Legislature(2015 - 2016)GRUENBERG 120
03/08/2016 10:00 AM House FISHERIES
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 | |
| HB251 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| += | HB 251 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED |
HB 251-ELECTRONIC TAX RETURNS & FISHERIES TAXES
10:06:56 AM
CHAIR STUTES announced that the only order of business would be
HOUSE BILL NO. 251, "An Act requiring the electronic submission
of a tax return or report with the Department of Revenue;
relating to fisheries business tax and fishery resource landing
tax; relating to refunds to local governments; and providing for
an effective date."
CHAIR STUTES opened public testimony.
10:08:06 AM
PAUL DALE, Owner, Snug Harbor Seafoods, stated opposition to HB
251, but stated support for taxes as a necessary part of funding
a civilized life. Taxes are an obligation to be met, he opined,
and said the fishing industry has, and will continue, to pay its
way as in Alaska; however, in this case it appears to be
excessive. He referred to the committee packet and a document
headed, "Pacific Seafood Processors Association, Ocean Beauty
Seafoods, Icicle Seafoods Position on HB 251" ("4-4-4-4
proposal"), undated, which presents an untitled chart with four
column headings, and four row headings. The chart is to
indicate the existing taxes, the proposed taxes under HB 251,
the taxes proposed by the collaborating seafood processors, and
the resulting percentage of revenue stream to the government.
He said the 4-4-4-4 proposal appears to even out the various
business taxes between shore based and floating processors. He
said he concurs with the proposal, save one point, and opined
that the two percent differential between the shore based and
floating processors should be retained. The long standing view
that Alaskan communities accrue greater benefits from shore
based facilities continues to hold true and these facilities
should be encouraged. He offered support for testimony provided
at previous hearings that proposed alternative cost saving
measures, which included: streamlining information
requirements, reporting, and data sharing between ADF&G and DOR;
the need to decrease the levels of foregone harvest; and closing
various loopholes that could increase fishery values to the
state.
10:11:59 AM
The committee took an at-ease from 10:11 a.m. to 10:12 a.m.
10:12:56 AM
FRED STURMAN, Fisherman, stated opposition to HB 251, and cited
excessive state salaries, which he stressed should be reduced by
30 percent. He opined on the ethics and fairness of requiring
industry cuts and taxes, without first implementing a reduction
in the number of state positions or salaries, and provided
examples to illustrate his stance, including recent actions
taken by the oil industry.
10:16:56 AM
ARNI THOMPSON, Consultant, Alaska Salmon Alliance (ASA),
commented on HB 251, paraphrasing from a prepared statement,
which read as follows [original punctuation provided]:
ASA is pleased with your open and comprehensive
approach to new revenues being proposed for not only
fisheries but other resource taxes. ASA is also
pleased that you have temporarily put HB 251 on hold
until you are comfortable that the fishing industry is
not being singled out from other industries.
ASA agrees with the comments of other fisheries
representatives that the tax plan is oversimplified
rushed and ignores other resource taxes in the state.
The fisheries tax schedule is one of the more complex
in Alaska tax code.
Increasing the business tax rate 1 percent across the
board as proposed can result in a minimum increase of
20 percent and a maximum increase of 33 percent and
does not make distinctions. Although a one percent
increase could work for some sectors, it would stress
salmon plants which are glutted with oversupply and
having trouble profiting at the current 4.5 percent
rate.
Another factor negatively affecting the seafood market
is the U.S. dollar's strength over key export markets
like Europe, China, and Japan has hurt seafood prices,
notably the Bristol Bay sockeye harvest for which
fishermen received half the average price per pound.
Taxes on industry, while politically easier to
achieve, risk shrinking our economy and the revenue
pie, making things worse in the long run. Continuing
to incentivize growth in the private sector will
strengthen the foundation of Alaska's economy and grow
the revenue pie for the state over the long run. A
strong and growing private sector should be a
priority. When the private sector is healthy and
growing, the State of Alaska will prosper.
MR. THOMPSON directed attention to the committee packet and the
United Fishermen of Alaska (UFA) handout titled, "Alaska Seafood
Industry Taxes and Fees," to highlight that the 2014 seafood
taxes and fees equaled $121 million, which exceeds the $96.8
million the state expends for fisheries research and management.
The seafood industry operating in federal waters also pay state
landing fees and taxes, bringing the annual payments to about
$250 million. Referencing previous comments offered by Paul
Dale regarding foregone harvest, he agreed, that this is an area
of concern which, if addressed, could provide significant
increases in state revenue. He referred to comments in the 4-4-
4-4 proposal handout, to underscore the concern expressed, which
read:
Further, those [depressed] sectors are a major source
of Alaska jobs, so additional taxes assessed now will
only serve to reduce jobs ...
