Legislature(2003 - 2004)

05/08/2003 07:08 AM W&M

Audio Topic
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
                    ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE                                                                                  
           HOUSE SPECIAL COMMITTEE ON WAYS AND MEANS                                                                          
                          May 8, 2003                                                                                           
                           7:08 a.m.                                                                                            
MEMBERS PRESENT                                                                                                               
Representative Mike Hawker, Co-Chair                                                                                            
Representative Jim Whitaker, Co-Chair                                                                                           
Representative Cheryll Heinze                                                                                                   
Representative Vic Kohring                                                                                                      
Representative Bruce Weyhrauch                                                                                                  
Representative Peggy Wilson                                                                                                     
Representative Max Gruenberg                                                                                                    
Representative Carl Moses                                                                                                       
MEMBERS ABSENT                                                                                                                
Representative Norman Rokeberg                                                                                                  
OTHER LEGISLATORS PRESENT                                                                                                     
Representative Dan Ogg                                                                                                          
Representative Paul Seaton                                                                                                      
Representative Sharon Cissna                                                                                                    
Representative Les Gara                                                                                                         
COMMITTEE CALENDAR                                                                                                            
HOUSE BILL NO. 298                                                                                                              
"An Act relating  to the distribution of  appropriations from the                                                               
Alaska permanent  fund under art.   IX, sec.  15(b), Constitution                                                               
of the  State of  Alaska, and  making conforming  amendments; and                                                               
providing for an effective date."                                                                                               
     - HEARD AND HELD                                                                                                           
HOUSE BILL NO. 293                                                                                                              
"An Act levying and collecting a state sales and use tax; and                                                                   
providing for an effective date."                                                                                               
     - HEARD AND HELD                                                                                                           
PREVIOUS ACTION                                                                                                               
BILL: HB 298                                                                                                                  
SHORT TITLE:DISTRIBUTIONS OF APPROPS FROM PERM FUND                                                                             
SPONSOR(S): WAYS & MEANS                                                                                                        
Jrn-Date   Jrn-Page                     Action                                                                                  
05/05/03     1318       (H)        READ THE FIRST TIME -                                                                        
05/05/03     1318       (H)        W&M, FIN                                                                                     
05/05/03     1318       (H)        REFERRED TO WAYS & MEANS                                                                     
05/06/03                (H)        W&M AT 7:00 AM HOUSE FINANCE                                                                 
05/06/03                (H)        Heard & Held                                                                                 
05/08/03                (H)        W&M AT 7:00 AM HOUSE FINANCE                                                                 
BILL: HB 293                                                                                                                  
SHORT TITLE:STATE SALES AND USE TAX                                                                                             
SPONSOR(S): WAYS & MEANS                                                                                                        
Jrn-Date   Jrn-Page                     Action                                                                                  
04/30/03     1202       (H)        READ THE FIRST TIME -                                                                        
04/30/03     1202       (H)        W&M, FIN                                                                                     
05/01/03                (H)        W&M AT 7:00 AM HOUSE FINANCE                                                                 
05/01/03                (H)        Heard & Held --                                                                              
                                   Teleconference --                                                                            
05/06/03                (H)        W&M AT 7:00 AM HOUSE FINANCE                                                                 
05/06/03                (H)        Heard & Held                                                                                 
05/07/03                (H)        W&M AT 7:00 AM HOUSE FINANCE                                                                 
05/07/03                (H)        Heard & Held -- Recessed to a                                                                
                                   call of the chair --                                                                         
05/08/03                (H)        W&M AT 7:00 AM HOUSE FINANCE                                                                 
WITNESS REGISTER                                                                                                              
ROBERT BARTHOLOMEW, Chief Operating Officer                                                                                     
Alaska Permanent Fund Corporation                                                                                               
Department of Revenue                                                                                                           
Juneau, Alaska                                                                                                                  
POSITION STATEMENT:  Testified on HB 298.                                                                                       
LARRY PERSILY, Deputy Commissioner                                                                                              
Office of the Commissioner                                                                                                      
Department of Revenue                                                                                                           
Juneau, Alaska                                                                                                                  
POSITION STATEMENT:  Testified on HB 298 and HB 293.                                                                            
RON LORENSEN, Attorney                                                                                                          
Simpson, Tillinghast, Sorensen, and Longenbaugh                                                                                 
Juneau, Alaska                                                                                                                  
POSITION STATEMENT:   Testified as outside counsel  to the Alaska                                                               
Permanent Fund Corporation on HB 298.                                                                                           
TAMARA COOK, Director                                                                                                           
Legislative Legal and Research Services                                                                                         
Legislative Affairs Agency                                                                                                      
Juneau, Alaska                                                                                                                  
POSITION STATEMENT:  Testified on HB 298.                                                                                       
ROBYNN WILSON, Revenue Auditor                                                                                                  
Tax Division                                                                                                                    
Department of Revenue                                                                                                           
Juneau, Alaska                                                                                                                  
POSITION STATEMENT: Answered questions on HB 293.                                                                               
ACTION NARRATIVE                                                                                                              
TAPE 03-24, SIDE A                                                                                                            
Number 0001                                                                                                                     
CO-CHAIR JIM WHITAKER called the  House Special Committee on Ways                                                             
and Means meeting to order  at 7:08 a.m.  Representatives Hawker,                                                               
