Legislature(2011 - 2012)HOUSE FINANCE 519
02/13/2012 01:30 PM House FINANCE
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| HB246 || HB248 || HB249 | |
| HB118 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| + | HB 246 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | HB 248 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | HB 249 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | HB 118 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED |
HOUSE FINANCE COMMITTEE
February 13, 2012
2:11 p.m.
2:11:05 PM
CALL TO ORDER
Co-Chair Stoltze called the House Finance Committee meeting
to order at 2:11 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Bill Stoltze, Co-Chair
Representative Bill Thomas Jr., Co-Chair
Representative Mia Costello
Representative Mike Doogan
Representative Bryce Edgmon
Representative Les Gara
Representative David Guttenberg
Representative Mark Neuman
Representative Tammie Wilson
MEMBERS ABSENT
Representative Anna Fairclough, Vice-Chair
Representative Reggie Joule
ALSO PRESENT
Kaci Schroeder-Hotch, Staff, Representative Bill Thomas;
Cynthia Erickson, Staff, Representative Alan Dick; Annette
Kreitzer, Staff, Representative Alan Dick; Curtis Thayer,
Deputy Commissioner, Department of Commerce, Community and
Economic Development; Bruce Tangeman, Deputy Commissioner,
Tax Division, Department of Revenue.
SUMMARY
HB 246 NAMING CERTAIN BRIDGES
CSHB 246(FIN) was REPORTED out of committee with
a "do pass" recommendation and with a new fiscal
impact note from the Department of Transportation
and Public Facilities.
HB 248 AL WRIGHT AIRPORT AT MINTO
HB 248 was HEARD and HELD in Committee.
HB 249 KOYUKUK STATION VETERANS' AIRPORT
HB 248 was HEARD and HELD in Committee.
HB 118 RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT TAX CREDIT
CSHB 118(L&C) was REPORTED out of committee with
"no recommendation" and with accompanying new
indeterminate fiscal note from the Department of
Revenue and new zero fiscal note from the
Department of Labor and Workforce Development.
[Note: The committee rescinded its action to
report out CSHB 118(L&C) on 2/15/12 and took
corrective action to report out CSHB 118(FIN).]
HOUSE BILL NO. 246
"An Act naming certain bridges."
HOUSE BILL NO. 248
"An Act naming the Al Wright Airport at Minto."
HOUSE BILL NO. 249
"An Act naming the Koyukuk Station Veterans' Airport
at Koyukuk."
2:12:25 PM
Co-Chair Stoltze explained that HB 248 and HB 249 would be
merged into HB 246.
Co-Chair Thomas MOVED to ADOPT the proposed committee
substitute for HB 246, Work Draft 27-LS0921\B (Wayne,
2/10/12). There being NO OBJECTION it was so ordered.
KACI SCHROEDER-HOTCH, STAFF, REPRESENTATIVE BILL THOMAS,
explained that HB 246 named 15 bridges and 2 airports in
the city of Cordova. The city had requested that 15 of its
bridges be named after some of its "finest" residents.
First, the city requested that the bridge over the Eyak
River be named after Marie Smith Jones; she had been a
community elder who worked to preserve the Eyak language
and had left one of the most comprehensive records of any
aboriginal language upon her death. Second, fourteen of the
city's bridges would be named after each of the young men
that had been lost in World War I, World War II, and
Vietnam. The names were as follows:
World War I: James Bennet, William M. Jones, Steve
Green, Lucian Platt, Matthew Anderson, W.H. Mumby, and
John W. Jones
World War II: Patrick B. Burchett, Norman D. Osbourne,
and Leonard F. Olson
Vietnam: David Henry Elisovky, David Allen Lape,
Warren Allen Paulsen, and Michael Dean Banta
Ms. Schroeder-Hotch elaborated that naming the bridges
after the residents was the least the city could do to
thank them for their service and sacrifice.
CYNTHIA ERICKSON, STAFF, REPRESENTATIVE ALAN DICK, read
from the HB 248 Sponsor Statement (copy on file):
Al Wright was born at Tanana Crossing on April 26,
1925 to Arthur and Myrtle Wright, missionaries in the
Minto Flats area. Arthur Wright was Athabascan Indian
and Myrtle was white. Mrs. Wright was one of the first
nurses in the villages. In 1930 the family moved to
Minto.
The Wright family lived a subsistence lifestyle. In
Minto his dad tried to start a school. He had a hard
time because the kids had to go back to seasonal
subsistence camps. Each child would bring a stick of
wood as tuition. When the wood ran out that ended the
school day.
