Legislature(2019 - 2020)ADAMS ROOM 519
05/03/2019 01:30 PM House FINANCE
Note: the audio ![]()
and video ![]()
recordings are distinct records and are obtained from different sources. As such there may be key differences between the two. The audio recordings are captured by our records offices as the official record of the meeting and will have more accurate timestamps. Use the icons to switch between them.
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| HB96 | |
| HB102 | |
| HB131 | |
| Presentation: Appropriation Limit by Office of Management and Budget | |
| Recessed to the Call of the Chair: the Meeting Reconvened on Saturday, May 4, 2019 at 12:00 P.m. | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| + | HB 102 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | HB 49 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | HB 145 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| += | HB 96 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | HB 131 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
HOUSE BILL NO. 102
"An Act relating to rental vehicles; relating to
vehicle rental networks; relating to liability for
vehicle rental taxes; and providing for an effective
date."
1:45:33 PM
REPRESENTATIVE ADAM WOOL, BILL SPONSOR, introduced himself
and his staff. He indicated HB 102 was essentially a
vehicle rental bill. He provided an overview of the bill
which applied to peer-to-peer car rental companies. The
largest company, Turo, operated in Alaska. The service was
similar to Airbnb where someone rented out rooms in their
private home much like a hotel. Customers paid for a room
via a phone application. The home owner received payment
for the room rental and Airbnb received a portion of the
money. The same business model applied to car rentals and
Turo. If someone wanted to rent their private vehicle out
it would be done through a phone application. The business
model was called car sharing where a financial exchange
occurred. He liked to refer to the exchange as a rental.
Alaska's state law applied a vehicle rental tax of 10
percent. Everyone paid a rental tax when they rented a
vehicle. He explained that peer-to-peer companies were
liable for the tax. The state had been trying to obtain the
tax money from the industry. When a person rented from Avis
or Hertz they had to pay a tax. Through Turo a person did
not pay the tax. The rental company and the State of Alaska
would like to have the entities pay the vehicle rental tax.
House Bill 102 would define the vehicle rental tax as it
applied to peer-to-peer businesses. It would also have the
corporation pay the tax to the State of Alaska instead of
the renter or owner of the vehicle. The idea of the bill
was to have the application companies, like Turo, be
responsible for paying the state. He mentioned a lawsuit
between the State of Alaska and Turo because it was
difficult to know who the owners of the vehicles were. He
noted that the same kind of thing applied to cigarette tax.
A person could avoid paying taxes by ordering cigarettes
online. However, it was against state law. The state had
targeted buyers of cigarettes going after them for
cigarette taxes. Instead of the State of Alaska looking to
collect taxes from owners of cars (700 owners of cars
operated with Turo), the bill would require Turo to pay the
taxes. He noted an article in the Anchorage Daily News and
the Fairbanks paper that listed Alaska as one of the states
pursuing a vehicle rental tax. The bill would not raise or
lower the tax. Rather, if a person were to rent a vehicle
through Turo, similar to Avis or Hertz, the company would
have to pay the vehicle tax.
1:50:20 PM
Vice-Chair Johnston asked how taxes were handled through
Airbnb and VBRO. Representative Wool explained that Alaska
did not have a statewide hotel tax. It was governed by
municipalities. He was aware that in Fairbanks the owners
paid the taxes. He could not speak for other
municipalities.
Vice-Chair Johnston asked if Turo had a fleet of cars.
Representative Wool explained that Turo did not have
vehicles. The company was a technology platform. There were
some people that had multiple cars they rented out. He had
a friend that had a third car that she only rented out.
Representative Merrick read a portion of an opposition
letter from Turo:
"We urge you to consider holding this legislation
until it can be worked on in a structured reasonable
way with the most important stakeholders at the
table."
Representative Merrick asked if Turo had been at the table
regarding the bill. Representative Wool responded that Turo
had testified in another committee. The company had flown
some of their representatives from California, and some of
their legal people were on the phone. They had indicated
they wanted to work with the legislature to craft a bill.
