Legislature(2015 - 2016)GRUENBERG 120
04/05/2016 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
10:06:00 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."
10:06:22 AM
REPRESENTATIVE MILLETT moved to adopt the proposed committee
substitute (CS) for HB 251, Version 29-HG2921\W, Nauman, 4/1/16,
as the working document.
CHAIR STUTES objected for purposes of discussion.
10:07:06 AM
CHAIR STUTES passed the gavel to Represent Millett.
10:07:18 AM
REID HARRIS, Staff, Representative Louise Stutes, directed
attention to the committee packet and the three page handout
titled, "House Bill 251, Explanation of changes Version A to
Version W," to explain the changes being proposed in the CS.
Version W creates the Alaska seafood marketing fund, which is
established in the general fund. The fisheries tax and the
fisheries landing tax revenue, as generated by a one percent
increment, will be deposited for the purposes of the fund.
Referring to first page of the handout, Sec. 7, paragraphs (b)
and (c), he paraphrased the language, which read:
(b) The legislature may appropriate the annual
estimated balance of the fund to the Alaska Seafood
Marketing Institute established under AS 16.51 for the
purposes described under AS 16.51.100.
(c) Nothing in this section creates a dedicated fund.
MR. HARRIS underscored that the language of paragraph (c)
provides a designation, not a dedication, of funds. Continuing,
he said the CS eliminates the proposed increment increase of one
percent on the canned salmon tax, in response to testimony
received from processors who made it clear that, due to the glut
of canned salmon on the market and in anticipation of a
bountiful harvest, it's a challenge to market the existing
product. Moving to the Sec. 11 changes, he explained that it
provides language directing the deposit of landing taxes into
the Alaska Seafood marketing fund. Finally, the remainder of
the changes reduce the percentages that are deposited into the
general fund from one to 0.5 percent; reflecting the 0.5 percent
directed to the Alaska Seafood Marketing Institute (ASMI).
10:09:34 AM
The committee took a brief at-ease at 10:09.
REPRESENTATIVE MILLETT returned the gavel to Chair Stutes.
10:09:57 AM
CHAIR STUTES removed her objection, and without further
objection, Version W was before the committee.
10:10:06 AM
REPRESENTATIVE KREISS-TOMKINS moved to adopt Amendment 1,
labeled 29-HG2921\W.1, Nauman, 4/5/16, which read:
Page 2, line 31:
Delete "one"
Insert "four [ONE]"
Page 3, line 8:
Delete "one"
Insert "four [ONE]"
Page 4, line 24:
Delete "one"
Insert "four [ONE]"
REPRESENTATIVE MILLETT objected for discussion.
10:10:46 AM
REPRESENTATIVE KREISS-TOMKINS said Amendment 1 effectively
eliminates the tax differential for developing fisheries, which,
according to the testimony provided by fishermen/processors,
represents a burdensome requirement; revenue will remain
positive.
10:11:33 AM
REPRESENTATIVE MILLETT removed her objection, and without
further objection Amendment 1 was adopted.
10:11:47 AM
REPRESENTATIVE KREISS-TOMKINS moved to adopt Amendment 2,
labeled 29-HG2921\W.2, Nauman, 4/5/16, which read:
Page 1, line 1, following "Act":
Insert "relating to the annual base fee for the
issuance or renewal of an entry permit or an interim-
use permit;"
Page 1, following line 6:
Insert a new bill section to read:
"* Section 1. AS 16.43.160(c) is amended to read:
(c) The annual base fee for issuance or renewal of an
entry permit or an interim-use permit may not be less
than $30 [OR MORE THAN $3,000]. The annual base fee
must reasonably reflect the different rates of
economic return for different fisheries. In addition
to the annual base fee established by the commission
under this subsection, a nonresident shall pay an
annual nonresident surcharge for the issuance or
renewal of one or more entry permits or interim-use
permits. The commission shall establish the annual
nonresident surcharge by regulation at an amount that
is as close as is practicable to the maximum allowed
by law."
Page 1, line 7:
Delete "Section 1"
Insert "Sec. 2"
Renumber the following bill sections accordingly.
Page 7, line 8:
Delete "Section 14"
Insert "Section 15"
Page 7, line 9:
Delete "sec. 15"
Insert "sec. 16"
REPRESENTATIVE MILLETT objected for discussion.
10:12:01 AM
REPRESENTATIVE KREISS-TOMKINS explained that Amendment 2 is
being offered to flag an issue raised by fishermen to committee
members regarding Commercial Fisheries Entry Commission (CFEC)
fees. The fees are capped and there is not a means for paying a
proportional burden into the system to cover the administration
of commercial fishing in Alaska. Alaska based fishermen are
paying a pretty penny for running the state agency, and a more
equitable approach should be considered.