When Al was nine, they moved to Nenana where his
father started work in the shipyard. His family also
cut and sold wood for $8.00 a cord with a
Sears&Roebuck wood saw. They dragged the wood with a
model-T vehicle back to the village to sell.
Al was 15 when he started in construction on defense
projects all over Interior Alaska. He had no formal
training and learned as he went along. His skills were
in high demand on the defense projects; however he
wanted to join the Army. The only way he could leave
his job was to quit the construction work and get
drafted. When he got out of the Army, he found out he
could get his pilot's license with the G.I. bill. He
originally started for fun, but never got away from
flying.
His first plane was a 65 Taylorcraft. One day a man
asked to charter him to pick up furs. He said, "boy,
this is the way to make money." From then on he
started hauling trappers and developing a business.
His first charter was $20.00 an hour with fuel, plane
and pilot. He taught himself to fly with floats. With
no formal training, his first flight was to pick up a
dying man in a Minto fish camp. He flew about 200
hours before he was forced to get an official float
rating. He had trouble getting ratings and licenses,
because he had little education. He struggled his
whole life because he never learned how to read well,
write or spell. He quit school after the sixth grade
as he took on more seasonal work with the family.
Al started Wright's Air Service in 1950 which
continued to grow in Interior Alaska. His focus was on
maintaining high standards with maintenance and with
his employees. He was the critical link for scheduled
mail and charter flights to about 20 villages.
Wright's Air today is a well-known charter operation
in the Interior, supporting government surveys,
seasonal camps, firefighting, land surveying and
hunting expeditions. In 1983 Al sold his airline to
long-time friend and pilot, Bob Burcell. Bob continues
to run the airline with the same old time values,
kindness and respect Al had for his people and
villages.
2:18:01 PM
Co-Chair Stoltze appreciated having information about the
individuals on the record. He noted that the bridges were
all currently either unnamed or had generic designations.
Co-Chair Thomas agreed.
Representative Gara wondered whether the names moved with a
bridge when it was moved as a result of a washout.
Co-Chair Thomas replied often times bridges were rebuilt
and not moved. He added that Cordova was currently in the
middle of a disaster conference; therefore it was unable to
call in to testify.
Co-Chair Stoltze had been moved by the participation of
Cordova residents in 2006 when the Vietnam Veterans Moving
Wall had come to town. He believed that Cordova was one of
the communities that had paid the highest price in its
contribution to war.
Ms. Erickson read from the HB 249 Sponsor Statement (copy
on file):
The original village of Koyukuk, primarily all Koyukon
Athabascan Indians, was established around 1867. It
used to be called Koyukuk Station, because a military
telegraph line was constructed along the North side of
the Yukon, and Koyukuk became the site of the
telegraph station. In naming the airport, the
residents also wish to honor the many Native military
veterans who have served their country.
Koyukuk is located on the Yukon River, 30 miles west
of Galena and 290 air miles from Fairbanks. It is
adjacent to the Koyukuk and Innoko River Refuges.
The Russian traders were a big influence in this area,
opening a trading post around 1880. Roman Catholic
Missionaries also had a major impact on the
Athabascans. The first school was constructed in 1939,
this resulted in the Koyukon people living in the
village year around.
Up until then, the Koyukon Athabascans lived a
subsistence lifestyle, moving among seasonal fish and
game camps. They moved as the wild game migrated.
Most of the people who settled here were from up the
Koyukuk River, as far as the Dolbi River, which is
close to Huslia. Even when people settled in Koyukuk
they continued to travel up the Koyukuk to winter
trapping camps and returned in the spring.
The Native name for Koyukuk is, Meneelghaadze T'oh.
Meneelghaadze is the name of the mountain at Koyukuk.
Madeline Solomon, now deceased Elder from Koyukuk, had
said the mountain was named Meneelghaadze, because
long ago, the Koyukon people used to go get clay at
the mountain and mix with bird feathers to make clay
pots. Eliza Jones an Elder from Koyukuk said that in
Athabascan, "T'oh" would be added on, meaning at the
base of the mountain. Meneelghaadze T'oh means, "at
the base of the Koyukuk Mountain."
Today Koyukuk people are still living a subsistence
lifestyle. The main employment is the local
government, clinic, school, store and any firefighting
and construction seasonal jobs.
2:23:38 PM
Representative Guttenberg remembered Al Wright and told a
story related to the individual.
Co-Chair Stoltze referred to a proclamation from Cordova
that supported the bill (copy on file). He asked whether
there was support from other communities. Ms. Erickson
replied in the affirmative. Minto and Koyukuk had both
vocalized support for the legislation.