Whitaker,  Heinze, Kohring,  Weyhrauch,  Wilson,  and Moses  were                                                               
present at the  call to order.   Representative Gruenberg arrived                                                               
as the  meeting was  in progress.   Representatives  Ogg, Seaton,                                                               
Cissna, and Gara were also present.                                                                                             
HB 298-DISTRIBUTIONS OF APPROPS FROM PERM FUND                                                                                
Number 0132                                                                                                                     
CO-CHAIR  WHITAKER announced  that  the first  order of  business                                                               
would  be   HOUSE  BILL  NO.   298,  "An  Act  relating   to  the                                                               
distribution  of appropriations  from the  Alaska permanent  fund                                                               
under art.  IX, sec. 15(b),  Constitution of the State of Alaska,                                                               
and making conforming amendments;  and providing for an effective                                                               
CO-CHAIR HAWKER moved  to adopt committee substitute  (CS) for HB
298, Version 23-LS1075\D,  as the working document.   There being                                                               
no objection, Version D was before the committee.                                                                               
Number 0254                                                                                                                     
ROBERT  BARTHOLOMEW, Chief  Operating  Officer, Alaska  Permanent                                                               
Fund  Corporation, Department  of Revenue,  testified on  HB 298.                                                               
Mr.  Bartholomew told  the committee  in  reviewing the  original                                                               
version  of  HB 298  there  were  several changes  that  affected                                                               
statutes  that cover  the Alaska  Permanent Fund  Corporation and                                                               
the  distribution  of funds  out  of  the  permanent fund.    The                                                               
changes in the CS begin in Section  3, page 3.  He explained that                                                               
there were two concerns that need to be addressed.                                                                              
Number 0353                                                                                                                     
CO-CHAIR WHITAKER  interrupted Mr.  Bartholomew and asked  him to                                                               
give the committee  a brief explanation of the purpose  of HB 298                                                               
before delving into the changes incorporated in the CS.                                                                         
Number 0404                                                                                                                     
MR. BARTHOLOMEW  explained that the committee  has already passed                                                               
out HJR 26, which is  a constitutional amendment that changes how                                                               
the  [Alaska  Permanent  Fund Corporation]  determines  how  much                                                               
[money] should  be available from  the permanent fund and  how to                                                               
accomplish  inflation-proofing  [the   fund].    Mr.  Bartholomew                                                               
pointed out  that some  of the  provisions in  the constitutional                                                               
amendment affect  the existing statutes that  cover prior methods                                                               
that were  used for the  permanent fund.  The  legislation amends                                                               
the  statutes  to  ensure  that   [the  statutes]  will  work  in                                                               
accordance with the  payout of market value [POMV]  concept.  The                                                               
statutes have been reviewed to see  what needed to be updated, he                                                               
said.   He told the  members that the  sections he will  speak to                                                               
[in  the CS]  are those  that specifically  address how  money is                                                               
appropriated  out of  the  permanent fund.   He  said  he is  not                                                               
familiar with [all] the changes that  were made in Sections 1 and                                                               
REPRESENTATIVE WEYHRAUCH  asked if there is  a sectional analysis                                                               
on this bill.                                                                                                                   
CO-CHAIR WHITAKER replied that there is not.                                                                                    
Number 0558                                                                                                                     
MR. BARTHOLOMEW explained  that in Section 1 there  is a language                                                               
change  in which  the reference  to the  "distribution of  Alaska                                                               
permanent fund income" to [the permanent fund dividend].                                                                        
MR.  BARTHOLOMEW went  on  to say  that Section  2  has the  same                                                               
change  where  the   word  "income"  is  removed   and  the  word                                                               
"appropriations" is added.  These  changes to both Sections 1 and                                                               
2 make the  statutes work with the  constitutional amendment that                                                               
has been  proposed [in HJR 26].   Mr. Bartholomew pointed  out to                                                               
the committee  that the effective date  of HB 298 is  tied to the                                                               
successful  passage  of  the   constitutional  amendment  by  the                                                               
CO-CHAIR WHITAKER  summarized that  Sections 1  and 2  are really                                                               
housekeeping changes.                                                                                                           
Number 0716                                                                                                                     
LARRY PERSILY,  Deputy Commissioner, Office of  the Commissioner,                                                               
Department  of  Revenue,  testified  on  HB 298.    He  told  the                                                               
committee that Section 1 really  only deals with language related                                                               
to jury  duty lists, and  assures that  it conforms with  the new                                                               
definition of  paying the  permanent fund  dividend based  on the                                                               
new law.   Section 2 deals  with the new definition  of permanent                                                               
fund  appropriations  as  it  applies to  the  authority  of  the                                                               
Legislative Budget and  Audit Committee.  He  commented that both                                                               
Sections 1 and 2 are merely technical measures.                                                                                 
CO-CHAIR  WHITAKER  noted  for  the  record  that  Representative                                                               
Gruenberg had joined the committee.                                                                                             
Number 0801                                                                                                                     
REPRESENTATIVE  GRUENBERG pointed  out that  he does  not believe                                                               
the changes  to Sections 1  and 2 need  to be conditional  on the                                                               
passage  of  the constitutional  amendment  since  they are  only                                                               
housekeeping changes.                                                                                                           
CO-CHAIR HAWKER  asked whether these are  housekeeping matters as                                                               
a result  of the  passage of  HJR 26, or  would these  changes be                                                               
necessary anyway.                                                                                                               
Number 0844                                                                                                                     
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG  replied that he believes  these changes                                                               
are   still  appropriate   [whether  HJR   26  passes   or  not].                                                               
Furthermore, the  language is more understandable  to the average                                                               
Alaskan and the jury clerk.                                                                                                     
Number 0906                                                                                                                     
MR. BARTHOLOMEW explained  that Section 3 is a  new section added                                                               
to describe how appropriations are  made from the permanent fund.                                                               
He  pointed out  to  the committee  that later  in  the bill  the                                                               
existing  provisions  are  repealed.    Section  3  will  be  the                                                               
language  that  the  legislature  would  look  at  in  describing                                                               
