David Cannon — Opened the meeting and explained the agenda change to focus on the new RS for tax conformity.
David Cannon — Addressed as Chairman Cannon.
David Cannon — Addressed as 'Chairman Ken,' likely a transcription error for Chairman Cannon.
David Cannon — Chair is being addressed in the exchange.
David Cannon — Chair is being addressed in the exchange.
David Cannon — Chair is part of the exchange managing the discussion.
David Cannon — Chair is managing the questioning.
David Cannon — Chair is addressed in the exchange.
David Cannon — Chair limits follow-up questioning and notes the issue can be revisited in the full public hearing.
David Cannon — Chair is addressed.
David Cannon — Chair is addressed in the disagreement.
David Cannon — Chair manages the question and recognizes the speaker.
Jeff Ehlers — Was asked if there were further questions and then invited back to his desk while the committee moved to debate the motion.
Jeff Ehlers — His analysis was cited as part of the materials Representative Gannon plans to share.
John Gannon — Was called on to ask a question.
John Gannon — Brought a handout/exhibit for his question.
John Gannon — Was asked to share the file if possible.
John Gannon — Was given the floor for a question.
John Gannon — Cited multiple fiscal estimates and questioned whether the fiscal estimate should incorporate them.
John Gannon — Asked whether the fiscal estimate would be more accurate if outside calculations were incorporated.
John Gannon — His question about blending estimates was being addressed.
John Gannon — Questions the projection and compares it with other estimates.
John Gannon — Continues questioning the fiscal estimate and compares it to other methodologies.
John Gannon — Continues pressing on the estimate and cites outside analyses.
John Gannon — Raises a follow-up after the sponsor explains the fiscal note.
John Gannon — Compares Idaho's estimate to Montana's individual-side tax collection estimate.
John Gannon — Argues that Montana's estimate suggests a higher Idaho figure and asks whether a range can be used in the fiscal note.
John Gannon — His numbers are referenced in the sponsor's calculation.
John Gannon — His prior mention of Indiana is referenced.
John Gannon — His earlier Indiana comparison is referenced.
John Gannon — His follow-up on Montana is being limited by the chair.
John Gannon — Asks whether Montana's individual estimate implies a much larger Idaho figure.
John Gannon — His comparison is disputed.
John Gannon — Returned to ask a question about the earlier statement regarding seniors.
John Gannon — Questioned the estimate that the average senior would receive $400, noting that Idaho does not tax Social Security.
John Gannon — Argued that many seniors already have substantial exemptions and may not benefit from the proposed deduction.
John Gannon — Continued arguing that many seniors would not benefit from the $6,000 deduction because of existing exemptions and deductions.
John Gannon — Was told his question bordered on argument rather than a concise question.
John Gannon — Was invited to continue debate or discussion after Representative Berch spoke.
John Gannon — Said he generally votes to introduce bills but believes the fiscal note needs significant adjustment.
John Gannon — Said he has a Tax Commission printout and additional analysis from Representative Ehlers that he believes are important to the fiscal discussion.
John Gannon — Said he would not vote to introduce the bill until he believes the fiscal note is complete.
John Gannon — Representative Gannon is identified as the member who requested to be recorded as voting nay.
Britt Raybould — Was addressed regarding whether file sharing would work.
Britt Raybould — Representative Britt Raybould asked the sponsor to provide broader context at the full hearing about the fiscal note and how it fits into the larger budget discussion, including implications for areas such as K-12 education, corrections, and health and welfare. Representative Ehlers responded that he would do his best to address that request.
Charlie Shepherd — Is called on after the exchange over the fiscal note comparison.
Charlie Shepherd — Asks why the fiscal note increases in 2027.
Charlie Shepherd — Moves to introduce RS 33142.
Vito Barbieri — Representative Vito Barbieri asks for a clearer understanding of the effects of nonconformity, specifically how it would affect accountants and individuals, before the bill comes back for further consideration.
Steve Berch — Steve Berch supported the motion and explained that the debate on this bill is being driven largely by the fiscal note rather than the bill text itself. He said it would be helpful to hear from all sides and to understand a range of possible financial impacts, since that uncertainty is central to making a good decision on the legislation.