MR. THOMPSON recalled the overview provided to the committee at
its 2/4/16 meeting, and referred to the report presented, titled
"Seafood Industry's Impact in Southcentral Alaska," prepared by
ASA and the McDowell Group, Inc., dated June 2015, to highlight
the section regarding the seafood industry support sector, which
details 84 public agencies that are involved in the fishing
industry, representing a significant part of a $1.2 billion
dollar industry in southcentral alone. About 40 percent of that
total is revenue that is picked up by the support sector of the
fishing industry, he stressed.
10:21:56 AM
RHONDA HUBBARD, Owner, Kruzof Fisheries, drew attention to the
committee packet, and ten, non-sequentially numbered pages of
testimony, with a cover letter bearing the FISHERIES LLC KRUZOF
letterhead, dated 3/5/16, Attn: Fisheries Committee Chair and
Members, Re: HB 251 - Sectional Analysis - Item #6. She said
the creation of an integrated reporting system would serve the
industry participants, as well as represent a cost saving
measure to the state by eliminating duplication of data
management efforts between agencies. Through the development of
the various fisheries and individual fishing quotas (IFQs), the
industries' reporting requirements have evolved into a nearly
unmanageable situation, at times necessitating an employee to be
dedicated to oversee the effort. The first mate has become the
paper mate, she quipped. The foregone harvest is also an area
that needs to be scrutinized to increase revenues, she added.
Finishing, she cautioned that in considering further taxation of
the fishing industry, it be approached with an eye for
diminishing returns.
10:25:13 AM
REPRESENTATIVE KREISS-TOMKINS asked for elaboration on the
duplication of effort referred to, and solicited her comments
for a possible amendment.
MS. HUBBARD responded that the electronic reporting system [bill
page 3, lines 5-9] should segue to include all departments
related to the management of the fishing industry, which include
national agencies such as the National Marine Fisheries Service
(NMFS). Thus, an amendment requiring interagency interfacing,
particularly around e-landing reports, would be helpful, she
suggested.
REPRESENTATIVE KREISS-TOMKINS ascertained that a single data
portal would be helpful, versus being required to re-enter
information for the various agencies.
MS. HUBBARD added that such action would place the burden of
proof on the fishing industry, and the departments could issue
and collect revenue based on the data entered by the fishermen,
consolidating a multiplicity of agency information and
alleviating duplication of effort. She predicted an integrated
system would be expedient and improve accuracy.
REPRESENTATIVE KREISS-TOMKINS referred to the bill, Sec 2, page
1, beginning on line 10, which read:
1* Sec. 2. AS 43.05 is amended by adding a new section
to read:
Sec. 43.05.222. Electronic submission of return or
report. (a) A taxpayer required to submit a return or
report for a tax levied under AS 43 or any other tax
administered by the department shall submit the return
or report electronically in a format prescribed by the
department. Unless the taxpayer has received an
exemption under (b) of this section or can show
reasonable cause, a return or report not submitted
electronically is subject to a civil penalty under AS
43.05.220.
(b) A taxpayer may request an exemption from the
requirement that a return or report be submitted
electronically. The taxpayer or taxpayer's
representative shall contact the department and
request the exemption before the return or report is
due and shall submit evidence that the taxpayer does
not have the capability to submit the return or report
electronically. An exemption granted under this
subsection is valid for two years after the first tax
filing due date after the exemption is granted; after
the two year period, the taxpayer may apply for
another exemption.
REPRESENTATIVE KREISS-TOMKINS asked whether this proposed
section would satisfy the witness' concerns and if there are any
amendments needed to the proposed language to solve the problem.
MS. HUBBARD said a change to Sec. 2 would not be necessary;
however, it appears to lack specific language requiring
departments to interface/share data sets.
10:30:58 AM
REPRESENTATIVE ORTIZ returned to the question regarding foregone
harvest, and asked whether specific data exists that indicates
lost harvest opportunities.
MS. HUBBARD said her information is anecdotal, as a groundfish
harvester, and deferred to Paul Dale [previous witness] as a
fisherman who is directly involved.
10:33:13 AM
REPRESENTATIVE HERRON asked whether she has received response
from the departments regarding the duplication of reporting
requirements.