Co-Chair Stoltze requested that the communities' support be
officially added to the record. Ms. Erickson noted that
Minto had already created a sign with the new name.
ANNETTE KREITZER, STAFF, REPRESENTATIVE ALAN DICK, noted
that Al Wright was not the Wright brother who had run for
office.
2:26:27 PM
Co-Chair Stoltze understood how important it was for a
community to publicly appreciate a member who had made a
significant contribution. He referred to street names that
had been named for members of his family.
Co-Chair Thomas MOVED to ADOPT Amendment 1:
Page 2, Line 23
Before Al Wright
Insert Minto -
Co-Chair Stoltze OBJECTED for discussion.
Co-Chair Thomas explained that the amendment inserted the
word "Minto" before "Al Wright" on page 2, line 23. There
being NO further OBJECTION, Amendment 1 was ADOPTED.
Co-Chair Thomas spoke to the names included under the
legislation. He explained that Marie Smith Jones had been
the last fluent Eyak speaker and deserved the tribute.
David Henry Elisovky, David Allen Lape, Warren Allen
Paulsen, and Michael Dean Banta had all been killed in
Vietnam; Cordova had experienced the highest per-capita
loss in the state. He discussed the soldiers' families and
told a story about the involvement of other soldiers in the
Vietnam War.
2:32:24 PM
Co-Chair Thomas MOVED to report CSHB 246(FIN) out of
committee with individual recommendations and the
accompanying fiscal note. There being NO OBJECTION, it was
so ordered.
Co-Chair Stoltze referred the fiscal impact note.
CSHB 246(FIN) was REPORTED out of committee with a "do
pass" recommendation and with a new fiscal impact note from
the Department of Transportation and Public Facilities.
HB 248 was HEARD and HELD in Committee.
HB 249 was HEARD and HELD in Committee.
2:34:09 PM
AT EASE
2:35:58 PM
RECONVENED
HOUSE BILL NO. 118
"An Act relating to a tax credit for corporate income
taxes paid for qualified research and development
expenditures; and providing for an effective date."
2:36:09 PM
Co-Chair Stoltze referred to the previously adopted
proposed committee substitute for HB 118.
CURTIS THAYER, DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE,
COMMUNITY AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT, was available for
questions.
Representative Gara asked for confirmation that the state
resource and development (R&D) tax credit would be on top
of the federal tax credit and a person's ability to receive
a the federal credit would not be prejudiced by the state's
adoption of a state R&D credit.
BRUCE TANGEMAN, DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, TAX DIVISION,
DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE (DOR), responded in the affirmative.
Representative Gara referred to a recent letter from Mr.
Tangeman clarifying that the R&D tax credit could not be
stacked on top of any other Alaska's Clear and Equitable
Share (ACES) deductions or credits. The letter specified
that R&D was excluded by a regulation under ACES. He was
concerned that the regulation could be changed at some
point by the department; he wondered whether the department
had an objection to putting the exclusion language in
statute.
Mr. Tangeman replied that AS 43.55.165 addressed that
exploration, development, or the production of oil was
allowable under the oil and gas production tax. Regulation
55.250 was addressed under the statute and explicitly
stated that R&D was not applicable; therefore, the
department believed the exclusion was clearly included
under current statute.
Representative Gara was in agreement with DOR that the
credits should not be stackable. He was troubled that the
DOR regulation could change in the future and could result
in the ability to receive R&D credits on top of ACES
credits. Without the regulation he thought a person could
argue that money put into R&D for exploring, developing,
and producing should be covered.
Mr. Tangeman replied that he did not read the statute in
the same way. He noted that the regulation was there to
clarify the statute; it was clear what was and was not
allowed. He thought that any additions to statute would be
superfluous.
Representative Gara was uncomfortable that the exclusion
only existed in regulation. He wondered whether information
indicating who received the tax credits would be public.
Mr. Tangeman responded that the R&D credits would fall
under the same confidentiality statutes that other tax
payers did. The department would be able to aggregate and
provide information for up to three or more taxpayers.
Co-Chair Stoltze asked whether the statute was the same as
the one that applied to film credits. Mr. Tangeman replied
in the affirmative.
Representative Gara asked whether the way the money was
spent would be made public. Mr. Tangeman responded in the
affirmative; DOR was currently working on a report related
to oil and gas tax credits. The department could provide
the types of expenses that the credits were used on.
Representative Gara understood that the state was
comfortable giving out $30 million or $40 million in R&D
tax credits; however, he wondered whether the state would
be able to afford to give out hundreds of millions of
dollars if the demand was there. He asked whether the
department had a problem putting a cap on the amount of
money the state would spend or putting a sunset provision
on the legislation to determine how well the program was
working.