He interpreted their attitude as wanting a rate lower than
10 percent. He was not addressing the vehicle rental tax in
Alaska, nor was he trying to do a carve-out specifically
for Turo or other companies relating to the business. He
asserted he just wanted to see the people renting a car
through Turo paying the same 10 percent tax as people who
rented cars elsewhere.
Representative Sullivan-Leonard asked whether a vehicle
owner working under the umbrella of Turo would be required
to have a limited liability corporation (LLC), a business
license or any type of license to rent out their vehicle.
Representative Wool did not write any legislation that
allowed peer-to-peer car rental to operate in Alaska. He
was certain an LLC was not necessary. He did not believe
business licensing was required.
1:54:08 PM
ASHLEY STRAUCH, STAFF, REPRESENTATIVE ADAM WOOL, responded
that a person did not have to have a business license to
register with Turo. A person could simply sign up for the
app as a car sharer which allowed someone to be able rent
their vehicle.
Representative Sullivan-Leonard thought it looked like it
was an opportunity for a small business type entity to fill
a niche where vehicles might not be available. She asked
about the price variation between a rental car agency and
Turo
Ms. Strauch responded there was a significant amount of
price variation in rental vehicles through traditional
outlets. For example, if a person were to try to get online
to Enterprise Car Rental to try to rent a vehicle, it might
be between $12 per day to greater than $100 per day
depending on the type of vehicle a person was renting, the
duration of the rental, and other factors. Generally, the
prices a person would find on such a platform as Turo would
be lower per day than the prices found through traditional
car rental platforms.
Representative Sullivan-Leonard asked if the reason for the
price difference was because traditional car rental
companies had full fleets for people to choose from as
opposed to an individual who might only have one or two
vehicles available. Ms. Strauch relayed that someone from
Enterprise Car Rental was available online to answer the
representative's question.
Co-Chair Wilson remarked that hopefully some of the
questions could be answered during the public testimony
portion of the bill.
Representative Wool commented that in the bill's previous
committee there had been a caller from Anchorage that had
used Turo to rent his Jeep. He had a 4-wheel drive Jeep
that was good on certain kinds of roads. He placed it on
Turo. The charge was $50 or $60 per day for his car to be
rented. The representative did not find the amount
particularly inexpensive. He thought it depended upon the
individual and the vehicle. He commented that the article
in the Anchorage Daily News reported that a guy that had a
BMW sportscar rented it out through Turo and managed to pay
for it.
Representative LeBon wondered that if he wanted to rent a
vehicle as an individual but did not want to go through
Turo, would he be expected to submit a 10 percent tax for
renting the vehicle. Ms. Strauch responded in the
affirmative and added it would also include individuals who
rented their vehicle through Craigslist, for example. They
would still be subject to the tax of 10 percent. However,
the tax division did not tend to have the staff to chase
down individuals through the other outlets.
Representative LeBon asked if the state was currently
expecting a remittance of a 10 percent sales tax from
individuals if they were renting their own private vehicle,
but not through a clearing house. Ms. Strauch responded
that they would still be required to pay the tax. However,
it would be difficult to enforce.
Representative LeBon commented that the state law asked
everyone who rented out their car to remit the 10 percent.
Ms. Strauch responded, "That is correct."
1:58:24 PM
Representative Josephson suggested that to get into the
transportation network companies (TNC) the state insisted
on some oversight from a regulatory stand point. He
wondered if there was anything that prohibited Turo from
acting at the outset. He wondered if they were presently
acting legally.
Representative Wool answered that there was a liability for
vehicle rental tax. The person that rented the vehicle paid
the tax. The person that owned the car, if they did not
collect it from the renter, would have to pay the tax. He
noted a lawsuit between the State of Alaska and Turo. The
point of the lawsuit was to determine who were the people
renting the cars and could the state recover its taxes. The
case stemmed from Turo not releasing the needed information
to the state. He did not believe Turo was breaking the law
by not remitting taxes. The bill would provide the state a
vehicle to recover the taxes. He thought the Department of
Revenue (DOR) might be able to add to his answer.
Representative Josephson asked if there had been an
insistence that a law was passed for companies such as Turo
to operate, similar to the TNCs.
Co-Chair Wilson asked Representative Josephson to define
TNC. Representative Josephson responded, "Transportation
Network Companies."
