Transcript Highlights:

• there paying property taxes to impose any tax.
• So, a part of this tax package again will include Section one, Earned Income Tax Credit.
• Could you tell us what the tax expenditure amount is for the foster child tax credit, Mr.
• tax policy.
• exemptions or tax, um.

Transcript Highlights:

• Yes, we are not tax-based, or we receive no tax funds. We are self-funded through our licensures.
• Yes, we are not tax-based, or we receive no tax funds. We are self-funded through our licensures.
• The key there is the tax revenue.
• Property taxes was the big one.
• tax relief issue.

Committee: Joint Legislative Audit and Fiscal Review Committee

Transcript Highlights:

• Free school keep poverty taxes down.
• </c> in Congress didn't extend a tax credit. in Congress didn't extend a tax credit.
• Property taxes are because of HR1.
• The Senate DFL did introduce last year a social media tax, which is a tax on data for those who are making
• </c> >> With regard to the budget and taxes and tax conformity, I spent a lot of time this week with

Transcript Highlights:

• we are making in the tax structure.
• We are making in the tax structure.
• So the timeline for the tax credit would continue.
• And I know what my property tax is there.
• Are not tax rates set by the counties?

Committee: House House Commerce & Economic Development Committee

Transcript Highlights:

• I'd have to ask do tax. have the number. I'd have to ask do tax.
• Do tax.
• Tax financing to claim the tax credit.
• If you are looking at lower incomes, tax credits as far as offsetting tax liability might be less tax
• If you are looking at lower incomes, tax credits as far as offsetting tax liability might be less tax

Bills: HB2241 , HB2316 , HB1566 , HB1926 , HB1673 , HB1948 , HB2602 , HB1598 , HB2334 , HB2451 , HB2243

Committee: House Energy & Environmental Protection

Summary: The committee heard testimony on a bill to expand the solar energy tax credit for single-family residential properties by removing certain cap amounts and raising the adjusted gross income limits for taxpayers to elect a refund of excess credits. The Hawaii State Energy Office and Department of Taxation both said they were standing on written testimony, while industry and advocacy groups largely supported the measure. Members questioned whether the income thresholds were set appropriately, how many taxpayers would be affected at different income levels, and how many would qualify for refundable treatment; Taxation said it did not yet have the requested numbers but was preparing a fiscal estimate. A major issue raised was drafting and administration: witnesses said the bill appears to apply differently to owner-purchased systems versus third-party leased systems, and Taxation said it likely could not easily verify household income for leased systems or cross-reference different taxpayers. Discussion also covered whether the credit should remain refundable, whether credits should be limited to amounts actually expended, and whether the bill should instead be structured to keep the credit with the system owner or lessor, with concerns about equity, market effects, and possible incentives to lease rather than buy. The committee then moved to HB 2316, which would align state restrictions on lead materials in drinking water infrastructure with federal Safe Drinking Water Act requirements. The Department of Health and other supporters testified in favor, and there were no questions from the chair. Next, HB 1566 on energy efficiency would require state agencies to use energy-efficient lighting, with the Hawaii State Energy Office providing technical assistance and a compliance survey prioritized for first responder facilities; testimony from state agencies and advocates was in support, and again there were no questions. For HB 1926 on Red Hill, the Department of Land and Natural Resources, the Board of Water Supply, and multiple organizations and individuals supported funding for remediation studies, environmental monitoring, groundwater research, independent testing, and a public dashboard, with DLNR emphasizing that decades of work remain necessary even after defueling and that the bill supports ongoing university and community partnerships. The committee then heard HB 1673 on landfill units. The Department of Health initially said it was in support but later corrected the record and stated it strongly opposes the measure, saying the bill would undo protections enacted last session that keep landfills out of areas over aquifers; the Board of Water Supply also opposed repeal of those protections, while the City and County of Honolulu supported the HD1 version that leaves siting decisions to the counties. Sierra Club of Hawaiʻi and the Energy Justice Network opposed the bill, arguing the original protections should remain and that the amended version had confused commenters; supporters of the original version urged restoring it and considering additional language on ash.