Mr. Tangeman answered that the department did not know how
long it would take for a company to begin work, realize the
credit, and realize the tax that would allow it to take the
tax credit again in the future. He believed that setting a
sunset date may discourage a company that could potentially
need a longer period to realize the credit. The bill
currently allowed a company to carry forward an expense
from year to year.
2:43:54 PM
Representative Doogan believed that the bill implemented an
unlimited number of cost and credits without a good
definition of what the credits were and what they could be
used for. He wondered whether the effect of the legislation
would create a situation in which an unknown number of
applicants were eligible for an unknown amount of money.
Mr. Tangeman responded that the purpose was to increase
expenditures in the state. The goal was for Alaska to
receive a larger portion of the R&D that was occurring
throughout the U.S.; there would need to be companies and
plants driving the state's economy in order to realize an
expenditure and tax credit. He hoped the credits were a
tremendous success because it would mean that a significant
amount of money was spent on R&D in the state. He added
that the R&D could be used later for a project exclusively
in Alaska or for a location outside of the state, but the
point was to encourage upfront expenditures to take place
in the state.
Representative Doogan surmised that the legislation would
open a window into the current tax structure that would
decrease the amount of money available for the state to
designate to programs. Based on DOR testimony, he believed
there was no way to examine the impact or to determine the
potential expense to the state. As he understood it, the
bill represented a blank check for anything called R&D in
the state.
Mr. Tangeman noted that the under the legislation, the tax
credit was taken against the tax liability for new R&D
only. He hoped the incentive would encourage a significant
amount of R&D and an abundance of new tax payers in the
state. The carry forward had been included because it
allowed companies that may not have a tax liability in the
first couple of years to carry expenditures forward. Once
the companies began realizing a tax liability they would
realize the credits and subsequently there would be new
money for the state.
Representative Doogan recounted that the credits were not
saleable or transferable, they were strictly for R&D
conducted in Alaska, and they were limited by tax payer or
tax project; however, the actual financial liability was
currently unknown. Mr. Tangeman replied in the affirmative.
Representative Costello asked for an explanation of the
indeterminate fiscal note from DOR. Mr. Tangeman replied
that the fiscal note was indeterminate because the credit
was for new R&D that had not taken place. The goal was to
drive new activity, but the new R&D could be conducted by
current taxpayers.
2:50:28 PM
Representative Costello asked for verification that DOR was
not currently collecting information from companies that
had a corporate tax liability and the kinds of activities
they were conducting; therefore, the current level of R&D
occurring in the state was not known.
Mr. Tangeman answered that DOR was collecting the specific
type of information.
Representative Costello surmised that currently there was
not any R&D occurring and that the legislation was intended
to attract the activity. Mr. Tangeman replied that R&D was
currently underway, but not at the desired level.
Representative Neuman gathered that "new" R&D referred to
new innovative development technology (e.g. new ways to
produce oil or smelt minerals) and did not just mean new to
the state. Mr. Tangeman replied in the affirmative.
Representative Gara thought new ways to produce oil were
excluded from the legislation. Mr. Tangeman replied that
R&D on oil production that had not taken place was
available to be taken against a company's corporate income
tax, but not production tax. He expounded that R&D was not
an acceptable qualified capital expenditure against a lease
expenditure under the production tax.
Representative Gara opined that some companies that were
currently using the 20 percent federal tax credit would be
given an additional 20 percent tax credit for R&D they
would have done anyway.
Mr. Tangeman responded that companies currently taking
advantage of the R&D would only receive credit on the
amount above their last three-year average. For example, if
a company spent $1 million annually for three years and
then spent $2 million, the additional $1 million would be
eligible for the credit.
Representative Gara did not feel that the current
information made public related to ACES and film credits
was substantial; it was hard to evaluate whether money was
being spent well because the way it was spent was not
divulged. He wondered whether the R&D tax credit would fall
into the same category.
Mr. Tangeman responded that DOR was currently presenting a
five-year look-back to another House committee; the look-
back shed light on the type of expenditures that had taken
place. He explained that taxpayer information was held
confidential; current statute specified that a DOR employee
could be fined $5000 and could receive a two-year jail
sentence for releasing inappropriate information. He felt
that it was his responsibility to err on the side of over
protection of confidential information; tax payers had a
right to keep their information confidential. There were
statutes that allowed the department to aggregate and make
information public. The Revenue Source Book included the
DOR annual report and contained the information. He
continued that the department was available to answer
questions related to the issue, but followed statute very
strictly.