Representative Wool believed the requirement that TNCs had
a state law was put in only after they arrived. There was a
discrepancy with the Department of Labor and Workforce
Development when TNCs arrived in the City of Anchorage. He
did not believe there was a specific statute in place for
Turo to operate.
Ms. Strauch explained that the state was already considered
Turo to be liable to pay the 10 percent vehicle tax. They
had already started the process of trying to collect it by
asking Turo for information about the number of drivers the
company had in Alaska.
Co-Chair Wilson asked Mr. Spanos to help with the
conversation. She wondered if the state was currently
collecting taxes from vehicle rental networks.
2:01:56 PM
BRANDON SPANOS, DEPUTY DIRECTOR, TAX DIVISION, DEPARTMENT
OF REVENUE (via teleconference), restated Co-Chair Wilson's
question. He responded in the affirmative. The statute was
very broad and stated that a renting of a vehicle within
the state boundaries was a taxable event - a 10 percent
tax. The state already considered in the current statute
that the vehicle rental networks would be subject to the
tax. It specified that the individual making the vehicle
available for rent was the tax payer. For example, if an
owner of a vehicle made it available on Craigslist, they
would be responsible. In the past, the division had gone
after the individuals, particularly people who had rented
out their RV for the entire summer. There had been appeals
that had gone to the courts, and the courts had determined
that they were taxable events requiring the owners to pay
the tax. In the case where there was a peer-to-peer
network, there was a veil over the identity of the owner of
a vehicle. The division did not have the ability to
determine the owners of the vehicles. The vehicle rental
was subject to tax, but it was difficult to enforce a tax
without the ability to determine the vehicle owner.
2:03:23 PM
Co-Chair Wilson asked for a better understanding between a
peer-to-peer platform and the TNCs. She thought it sounded
as if it was already illegal not to pay the taxes.
Mr. Spanos relayed that the administration was neutral on
the bill. He reported that currently if someone listed on a
peer-to-peer network the transaction was taxable. However,
the individual owner of the vehicle was subject to the tax.
Therefore, the peer-to-peer online service, while they had
the information identifying the owner of the vehicle, they
were not breaking the law by not remitting a tax. The
statute currently did not state that the network providing
the service would collect and remit the tax - it stated the
owner of the vehicle would collect and remit the tax. The
individual should be remitting the tax. The division
researched many of the websites, most of which state that
the onus for the tax was on the owner and they needed to
know and follow the law. One of the peer-to-peer networks
testified in a previous committee that they were a business
and had insurance on the vehicles that was made available
when a rental occurred. They also took a percentage of the
rental in the transaction. If the bill were to pass, there
would be another line item where a tax would be charged to
the renter. The peer-to-peer network would collect and
remit the tax to the state.
Co-Chair Wilson thought it would be good to have the
Department of Law present at the next hearing.
Representative Josephson asked if peer-to-peer network
companies could exist legally in Alaska. Representative
Wool reported that peer-to-peer networks could operate in
Alaska. They did not require a specific statute. Ride
sharing companies, Uber and Lyft, came to Anchorage and
operated before a statute was established. However, there
was an issue with the municipality, and they were kicked
out. The Department of Labor and Workforce Development
issued a statement requiring a change in statute for them
to return to Alaska. It prompted the TNC statute that was
currently in place. He relayed that part of the ride
sharing bill included a provision that assessed a local
sales tax as a ride sharing customer. The money went to the
ride sharing who in turn submitted the corresponding tax
payment. He was trying to incorporate the same type of
provision for peer-to-peer car rentals in the bill.
2:07:59 PM
Representative Knopp spoke about working on the legislation
for TNCs. At the time of the debate he and Representative
Wool argued for local control to enable local
municipalities to collect the tax. He noted that ride
sharing involved renting both the driver and the vehicle,
whereas, peer-to peer vehicle rentals was limited only to
renting a vehicle. He thought it would be much easier to
collect the tax from the enterprise company rather than the
individual owner of the vehicle. He suggested that the law
could simply require peer-to-peer companies to release the
names of the participants and let the state collect the
taxes from individual owners. He thought the issue was
debatable. He spoke of equality between taxi services and
TNCs. He was unclear his position on the bill.