MS. HUBBARD answered that DOR and ADF&G interact; however,
having the DOR fish tax division located within ADF&G would be
helpful, she advised.
10:34:53 AM
REPRESENTATIVE KREISS-TOMKINS asked about the tax levied on
developing fisheries and whether it plays an important role.
MS. HUBBARD said paying a single rate would be helpful, as the
developing fish tax tends to be an insignificant amount to
report, but labor intensive to segregate for reporting purposes.
She suggested that it may also be cost effective to the agencies
to eliminate the breakout.
10:36:54 AM
STEVEN MATHEW, Fisherman, stated opposition to HB 251, and
questioned how the increased revenues will be used by the state.
He inquired about the minimum value placed on each species of
fish, conjectured on the fishermen receiving any benefit from
increased taxes, and questioned whether infrastructure for
bolstering the marketing of Alaskan fish products will be
funded.
10:40:07 AM
CHAIR STUTES closed public testimony after ascertaining no one
further wished to testify.
10:40:27 AM
KEVIN BROOKS, Deputy Commissioner, Alaska Department of Fish &
Game (ADF&G), said the perceived disconnect between departments
is a new issue and the agencies will certainly address a more
seamless approach, to improve interactions with the fishermen.
10:41:03 AM
KEN ALPER, Director, Tax Division, agreed and said that
duplication of effort should not be part of the process. He
pledged to resolve the situation, however, it may not come
within the confines of HB 251.
10:42:06 AM
REPRESENTATIVE KREISS-TOMKINS asked for a description of the
administrative process that a fisherman is required to fulfill
by the departments.
MR. BROOKS said he lacks firsthand knowledge but will observe
the process this summer.
MR. ALPER deferred.
10:43:33 AM
TOM SUTTON, Manager, Fish Tax Section, Department of Revenue
(DOR), explained how tax filing takes place for each fishing
sector: a catcher processor in Alaskan waters, from shore out
to 3 miles, must file a fish business return; catcher processors
in federal waters, from 3 miles out to 200 miles, must file a
fish landing return. The rates are basically the same for
species for developing or established for both tax returns. He
said if an incongruence is apparent, corroborating information
can be accessed from ADF&G data.
10:45:12 AM
REPRESENTATIVE KREISS-TOMKINS clarified that the ADF&G fish
tickets are a cross reference to the data set held by DOR.
MR. SUTTON confirmed the members understanding, and reiterated
that the information received by DOR, from fisherman, may
require corroboration from ADF&G data for accuracy.
REPRESENTATIVE KREISS-TOMKINS asked whether there is redundancy
in the system.
MR. SUTTON offered to provide further information.
10:47:08 AM
REPRESENTATIVE ORTIZ noted that HB 251 is one aspect of a
compliment of bills being considered for generating general fund
enhancement. He asked whether foregone harvest could be an
answer to the situation.
MR. BROOKS acknowledged that foregone harvest does occur.
However, in some situations it is necessary in order to avoid
taking other returning species that require protection, such as
sockeye and Chinook harvests. A sustained yield is necessary
and important.
REPRESENTATIVE ORTIZ asked for an estimate or quantification of
what the revenue might be from the foregone harvest.
MR. BROOKS said foregone harvest cannot easily be estimated, and
must be done via each watershed or system.
10:50:08 AM
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON noted difficulty, on the part of the
department, to extract accurate, in-season harvest management.
Accuracy issues cannot necessarily be solved, he agreed, and
over/under escapements will continue. A foregone harvest
primarily represents more fish escaping into a system, and
providing data for the department to use in managing the returns
the following year, he opined.
10:51:13 AM
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON suggested a lack of acceptable response
from the agencies, regarding the fisherman's process of paying
taxes.
[A brief conversation ensued regarding the process.]
10:53:12 AM
REPRESENTATIVE HERRON asked about the viability of the 4-4-4-4
proposal as offered by PSPA, Ocean Beauty Seafoods, and Icicle
Seafoods.
MR. ALPER said that the administration supports HB 251 without
amendment. The proposal calls for some taxes to be raised and
some lowered, in an effort to create equalization of taxes
throughout the fisheries. He said tax rates are a policy
established by the legislature, which could be revisited, and
recalled previous discussions on the rational for the current
rates.
REPRESENTATIVE HERRON referred to the 4-4-4-4 proposal,
paragraph 6, and the reference to loopholes that need to be
closed, and asked for comment.
MR. ALPER responded that money appears to be left on the table
related to the undervalued fisheries, such as arrowtooth
flounder. A value is established on a species based on a data
set, which may or may not represent an appropriate assessment.