appropriations from the  fund.  Mr. Bartholomew  told the members                                                               
that  as written  in the  bill, no  more than  60 percent  of the                                                               
total amount available  under the 5 percent  spending limit would                                                               
go to the general fund and not  more than 40 percent of the total                                                               
amount  available  for appropriation  would  go  to the  dividend                                                               
Number 1000                                                                                                                     
CO-CHAIR WHITAKER commented that this is the meat of bill.                                                                      
MR.  BARTHOLOMEW  pointed out  that  the  difference between  the                                                               
original bill and  the CS is the [clarifying  language] that this                                                               
legislation is about an individual  specific fiscal year and that                                                               
it is  not necessary  to spend  the entire  amount, but  that not                                                               
more than  60 percent [for  general fund appropriation]  and [not                                                               
more  than  40  percent  for   dividends]  will  be  spent.    He                                                               
summarized that  the appropriations  could be anything  from zero                                                               
up to those amounts.                                                                                                            
MR. BARTHOLOMEW told the members that  Section 4 is a new section                                                               
being  added  at the  request  of  the permanent  fund's  [legal]                                                               
counsel.  This language clarifies  what method the permanent fund                                                               
is going  to use in determining  that year-end market value.   He                                                               
added that there  has been discussion about how  it is determined                                                               
and this language  would clarify that the permanent  fund will be                                                               
computed by  market value in  accordance with  generally accepted                                                               
accounting principles (GAAP)  after the costs to  manage the fund                                                               
have been taken  out.  He reiterated his comments  by saying that                                                               
the  year-end  market  value  is determined  after  the  cost  of                                                               
managing  the   fund  is  taken   out  and  before  any   of  the                                                               
distributions  covered in  Section 3  occur.   Clarifying all  of                                                               
this is the purpose of Section 4, he added.                                                                                     
Number 1118                                                                                                                     
CO-CHAIR HAWKER asked  if Section 4 would result in  using a mark                                                               
to market valuation.                                                                                                            
Number 1135                                                                                                                     
MR. BARTHOLOMEW  responded that  is correct.   He  explained that                                                               
the current  requirement of  using generally  accepted accounting                                                               
principles means  that at the  end of each month,  when financial                                                               
statements are  done, all investments  of the permanent  fund are                                                               
recorded at  their market value.   So the mark to  market [value]                                                               
includes all  those investments as  the market goes up  and down.                                                               
These  changes  are  tracked, reported,  and  recorded  at  their                                                               
market value on June 30.                                                                                                        
Number 1213                                                                                                                     
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON asked  if it would be better  to state that                                                               
all  expenses  that are  incurred  by  the [permanent]  fund  are                                                               
deducted from  the fund  before the  market value  is determined.                                                               
He said he  would not want to see this  legislation challenged or                                                               
in a position  in which it is necessary  to [continually] explain                                                               
MR. BARTHOLOMEW agreed with Representative  Seaton that is a good                                                               
point.  He referred to Section  5 which outlines how this process                                                               
works and  pointed out that the  cost to manage the  fund and the                                                               
operating budget for the Alaska  Permanent Fund Corporation comes                                                               
out  of revenue  that is  generated [by  investments].   In other                                                               
words, it comes off the top.   He explained that is what is being                                                               
maintained in  Section 5  of HB  298.   Mr. Bartholomew  told the                                                               
members that  when this  law was  written many  years ago  it was                                                               
done so  that if there  is no net  income, and for  example, like                                                               
last year  when the fund incurred  a net loss, there  would still                                                               
be funds  to pay the  expenses of managing  the fund.   The costs                                                               
[of running the fund] are coming out of revenue, he said.                                                                       
MR. BARTHOLOMEW  went on to say  that Section 4 requires  that at                                                               
the end of a year a determination  is made as to the net value in                                                               
accordance with  GAAP, which includes  several key  concepts such                                                               
as marking  all investments to  market and deducting the  cost to                                                               
manage and  run the [permanent] fund.   That is how  the value is                                                               
determined.   Mr. Bartholomew  summarized that  Sections 4  and 5                                                               
read  together specifies  that  the  intent is  for  the cost  of                                                               
managing and investing the fund to  come out of revenues, and not                                                               
out of the 5 percent that is based  on value.  He agreed with Co-                                                               
Chair  Whitaker that  these  sections of  the  bill maintain  the                                                               
status quo.                                                                                                                     
Number 1525                                                                                                                     
MR.  PERSILY clarified  that the  money that  Mr. Bartholomew  is                                                               
talking about to  manage the fund is subject  to appropriation as                                                               
approved by  the legislature every year.   It is not  a matter of                                                               
the Alaska  Permanent Fund Corporation  just taking the  funds as                                                               
it wants; it is part of the budget appropriation process.                                                                       
Number 1546                                                                                                                     
REPRESENTATIVE  GRUENBERG told  the  committee that  he has  seen                                                               
private  corporation change  the bottom  line due  to changes  in                                                               
accounting principles.   When this  happens it can  really change                                                               
the earnings  for that particular  year.   He said he  knows that                                                               
companies  always  notify  stockholders when  that  happens,  and                                                               
since  he  is not  an  accountant  he  accepts  that is  the  way                                                               
corporations do business.   Representative Gruenberg recalled Mr.                                                               
Bartholomew's testimony  in other  meetings where he  referred to                                                               
the way managers of the  fund can manipulate earnings which would                                                               
have a  considerable impact on the  earnings of the fund  and the                                                               
dividend for that year.  He noted  that this is the first time he                                                               
has  seen the  use of  the term  GAAP in  any state  statute, and                                                               
asked if there is any statute  that generally requires the use of                                                               