Representative Merrick asked Representative Wool to confer
that the vehicle rental tax went into the state's general
fund. Representative Wool believed the vehicle rental tax
was designated but not dedicated to certain other funds,
but he believed it went into the general fund.
Co-Chair Wilson thought the tax went to a designated fund.
It was not dedicated and could be used for any purpose.
Representative Merrick clarified that Co-Chair Wilson was
talking about the rental tax and that it did not go to a
dedicated fund. Co-Chair Wilson responded in the
affirmative.
Representative Merrick asked what the fund was typically
used for. She wondered if the funds were used for tourism.
Co-Chair Wilson explained that the fund had been used for
public safety and roads. The House intended to use it for
tourism. The Senate had made a change in the budget and she
was unsure where the rental tax funds would be spent. For
the public that was listening in, she explained that the
state constitution did not allow for dedicated funds.
Designated funds were different in that the legislature
could indicate how it wanted the funds spent but they could
be used for anything.
2:12:03 PM
Representative LeBon mentioned hearing earlier about 700
clients participating in the Turo program. He wondered how
many of the clients were remitting the 10 percent sales
tax. He wondered if the department tracked the information.
Mr. Spanos could not speak to specifics but could aggregate
information. The division had not received any taxes from
anyone operating with a peer-to-peer platform. The division
had tried to determine how many vehicles were available for
rent. There were 2 numbers provided in the previous
committee by one of the peer-to-peer networks. The first
number was 700 and in a later hearing they reported 200 or
more. He was unclear of the number. The number was between
200 and 700.
Representative LeBon asked how many individuals were
remitting 10 percent sales tax for renting out their
vehicle. Mr. Spanos clarified whether the representative
meant through a peer-to-peer car sharing network or in
general including other vehicle rental companies.
Representative LeBon provided his previous scenario in
which he listed his car for rent on craigslist or in the
newspaper. He wondered if any of those people had submitted
a tax. Mr. Spanos indicated the number was very low. Most
people submitting a payment paid a 3 percent or 5 percent
rate for an RV rental. He did not believe the state had
received any remittance for an individual. He could
investigate the number further. Representative LeBon did
not need a response. He suspected the number would be low.
Vice-Chair Johnston likened Airbnb to Uber and Lyft. She
spoke of a bed tax in the municipality of Anchorage. The
municipality collected tax from each participant of Airbnb
rather than the platform. She thought the intent of the
bill was worthy. However, her concern had to do with new
and rapidly changing technology. She asked if the bill
sponsor was open to creating a small section or subsection
for platforms similar to Turo, rather than wrapping the
idea into the regular car rental section in statute. She
suggested that ride sharing in urban areas had taken on
many different dynamics. She thought things were of a
high-intensity nature in the urban areas versus anywhere in
Alaska. She could see a platform like Turo working in the
smaller communities. She thought leaving the peer-to-peer
model in a different section of the statue would allow for
future adjustments.
Representative Wool would have to think about his answer to
her question. He relayed that in previous testimony
peer-to-peer companies alluded to being different and
needing a different rule. He had asked the companies what
they thought was so different about their model to justify
a lower tax percentage. At the time of his question, he did
not receive a satisfactory answer. He thought at the end of
the day it was a person needing to rent a car. He suggested
that both car rentals and peer-to-peer rentals had to take
care of and store their vehicles. He also did not believe
the best way to collect the tax would be by trying to
collect from individuals. He provided an example of
inefficiency by having individuals pay the tax on their
own.
Vice-Chair Johnston was uncertain whether they should pay a
lesser rate. She noted how platforms such as Airbnb had
taken off. She thought it was important to be flexible in
addressing the issue. She was unsure of how to move
forward. She did not want to lock the state into something
that would not be appropriate in 2 years.
Co-Chair Wilson added that rental companies like Enterprise
owned the cars. They were renting cars they own and should
be responsible for paying the tax. The individuals renting
their cars were currently liable for paying the tax. She
was concerned with going after an entity that was not the
owner of the vehicles. She informed members that they would
be hearing public testimony during the meeting and that she
did not intend to move the bill presently.