The estimation that re-evaluating and appropriately assessing
these undervalued fisheries would net a revenue gain of $4
million seems lofty, he opined, and suggested the industry
provide details.
10:57:16 AM
REPRESENTATIVE KREISS-TOMKINS clarified that it is the landing
tax being referred to and the possible incongruences are in the
rates assigned to species at the landing point.
MR. ALPER responded, "Yes."
REPRESENTATIVE KREISS-TOMKINS asked which species it applies to
and how much of a discrepancy is being represented.
MR. ALPER deferred.
10:58:39 AM
MR. BROOKS offered that an evaluation update may provide value
increases and perhaps capture $2 million in revenue.
REPRESENTATIVE KREISS-TOMKINS inquired about where the
undervalued species are caught.
MR. BROOKS stated his understanding that the species are caught
offshore by large vessels.
REPRESENTATIVE KREISS-TOMKINS requested further information.
11:00:29 AM
MR. ALPER said that the loopholes refer to a landing tax. He
opined that larger issues exist regarding the lack of taxation
of the industries by-catch, which would represent a significant
source of revenue.
11:02:03 AM
REPRESENTATIVE HERRON returned to the 4-4-4-4 proposal to
inquire about the previously mentioned loopholes.
11:02:16 AM
VINCE OSHEA, Vice President, Pacific Seafood Processors
Association, said what currently occurs is that ADF&G calculates
a statewide average fish price. The price is based on reports
received from the processors. Some species being delivered to
Ocean Beauty may not be an edible product, on arrival, and these
are turned into fish meal. Thus, what the fish ticket reflects,
in the case of yellow fin sole, is $0.2 per pound. An offshore
catcher processor, targeting yellow fin sole, may retain a value
of $0.16 - $0.18 per pound. The difference of $0.14 per pound
on 298 million pounds is significant. The Atka mackerel catch
is a similar fishery situation and represents $0.10 per pound
on-shore, but the sea processor pays $0.32 per pound. The
mackerel harvest is about 69 million tons. He reported that
ADF&G has an analyst working on addressing the eight or so
"problem" species. The estimated potential value is
approximately $1.8 - $2.4 million.
REPRESENTATIVE KREISS-TOMKINS clarified that the foregone tax
value is the difference in the state assessed on-shore value
versus the at-sea price.
MR. OSHEA stated, "Yes," and pointed out that it is not an issue
of underreporting, but the DOR system operates on the statewide
average price list, as derived from surveying the processors
fish tickets. Because the shore processors are not handling
much Atka mackerel, or yellow fin sole, these species carry a
low value. He suggested that it's a technical gap in the
system, and prior to raising taxes, the 4-4-4-4 proposal
suggests creating a level playing field.
REPRESENTATIVE KREISS-TOMKINS noted the significant difference
in the $2.4 million, as testified to, and the $4 million
submitted in the 4-4-4-4 proposal.
MR. OSHEA explained that the base price set by a company varies
due to the actual market price receive. Thus, on landing their
catch, the fishermen enter into a trust situation with the
buyer. Payment adjustments are often made, which in turn effect
the fisheries business tax. The proposal suggests that the
means by which this is handled could result in an additional $2
million in state revenue.
11:09:10 AM
CHAIR STUTES interjected that statute is apparently not being
enforced to that end, and it is incumbent on DOR to collect the
tax.
11:09:23 AM
REPRESENTATIVE ORTIZ suggested that the argument justifying the
differential between the land based and vessel based processing
may be well founded, and asked what the argument is for making
them level.
MR. OSHEA noted that a bias may have existed when the taxes were
established, and opined that equalizing the tax is a timely
consideration, due to the need for flexibility. Land based
processing facilities pay property taxes, as well as represent
entities that contribute to the vitality of a community, as
opposed to the "floaters." However, the movable processors used
today are especially important in remote areas where it doesn't
make sense to build a shore based facility that may sit
vulnerably idle for 11 months of the year. He provided examples
of specific fishery scenarios located in Bristol Bay and
Chignik, to emphasize the importance of floaters. Times have
changed and it's important to provide the capacity and
availability to fisherman through the use of floaters, he
opined. Additionally, dropping the floating tax by the proposed
one percent [4-4-4-4 proposal], only results in a revenue
collection difference of $500,000.
11:13:24 AM
REPRESENTATIVE KREISS-TOMKINS asked for comments from DOR to
address the previously mentioned retro tax issue.