the term GAAP.                                                                                                                  
Number 1731                                                                                                                     
MR. BARTHOLOMEW responded  that for the last 20  years the Alaska                                                               
Permanent  Fund  Corporation  has  been required  by  statute  to                                                               
follow GAAP  with one  exception.  That  exception was  to ignore                                                               
unrealized gains and  losses which is called the  mark to market,                                                               
he  said.   He explained  that the  permanent fund  has not  been                                                               
required  to follow  GAAP for  purposes of  determining how  much                                                               
money can be taken out of the  permanent fund and how much to pay                                                               
for dividends, and  that is the exception.   Mr. Bartholomew said                                                               
theoretically how  much revenue is  recorded could be  changed by                                                               
deciding to buy  or not sell certain investments.   There is also                                                               
a financial accounting statement in  accordance with GAAP with no                                                               
exceptions.   He  reiterated  that the  permanent  fund does  two                                                               
separate sets  of accounting records,  one for GAAP and  one that                                                               
is required by  statute with the one exception to  GAAP, and then                                                               
the dividend is  calculated.  He told the members  that this bill                                                               
actually simplifies  and takes away the  ability to theoretically                                                               
delay or accelerate  the taking of gains to  affect the formulas.                                                               
Mr. Bartholomew emphasized that this  has not happened except for                                                               
investment or policy reasons that were discussed.                                                                               
Number 1909                                                                                                                     
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG  turned to AS 37.13.140,  which is being                                                               
repealed in  Section 11, page 6,  line 15.  That  statute was the                                                               
partial  implementation   of  the   GAAP  for  the   purposes  of                                                               
determining net  income only.   Representative Gruenberg  said he                                                               
applauds [the implementation  of GAAP].  He asked  Mr. Persily if                                                               
any state statute is in place that requires the use of GAAP.                                                                    
MR. PERSILY  replied that  he is  not familiar  with any,  but he                                                               
said  he does  know that  the performance  measures which  are in                                                               
statute for  the Department  of Revenue  makes reference  to that                                                               
[in missions and measures].                                                                                                     
Number 2023                                                                                                                     
CO-CHAIR HAWKER  informed the  committee that GAAP  is a  term of                                                               
art  by  accounting bodies  of  the  United  States.   There  are                                                               
international accounting principles  in which government entities                                                               
are subject  to Governmental  Accounting Standards  Board (GASB).                                                               
He  explained  that  enterprise operations  operating  as  public                                                               
corporations can  adopt either business principles  or government                                                               
principles.  In the Alaska permanent  fund's case it is viewed as                                                               
an operation  that is much better  served by GAAP rather  than by                                                               
GASB.   He  noted that  both of  these are  interactive standards                                                               
which  support the  conclusion that  the permanent  fund is  more                                                               
properly under  the auspices  of business  accounting principles.                                                               
He pointed  out that in  order for state financial  statements to                                                               
be certified it  must conform to GASB principles.   He summarized                                                               
his comments by  saying that in most cases GASB  adopts GAAP, and                                                               
the Financial Accounting Standards Board  (FASB) is the basis for                                                               
Number 2304                                                                                                                     
RON  LORENSEN,  Attorney,  Simpson,  Tillinghast,  Sorensen,  and                                                               
Longenbaugh,  testified   as  outside   counsel  to   the  Alaska                                                               
Permanent  Fund Corporation  on HB  298.   He clarified  that the                                                               
Alaska   Permanent   Fund   Corporation   operates   under   GASB                                                               
principles,  not under  business  principles.   The reference  to                                                               
GAAP  is the  generic  reference to  those  principles which  are                                                               
applicable to  the fund and  those principles are  actually GASB,                                                               
rather  than FASB.   In  response  to Representative  Gruenberg's                                                               
question that the  committee should not even  be discussing GAAP,                                                               
he replied  that GAAP actually refers  to both GASB and  FASB; it                                                               
depends  on  which kind  of  an  entity  a  corporation is.    He                                                               
reiterated  that   the  lower  case  [GAAP]   generally  accepted                                                               
accounting principles  is a generic  reference to  those accepted                                                               
accounting principles  which are applicable, and  emphasized that                                                               
those  which   are  applicable  to  the   Alaska  Permanent  Fund                                                               
Corporation are  the GASB  principles.  Using  GAAP in  a generic                                                               
sense is a correct reference, he said.                                                                                          
Number 2453                                                                                                                     
CO-CHAIR  WHITAKER  point  out   that  the  question  is  whether                                                               
unrealized losses and gains are accounted for on June 30.                                                                       
MR. BARTHOLOMEW replied  that is correct.  He said  that the main                                                               
change that  is being  made is that  the current  language, which                                                               
directs the  Alaska Permanent Fund  Corporation to  exclude those                                                               
unrealized  gains  and  losses when  a  determination  of  income                                                               
available  for appropriation,  will  go away  and  the fund  will                                                               
comply with  generally accepted accounting principles  that cover                                                               
accounting for  investments that  Co-Chair Hawker referred  to as                                                               
mark to market.  That is  the industry standard and what the fund                                                               
will be moving to, he said.                                                                                                     
CO-CHAIR WHITAKER  asked Mr.  Bartholomew to  put this  change in                                                               
perspective, since this  is not just a question  of semantics and                                                               
nomenclature; it is a significant policy change.                                                                                
Number 2554                                                                                                                     
MR. BARTHOLOMEW replied that in  looking at the permanent fund as                                                               
June  30 approaches,  accounting  records are  kept according  to                                                               
statute,  excluding unrealized  gains and  losses.   The earnings                                                               
reserve of  the permanent fund  is in two  pieces.  There  is the                                                               
realized earnings  reserve, which currently has  $1.2 billion and                                                               
that  is where  the  bond interest,  stock  dividend, and  rental                                                               
incomes  from real  estate  [are  held].   This  is  a cash  flow                                                               