Transcript Highlights:

• And it would expand and increase the earned income tax credit and child and family tax credit, some of
• We all agree that tax credits, especially refundable tax credits, are a very effective way to alleviate
• And when they hear the word tax... [Luz Aravello] About filing a tax return.
• And if you file a tax return with even one individual taxpayer identification number as a tax filer,
• People fall in with unscrupulous tax preparers or expensive tax preparers.

Bills: H5085 , H5286

Committee: Joint Joint Committee on Children, Families and Persons with Disabilities

Transcript Highlights:

• The tax and tip interchange proposal is not a simple spreadsheet adjustment.
• Massachusetts collected $10 billion in sales and use tax last year.
• due, up to $1,000 for the tax filing period.
• It's a credit off of the sales tax that is legally due and owed to the state.
• Can Massachusetts, you know, you mentioned a state that does a tax credit.

Summary: The Special Legislative Commission on the Future of Payments and Sales Transactions by Credit Card and the Impacts for Small Business held a public hearing focused on credit card interchange fees, cashless transactions, chargebacks, fraud, and possible reforms affecting small businesses in Massachusetts. Chair Paul Feeney opened the meeting, outlined the commission’s charge, and noted that the hearing would hear from small business owners, industry representatives, and others on the effects of payment trends and proposed policy changes. Representative Sean Garballey testified first, arguing that universal card acceptance and the current interchange system are important to Massachusetts tourism and should not be disrupted ahead of a busy summer season. A large portion of the hearing featured independent restaurant owners and advocates, who said processing fees are especially burdensome because restaurants operate on very thin margins and are charged fees on sales tax and tips that are not retained as revenue. Testifiers including Jen Ziskin, Kristen Canty, Nancy Cushman, and Kerry Colzer described rising operating costs and gave examples of annual or monthly fee totals, urging relief from fees on tax and gratuity amounts. Ryan Lotz also asked for chargeback reforms, including refunding chargeback fees when merchants prevail, requiring consumers to contact businesses before disputing charges, proportional fees, and safeguards against repeat abuse. Several witnesses, including Dan Swanson, argued that states have authority to regulate aspects of the payment system and cited the Illinois litigation and federal court rulings as support for state action. Opposing testimony came from credit unions, banks, payment industry representatives, and policy groups, who warned that changing interchange rules could create compliance burdens, reduce rewards, raise account fees, and shift costs elsewhere. Witnesses such as Alex Vereen, Brad Popolado, Keely McEwen, David Montero, Hunter Hamburlin, and Luke Bondar emphasized fraud prevention, network security, consumer protections, and the need for a stable, uniform payment system. Some suggested alternatives such as vendor compensation, surcharging, instant payments, or QR pay code standards, while others argued that sales tax and tip amounts cannot easily be separated within current card-network architecture. The chairs said the commission is still exploring options, discussed possible state-level solutions, and announced plans for one more public hearing before moving toward recommendations and a report. The commission then voted to adjourn.

Transcript Highlights:

• income tax code.
• We know what tax...
• Reduce taxes on tips, reduce taxes on overtime, and increase the standard deduction and tax deductions
• A $4.40 million annual tax relief for hardworking Arizonans by passing the no tax on tips, the no tax
• No tax on tips. No tax on overtime.

Transcript Highlights:

• So what this does is create two refundable tax credits: the local news printer income tax credit and
• But it's, it's... ...tax credit bill.
• Honorable members, you know, everyone hates taxes, but a gas tax is actually as perfect a tax as you
• I'm okay with raising these taxes, not today, because I don't know what these taxes are actually going
• When is a clean fuels bill tax coming forward? Don't we have a clean fuels tax coming this summer?

