John Gannon — Representative John Gannon questioned Representative Nate about the Freedom Foundation’s analysis of the bill, focusing on claimed tax savings and whether the legislation benefits businesses through research and experimentation deductions. He asked if the bill provides a benefit for research and development, noted the change to a 100% R&D deduction in 2025 compared with prior years, and followed up on whether that would especially benefit taxpayers with significant R&D expenses.
John Gannon — Representative John Gannon questioned Mr. McClure about Idaho’s conformity with federal tax law, noting that the state does not conform to many federal provisions and asking specifically about how Social Security and other federal tax definitions are treated. Mr. McClure responded by explaining that Idaho does conform to the federal definition of taxable income.
John Gannon — Asked about the SALT deduction and how much benefit it provides.
John Gannon — Requested a follow-up question after Wynn's explanation.
John Gannon — Asked whether the federal SALT deduction increase from $10,000 to $40,000 benefits Idaho.
John Gannon — Asked whether the bill's change to one-year R&E expensing is a benefit and whether Mr. Wynn was discussing something different.
John Gannon — The question from Representative Gannon is continued, asking whether the bill's R&E change is beneficial.
John Gannon — Asked about the difference between amortization changes and the R&D tax credit.
John Gannon — Asked whether the bill's 2025 change to full R&E deduction saves money.
John Gannon — Asked whether the bill's change saves money.
John Gannon — Asked Ms. Roberts to clarify the three categories of revenue reduction not included in the Tax Commission estimates.
John Gannon — John Gannon repeatedly urges the committee to scrutinize the fiscal impact of the bill before voting. He asks for the Idaho Tax Commission computation, says the committee must be certain about the bill’s fiscal effects, questions how the State Tax Commission arrived at its numbers, and notes that important factors such as SALT and charitable deduction impacts appear to be missing. Overall, he argues it is premature to support the bill without clearer and more reliable fiscal analysis.
John Gannon — Representative Gannon stated that he supports the tips and overtime provisions and is drafting a separate bill on those issues. The discussion then moved to a roll call vote, which he requested, and he was subsequently recorded as voting no.
Vito Barbieri — Asked whether corporate taxpayers deducted R&E after the Big Beautiful Bill in anticipation of not paying the full amount.
Vito Barbieri — Voted yes in the roll call.
Britt Raybould — Representative Britt Raybould questioned how the committee’s revenue-setting role fits within the current budget year and whether additional cuts would be needed. She followed up by asking about letters directing executive agencies to identify 1 to 2 percent in additional cuts for the upcoming fiscal year, continuing her broader concern about balancing revenue decisions with budget obligations.
Britt Raybould — The speaker is likely Representative Raybould, objecting to the motion and arguing the bill affects budgets.
Britt Raybould — Voted aye in the roll call.
Jon Weber — Mentioned indirectly through 'Senator Groh' as co-sponsor and JFAC co-chair; the name appears to be a transcription error and is not in the expected member list.
Jon Weber — The witness referenced a prior quote attributed to Rep. Weber about health care and Medicaid expansion and questioned whether he had changed his position.
Jon Weber — Voted yes in the roll call.
Jerald Raymond — Representative Raymond was recognized by the chair and then asked follow-up questions to the sponsor about whether back-collected revenues would be subject to interest and late fees, continuing the same line of inquiry across the consecutive transcript segments.
Jerald Raymond — Representative Raymond asked Mr. Wynn how the assumption that Idaho would conform to the tax changes affected Wynn’s business and how those effects would pass through to employees, including state employees represented in the room. The chair then noted Raymond’s light was still on and invited him to ask a follow-up, indicating the discussion was continuing on the same topic.
Jerald Raymond — A continuous exchange in which the speaker repeatedly addresses Jerald Raymond, though the transcript inconsistently renders the name as 'Representative Birch' or simply 'Representative.' The discussion remains on the same thread throughout, with no meaningful topic change, making it a single consolidated moment.
Jerald Raymond — Representative Raymond was called during roll call and responded 'Yes,' recording his vote in the ongoing roll-call sequence.
Eleanor Cheney — Eleanor Cheney is introduced as the first testifier and then invited to the podium to begin her testimony, with instructions to state her name and affiliation and a two-minute time limit.
Eleanor Cheehee — Eleanor Cheehee, representing United Women in Faith, testified in opposition to House Bill 559. She urged the committee to vote no, arguing that the bill would reduce Idaho revenue, shift costs to property taxes and supplemental levies, and worsen health-care consequences by reducing Medicaid expansion. She warned that if Medicaid expansion is cut, the working poor would rely more on emergency rooms and the Idaho Catastrophic Health Fund, shifting burdens to counties, hospitals, and taxpayers, and concluded by again asking for a no vote.
