John Gannon — Representative Gannon is the person trying to access the file and offering to share it.
John Gannon — Representative Gannon resumes and begins asking about estimates.
John Gannon — Representative Gannon asks whether the fiscal estimate should be blended with other expert calculations.
John Gannon — Was responding to Representative Ehlers' fiscal note explanation.
John Gannon — Was asking whether other estimates could be incorporated into the fiscal note.
John Gannon — Referenced as the member who mentioned the higher estimate of 265.
John Gannon — Was invited to ask a follow-up question.
John Gannon — Raised Montana's estimate for individual-side tax collections and asked about including similar calculations in the fiscal note.
John Gannon — Argued that extrapolating Montana's numbers suggests a much larger Idaho impact and asked whether that can be included in the fiscal note.
John Gannon — Asked whether the fiscal note could reflect a range instead of a single 155 figure.
John Gannon — Was recognized for a follow-up question on Montana.
John Gannon — Indicated the follow-up question concerns Montana.
John Gannon — Argued that Montana's individual-only estimate implies a much larger Idaho figure.
John Gannon — Was part of the exchange over the Montana extrapolation.
John Gannon — Returns with a question about the earlier statement regarding seniors.
John Gannon — Questions the estimate that the average senior would receive $400, noting Idaho does not tax Social Security.
John Gannon — His question about seniors' tax benefit is challenged as not concise and bordering on argument.
John Gannon — The chair says his statement is more like an argument than a question.
John Gannon — Representative Ehlers says they have a different point of view and references the tax impacts of the bill.
John Gannon — The speaker is thanked and then the chair returns to Representative Gannon for further debate.
John Gannon — Says he usually votes to introduce bills but believes the fiscal note needs significant adjustment.
John Gannon — Says he will not vote to introduce the bill until the fiscal note is complete.
James Holtzclaw — Representative Ehlers defended the fiscal note as a reasonable projection, explaining that differences in estimates stem from assumptions about R&E treatment, timing of cash payments, and whether the credit is taken as a lump sum in year one. He compared the estimate with Tax Commission, federal, governor, Montana, Indiana, and GDP-based comparisons, arguing that the 155 figure sits in a defensible middle range and that House rules require a single number for budgeting. He also noted that some R&E costs are pushed into future years, which affects the 2027 bump and leaves 2026 relatively flat, and said prior corporate revenue effects may wash out. In the later exchange, he responded to questions about nonconformity by explaining that it would reduce tax benefits for Idaho individuals, including seniors, waitresses, and blue-collar workers.
Charlie Shepherd — Was recognized next for a question.
Charlie Shepherd — Asked why the fiscal note increases in 2027.
Charlie Shepherd — Asked to make a motion and moved to introduce RS 33142.
Vito Barbieri — Representative Barbieri asked for a better perspective on the effects of nonconformity and wanted that issue more fully discussed before the bill returns.
Heather Scott — The transcript appears to refer to Representative Raibould/Raybould; likely Representative Britt Raybould, who asks for broader budget context at the full hearing.
Heather Scott — Requests that Representative Ehlers provide context at the full hearing on how the fiscal note fits into broader budget discussions.
Heather Scott — The question continues, asking how the fiscal note fits into broader budget discussions.
Heather Scott — Representative Ehlers responds that he will do his best to provide the requested broader budget context.
Heather Scott — Representative Ehlers says he will work with JFAC co-chairs to look at the bigger budget picture.
Heather Scott — The chair allows Representative Ehlers to respond to Gannon's question.
Heather Scott — The chair reminds the committee to keep questions in the question period.
Heather Scott — The speaker says he has a tax commission printout and analysis from Representative Ehlers that he will share with members.
Richard Cheatum — A member identified as 'Representative Birch' says he supports the motion and wants to hear debate on the legislation.
Jason Monks — Representative Jason Monks defends the fiscal note process, referencing Joint Rule 18 and arguing that members should evaluate the bill itself rather than let the fiscal note determine its merit. He says the bill presenter is responsible for preparing the fiscal note, praises the presenter’s research, and suggests the committee has drifted too far from the fiscal note topic.
Dan Garner — Was asked whether he wanted to be recorded as voting nay.
David Cannon — Chairman Cannon is repeatedly addressed during a committee exchange about the fiscal note and related follow-up questions. He is thanked at the outset, then participates in the discussion as the chair limits the questioning to one more follow-up before moving on and asks whether the sponsor wants to respond immediately or wait for the full hearing.
John Gannon — Representative Gannon is called on for a question and has a handout distributed to the committee.
John Gannon — Representative Gannon reports difficulty opening documents on OneDrive.
Jeff Ehlers — Representative Jeff Ehlers presents RS 33142, Internal Revenue Code conformity. He introduces himself as the sponsor and explains that the proposal provides continued tax relief for Idaho individuals while also addressing changes affecting corporations. He notes that the measure has evolved since he last presented it and indicates pressure from tax preparers and CPAs to move it forward. He then concludes by offering to answer questions.
David Cannon — Representative Cannon is addressed as chairman.