2:56:13 PM
Representative Guttenberg had never felt that there had
been enough of an understanding of what the taxes,
deductions, and credits actually were. He pointed to Mr.
Tangeman's explanation of how strongly he felt about
protecting taxpayer's confidentiality. He stressed that he
felt even stronger that he needed all of the information he
could get in order to make decisions; he pointed to Alaska
State Review Board criticism of the department for keeping
public items confidential. He had heard the "McDonald's"
analogy that if a tax payer stamped something confidential
that DOR was not able to release it. He wondered how much
the department could release that would help legislators to
understand what was in some of the reports. He asked how
far the department needed to go related to confidentiality.
Mr. Tangeman believed the reference was related to a
legislative hearing that had taken place in the Senate. He
did not feel that it was appropriate for the state to
comment on an ongoing case; additionally, the information
was only related to one side of the litigation. He believed
the McDonald's analogy was ridiculous. He explained that if
someone provided the department with a piece of
confidential information on a taxpayer and then released it
in a public forum, DOR would still not have the right to
release the information. He reiterated that DOR was very
careful about the information that it was provided.
Representative Guttenberg had been referring to documents
in a court case. He noted that after the Alaska Supreme
Court ruled on the case it was possible that the
legislature would gain a better understanding of documents
that it should have been granted access to. He had been
very concerned about taxpayers' ability to confuse the
issue.
Representative Neuman communicated that developing and
applying for patents qualified under the confidentiality
clause. He asked for verification that the release of
information related to applications for patents would be
illegal in a variety of ways. Mr. Tangeman replied in the
affirmative.
3:00:21 PM
Representative Doogan asked for a description of the
evaluation process involved in awarding the tax credits.
Mr. Tangeman replied that it was not an evaluation process.
Eligibility was determined through an audit of a tax return
in which a company claimed a R&D expense; there were
statutes in both state and federal law that explained what
qualified as R&D.
Representative Doogan asked whether the state would have to
battle with the federal government on the meaning of R&D
when the credits were applied for in the state. He wondered
whether the state and federal processes would be separate.
Mr. Tangeman replied that the legislation piggy-backed on
federal statute.
Co-Chair Stoltze asked members to provide amendments in
advance. He asked whether Amendments 1 and 4 from
Representative Gara were identical. He suggested keeping
Amendment 1 and getting rid of Amendment 4 for
clarification purposes.
3:04:21 PM
Co-Chair Stoltze clarified that Amendments 1 through 3 were
in member's packets and would potentially be offered.
Representative Gara MOVED to ADOPT Amendment 1 27-
GH1951\B.4 (Bullock, 2/9/12):
Page 1, line 9:
Delete "the taxable year"
Insert "a taxable year ending before January 1, 2017,"
Page 2, line 13, following "report":
Insert "to the legislature"
Page 2, line 16, following "year,":
Insert "a description of the research and development
projects for which the credit was granted,"
Page 2, following line 24:
Insert a new bill section to read:
"*Sec. 2. AS 43.20.047 is repealed January 1, 2017."
Renumber the following bill section accordingly.
Co-Chair Stoltze OBJECTED.
Representative Gara discussed that the bill included a new
tax credit system; the state did not know how much it would
cost and the R&D was different than what was occurring
under the federal tax credit. He opined that it was
possible the state would receive what it was currently
getting under the federal tax credit; on the other extreme
it may cost the state so much money that at a certain level
it would need to reduce the percentage. He explained that
Amendment 1 specified that the credit would be revisited in
2017.
Co-Chair Stoltze asked whether the amendment provided a
sunset.
Representative Gara replied in the affirmative. He
communicated that the amendment would allow companies to
use the credit through January 1, 2017 and required
companies to provide a description of R&D projects using
the credit. He noted that the law would not supersede
federal patent laws related to confidentiality. He opined
that the legislature should have a better understanding on
how the state's money was spent in comparison to other tax
credits currently offered.
Representative Neuman did not support the amendment. He
referenced the proposed sunset provision and noted that the
bill allowed companies to take credits for up to seven
years. He thought there was a compatibility issue between
the two items. He cited page 2, lines 4 through 7 "the
expenditure is incurred, the excess of the tax credit over
the liability may be carried forward for up to seven
years." He thought the length of time was appropriate,
given the goal of increased development; the time allowed a
company to carry-forward credits until it began production.
Additionally, it would be difficult for new companies
working to develop new industry and new oil to operate
under the sunset timeline. He added that he did not have a
problem with the segment of the amendment that dealt with
reporting information to the legislature.
