Video & Transcript Research : 'S corporation'

Page 1 of 407
MN

Minnesota 2025-2026 Regular Session

House Taxes Committee 3/13/25

Taxes

Transcript Highlights:
  • Simply put, this bill is a stimulus not to big corporations but to the middle and working classes at
  • Simply put, this bill is a stimulus not to big corporations but to the middle and working classes at
  • Simply put, this bill is a stimulus not to big corporations but to the middle and working classes at
  • areas or whether they live down here today, it happens to be my five-year anniversary of surviving Corporate
  • > The people that live and work and want to stay in this community, resorts are one of the few corporations
MN

Minnesota 2025 1st Special Session

House Judiciary Finance and Civil Law Committee 2/25/25

Judiciary Finance and Civil Law

Transcript Highlights:
  • <00:01:43.880> law process within the uh corporate law process within the uh corporate law
  • <00:01:51.079> act in the model business corporations act in the model business corporations
  • <00:01:55.040> law leading jurisdiction for corporate law leading jurisdiction for corporate
  • Like, this is corporate law. I don't trust corporate corporations or their lawyers, you know.
  • corporate law I don't trust corporate corporate law I don't trust corporate corporations<00:15:13.120
Bills: HF747, HF360
MN

Minnesota 2025-2026 Regular Session

House Taxes Committee 3/11/26

Taxes

Transcript Highlights:
  • And so, expensive corporate tax breaks.
  • tax breaks, which result in many corporations, the largest, most profitable corporations in our country
  • And this seems, in her view of it, to just accrue to the large wealthy corporations.
  • And I the large wealthy corporations.
  • multinational multi-state corporations multinational multi-state corporations in<01:26:10.719>
VT

Vermont 2025-2026 Regular Session

House Caucus of the Whole - 2025-05-16 - 11:35AM

Vermont House Floor Meeting

US
Transcript Highlights:
  • Today, we gather together. consider S-331, the Halt All Lethal Trafficking and Fentanyl Act, also known
Bills: SB331
Summary: In this committee meeting, the focus was primarily on S-331, the Halt All Lethal Trafficking and Fentanyl Act, aimed at addressing the fentanyl crisis. The bill's key components include making permanent the class scheduling of fentanyl-related substances, confirming existing sentencing penalties, and easing registration requirements for scientific research on Schedule I substances. Numerous parents shared heartbreaking testimonies about their losses due to fentanyl, which fueled an urgent call to pass the legislation without alterations. The committee members engaged in passionate discussions highlighting the urgency of the situation as overdoses continue to claim American lives.
KY
Transcript Highlights:
  • system that is in use here in the Commonwealth is manufactured in Austin, Texas, nearby our actual corporate
  • nearby<01:16:14.640> our<01:16:15.199> actual<01:16:16.080> um,<01:16:16.640> corporate
  • nearby our actual um, corporate nearby our actual um, corporate facility.
  • I'd like to talk to you just a few moments about corporate security. of the two accredited independent
  • just a few I'd like to talk to you just a few moments<01:19:28.000> about<01:19:28.239> corporate
Summary: The committee met to approve the October 21 minutes and then took up BR 25 for the 2026 regular session, a proposal relating to prohibited uses of tax dollars and public resources. The sponsors said the bill is intended to strengthen existing law by adding civil and criminal penalties for taxpayer-funded advocacy on ballot questions, especially in light of controversies during the 2024 election over school officials and districts using public resources to oppose a constitutional amendment. They also described related concerns about school districts hiring third-party lobbyists and public relations firms, particularly in Fayette County, and said the proposal was meant to keep tax dollars focused on public services rather than political persuasion. Committee members raised several concerns about scope and drafting. Some asked whether the bill should specifically mention schools, school boards, and school employees, and the sponsors said they would add that language. Others questioned whether the measure would also affect local government lobbying through groups like KLC and KCO, and the sponsors said they intended to focus narrowly on schools while exempting certain advocacy organizations and internal government lobbyists. Members also asked whether public employees could still speak as private individuals, and the sponsors said yes. Several members suggested splitting the lobbying and ballot-advocacy issues into separate bills, and the sponsors said they would consider that. Members also pressed for clarification on how the bill would apply in practice, including whether it would cover legal challenges to petition drives or only advocacy after a question is on the ballot. Counsel for the sponsors said the bill would not cover some petition-related litigation as drafted, though they believed it should. The sponsors and supporters argued the proposal was needed to give the existing prohibition real enforcement, while some members warned that the language could unintentionally limit legitimate public representation or be too broad if not carefully drafted. No final vote was taken during the discussion.
KY
Transcript Highlights:
  • About a third of Kentucky voters cast their ballots using ES&S technology.
  • ES&S designs and manufactures purpose-built voting equipment.
  • The ES&S supply chain is one of the most extensive in the elections industry.
  • nearby our actual um, corporate nearby our actual um, corporate facility, I<01:16:24.960> think
  • I'd like to talk to you just a few moments about corporate security.
Summary: The committee met, approved the October 21 minutes, and then took up BR 25 for the 2026 regular session, a proposal to prohibit the use of tax dollars and public resources to advocate for or against ballot questions, including constitutional amendments. Senator Rawlings and the other presenters argued the current law already bars such advocacy but lacks meaningful enforcement, citing the 2024 school choice amendment campaign and other examples where public officials and school systems allegedly used taxpayer-funded resources to influence voters. They said the bill would add civil and criminal penalties, while preserving First Amendment rights for public employees acting in their personal capacities. Much of the discussion focused on whether the bill should be limited to school districts or broadened to cover other public entities, and on how to define terms such as “advocating in impartial terms.” Members raised concerns about possible effects on county and city lobbying through groups like KLC and KCO, on legitimate factual explanations by public officials, and on whether the bill could unintentionally restrict needed representation for local governments. The sponsors said the measure was intended to be narrow, would be vetted further, and would not bar individuals from speaking on their own behalf. Several members suggested revisions. Representative Lockett asked that schools and school employees be specifically named, and suggested separating the lobbying restrictions from the ballot-measure provisions into different bills. Representative Layman questioned the meaning of the bill’s language and whether it would cover factual testimony by officials. Representative Heen asked about a Jefferson County example involving legal fees used to challenge petition signatures; counsel said that situation would likely be allowable under the bill as drafted, though some members thought it should be covered. No final vote was taken on BR 25 during this discussion.
MN