Summary: The committee first heard Senate Bill 251, which would amend the Horse Racing Act to address “program owners” and “program trainers” used as fronts by suspended or unlicensed people in the racing industry. The sponsor and Racing Commission director said the bill is meant to protect the betting public, deter fraud, and give the commission stronger enforcement tools, including suspension, revocation, and fines. After brief questions about how penalties are applied and whether the standards are already reflected in statute and racing rules, the committee voted 9-0 to give the bill a due pass. Senate Bill 73 followed, requiring driver education schools to teach at least three hours on vulnerable road users such as pedestrians and bicyclists, beginning in 2027. Supporters, including local officials and advocacy groups, said the bill would improve public safety and help new drivers understand the rights and responsibilities of people outside vehicles. Committee members discussed existing driver-ed content, the definition of vulnerable road users, and whether the bill would replace any current instruction; sponsors said it would set a statewide minimum without crowding out existing curriculum. The committee approved the bill on a 9-1 due pass vote. The committee then considered Senate Bill 111, an agency bill to expand confidential personal information under the Motor Vehicle Code to include sex, gender, national origin, and immigration status. The sponsor and Tax and Revenue officials said the change would protect sensitive records in MVD files from disclosure except in limited circumstances. With no public opposition, the committee passed the bill 6-4. Senate Bill 150, creating refundable tax credits to support local newspaper printing operations, drew broad support from newspaper and business representatives who said the credits would help preserve local news and printing capacity amid plant closures and rising costs. Some members raised technical and oversight questions, but the committee voted 9-1 to advance it. Later, the committee heard Senate Bill 172, a committee substitute extending a gross receipts tax credit tied to national lab technology transfer and commercialization. Supporters from the labs, economic development groups, and chambers of commerce said it helps move research into New Mexico businesses and supports job creation; the committee adopted the committee substitute and advanced it. Senate Bill 76, which would raise the gasoline and special fuel taxes to fund road maintenance, generated extensive debate over infrastructure needs, affordability, and whether a broader transportation funding plan should be developed first. Supporters argued the state’s road backlog and maintenance needs justify the increase, while opponents cited consumer costs and the need for more study; the bill passed 6-4. The final bill, Senate Bill 235, would regulate large microgrids and data centers by requiring renewable energy use, PRC oversight, annual reporting, and limits on rate shifting. Supporters said it would protect air quality, water, and utility customers, while opponents warned it would add burdens and discourage investment; the committee heard extensive testimony but the transcript ends before a final vote is shown.

Transcript Highlights:

• is imposed by a taxing unit if the office of the collector for the taxing unit is closed on the delinquency
• AG 4648 by and ruling the appeal of ad valorem taxes in certain state and local taxes in the enactment
• Thank you. property for out of alarm tax purposes or for the subcommittee of property tax appraisals.
• a tax.
• the tax reported to the application of the taxpayer payments to the taxes, penalties, and interest for

Bills: HB9 , HB22 , HB908 , HB1392

Transcript Highlights:

• home or an additional rental property and give them that tax... ...benefit, and they see that tax benefit
• But remember that whenever we do make modifications to the property tax system, that it's a tax shift
• This would apply to tourist development taxes and local option taxes, except when those taxes have been
• of the local option taxes.
• The voters aren't paying this tax.

Summary: The committee took up several claims bills first and reported both favorably without debate. SB 20, relating to relief of J.N., a minor, would pay the remaining $400,000 of a $600,000 settlement after an 11-year-old was injured on a Hillsborough County sidewalk with a known defect; SB 14, relating to the estate of Pineal Januier, would authorize payment of the remaining $1.7 million of a $2 million settlement after a drowning at a Miami Beach youth center pool. Both bills were supported by the sponsors and the Senate Special Master’s favorable recommendations, and both passed on roll call votes. The committee then considered SJR 1510 and its implementing bill, SB 1512, both by Senator Avila, which would create a new property tax benefit for owners who lease a non-homestead residential property for more than six months in order to encourage more affordable rental housing. Local governments, the Florida League of Cities, and the Florida Association of Counties opposed the proposal, warning of major revenue losses, impacts on public safety and services, and uncertainty for local budgets; several senators also questioned whether landlords would pass savings on to renters and whether the measure would worsen density and parking issues. Despite the opposition, both measures were reported favorably after the sponsor said the bills would be refined and revised. SB 674, by Senator Wright, was reported favorably with support from property appraisers who said it would let them budget and pay hiring or retention bonuses, similar to authority already given to tax collectors, to help compete for specialized staff. CS for CS SB 268, by Senator Jones, also passed after an amendment adding congressional members; the bill would create a public-records exemption for certain home-address information for elected officials, and debate centered on balancing transparency with safety after members described death threats and harassment. The committee then approved SB 100, by Senator Fine, which would bar government buildings from displaying flags representing political viewpoints and allow active or retired military or National Guard members to use reasonable force to stop desecration of the U.S. flag; the bill drew extensive opposition from transparency, civil rights, and LGBTQ advocates who argued it was vague, unconstitutional, and aimed at pride flags, while supporters said government should not endorse political messages. Finally, CS for SB 1664, by Senator Trumbull, was reported favorably after a strike-all amendment. The bill would require voter reapproval every eight years for certain local discretionary taxes, including tourist development taxes and some local option taxes, unless pledged to revenue bonds. Cities, counties, tourism groups, and the lodging industry opposed it, saying the measure would create uncertainty, threaten tourism marketing and beach restoration funding, and make long-term infrastructure and debt planning difficult. Senator Trumbull argued the proposal simply gives voters a recurring chance to decide whether they still support the taxes and the projects they fund.