MR. ALPER acknowledged that DOR is obligated to enforce the
statutes and collect any retro, end of season, adjustment taxes;
however, the action depends on the ability for the agency to
conduct timely audits. The department has added a new auditor
to staff. He stated agreement with the 4-4-4-4 proposal
regarding the need to ensure that, prior to raising taxes, all
appropriate tax collections have been made. He then deferred.
11:15:06 AM
MR. SUTTON said that the mission of DOR is to collect every tax
dollar that is due to the state. He explained the nuances that
exist and the complexities that revolve around the way fishermen
receive payment, often depending on the organizations through
which they sell their catch. The tax section may require some
reorganization to create a clean playing field. Lack of
resources in the division have resulted in minimizing audits and
the paper chase. However, with the advent of revenue on-line
staff expertize can be better applied.
11:17:55 AM
CHAIR STUTES noted that regardless of how the fishermen sell
their fish, if they are paid retroactively or receive post
season bonuses, the appropriate tax should be paid.
MR. SUTTON clarified that a fisherman investing in an LLC versus
a fisherman selling to a processor represent two different
approaches. One is an investment for the fisherman the other is
a direct sale, based on an honor agreement.
CHAIR STUTES maintained that when the fish are delivered a
minimum amount will be paid, regardless, and a retro payment may
be forthcoming. Any adjustment paid is on the fish, not on an
investment, and that should be consistent, and accounted for.
MR. ALPER agreed, and said it up to DOR to audit, determine the
tax, and assess appropriately.
11:21:47 AM
REPRESENTATIVE HERRON asked for a department rebuttal to the 4-
4-4-4 proposal, and whether it is supportable.
MR. ALPER agreed that floating processors are a valuable asset,
and taxing them less, may be appropriate if the overall economic
value is considered enough of a benefit. The argument is novel,
reasonable, and rational, he said. Available, mobile, fish
processing plants provide a necessary service. Mr. Alper said
the 4-4-4-4 proposal represents $15 million which is in the
range of the governor's goal. He suggested that it may be
possible to establish a form of property tax on floating
processors, so as to not actively disadvantage shore based
facilities.
11:25:00 AM
REPRESENTATIVE KREISS-TOMKINS referred the earlier discussion
regarding the valuation of species and requested an in-depth
analysis and comparative chart for fish values across the state,
by sector, which highlights the equitability of tax
contributions.
MR. ALPER said it may represent a robust analysis, with ADF&G
providing the management figures, and agreed to provide the
information.
11:27:54 AM
REPRESENTATIVE KREISS-TOMKINS offered Amendment 1, which read as
follows:
Page 2, line 24:
Delete "one"
Insert "four [ONE]"
Page 3, line 1:
Delete "one"
Insert "four [ONE]"
Page 4, line 2:
Delete "one"
Insert "four [ONE]"
REPRESENTATIVE KREISS-TOMKINS, without objection, said the
amendment responds to testimony received regarding excessive
reporting, with minimal benefits, on developing species. He
then withdrew Amendment 1, without objection.
11:28:59 AM
CHAIR STUTES announced HB 251 as held.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| HB 251 Backup PSPA Ocean Beauty Icicle with UFA Tax Summary.pdf |
HFSH 3/8/2016 10:00:00 AM |
HB 251 |
| HB 251 Backup HANA.pdf |
HFSH 3/8/2016 10:00:00 AM |
HB 251 |
| HB 251 Backup Tax Resolution w Supporters, Feb 2016.pdf |
HFSH 3/8/2016 10:00:00 AM |
HB 251 |
| HB 251 Backup Pasternak.pdf |
HFSH 3/8/2016 10:00:00 AM |
HB 251 |
| HB 251 Backup Kruzof.pdf |
HFSH 3/8/2016 10:00:00 AM |
HB 251 |
| HB 251 Backup ASA 3.4.2016.pdf |
HFSH 3/8/2016 10:00:00 AM |
HB 251 |
| HB251 Backup UCIDA.pdf |
HFSH 3/8/2016 10:00:00 AM |
HB 251 |
| HB251 Backup Cook Inlet Fishermen's Fund.pdf |
HFSH 3/8/2016 10:00:00 AM |
HB 251 |
| HB251 Backup Worhatch.pdf |
HFSH 3/8/2016 10:00:00 AM |
HB 251 |
| HB 251 Amendment #1 JKT.PDF |
HFSH 3/8/2016 10:00:00 AM |
HB 251 |
| HB 251 Backup Cabana.pdf |
HFSH 3/8/2016 10:00:00 AM |
HB 251 |