Co-Chair Stoltze thought the amendment was divisible, given
that the policy debate was on the sunset language. He asked
Representative Gara whether he would object to a division
of the amendment.
Representative Gara was not opposed to a division of the
amendment.
Co-Chair Stoltze clarified that Amendment 1 27-GH1951\B.4
would be divided into 1a and 1b as follows and would be
renumbered accordingly:
Amendment 1a (lines 5 through 11)
Page 2, line 13, following "report":
Insert "to the legislature"
Page 2, line 16, following "year,":
Insert "a description of the research and development
projects for which the credit was granted,"
Amendment 1b (lines 1 through 4 and 12 through 16)
Page 1, line 9:
Delete "the taxable year"
Insert "a taxable year ending before January 1, 2017,"
Page 2, following line 24:
Insert a new bill section to read:
"*Sec. 2. AS 43.20.047 is repealed January 1, 2017."
Renumber the following bill section accordingly.
3:11:45 PM
Representative Neuman pointed to the language "a
description of the research and development projects for
which the credit was granted" and noted that developing and
applying for patents qualified. He thought the state could
run into problems when looking for a description of work
conducted if patents were involved.
Mr. Tangeman agreed that there could be a potential issue
when patents were involved; a description of the type of
work would shed light on the type of business and expenses
the company was attempting to incur.
Representative Neuman was not comfortable with Amendment
1a. He explained that developing prototypes, models, and
potentially software technology qualified. He believed the
information could be highly confidential. He opined that
the word "report" in Amendment 1a was too open-ended.
Mr. Tangeman answered that the purpose of R&D was to look
for new ways to improve. He agreed that it was important to
be careful with information that was divulged publicly,
given that it might discourage a company from conducting
its research in Alaska.
Representative Neuman noted that DOR currently provided
reports to the legislature that indicated how much money
would be spent on similar items such as film credits. He
did not believe the legislation included any different
report requirements that were beyond standard reporting.
Mr. Tangeman replied that Amendment 1a would add another
level of reporting that went above and beyond requirements
for similar tax credits.
Representative Edgmon supported Amendment 1a. He explained
that it was possible to provide a description that did not
contain specific detail. He opined that the amendment was
general enough that it would be possible to provide
categories of information that did not compromise a
company's proprietary material. He clarified that he did
not support Amendment 1b.
3:15:49 PM
Mr. Thayer pointed to a document that had been provided to
the committee on February 8, 2012. He relayed that the
federal government had a 2008 list of corporations that
paid R&D tax credits; it included broad categories such as,
manufacturing information, professional scientific, mining,
transportation warehousing, real estate, agriculture,
forestry, and seafood. He furthered that the categories may
have been broad enough for the state's purposes.
Representative Gara was not concerned about patent
information, given that it was already confidential under
federal law. Mr. Tangeman did not have a comment related to
the legal issue.
Representative Costello MOVED to AMEND Amendment 1a to
insert "type of" before "research" on line 9. The intent
was that the R&D category could be reported similar to the
way categories were reported by the federal government.
Representative Gara thought that the amendment to Amendment
1a was too general. He was happy to exclude patents from
the reporting requirement. He noted his objection to the
amendment to Amendment 1a.
A roll call vote was taken on the motion to amend Amendment
1a.
IN FAVOR: Wilson, Costello, Thomas, Stolze
OPPOSED: Doogan, Edgmon, Gara, Guttenberg, Neuman
The MOTION FAILED (5-4).
Representatives Fairclough and Joule were absent from the
vote.
A roll call vote was taken on Amendment 1a.
IN FAVOR: Doogan, Edgmon, Gara, Guttenberg, Stolze
OPPOSED: Costello, Wilson, Neuman, Thomas
The MOTION PASSED (5-4).
Representatives Fairclough and Joule were absent from the
vote.
3:20:47 PM
Representative Gara MOVED to ADOPT Amendment 1b.
Representative Guttenberg noted his potential conflict of
interest on the research credits, given his ownership of a
cut flower business. He explained that he could potentially
benefit from the credit if he turned his business into an
experimental farm.
Representative Costello did not support Amendment 1b. She
thought the amendment would add to the existing complexity
of the Alaska tax system. She explained that the sunset
provision would take place prior to the end of the seven-
year carry-forward that was included in the legislation.
She believed the amendment would essentially gut the bill,
but she understood that the intent was to review the impact
of the legislation. She opined that the intent was achieved
in the bill under the provision that would require DOR to
report on credit activity.
Representative Gara understood the concern related to the
carry-forward provision. He spoke on a conceptual amendment
that would allow the carry-forward portion to continue
through 2024.