Transcript Highlights:

• My question is about sales tax. What in the law, if anything, limits local sales tax?
• Sales tax 2% limit.
• I pay almost 12% in sales tax.
• Senator, I seem to recall in 2013 when we started cutting the income tax rate, that the income tax rate
• I understand why lowering taxes is a goal of people. I do. I want to pay lower taxes.

Summary: The Senate convened, took leave requests, heard prayer and the Pledge of Allegiance, and then moved into the morning business agenda. Senator Irvin announced a Hunger Caucus fundraiser, Serving Up Solutions, and invited members to sign up to wait tables. The chamber then took up Senate Bill 1, which would reduce income tax rates for individuals, trusts, estates, and corporations, continuing a series of tax cuts begun in 2013. Senator Dismang presented the bill, explaining that it would lower the top individual rate from 3.9% to 3.7% effective January 1, 2026, and reduce the corporate rate to 4.1% starting next year. In questions, senators discussed local sales tax limits, the impact of the cut on funding for Medicaid, education, and educational freedom accounts, and whether federal fiscal uncertainty should affect the state’s decision. Supporters argued Arkansas’s conservative budgeting and reserve set-asides made the cut sustainable and that returning money to taxpayers was the best use of surplus funds. Senators Tucker and Leding spoke against the bill, saying the state should prioritize early childhood education, health care, maternal health, and public schools over tax cuts, and that the reduction would mainly provide small benefits to most taxpayers while reducing resources for other needs. Senator McKee spoke in favor, arguing the money should be returned to the people who earned it. The Senate then passed Senate Bill 1 by a vote of 29 yeas to 6 nays and transmitted it to the House. After the vote, members were told the Revenue and Taxation Committee would meet after House adjournment if the House version of the tax bill was transmitted. The Senate then announced it would adjourn subject to clearing the desk and reading a House bill across, with the body set to reconvene the next day.

Transcript Highlights:

• And my question is about sales tax.” “What in the law, if anything, limits local sales tax?
• Would we come back and try to raise taxes?”
• Senator, I seem to recall in 2013 when we started cutting the income tax rate, that the income tax rate
• I understand why lowering taxes is a goal of people. I do want to pay lower taxes.
• rate has, their effective tax rate has decreased by 45% since 2013.

Transcript Highlights:

• </c> this bill does not raise taxes. this bill does not raise taxes.
• </c> the corporate tax structure statewide. the corporate tax structure statewide.
• I think it will make our a film tax<00:56:18.880><c> credit</c> tax credit tax credit more more more
• </c> tax or that the collection of the tax tax or that the collection of the tax will<01:08:18.960><c
• </c> in state and local tax revenue. in state and local tax revenue.