Representative Wool appreciated the comments from
Representative Johnston. He agreed that Enterprise owned
the cars, but Turo did not. Turo was only the technology
platform but made a significant amount of money on the
transactions, much more that the individual drivers. Turo
was working as a central clearing house for the
transactions.
Co-Chair Wilson clarified that Representative wool was
suggesting that they should be taxed because they were
making a significant amount of money, not because they were
the responsible party. Representative Wool rebutted that
the tax would be paid by the person renting the car. Turo
was just a clearing house. For example, if he rented a
vehicle from Representative Josephson. he would use his
phone to rent the vehicle through Turo's app. His credit
card would be processed through Turo. Turo would keep a
portion of the payment and send along the other portion of
funds to Representative Josephson. The transaction went
through Turo who kept a percentage of the money.
Co-Chair Wilson provided an example of using her credit
card. She wanted to make certain that the legislature was
not going after a company because of the money they made
but because they were responsible for the actions that
occurred.
2:25:09 PM
Representative Knopp wondered what would prevent a person
from becoming a rental car company simply using the
platform.
Vice-Chair Ortiz thought the sponsor of the bill was
introducing the bill to level the playing field and create
additional revenue for the state. Co-Chair Wilson clarified
that it was illegal for individuals to rent their cars out
without paying a tax. She thought the question came down to
who was paying. Vice-Chair Ortiz commented that the person
renting the car would be paying the tax. Co-Chair Wilson
commented that they were going into dangerous territory.
2:28:15 PM
Co-Chair Wilson OPENED Public Testimony.
2:28:25 PM
ROSE FELICIANO, INTERNET ASSOCIATION, SEATTLE (via
teleconference), relayed that Internet Association
represented more than 40 of the world's leading internet
companies and advanced public policy solutions that
fostered innovations, promoted economic growth, and
empowered people through a free and open internet. She
spoke in opposition to HB 102. Internet Association
appreciated the Alaska State Legislature for acting to
provide regulatory clarity for transportation network
companies and phone sharing platforms so they could
continue to operate in Alaska to the benefit of tourists
and residents. Similarly, she believed clear and fair rules
for peer-to-peer car sharing platforms would benefit the
State of Alaska. Unfortunately, HB 102 treated the
peer-to-peer vehicle sharing platform the same as a rental
car company. They were two different business models and
should not be considered the same. Most prominently, car
rental companies owned and maintained a fleet of vehicles
while peer-to-peer car shares did not. She thought HB 102
needed some work with shareholders. Internet Association
and its members were willing to figure out a solution for
appropriate regulations. She argued that categorizing and
defining a peer-to-peer car share as a car rental company
did not work. Peer-to-peer vehicle shares offered car
owners a chance to earn extra money at the owner's
convenience. She thought it provided an opportunity for
residents and tourists to have access to cars that they
would not otherwise have. Internet Association and its
members were willing to work with the bill sponsor and DOR
to try to figure out a solution.
2:31:36 PM
BRIAN ROTHERY, VICE PRESIDENT, ENTERPRISE HOLDING,
SACRAMENTO, CA (via teleconference), shared some background
information about the company. The company had operated in
Alaska since 1989 and had more than 100 employees that
lived in Alaska. They had a fleet of 1900 cars in 20
locations in the state. They recruited college students,
had a broad base of employees, and paid taxes in Alaska. He
thought the taxes reflected the company's fair share of
contributions into the economy. He continued to provide
additional information about the company's contributions to
the state. He spoke in support of HB 102. He thought it was
the right way to embrace a new source of supply into the
car rental market. He believed enacting fair rules would
result in greater choice to rental customers, more
competition in the industry, and allow car owners to make
extra money. In particular, remote locations could benefit
from increased access to transportation options. He spoke
of additional benefits. He argued that the rules for the
new source of supply should be clear to customers and
service providers.
Mr. Rothery offered that the need for rental cars was not
impacted by the ownership model for the service provider.
He suggested that the supply was also the same. From the
vantage point of the customer, the supply and the demand
were the same. His company believed that for-profit
companies competing for the same demand using the same
supply should be treated the same under the law. The source
of the supply was not material to the issues in HB 102. He
thought the bill related to the companies operating in the
space and about making sure all for-profit companies paid
their fair share.