Co-Chair Stoltze would not accept a conceptual amendment.
3:24:23 PM
Representative Gara WITHDREW Amendment 1b with the intent
to incorporate input from members into an amendment on the
House floor.
Representative Gara MOVED to ADOPT Amendment 2 27-
GH1951\B.1 (Bullock, 2/6/12):
Page 2, line 10, following "AS 43.20.011(e)":
Insert "or AS 43.55,"
Co-Chair Stoltze OBJECTED.
Representative Gara referred to a letter he had received
from Mr. Tangeman. He noted that DOR staff had testified
that under ACES the department had a regulation specifying
that R&D expenditures could not be deducted or credited. He
stressed that the regulation could be changed and surmised
that DOR must have thought its implementation was necessary
to clarify existing statute. Amendment 2 inserted language
into the legislation that would prohibit the use of a R&D
credit on top of a credit or deduction allowed under ACES.
Mr. Tangeman explained that there were three statutory
tests that applied under AS 43.55.165(a), subsection (B):
(i) the costs must be incurred upstream of the point
of production of oil and gas
(ii) the costs must be ordinary and necessary costs of
exploring for, developing, or producing, as
applicable, oil or gas deposits
(iii) the costs must be direct costs of exploring for,
developing, or producing, as applicable, oil or gas
deposits
Mr. Tangeman believed that the R&D costs failed all three
of the tests and that the regulation was very explicit in
backing up the statute. He opined that the inability to
stack credits was thoroughly covered.
Co-Chair Stoltze asked whether Mr. Tangeman had a value
judgment recommendation on Amendment 2. Mr. Tangeman did
not believe Amendment 2 was required.
3:27:51 PM
Representative Neuman did not support the amendment. He
provided an example of a new mining company conducting R&D
that did not yet pay production tax. He noted that owners
may decide to sell the company or its patents and may never
pay the production tax. He pointed to many new companies
coming to the state in search of new oil and gas with new
innovative techniques and noted some companies may not make
it seven years.
Representative Costello voiced opposition to the amendment.
She thought the statute was clear and that adding another
statute to the bill would potentially clutter the law. She
thought the statute clearly dealt with corporate income
tax; there were no R&D projects that were attributed to the
state's production tax. She believed a history of clarity
had been established on the issue. She pointed to frequent
discussions on ACES and opined that it was sometimes
forgotten that many companies paid corporate income taxes.
A roll call vote was taken on Amendment 2.
IN FAVOR: Gara, Guttenberg
OPPOSED: Neuman, Wilson, Costello, Doogan, Edgmon, Thomas,
Stoltze
The MOTION FAILED (7-2).
Representatives Fairclough and Joule were absent from the
vote.
3:31:25 PM
Representative Gara MOVED to ADOPT Amendment 3 27-
GH1951\B.2 (Bullock, 2/6/12):
Page 2, following line 17:
Insert a new subsection to read:
"(f) The total amount of the credit authorized under
this section for all taxpayers may not exceed
$50,000,000 in a calendar year. The department may
adopt regulations that provide the standards and
procedures to allocate the amount of credit available
to each taxpayer when the total amount of tax credits
claimed by all taxpayers under this section for a
calendar year exceeds $50,000,000."
Reletter the following subsection accordingly.
Co-Chair Stoltze OBJECTED.
Representative Gara cited his preference for a sunset
provision, but in its absence he pointed to a need for
fiscal responsibility and to see how the credits were used.
Amendment 3 would impose an annual $50 million cap on the
expenditure of state funds; credits would be prorated if
more than $50 million were applied for. He discussed the
likelihood of dwindling state revenues in the future and
stressed that spending state money to fund millions of
dollars of tax credits would put a large strain on the
state's ability to operate.
Co-Chair Stoltze commented that DOR could cut off the list
at $50 million and could chose to prorate credits. He
clarified that the department had not weighed in on the
issue of prorating.
Mr. Tangeman replied that DOR was opposed to the amendment
and a cap. He explained that the tax credit would be taken
against new money brought into the state; therefore, if the
$50 million level was reached the state would be generating
revenues well beyond the number.
3:34:56 PM
Representative Neuman vocalized opposition to Amendment 3.
He pointed to page 1, line 7 of the legislation and
surmised that individual tax payers were limited to a $10
million tax liability, which was prorated per company. He
did not know why the state would put a limit on its goal to
incentivize investment from new companies.
Representative Costello was not in favor of Amendment 3.