Committee: Senate Taxes

Transcript Highlights:

• credits and tax-exempt bonds.
• And those are that tax-exempt bond and low-income housing tax credit allocation is generally resources
• And those are that tax-exempt bond and low-income housing tax credit allocation is generally resources
• ><c> to</c><01:27:46.239><c> go</c><01:27:46.360><c> down</c> tax rate to go down tax rate to go down
• So, tax rates are uniform across jurisdictions, but commercial properties are often taxed at a higher

Committee: Senate Commerce

Transcript Highlights:

• The Special Committee on Property Tax Reform will now come to order.
• a bond or an issue as being no tax increase bond measure.
• And right now it's in the Senate Select Committee on Property Taxes and the State Tax Commission.
• And right now it's in the Senate Select Committee on Property Taxes and the State Tax Commission.
• It's a 90% tax abatement, and my concern comes from the fact that if cities are able to give tax abatements

Committee: House Special Committee on Property Tax Reform

Summary: The Special Committee on Property Tax Reform met in executive session with a quorum present and took up a House Committee substitute for Senate Substitute for Senate Committee Substitute for Senate Bills 1066 and 1088. Members discussed several amendments that bundled multiple property tax provisions, including clarification of the 15% commercial ownership threshold, school levy language, senior property tax freeze language, no-tax-increase bond wording, ballot language requirements, and a severability clause. One proposed amendment to preserve a comparison to a single-rate calculation in the auditor’s multi-rate tax form drew extended discussion about whether the current siloing approach could reduce projected revenue for taxing districts; the sponsor ultimately withdrew that amendment after noting the issue would need further study. The committee then adopted another amendment shortening ballot language requirements, and later adopted the underlying committee amendment and rolled the changes into a new substitute. Members also discussed a tax abatement provision added to the bill, with concerns raised that large abatements, such as those tied to a data center project, could affect levy calculations; supporters argued the language would apply to cities and counties rather than school districts. After debate, the committee voted to adopt the substitute and then voted the House Committee substitute for the Senate substitute for Senate Committee Substitute for Senate Bills 1066 and 1088 do pass by a roll call vote of 11 ayes and 5 noes. The committee then adjourned.

Transcript Highlights:

• , and excludes travel vans from the tax.
• There's no RTA tax in other Washington counties.
• plus $1,342 RTA excise tax, so that total of taxes are...
• plus thirteen hundred and forty two dollars RTA excise tax so that total of taxes are $2.RTA excise
• tax.

Summary: The committee held public hearings on three transportation-related bills on February 2nd. House Bill 2305 would exempt travel vans from the motor vehicle excise tax by distinguishing them from motor homes; staff said the Department of Revenue saw no fiscal impact, while the Department of Licensing estimated a $129,000 one-time system update cost and an indeterminate revenue impact. Representative Keaton sponsored the bill, and the lone testifier, Dennis Rhodes, argued that travel vans should not be taxed like motor homes and said the current tax unfairly applies to accessories and interior build-outs. House Bill 2601 would create a new motorcycle weight-fee category with a $15 fee instead of the current $35 fee. Staff estimated about 190,000 annual transactions and roughly $3.8 million per year in lost revenue to multimodal transportation accounts, plus about $20,000 in Department of Licensing programming costs. Representative Richards described the bill as a fairness issue for riders, and the only testifier, Larry Walker of ABATE of Washington, supported the measure as more equitable because motorcycles do not weigh anywhere near 4,000 pounds and the implementation date would give the state time to adjust. House Bill 2604 would remove notarization requirements for certain vehicle title-transfer documents used when an insurer totals a vehicle, allowing electronic or printed signatures for those limited transactions. Staff reported no fiscal impact from the Office of the Insurance Commissioner or the Department of Licensing. Representative Richards said the bill would reduce burdens on people in rural areas and others without easy access to notaries or transit, and testimony from Copart representatives and Robert Foley supported the bill as a consumer-friendly way to speed title processing and payment after total-loss claims. After closing public testimony on the last bill, the committee adjourned and moved to caucuses.

Transcript Highlights:

• So that's able to apply for this tax.
• certificate exempting them from paying property taxes.
• So, we paying property taxes in Alabama.
• paying property taxes they still include<00:18:35.520><c> property</c><00:18:35.840><c> taxes</c><00:
• They take that to the loan taxes.

