman Olson’s amendment would have DOR presume conformity only when federal changes reduce income or tax liability, while nonconformity would be presumed for increases; the sponsor said he wanted the bill to move but did not prefer the amendment. The amendment and the bill as amended both passed 5-3, with members noting the issue needed further work and clearer statutory language. SB 1221, requiring DOR to notify legislative tax chairs before new interpretations that adversely affect taxpayers and to testify if asked, also passed 5-3 after adoption of an intent-clause amendment. SB 1292, clarifying PSPRS’s 5% voting-stock cap applies to publicly traded corporations, passed unanimously, and SCR 1033, a nonbinding resolution encouraging retirement systems to monitor digital asset ETFs and report back before the next session, passed 5-3. SB 1503 was held at the sponsor’s request, and the committee adjourned at the end of the agenda.

Transcript Highlights:

• This cost of abatement is borne then by the general taxpayer of the county.
• That's not good for the taxpayer, and so that's how this bill came about.
• So, you know, what's adverse to one taxpayer may not be adverse to the other taxpayer.
• So there are taxpayers who pay into the system and get very little back, and then there are taxpayers
• So there are taxpayers who pay into the system and get very little back, and then there are taxpayers

Bills: SB1042, SB1043, SB1067, SB1180, SB1221, SB1292, SB1503, SCR1033

Keywords: public funds, virtual currency, bitcoin, investment, Arizona Strategic Digital Asset Reserve Act, state treasurer, retirement system, state payments, cryptocurrency, Arizona law, payment methods, government transactions, tax lien, property tax lien, real property tax lien, foreclosure, right of redemption, redeem, excess proceeds, county abatement lien

Transcript Highlights:

• It has multiple ways it provides guidance to taxpayers.
• These are things that all taxpayers may rely upon, unlike the private letter rulings. report of the taxpayers
• Excuse me, to relay information and positions to taxpayers.
• That alone will be expensive, both for the taxpayers and the department.
• Even taxpayers themselves will often search topics from other states.

Bills: HF2048, HF2360, HF2006, HF950, HF912, HF3140, HF2931

Keywords: individual income tax, retirement contributions, tax corrections, annuity contracts, tax year attribution, tax credit, economic development, community investment, data disclosure, Minnesota regulations, tax increment financing, municipal authority, job creation, transferred increment, public hearing, nonresident employees, income tax exemption, Minnesota taxation, employment duties, tax withholding

Transcript Highlights:

• So it’s basically a tax break that affects some but not all taxpayers.
• number of taxpayers or identify the number of taxpayers or estimate<00:32:59.519><c> it</c><00:32:59.679
• </c> Minnesota purposes for many taxpayers Minnesota purposes for many taxpayers leading<01:19:41.199
• </c><01:21:53.560><c> that</c> reduced the number of taxpayers that reduced the number of taxpayers that
• taxpayers taxpayers um<01:24:24.920><c> and</c><01:24:25.040><c> I'll</c><01:24:25.199><c> now</c><01

Keywords: 1187, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• reduces the total, and then that's what the taxpayer pays.
• . more of a clear package of taxes to a property taxpayer.
• More closely tied relationship with their taxpayers.
• But I do like the opt-in, and then the taxpayer, we'd also have a record that the taxpayer has consented
• The rest of the taxpayers don't get that.

Keywords: 908, all

Summary: The subcommittee of the Tax Reform and Relief Committee met with a quorum to begin its study of whether the content of North Dakota real estate tax statements should be revised to improve transparency. Legislative Council staff reviewed the background for the study, including House Bill 1176, current statutory requirements for tax statements, and recent changes such as separate line items for bonded debt, primary residence credit, and legacy fund-related amounts. The Tax Department then explained the current statement format and noted that the form is prescribed and approved by the tax commissioner, with changes typically driven by statute and implemented collaboratively with counties and vendors. County officials from the North Dakota Association of Counties described the full annual process for preparing budgets, setting levies, calculating taxable values, and issuing notices and tax statements. They said counties spend significant time coordinating with taxing districts, neighboring counties, and software vendors, and that the new budget hearing notices and valuation notices have not generated much public response. Members raised concerns about the usefulness and clarity of certain line items, especially the legislative tax relief calculation and the primary residence credit, and discussed whether the current statement creates confusion rather than transparency. Testimony also addressed the 3% cap, mill levy worksheets, assessment cycles, and the role of county auditors and tax directors in maintaining accurate values. The committee also heard from software vendors CPT and Tyler Technologies about how legislative changes are programmed into tax systems and how online taxpayer portals can provide more detailed breakdowns of tax bills. Vendors said changes required by law are generally absorbed in contracts rather than billed directly to counties, and they demonstrated web tools and pie-chart style breakdowns that show where tax dollars go. NDACO presented a survey of eight counties estimating tax statement preparation and mailing costs, concluding that outsourced printing tends to be cheaper on average and that total statewide tax statement costs may be roughly $600,000, though the estimate was based on limited data. No votes were taken; the meeting was informational and focused on gathering testimony and identifying issues for possible future recommendations or bill drafts.

