Wisconsin Senate Bill SB564

Wisconsin 2025-2026 Regular Session

• Introduced: 10/24/25
• Refer: 10/24/25
• Report Pass: 1/27/26
• Refer: 1/29/26
• Failed: 3/23/26

Caption

An Act to repeal 238.15 (1) (b), 238.15 (1) (m) 1. a. to c. and 238.15 (3) (dm); to renumber and amend 238.15 (1) (m) 1. (intro.); to amend 238.15 (1) (Lg); to create 238.15 (1) (Lj) of the statutes; Relating to: qualified new business venture eligibility. (FE)

Impact

The potential implications of SB564 on state law are significant. By removing the in-state employment requirement, the bill could attract more businesses to seek certification and investment under the program. This shift might lead to greater economic investment across Wisconsin and enable businesses that may not meet the previous criteria to access vital funding. However, the bill also introduces a more stringent criterion for defining relocation, specifying that a business will be considered to have relocated if it moves its headquarters out of the state, raising the stakes for businesses regarding their operational commitments.

Summary

Senate Bill 564 aims to amend the eligibility criteria for certification as a qualified new business venture in Wisconsin. The bill is designed to encourage economic growth by changing the current requirements imposed by the Wisconsin Economic Development Corporation (WEDC). Traditionally, a business could be certified only if it maintained at least 51 percent of its employees in-state. This bill proposes to eliminate that requirement, potentially broadening the scope for businesses seeking certification. Additionally, the legislation seeks to increase the investment threshold from $12 million to $20 million for businesses that can qualify for tax credits under the state’s angel and seed investment programs.

Contention

Some points of contention surrounding this bill may arise regarding the balance of incentivizing business growth while ensuring that Wisconsin retains its workforce. Critics argue that eliminating the employee requirement could lead to an outflow of jobs and corporate resources while prioritizing investment over localized economic stability. Supporters, however, contend that these changes could enhance competitiveness and attract needed capital to foster innovation and development in the state.