Wisconsin Senate Bill SB880

Wisconsin 2025-2026 Regular Session

• Introduced: 1/23/26
• Refer: 1/23/26
• Failed: 3/23/26

Caption

An Act to renumber and amend 71.05 (6) (b) 54mn.; to amend 16.705 (1s), 41.152 (1), 71.05 (6) (b) 54. (intro.), 71.05 (6) (b) 54m. a., 71.05 (6) (b) 54m. b., 71.05 (6) (b) 54m. c., 71.05 (6) (b) 54m. d., 71.07 (5f) (a) 4., 71.07 (5f) (c) 2., 71.07 (5f) (d) 3., 71.07 (5h) (d) 2., 71.28 (5f) (a) 4., 71.28 (5f) (c) 2., 71.28 (5f) (d) 3., 71.28 (5h) (d) 2., 71.47 (5f) (a) 4., 71.47 (5f) (c) 2., 71.47 (5f) (d) 3., 71.47 (5h) (d) 2. and 71.83 (1) (a) 6. of the statutes; Relating to: who may purchase certain contractual services and technical changes to tax provisions related to qualified retirement plans and the film production services credit.

Summary

SB 880 makes a set of targeted changes to Wisconsin tax and procurement law. On the tax side, it revises the state income tax subtraction for distributions from qualified retirement plans and IRAs, including technical cleanup to the retirement-income subtraction and a new rule that a taxpayer who claims the subtraction may not also claim state income tax credits for that year or carry unused credits into later years. The bill also updates the film production tax credit and film production company investment credit by clarifying definitions and tightening the rule for excluding the two highest-paid employees when a production’s actual expenditures reach $1 million or more. The bill also expands who may act as an agent for the Department of Administration when purchasing certain contractual services involving access to federal tax information, expressly allowing the Department of Revenue to serve in that role. Several sections make conforming and technical edits to cross-references, terminology, and administration of the affected tax credits and retirement provisions. The bill was introduced in the 2025-2026 Legislature but ultimately failed to pass pursuant to Senate Joint Resolution 1.

Impact

SB 880 would amend multiple sections of Wisconsin statutes governing individual income tax subtractions, tax credit eligibility and transferability, film production tax incentives, and state procurement of sensitive contractual services. Its practical effect would be to limit taxpayers who use the retirement-income subtraction from also benefiting from state credits in the same year or through carryover, while refining the administration of film-related credits and clarifying when the two highest-paid employees may be excluded from credit calculations. It would also authorize the Department of Revenue to act as an agent for certain Department of Administration purchases involving federal tax information, affecting background-check procedures for contractors handling sensitive IRS data.

Sentiment

The bill appears largely technical and administrative in nature, with no recorded committee transcript or vote history in the provided materials to show direct debate. Based on the text, it seems designed to clean up existing law, align cross-references, and tighten eligibility rules rather than create a major new policy program. The absence of recorded opposition or support in the supplied context suggests the overall sentiment cannot be measured from discussion, though the bill’s failure to advance indicates it did not secure enough legislative support to become law.

Contention

The most likely points of contention are the retirement-income subtraction changes and the film credit revisions. Taxpayers who rely on the retirement subtraction could object to the new prohibition on claiming any state income tax credit, including carryovers, in the same or later taxable year. Film industry stakeholders could focus on the rule that excludes the two highest-paid employees from the credit calculation once actual production expenditures reach $1 million, since that may reduce the value of the incentive for larger productions. There may also be administrative interest in the provision allowing the Department of Revenue to serve as an agent for sensitive contract purchases, but no explicit objections are documented in the provided record.