Bills: HB131 , HB77 , HB131 , HB77

Committee: House Military and Veterans Affairs

Keywords: Alabama Board of Athletic Trainers, diversity, government oversight, Sunset Law, congressional districts, HB77, absentee voting, absentee ballot, disabled voter, disability accommodation, voter assistance, ballot delivery, ballot application, designee, caregiver, election manager, vote by mail, mail ballot, ballot harvesting, voter access

Transcript Highlights:

• tax liability.
• There is a new software tax increase, there's a new MCO tax increase, and the concern for me is if we're
• On the MCO tax, I just want to point out that that's not a new tax, that that is an existing tax that
• that expands our sales tax base, also the cap on corporate tax breaks, and especially the proposal for
• Supporting corporate health care coverage, tax credit limitations, and digital software sales tax changes

Summary: The Assembly Budget Committee met to consider the 2026 Budget Act, which leaders said was the negotiated compromise with the Senate and was expected to move to the floor that evening. Opening remarks emphasized that the plan balances the budget over two years, reduces the structural deficit, and builds reserves, while also protecting core services in the face of federal cuts. Jason Sisney outlined the legislative budget framework and the likely floor bills, including AB 109, SB 110, SB 122, and SB 125. Department of Finance representative Eric Khali said the administration appreciated the two-year balanced approach and supported the modification in SB 122, while noting the package uses additional revenues and new spending to soften or reject some proposed cuts. Most of the discussion focused on major spending areas. Members and subcommittee chairs highlighted protections and additions for health care and human services, including rejecting the proposed Medi-Cal asset limit change, delaying premium increases, restoring clinic and dental funding, supporting distressed hospitals and county indigent care, and expanding county eligibility staffing to handle H.R. 1-related workload. Education members described record or expanded support for TK-12 schools, child care, special education, community colleges, teacher recruitment, and higher education, including a change to extend Cal Grant eligibility to age 30 for some community college students. Housing and homelessness funding was increased for HAP, multifamily housing, and the low-income housing tax credit, while public safety members pointed to investments in victims’ services, restorative justice, and prison closure savings. Several members also raised concerns or priorities tied to the budget deal. Some praised the package as a moral document that protects vulnerable Californians, immigrant communities, LGBTQ residents, seniors, and people with disabilities. Others noted unresolved issues, including the MCO tax’s impact on districts, the need for more support for local journalism, arts, biotech R&D incentives, transit and GGRF-related concerns, and the need for continued work on Prop. 98 and long-term fiscal resilience. The vice chair cautioned that despite the current progress, the state remains vulnerable to revenue volatility and warned that the budget should build more resilience against a possible downturn. No formal vote was taken in the portion provided, but the committee was preparing the budget package for floor action and final negotiations.

Transcript Highlights:

• And that's why we put it in the child care tax credit.
• have to amend their returns at some point or pay a lot more tax.
• to do amended tax returns.
• No tax on tips. No tax. And so if you look at Chairman Olson's bill, you will see those in there.
• When it comes to tax. Madam Whip, Mr.

Summary: The caucus focused on HB 2153, a tax conformity bill that would align Arizona tax law with the Internal Revenue Code as of January 1, 2026, including retroactive provisions for tax year 2025. Staff explained that the bill excludes three federal provisions: the additional $6,000 senior deduction, the higher SALT deduction, and the deduction for interest on new car loans. It also adds several Arizona-specific changes, including a $6,000 deduction for certain retirement distributions for taxpayers 65 and 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 estimated a negative fiscal impact of $441.3 million in the first year, declining over the next two years. Chairman Livingston 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. He said the governor’s earlier direction and the department’s forms were not coordinated with the legislature’s approach, and warned taxpayers and businesses not to file until the issue was resolved. He also said the bill would help small businesses by preventing mismatched state and federal rules, especially on deductions and vehicle expensing, and emphasized that many Arizona businesses would otherwise face two sets of books. Members asked about the practical impact on small businesses and the department’s forms. Livingston and staff said Arizona has about 700,000 small businesses, most with 19 or fewer employees, and that the department’s forms largely reflected full conformity except for a worksheet tied to the governor’s requested changes. Staff explained the difference between “simple conformity” and “full conformity,” noting that some federal provisions occur “below the line” and require explicit state law. The committee also discussed the child care provisions as a new Arizona deduction and a separate increase in the child care credit. No vote was taken, and the meeting adjourned before floor session.