2:36:45 PM
MICHELLE PEACOCK, VICE PRESIDENT, TURO, SAN FRANCISCO,
CALIFORNIA (via teleconference), referenced a letter
submitted to members. She explained that Turo was a
platform and a marketplace where car owners and people who
needed cars could find each other to work out an
arrangement to share a car. It was similar to eBay except
instead of buying and selling goods people were car
sharing. Turo was headquartered in California but operated
in several places in the world. Turo's customers were eager
to share cars for several reasons. First, they liked to
monetize an under used asset. Turo provided an opportunity
to cut costs for a person to own their car. It was a great
way to cover car payments. It also provided opportunities
for people looking to rent cars as well. Turo had over 850
different makes and models made available by the car owner
customers. The owner decided on the price. She relayed that
TNCs were very different as businesses from Turo. The only
thing they really had in common was a car. It was a new
idea being embraced in Alaska. Turo opposed HB 102 and
would appreciate an opportunity to work with the
legislature to craft a piece of legislation that made sense
for the state. She encouraged Alaska to put in place a
regulatory framework. The company had great experiences
working and collaborating with legislatures across the
country over the prior couple of years. Legislation
creating a framework had passed in 2018 in Maryland and,
more recently, in Indiana and Colorado. The company's goal
was to recognize what made sense for a state and for the
people of Alaska. She reported that 13 other states had put
forward similar legislation that was rejected. The trend
was collaborating with a community of peer-to-peer car
sharing companies to work out the issues.
2:43:30 PM
Representative LeBon asked about the process of applying on
Turo to list his car for sharing. Ms. Peacock explained
that a person would apply online at Turo's website and go
through a screening process. Following the steps, a person
would be allowed by Turo to list their car for sharing.
Representative LeBon continued that assuming he was
accepted as part of the clearing house, he would be added
to the group of car owners that were renting their cars
through Turo's system. He asked how many clients Turo
numbered in Alaska at present. Ms. Peacock responded that
700 customers in Alaska had listed their cars on the Turo
platform
Representative LeBon assumed Turo was present in every
state in the United States. He asked if Turo had run into
the issue in other states about who was responsible for
collecting a sales tax. He wondered if Turo remitted sales
taxes on behalf of its clients in other states. Ms. Peacock
responded in the affirmative. She noted that when the law
required Turo to collect and submit the tax on behalf of
its customers, the company did so. Presently, Maryland was
the only state that had the requirement. The legislation
which passed more recently in Indiana would also require
Turo to remit sales taxes on behalf of its clients.
Representative Merrick asked if the consumer ultimately
paid the 10 percent tax. Ms. Peacock responded in the
affirmative. The customers would pay the tax. However, she
thought it was important to draw a distinction between the
operations that a rental car company underwent to address
the tax collecting and remittance and the impacts there
would be on an individual citizen of Alaska. The main issue
was about the chilling effect that a new tax on a new kind
of business platform in Alaska would have on the growth of
the business.
2:46:34 PM
Representative Merrick wanted to hear more about the
impacts on the citizens of Alaska. She also wanted to know
if Ms. Peacock was aware that Alaska did not have a
statewide sales or income tax. Ms. Peacock was not opposed
to a tax but wanted to be included in the conversation to
figure out what would be appropriate. She brought up the
issue of certain complexities in Alaska.
Co-Chair Wilson asked if she knew the State of Alaska
charged a different rental tax to different entities. Ms.
Peacock responded that the RV industry paid a different tax
than the car rental industry. Co-Chair Wilson clarified
that there was a different RV tax and a motorcycle tax. She
wondered if Turo was comfortable with the fees if the state
was consistent. Ms. Peacock asked her to restate her
question. Co-Chair Wilson asked if Turo would be okay with
collecting taxes as long as the state was consistent.
Ms. Peacock clarified that Alaska had clearly undergone an
evaluation of other industries such as motorcycles and RVs
and determined, because they were different, they should
have a different tax rate. Turo was asking to have a
conversation about the tax rate. Turo believed the tax rate
should be less than the car rental industry. The peer-to-
peer car sharing industry had a lower impact on roads and
services and a different impact on communities than a car
rental company.