REPRESENTATIVE MILLETT removed her objection.
REPRESENTATIVE KREISS-TOMKINS moved to withdraw Amendment 2, and
without objection Amendment 2 was withdrawn.
10:13:08 AM
CHAIR STUTES paraphrased from a prepared statement, which read
as follows:
In addition to the changes we've made to HB251 I'd
like to get the Department of Revenue and the
Department of Fish and Game on record to about their
intent to close the "problem or undervalued species"
and "catch share/bonus" loopholes, which could bring
in extra revenue.
It has been brought to this committee's attention that
there are selected species with potential differences
in valuation including:
Atka mackerel
Greenland turbot
Yellowfin sole
Rock sole
Rex sole
Flathead sole
Alaska plaice
Pacific Ocean perch
Skates
Arrowtooth flounder
and, Yellowfin sole
Additionally, we have existing language in AS
43.75.290(7)(C) stating the department should collect
taxes on:
"The actual price paid for the fishery resource by the
fisheries business to the fisherman, including
indirect consideration and bonus amounts paid for
fuel, supplies, gear, ice, handling, tender fees, or
delivery, whether paid at the time of purchase of the
fishery resource or tendered as a deferred or delayed
payment."
I interpret this to mean that all fish that cross a
company's dock are to be taxed, regardless of how the
company decides to issue payouts or dividends.
The departments have assured me that they are working
on this administratively but, in keeping with
suggestions made by testifiers in this committee, I'd
like to go on the record as supporting this idea and
hear from both departments.
10:15:02 AM
JERRY BURNETT, Deputy Commissioner, Department of Revenue (DOR),
Juneau, Alaska, said auditing staff have been increased and the
concern is a priority for DOR in the coming year.
10:15:55 AM
CHAIR STUTES stated that the discrepancy in pricing came to the
attention of the committee and raised concern that every pound
of fish was not being appropriately taxed, or the tax collected.
MR. BURNETT confirmed that the situation is a priority at the
department. The average statewide pricing for fish, is also
under discussion with ADF&G to consider the methods for
establishing the average rate. He deferred to ADF&G for further
comment.
10:17:37 AM
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON conjectured that an aggregate number
could be reported without disclosing confidential tax
information, and he stressed the importance for the committee to
receive statistics for review.
MR. BURNETT agreed that an aggregate audit could provide useable
information for the committee.
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON asked about the requirements for
aggregated reporting.
MR. BURNETT answered that tax payer information may be
aggregated using a minimum of three filers, unless one is
exponentially larger than the others, which then requires a
higher minimum. To a follow-up question from the chair, he said
any response, at this time, would be speculative.
10:20:24 AM
KEVIN BROOKS, Deputy Commissioner, Alaska Department of Fish &
Game (ADF&G), assured the committee that the statewide average
price (SWAP) is under discussion. The methodology for computing
a value is currently being vetted by the National Marine
Fisheries Service (NMFS). The department expects that the
results will be communicated to taxpayers, and implemented.
10:21:42 AM
REPRESENTATIVE MILLETT moved to report the proposed CS for HB
251, Version 29-GH2921\W, as amended, from committee with
individual recommendations and the accompanying fiscal notes.
Without objection CSHB 251 (FSH) was reported from the House
Special Committee on Fisheries.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| HB 251 Backup DOR Response to House Fisheries Committee - 3.21.16.pdf |
HFSH 4/5/2016 10:00:00 AM |
HB 251 |
| HB 251 CS Ver W.pdf |
HFSH 4/5/2016 10:00:00 AM |
HB 251 |
| HB 251 CS Ver W Legal Memo on Electronic Tax Submissions.pdf |
HFSH 4/5/2016 10:00:00 AM |
HB 251 |
| HB 251 Explanation of Changes Version A to W.pdf |
HFSH 4/5/2016 10:00:00 AM |
HB 251 |
| HB 251 AmendmentA.8 (JKT).pdf |
HFSH 4/5/2016 10:00:00 AM |
HB 251 |
| HB251 Backup Karras.pdf |
HFSH 4/5/2016 10:00:00 AM |
HB 251 |
| HB 251 AmendemntW.1 (JKT).pdf |
HFSH 4/5/2016 10:00:00 AM |
HB 251 |
| HB 251 AmendemntW.2 (JKT).pdf |
HFSH 4/5/2016 10:00:00 AM |
HB 251 |
| HB 366 Support CFEC response to Rep Herron.pdf |
HFSH 4/5/2016 10:00:00 AM |
HB 366 |