She was concerned that the amendment would create two
groups of people; once the $50 million cap was reached the
department would need to craft new regulation to deal with
additional companies interested in the credit. She believed
it was a bad precedent to change the rules of the game
after a certain cost was reached. She understood the
rationale and believed it was addressed in the reporting
requirement that would allow the legislature to determine
whether it wanted to continue with the program.
Representative Doogan was supportive of Amendment 3. He
relayed that the legislature had handed out "tax credits
like they were lollypops" during his time in office. The
R&D tax credit was unlimited and was potentially very
expensive for the state. He did not believe that what
companies would be required to pay the state if they
received the credit was definitive.
Representative Guttenberg asked whether an expenditure of
$50 million would be 20 percent of what taxpayers would
pay. Mr. Tangeman replied that the amount would be against
a taxpayer's tax liability.
Representative Guttenberg thought the $50 million cap was
appropriate. He was very supportive of research, but would
be suspicious of a program that would allow a company to
spend such a high amount in one year. He believed the state
should spend a couple of years watching the tax credit use
prior to spending over $50 million. He understood that
research up north could be extensive, but having a better
understanding of "what we're doing at the end of the day"
was also very important.
3:39:00 PM
Co-Chair Stoltze echoed prior concerns about not including
a cap on tax credits. He believed the legislature could
reexamine the credits several years later if they were
successful.
Representative Gara MOVED to AMEND Amendment 3, line 5 to
replace the word "allocate" with "prorate." There being NO
OBJECTION, it was so ordered.
Representative Wilson opposed the amendment. She believed
the goal of the legislation was to bring the "best and
brightest" to the state to conduct R&D. The companies would
need to hire employees to undergo the research and only if
they were successful and had a tax liability would they be
eligible to receive the credit. She hoped the credit was
very successful.
A roll call vote was taken on Amendment 3.
IN FAVOR: Guttenberg, Doogan, Gara, Stoltze
OPPOSED: Neuman, Wilson, Costello, Edgmon, Thomas
The MOTION FAILED (5-4).
Representatives Fairclough and Joule were absent from the
vote.
3:42:59 PM
Co-Chair Stoltze referenced the indeterminate fiscal note
from DOR.
Co-Chair Thomas MOVED to report CSHB 118(L&C) out of
committee with individual recommendations and the
accompanying fiscal notes.
CSHB 118(L&C) was REPORTED out of committee with "no
recommendation" and with accompanying new indeterminate
fiscal note from the Department of Revenue and new zero
fiscal note from the Department of Labor and Workforce
Development. [Note: The committee rescinded its action to
report out CSHB 118(L&C) on 2/15/12 and took corrective
action to report out CSHB 118(FIN).]
Co-Chair Stoltze discussed the schedule for the following
day.
ADJOURNMENT
3:44:34 PM
The meeting was adjourned at 3:44 PM.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| HB 246 Sponsor Statement.pdf |
HFIN 2/13/2012 1:30:00 PM |
HB 246 |
| HB 246 Supporting Docs Leonard Olson.pdf |
HFIN 2/13/2012 1:30:00 PM |
HB 246 |
| HB 246 Supporting Docs Cordova Resolution.pdf |
HFIN 2/13/2012 1:30:00 PM |
HB 246 |
| HB 246 Supporting Docs Short Bios.pdf |
HFIN 2/13/2012 1:30:00 PM |
HB 246 |
| HB 246 Supporting Docs Veterans Memorial.pdf |
HFIN 2/13/2012 1:30:00 PM |
HB 246 |
| HB 248 Al Wright Minto Airport Sponsor statement.docx |
HFIN 2/13/2012 1:30:00 PM |
HB 248 |
| HB 249 Sponsor Statement.docx |
HFIN 2/13/2012 1:30:00 PM |
HB 249 |
| HB118 CS FIN Workdraft B Amendment Gara.pdf |
HFIN 2/13/2012 1:30:00 PM |
HB 118 |
| HB118 Other jursidiction RD Tax Credit updated 02-10-12.pdf |
HFIN 2/13/2012 1:30:00 PM |
HB 118 |
| HB246 Amendment 1- Thomas.pdf |
HFIN 2/13/2012 1:30:00 PM |
HB 246 |
| HB 246 CS WORKDRAFT FIN 27LS0921-B.pdf |
HFIN 2/13/2012 1:30:00 PM |
HB 246 |
| CSHB246-NEW FN-DOT-NRHA-2-13-12.pdf |
HFIN 2/13/2012 1:30:00 PM |
HB 246 |
| HB118 Amendments 2-3 Gara.pdf |
HFIN 2/13/2012 1:30:00 PM |
HB 118 |