account  and is  called the  realized earnings  reserve [account]                                                               
based on realized income.                                                                                                       
MR. BARTHOLOMEW explained that there  is a second earning reserve                                                               
[account], and according to statute  when the fund is determining                                                               
what is available,  it excludes the unrealized  gains and losses.                                                               
Those funds are kept in  a separate account because the financial                                                               
statements require that  the funds be recorded.   That account is                                                               
for volatility,  it has varied from  a positive $4 to  $5 billion                                                               
of unrealized gains to over  $1 billion in losses, which occurred                                                               
twice this  year.  That  account does  have a lot  of volatility,                                                               
but it  is important because it  shows what is going  on with the                                                               
value  of investments,  he said.   The  permanent fund  currently                                                               
accounts for them  separately and there is  confusion between the                                                               
statutes  saying to  ignore  them  and GAAP  saying  the fund  is                                                               
required to  record them  so the value  of investments  is known.                                                               
Mr.  Bartholomew  explained  that  this  bill  would  say  it  is                                                               
important to recognize both; do  not separately account for them.                                                               
There is  one fund and the  value of that fund  includes the cash                                                               
flow received  and the  gain or  loss in  investments.   When the                                                               
Alaska Permanent  Fund Corporation  determines the value  of fund                                                               
on June  30 for  determining what  is available,  it will  be the                                                               
true value  of the fund,  including unrealized gains  and losses.                                                               
He emphasized that is an important change.                                                                                      
MR.  BARTHOLOMEW, in  response  to  Co-Chair Whitaker,  explained                                                               
that mark to market is accounting nomenclature.                                                                                 
Number 2818                                                                                                                     
MR. LORENSEN commented that it is  important to be clear that the                                                               
permanent fund  presently marks to  market the value of  the fund                                                               
under GASB principles.   The change is that it  will no longer be                                                               
a determination of income.   That varies from GASB principles; by                                                               
deleting [AS  37.13.140 in Section 11  on page 6, line  15 in the                                                               
bill]  there will  no  longer be  a  separate statutory  earnings                                                               
reserve  account  determination  which calls  for  applying  GAAP                                                               
while taking  out the unrealized  portion.  Income in  the future                                                               
will  be determined  according to  GAAP  OR GASB  and the  market                                                               
value will be determined according to  GASB.  There will not be a                                                               
change in  the way market  value is determined.   This [language]                                                               
clarifies, for  the purposes of a  constitutional amendment, that                                                               
is the way it is to be determined.                                                                                              
Number 2915                                                                                                                     
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG  noted that this is  extremely important                                                               
because it is the basis for  the calculation of the dividend.  He                                                               
asked   if  these   changes  could   be  implemented   without  a                                                               
constitutional amendment.                                                                                                       
MR.  BARTHOLOMEW responded  that changes  in accounting  could be                                                               
done  in  statute,   as  it  is  currently  defined.     How  the                                                               
determination  of what's  available from  the permanent  fund for                                                               
appropriation is  done in  statute, he  noted.   This legislation                                                               
would  amend existing  statutes.   Both  of  these are  statutory                                                               
issues, he said.   He told the  members the change is  due to the                                                               
constitutional amendment  which would implement a  spending limit                                                               
based on value.                                                                                                                 
TAMARA COOK,  Director, Legislative Legal and  Research Services,                                                               
Legislative   Affairs   Agency,   responded   to   Representative                                                               
Gruenberg's question by saying that  she is not nearly as certain                                                               
that  the  Alaska  Permanent  Fund  Corporation  can  statutorily                                                               
achieve the  distribution that is  setout in the work  draft that                                                               
is being  considered.  She said  her uncertainty is based  on the                                                               
existing language  in the constitution.   She read  [portions of]                                                               
Section 15 of the Alaska Constitution which says:                                                                               
     The  principle can  be used  only for  income producing                                                                    
     investments designated by law  as eligible.  All income                                                                    
     from  the  permanent fund  shall  be  deposited in  the                                                                    
     general fund unless otherwise provided by law.                                                                             
MS. COOK told  the committee that is all that  is in the existing                                                               
provision of  the constitution with  respect to uses that  can be                                                               
made of the  permanent fund other than investment.   She said she                                                               
does not  see how an  unrealized gain  can be deposited  into the                                                               
general fund.   Consequently,  an unrealized  gain cannot  be the                                                               
kind  of  income  to  which   this  constitutional  provision  is                                                               
referring  and thus  an unrealized  loss  cannot be  the type  of                                                               
income to which the constitution  is referring.  The constitution                                                               
is talking  about funds that  can be physically deposited  in the                                                               
general fund,  and if the  legislature were silent, that  is what                                                               
would happen, she commented.                                                                                                    
Number 3334                                                                                                                     
REPRESENTATIVE  GRUENBERG commented  that  it seems  to him  that                                                               
this  is not  a discussion  about  deposits to  the general  fund                                                               
rather  it's  really  about  the  basis  of  the  calculation  of                                                               
dividend.   He asked if  that requires  a deposit to  the general                                                               
MS.  COOK replied  that it  does not.   However,  the reason  the                                                               
existing statute  enables the state  to have an  earnings reserve                                                               
account is because the sentence  [in the constitution] goes on to                                                               
say,  "unless  otherwise provided  by  law  this income  will  be                                                               
deposited in the  general fund."  [The  legislature] has provided                                                               
a  law  that the  income  will  be  deposited into  the  earnings                                                               
reserve account of the permanent fund.   If no law were in place,                                                               
these funds would  go into the general fund.   Ms. Cook explained                                                               
that in  order for  the court  to agree that  the word  income in                                                               