Ron Nate — Ron Nate, president of the Idaho Freedom Foundation, testified in favor of House Bill 559 and argued that Idaho should move quickly to conform to federal tax changes so taxpayers and accountants have clarity for 2025 taxes and avoid dual bookkeeping. He described the bill as containing several tax cuts for working families, but said it should fully conform to federal treatment, including research and experimentation deductions, because full conformity would save businesses money and avoid picking winners and losers. In response to questions, he said the bill does not fully conform to Section 174, estimated that full conformity would save businesses about $96 million annually, and reiterated that Idaho’s problem is spending rather than revenue. He closed by urging full application of the tax benefits and criticizing incomplete conformity.
Jason Monks — Jason Monks questioned Mr. Nate about the claim that the bill picks winners and losers, arguing that the same taxes and deductions appear to be available to all businesses. He then followed up by asking whether Idaho is simply doing things differently than the federal government rather than actually picking winners and losers.
Jason Monks — Representative Jason Monks followed up on testimony about the proposal’s impact on seniors, asking whether the seniors who would not see a benefit are simply not paying taxes now. He then ended his questioning without additional comments.
Jason Monks — He moves to send House Bill 559 to the floor with a due pass recommendation.
Jason Monks — Was recognized after Representative Shepard and given a 60-second limit.
Jason Monks — Was recognized to speak and argued that tax cuts generate more revenue through dynamic effects.
Jason Monks — Voted aye in the roll call.
Jason Monks — Vote repeated as aye in the roll call continuation.
Sally Stone — Sally Stone, a retired CPA from Boise testifying on her own behalf, argued that the Idaho State Tax Commission’s conformity estimate shows substantial revenue losses—especially from the individual income tax cuts—and said the estimate should not be relied upon. She concluded by urging the committee to vote no on HB 559, warning that the revenue impact could be worse than estimated.
Ken McClure — Ken McClure, speaking for the Idaho Society of CPAs, introduced himself and testified in support of early tax conformity so preparers can file returns during the open season. He said the bill is not ideal but should still be passed, explaining that budget constraints and the revenue impact of catch-up depreciation shaped the proposal. In response to questions, he clarified Idaho’s history of not conforming to certain federal tax provisions, such as bonus depreciation, and explained that Idaho starts with federal taxable income and then makes state-specific adjustments.
Charlie Shepherd — Asked when Idaho last failed to conform in a substantial way.
Charlie Shepherd — Charlie Shepherd questions Mr. Wynn about conflicting testimony on the bill, noting that some witnesses described it as a big corporate tax break while Wynn said it is not good for corporations. Shepherd asks Wynn to explain how the bill could be characterized both ways and what his opinion is.
Charlie Shepherd — The transcript says 'Representative Burt,' which does not match the expected member list; identity uncertain.
Charlie Shepherd — Asks whether the conformity bill is pro-business or anti-business.
Charlie Shepherd — The transcript says 'Representative Birch' and later 'Representative Shepard'; likely a mis-transcription referring to Representative Shepherd asking about the 200 emails.
Charlie Shepherd — Was recognized to speak and agreed to keep comments under 60 seconds. He argued that tax conformity estimates are uncertain and that putting money back in taxpayers' hands would generate revenue.
Charlie Shepherd — Referenced as the prior speaker whose comments about tax conformity and sales tax revenue were being continued.
Charlie Shepherd — Thanked for his earlier remarks and referenced in the response.
Charlie Shepherd — Voted yes in the roll call.
Bonnie Faf / Bonnie McKay-Faff — The chair introduced Bonnie Faf, likely Bonnie McKay-Faff, as the next testifier and invited her to come to the podium.
Bonnie McKay-Faff — Bonnie McKay-Faff testified in opposition to House Bill 559, arguing that the proposed senior deduction would help fewer than half of older adults and would provide little or no benefit to many low-income seniors. She said some seniors would not make enough income to qualify for any tax relief, while others could face difficulty keeping health care and food benefits without receiving meaningful tax relief.
Kathy Tidwell — Kathy Tidwell was introduced and then testified in opposition to rushing conformity for 2025 and House Bill 559. She said she was confused by the push to act despite the projected budget deficit and warned that conformity costs were still unclear. She urged the committee to postpone the decision until the fiscal impact was better understood and concluded by asking for a no vote on HB 559.
Valerie Slaven — Valerie Slaven testified that House Bill 559 would directly and adversely affect her as an Idaho senior citizen and taxpayer. She argued that many seniors would not qualify for the deduction because of the income threshold and Idaho’s treatment of Social Security, meaning many taxpayers would not benefit from the bill. She concluded that the legislation appears rushed, is not fully thought out, and would have an adverse impact on Idaho senior taxpayers.