Co-Chair Wilson commented that taxes for motorcycle rentals
were lowered because of the vehicle type. She did not know
why Turo thought it should have a lower tax rate. Ms.
Peacock respectfully argued that the business was a
different business. She returned to the notion of working
collaboratively to craft legislation.
2:52:35 PM
Co-Chair Wilson CLOSED Public Testimony.
Co-Chair Wilson wanted to have the Department of Law speak
to the committee about the bill. She also wanted to look
into the recently adopted legislation in Maryland and
Indiana.
Representative Wool indicated that HB 102 also defined a
vehicle rental network modernizing some language in
statute. It also included traditional rental car companies
such as Enterprise - it would be defined as a vehicle
rental network. The direct renter of vehicles would be the
individual on Craigslist for example. He asked Turo why
they should have a discount on vehicle rental tax. He had
not heard a satisfactory answer. He suggested that no
matter the modality of purchase, it made sense for the
peer-to-peer networks to collect and pay the tax. He
thought they should be liable for the tax. Since all the
transactions went through Turo, it made sense that the
company would be responsible for submitting the tax to the
state rather than DOR searching out 700 individuals. He
relayed that the average Turo renter host had 3 vehicles.
He thought the state should be getting its fair share of
vehicle rental taxes.
Co-Chair Wilson argued that there were several more
questions to be answered prior to moving the bill out of
committee. She would not set a time for amendments.
HB 102 was HEARD and HELD in committee for further
consideration.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| HB 102 Sponsor Statement Version U.pdf |
HFIN 5/3/2019 1:30:00 PM |
HB 102 |
| HB 102. Sectional Version U.pdf |
HFIN 5/3/2019 1:30:00 PM |
HB 102 |
| HB 102.Backup Support Letter Enterprise.pdf |
HFIN 5/3/2019 1:30:00 PM |
HB 102 |
| HB 102 Public Testimony.pdf |
HFIN 5/3/2019 1:30:00 PM |
HB 102 |
| HB 96 Amendment 2 Wilson .pdf |
HFIN 5/3/2019 1:30:00 PM SHSS 2/12/2020 1:30:00 PM |
HB 96 |
| HB 96 Amendment 1 Josephson.pdf |
HFIN 5/3/2019 1:30:00 PM SHSS 2/12/2020 1:30:00 PM |
HB 96 |
| HB 102 Opposition Letter.pdf |
HFIN 5/3/2019 1:30:00 PM |
HB 102 |
| HB 131 Spending Limit Comparison.pdf |
HFIN 5/3/2019 1:30:00 PM |
HB 131 |
| HB 49 CS WORKDRAFT FINv.E.pdf |
HFIN 5/3/2019 1:30:00 PM |
HB 49 |
| HB 49 v.E CS FIN Sectional Summary.pdf |
HFIN 5/3/2019 1:30:00 PM |
HB 49 |
| HB 102 Opposition Comptia.pdf |
HFIN 5/3/2019 1:30:00 PM |
HB 102 |
| HB 49 HB 49 Public Testimony Pkt 3.pdf |
HFIN 5/3/2019 1:30:00 PM |
HB 49 |
| HB 49 Public Testimony Pkt 2.pdf |
HFIN 5/3/2019 1:30:00 PM |
HB 49 |
| HB 49 DRAFT Fiscal Note Packet.pdf |
HFIN 5/3/2019 1:30:00 PM |
HB 49 |
| HB 49 Public Testimony PKT 4.pdf |
HFIN 5/3/2019 1:30:00 PM |
HB 49 |
| HB049CS(FIN)-DPS-PT-DRAFT 05-04-19.pdf |
HFIN 5/3/2019 1:30:00 PM |
HB 49 |
| HB 49 HB 49 Public Testimony Pkt 3.pdf |
HFIN 5/3/2019 1:30:00 PM |
HB 49 |
| HB 96 Amendment 3 Knopp.pdf |
HFIN 5/3/2019 1:30:00 PM SHSS 2/12/2020 1:30:00 PM |
HB 96 |