this  context  includes market  value  analysis,  the court  must                                                               
agree that  an unrealized gain  or loss would  automatically flow                                                               
into  the general  fund.   Ms.  Cook  noted that  she  is not  an                                                               
accountant, but  neither are the  justices of the  supreme court.                                                               
She explained that  the justices tend to look at  the language in                                                               
the same  way a common  person would.   Ms. Cook said  that those                                                               
who have witnessed fluctuations  in retirement accounts well know                                                               
there is  no income until  the income  is realized.   She pointed                                                               
out that  unrealized gains are  just not there when  moving money                                                               
from one  pot to other.   Once income  is moved into  the general                                                               
fund there  is the implication  that it is  immediately available                                                               
for  expenditure.   How can  the  legislature immediately  expend                                                               
unrealized income  in the general  fund, she asked.   The present                                                               
constitution,  at  the  very  least, creates  a  question  as  to                                                               
whether it would be possible to  go to a market value approach in                                                               
the use of money from the permanent fund.                                                                                       
Number 3602                                                                                                                     
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG  asked if  Mr. Lorensen agrees  with Ms.                                                               
MR. LORENSEN  responded that  he does  agree with  Ms. Cook.   He                                                               
said the issue that Ms. Cook  just described is the subject of an                                                               
attorney  general's opinion  that is  being written.   Until  the                                                               
opinion is issued, he said he  does not know what the real answer                                                               
is.   However, he  told the  members his own  view is  similar to                                                               
that of  Ms. Cook.   He said he does  not believe a  market value                                                               
based distribution can  be implemented under the  current form of                                                               
the constitution.                                                                                                               
Number 3648                                                                                                                     
REPRESENTATIVE  GRUENBERG   commented  that  this   is  important                                                               
because  there may  be  a requirement  to  have a  constitutional                                                               
amendment and  a conditional  effective date.   The other  way of                                                               
approaching this issue  is with a standard or  no effective date,                                                               
which would  mean it would  be 90  days after the  governor signs                                                               
the  bill.   Representative  Gruenberg offered  that  one way  to                                                               
approach this is to provide two effective dates.                                                                                
MR. LORENSEN remarked that he does  not believe [this can be done                                                               
without amending the constitution.]                                                                                             
Number 3818                                                                                                                     
MR. BARTHOLOMEW said  he believes that HB 298 was  written on the                                                               
premise  that  HJR  26  would  pass and  then  HB  298  would  be                                                               
effective  and  if  it  did  not  pass,  then  it  would  not  be                                                               
effective.  He  explained that when changing to  the market value                                                               
approach,  instead of  an income-based  approach for  determining                                                               
what  is  available  from  the  permanent  fund,  the  5  percent                                                               
spending limit that the board of  trustees is proposing is a very                                                               
essential part  of the protection.   When  there is a  high stock                                                               
market, as  was the  case in  1998 and  1999, the  permanent fund                                                               
could  go up  by billions  of  dollars; under  market value  that                                                               
amount of  money over  principle is  available.   Mr. Bartholomew                                                               
added that in the past there  has been $5-6 billion available for                                                               
appropriation.    The fund's  [managers]  believe  that the  fund                                                               
cannot be invested  in long-term assets, such as  stocks and real                                                               
estate, if there  is a risk that large amounts  of money could be                                                               
appropriated.    That is  the  driving  force  for the  need  for                                                               
stability and predictability with regard  to what's going to come                                                               
out of the fund,  he said.  The 5 percent  spending limit is very                                                               
important  when  changing  what  comes  out of  the  fund.    Mr.                                                               
Bartholomew summarized  his comments by  saying he would  be very                                                               
hesitant  to support  anything in  HB  298 without  understanding                                                               
that this all  came from the concept of being  partnered with the                                                               
constitutional   amendment  [HJR   26].     He  emphasized   that                                                               
everything being  considered needs to  be tied to  the successful                                                               
passage of the constitutional amendment.                                                                                        
Number 4026                                                                                                                     
CO-CHAIR WHITAKER pointed out that  the manner in which the value                                                               
of the  fund is determined,  the mark to  market, is part  of the                                                               
discussion  and is  a significant  change.   This legislation  is                                                               
saying that at a  certain point in time this is  the value of the                                                               
fund.  This  approach is different than the option  and policy of                                                               
not recognizing the swing in  the market, or unrealized gains and                                                               
losses.   He  asked  if this  would be  considered  a big  policy                                                               
MR. BARTHOLOMEW responded  that it is a change,  but he hesitated                                                               
to  say  it  is  a  big  shift because  it  is  really  a  timing                                                               
difference.     He  commented  that   over  time,   realized  and                                                               
unrealized [income] will equal, but  those timeframes can be very                                                               
CO-CHAIR  WHITAKER asked  if he  is correct  in assuming  that by                                                               
passing  HJR 26  and  HB  298 the  legislature  would preclude  a                                                               
[scenario  in  which  there  aren't   adequate  funds  to  pay  a                                                               
Number 4351                                                                                                                     
MR. BARTHOLOMEW  replied that is correct.   The intent of  HJR 26                                                               
and HB 298  would be to ensure an annual  distribution each year.                                                               
Currently there is  the risk that the  distribution formula could                                                               
lead to a zero distribution  from the permanent fund dividend, he                                                               
CO-CHAIR  WHITAKER  stated  that  this is  a  significant  policy                                                               
Number 4431                                                                                                                     
REPRESENTATIVE WEYHRAUCH turned attention  to an opinion prepared                                                               
by Legislative  Legal and Research  Services that  indicated that                                                               
there were  certain IRS implications  if the permanent  fund were                                                               
to  be structured  as a  guaranteed  dividend and  thus the  fund                                                               
could be subject  to taxation.  He asked if  she would comment on                                                               