Transcript Highlights:

• But if it is happening, then this will protect state taxpayer dollars.
• Since this is an open-ended prohibition on utilizing taxpayer dollars.
• This bill is completely contained to facilities that receive taxpayer dollars.
• taxpayer dollars.
• What it says is we're not going to utilize taxpayer dollars to do that.

Bills: HB3057, HB3130, HB3310, HB3314, HB3985, HB4113, HB4486

Keywords: government reporting, information technology, child welfare, environmental policy, state agency compliance, gender transition, minors, health services, punitive damages, parental rights, health care providers, purchasing, compliance, state employees, longevity pay, contract management, marijuana tax, public service impact tax, county funding, voter approval

Transcript Highlights:

• We're also defending other taxpayers' rights.
• Well, taxpayers.
• This is a taxpayer relief bill.
• This is a cost to the taxpayer.
• These legal costs are ultimately borne by the taxpayer.

Bills: HB1952, HB3258, HB3524, HB3851, HB4478, HB4613, HB4703, HB4742, HB4744, HB4809, HB4864

Keywords: county appraisal district, board of directors, governance, taxing units, public representation, penalty, property report, taxation, timely filing, chief appraiser, appraisal district, ad valorem tax, property appraisal, tax protests, unequal appraisal, property rights, property tax, public employees, protest leave, appraisal review board

Transcript Highlights:

• </c> they're completely funded by taxpayer they're completely funded by taxpayer dollars,<00:24:40.400
• </c><00:24:56.240><c> dollars</c> that we should spend taxpayer dollars that we should spend taxpayer
• This is taxpayer dollars a service.
• This is taxpayer dollars. You will that. This is taxpayer dollars.
• If I'm giving you more taxpayer is.

Keywords: 1183, house

Transcript Highlights:

• But there's about 300 million taxpayers in Minnesota.
• But there's about 300 million taxpayers in Minnesota.
• Do we want Minnesota taxpayer dollars to go to Minnesota kids?
• But there's about 300 million taxpayers in Minnesota.
• But there's about 300 million taxpayers in Minnesota.

Keywords: 1183, house

Summary: House Republican leaders and Speaker Melissa Hortman held a press event promoting House File 3490, which would opt Minnesota into a federal education tax credit program. They argued the bill has no state cost and would keep donations made by Minnesotans benefiting Minnesota students and schools rather than out-of-state scholarship organizations. Supporters said the funds could help with tutoring, extracurriculars, school supplies, special education-related services, learning loss, and other school needs, and they repeatedly urged Governor Tim Walz to opt in or publicly explain why he would not. Rep. Andrew Myers, the bill’s chief author, said the proposal is personal to him as a parent and legislator and described recent school budget pressures, including staff and resource cuts and larger class sizes. Rep. Ben Bakeberg, a middle school principal, said the bill could generate significant funding if many taxpayers participate and argued it could help offset school district shortfalls and the Blue Ribbon Commission. Rep. Griesbach also backed the bill, calling it a “no-brainer” and saying he would not work with the governor on other budget items unless the governor opted in. In response to questions, supporters said scholarship-granting organizations could be created by a variety of entities, including education foundations, and could support both private-school tuition and public-school-related costs such as extracurricular fees, field trips, and transportation for summer learning. They rejected the idea that the bill pits public and nonpublic schools against each other, saying it is meant to expand educational opportunity for all students. No vote or formal committee action was taken during the event; it ended with questions from reporters on the bill and other Republican priorities such as rental assistance, gas taxes, and energy costs.

Transcript Highlights:

• Both taxpayers and the department.
• :31.920><c> make</c> result, many taxpayers must make result, many taxpayers must make non-conform<00
• So our next slide is the opportunity zones. 2025, taxpayers can elect to immediately 2025, taxpayers
• </c> individual taxpayers individual taxpayers or<00:24:43.360><c> only?
• </c> Minnesota individual income taxpayers Minnesota individual income taxpayers are<00:51:00.880><c>

Keywords: 1187, senate, all