Minnesota 2025-2026 Regular Session

House Workforce, Labor, and Economic Development Finance and Policy Committee 3/18/26

Workforce, Labor, and Economic Development Finance and Policy

Transcript Highlights:
  • /c><00:01:46.360> corp um S corp um S corp corporations. corporations. corporations.
  • 100% S corporation owner paying me how a 100% S corporation owner paying him<00:01:54.480> or<
  • I am an S corporation.
  • I'm very proud of I am an S corporation.
  • You don't represent every S corporation in Minnesota.
KY
Transcript Highlights:
  • <00:03:29.280> program Skills Training Corporation program Skills Training Corporation program
  • Um, it's an independent<00:03:59.280> corporation independent corporation independent corporation
  • , Bluegrass State Skills Corporation, Bluegrass State Skills Corporation, there<00:05:04.880>
  • So how the corporation is funded: grant in aid is a cash reimbursement grant.
  • noted um the Kentucky Racing Corporation noted um the Kentucky Racing Corporation has<00:46:33.520
Summary: The meeting began with a quorum call and approval of the August 21 minutes. The main presentation was from the Kentucky Cabinet for Economic Development on the Bluegrass State Skills Corporation (BSSC), which was created in 1984 and is administratively tied to the cabinet. Staff explained that BSSC supports workforce training for companies in Kentucky through two main programs: the grant-in-aid reimbursement program and the skills training investment tax credit. They also described the board’s structure, quarterly meetings, annual audit, and the metropolitan tax credit tied to UPS in Louisville, along with public-private training consortia supported by the program. The cabinet outlined eligibility and funding rules: applicants must be qualified companies, trainees must be full-time Kentucky residents meeting wage requirements, and eligible training includes in-house company-specific training, train-the-trainer efforts, safety/OSHA training, and outside training through KCTCS or other providers. Grant-in-aid is a 50% reimbursement program capped at $75,000 per company per fiscal year and $2,000 per trainee, while the tax credit is capped annually and is awarded on a first-come, first-served basis. Applications are scored based on county tier, wages, workforce development activity, veteran hiring, participation in consortia, and job growth. Members asked for data on trainees and industries served, and staff said they could provide it. They also discussed coordination with other workforce programs, especially KCTCS and the state’s TRAIN program, to avoid overlap and double dipping. Several members asked about program usage and differences between fiscal years. Staff said the tax credit is less popular because it is not refundable and requires tax liability, while grant-in-aid is more attractive because it is cash reimbursement. They said lower or delayed spending in some years can reflect one-year training windows, reimbursement lag, new facilities ramping up, consortia activity, and special allocations such as those tied to Ford facilities. Questions also covered support for new businesses, which staff said can receive favorable scoring for new jobs and may have funds set aside for new location projects. On veterans, staff said they connect companies to Kentucky Valor and other resources, but the program does not track veteran retention outcomes. The final discussion was on a draft bill related to the Kentucky Horse Park and the U.S. Center for SafeSport. Representative Vanessa Gracel and Kentucky Horse Park President Lee Carter explained that the proposal is intended to help the park maintain integrity and protect athletes, volunteers, coaches, trainers, and guests from abuse and misconduct. They described SafeSport’s federal role in Olympic and Paralympic sports and said they hope to move the draft forward as legislation in 2026. No votes were taken on the BSSC presentation or the horse park discussion.