this point.                                                                                                                     
Number 4507                                                                                                                     
MS. COOK  replied that she  believes Representative  Weyhrauch is                                                               
referring to the concern expressed  by the trustees of the Alaska                                                               
Permanent  Fund  Corporation.    The  tax-exempt  status  of  the                                                               
permanent  fund   is  determined   by  it   being  viewed   as  a                                                               
governmental fund that is of a  public nature.  The test that the                                                               
IRS  uses tends  to look  at  whether it  is a  private versus  a                                                               
governmental  benefit.   Currently, the  permanent fund  has been                                                               
used to pay dividends to individuals  in Alaska, but that is been                                                               
the  result of  a decision  that  the legislature  makes when  it                                                               
appropriates money each year.   It does satisfy a public purpose.                                                               
Ms. Cook went  on to say the question is  whether the legislature                                                               
has  eroded   the  governmental   nature  of   that  fund   if  a                                                               
constitutional provision  were setup so  that a private  right is                                                               
created  in the  fund.   She  reiterated that  she is  not a  tax                                                               
attorney and  does not know  how intense the danger  is regarding                                                               
whether the  IRS would  determine that  all or  a portion  of the                                                               
income of  the fund is  subject to taxation.   Ms. Cook  said the                                                               
heart  of the  problem  is  at what  point  does the  legislature                                                               
change the nature  of a public fund so radically  that there is a                                                               
risk that  the fund  will lose its  tax-exempt status  because of                                                               
the private benefit associated with the fund.                                                                                   
TAPE 03-24, SIDE B                                                                                                            
MR. BARTHOLOMEW agreed that's the issue.                                                                                        
Number 4527                                                                                                                     
REPRESENTATIVE WEYHRAUCH asked  for a copy of  Ms. Cook's opinion                                                               
on this matter.   He said he would like to meet  with her and the                                                               
administration to review  the analysis of Section 3(2)  to see if                                                               
it "invades" the IRS concern.                                                                                                   
Number 4432                                                                                                                     
REPRESENTATIVE  HEINZE  asked  if  some  visual  tools  could  be                                                               
developed  to  help legislators  explain  this  [concept] to  the                                                               
CO-CHAIR WHITAKER assured  Representative Heinze that information                                                               
would be made available.                                                                                                        
Number 4302                                                                                                                     
MR. BARTHOLOMEW  turned attention to  Section 6  of the CS.   The                                                               
Permanent Fund Corporation handles  investments for several other                                                               
funds, including the Alaska Mental  Health Trust Fund (AMHTF) and                                                               
the  Alaska Science  and Technology  Fund (ASTF).   This  section                                                               
brings in  sync how  the permanent fund  would do  the accounting                                                               
for the investments of the Alaska  Mental Health Trust Fund.  Mr.                                                               
Bartholomew explained  that there needs  to be a  discussion with                                                               
the  managers  and  board  of  AMHTF  in  order  to  ensure  they                                                               
understand the proposal  made in Section 6.   That discussion has                                                               
not yet taken place, he said.                                                                                                   
MR.  BARTHOLOMEW  explained  that  Section 7  covers  the  Alaska                                                               
Science and Technology  Fund which has been the subject  of a lot                                                               
of  discussion in  the legislature  this year.   Section  7 would                                                               
change the  statutes such that ASTF  would be accounted for  in a                                                               
way that is  similar to the permanent fund.   Section 8 addresses                                                               
the Alaska International Trade and Business Fund.                                                                               
CO-CHAIR WHITAKER noted  that these funds are  of concern because                                                               
the permanent fund manages these three funds.                                                                                   
Number 4041                                                                                                                     
MR.  PERSILY commented  that  Section 9  is  a technical  [change                                                               
related to  the change]  in Sections  1 and 2.   Section  9 deals                                                               
with paying the dividend each  year so instead of defining income                                                               
of the  permanent fund,  it is  defining money  appropriated from                                                               
the  permanent fund.   The  same change  is found  in Section  10                                                               
where  there  is  technical change  from  "income"  to  "amount."                                                               
These  changes  conform the  sections  with  the new  method  and                                                               
Number 3955                                                                                                                     
CO-CHAIR  WHITAKER  inquired  as  to  the  reason  for  repealing                                                               
Section 11.                                                                                                                     
MR. BARTHOLOMEW  responded that  in Section  11 AS  37.13.140 and                                                               
.145 are being  repealed because they are replaced  by Sections 3                                                               
and  4 in  the  existing bill.   The  third  statutory noted,  AS                                                               
37.13.300(c),  is  a  technical   amendment  complying  with  the                                                               
[Alaska  Mental Health  Trust].   He said  Section 12  covers the                                                               
conditional effect.                                                                                                             
Number 3847                                                                                                                     
CO-CHAIR WHITAKER  said that the  CS proposes that 60  percent of                                                               
the  amount  of  money  available  be  appropriated  to  and  for                                                               
purposes of government.                                                                                                         
REPRESENTATIVE  WILSON  recalled  that according  to  the  graphs                                                               
shown to  the members, it was  determined that this would  be the                                                               
best way  to approach  this issue  in the long  run and  keep the                                                               
fund as  stable as possible.   She told the members  she does not                                                               
have  the graphs  in front  of her,  and asked  if someone  would                                                               
summarize the three options that were highlighted.                                                                              
Number 3705                                                                                                                     
CO-CHAIR  WHITAKER  provided  the  members with  a  copy  of  the                                                               
graphs.   He  explained  that by  looking at  the  graphs from  a                                                               
purely  governmental fiscal  perspective the  preferential option                                                               
is  [60 percent  for  governmental purposes  and  40 percent  for                                                               
dividends].  The 50-50 [percent  option] has less stability.  The                                                               
40-60 [percent] option with 40  percent for governmental purposes                                                               
and 60  percent for  dividend distribution leads  the state  on a                                                               
short   course   to   continued  deficient   spending   with   no                                                               
constitutional budget  reserve.   This is  a policy  and economic                                                               
call, he stated.                                                                                                                
Number 3500                                                                                                                     
REPRESENTATIVE  GARA  inquired as  to  Ms.  Cook's legal  opinion                                                               
regarding the  use of a  severability clause in  the constitution                                                               
that would be triggered if a  tax consequence were to come about.                                                               
For instance,  if the dividend is  constitutionally protected and                                                               
that causes a tax implication  then the severability clause could                                                               
ensure the state avoids the problem that way.                                                                                   
MS.  COOK explained  that severability  clauses work  in statute.                                                               
However,  this  kind  of  clause  would  not  be  a  severability                                                               
provision,  rather  it  would be  an  alternative  constitutional                                                               
provision that would  take effect only if  certain conditions are                                                               
met.  Ms. Cook  said she does not see why there  could not be any                                                               
number of  alternative provisions that are  triggered, given that                                                               
each one in itself would be an amendment to the constitution.                                                                   
Number 3300                                                                                                                     
REPRESENTATIVE GARA  posed a hypothetical  situation in  which an                                                               
amendment to the  constitution on the dividend were  put in place                                                               
and caused  a tax implication.   If amending the  constitution in                                                               
this  way meant  this would  be a  problem for  the IRS,  would a                                                               
provision in the constitution allowing  for a three-quarters vote                                                               
of  the legislature,  as is  provided  in other  sections of  the                                                               
constitution, solve the IRS' concern.                                                                                           
MS. COOK  responded that it  might.  She  said she does  not know                                                               
how the  IRS would respond; they  are a mysterious force.   There                                                               
may be enough legislative discretion  because the legislature can                                                               
only appropriate  money for a  public purpose.  Ms.  Cook pointed                                                               
out that the  Alaska Supreme Court has  already acknowledged that                                                               
the permanent  fund dividend appears  to serve a  public purpose.                                                               
Maybe the IRS would agree, she commented.                                                                                       
Number 3116                                                                                                                     
REPRESENTATIVE GARA told the members  that he does not understand                                                               
why  the  public  purpose versus  private  purpose  issue  raises                                                               
questions [with  the IRS].  He  asked if that issue  is discussed                                                               
in her [opinion].                                                                                                               
MS. COOK said  she has not discussed that issue  because she does                                                               
not understand it and thus  she strongly urged the legislature to                                                               
obtain an independent  view from a tax attorney.   She noted that                                                               
there  have been  states  that have  set up  funds  that the  IRS                                                               
determined  created enough  of a  private benefit  to have  taxed                                                               
them.    She summarized  her  comments  by  saying there  is  the                                                               
theoretical potential to be a problem.                                                                                          
Number 2958                                                                                                                     
REPRESENTATIVE  OGG  commented  that the  [Constitutional  Budget                                                               
Reserve Fund]  CBRF End-of-Year Balance  chart reflects  that the                                                               
two proposals  on one  end or  the other buys  the state  about 3                                                               
years.   He asked if it  is possible to have  more flexibility in                                                               
Section  3 so  that the  legislature  could decide  in any  given                                                               
climate which option  of 60 percent to select;  either 60 percent                                                               
to the  general fund [or 60  percent to the dividend].   He asked                                                               
if that flexibility is desirable.                                                                                               
CO-CHAIR  WHITAKER commented  that  Representative  Ogg raises  a                                                               
good point.  He asked if  the legislature has the consensus to do                                                               
that and determine the dividend on a yearly basis.                                                                              
REPRESENTATIVE   OGG   reiterated   his  question   as   to   the                                                               
advisability of putting that kind of flexibility in the bill.                                                                   
REPRESENTATIVE WILSON  commented that this premise  would raise a                                                               
big fight  every year.   It would also  extend the time  spent on                                                               
this issue.                                                                                                                     
Number 2654                                                                                                                     
CO-CHAIR WHITAKER  agreed with Representative Wilson.   This bill                                                               
will allow  the legislature to  go to  the voters and  define the                                                               
split,  rather  than  saying  every  year  the  legislature  will                                                               
decide.   There may  be a  "trust me"  factor [connected  to that                                                               
REPRESENTATIVE  OGG  offered that  inserting  language  up to  60                                                               
percent allows  the legislature [to  look at the  fiscal climate]                                                               
and  decide what  percent to  appropriate for  dividends and  the                                                               
general fund.                                                                                                                   
CO-CHAIR  WHITAKER said  Representative  Ogg's suggestion  sounds                                                               
like  he would  like to  run government  like a  business.   In a                                                               
business environment one could look  at the fiscal situation, say                                                               
it's a  difficult time,  and since the  books can't  be balanced,                                                               
not give a  dividend.  That would be purely  a business decision,                                                               
he commented.                                                                                                                   
REPRESENTATIVE  WILSON  said if  the  public  realizes what  that                                                               
[change] would do, she said she  believes they would want more of                                                               
a guarantee  that [a  dividend] would be  there rather  than have                                                               
that option [come and go] from year to year.                                                                                    
Number 2349                                                                                                                     
CO-CHAIR WHITAKER asked the members  to give some thought to this                                                               
subject.   He said he  hopes to move  the bill from  committee at                                                               
the next meeting.                                                                                                               
[HB 298 was held over.]                                                                                                         
Number 2321                                                                                                                     
The  House  Special  Committee  on Ways  and  Means  meeting  was                                                               
recessed at 8:15 a.m. to a call of chair.                                                                                       
TAPE 03-25, SIDE A                                                                                                            
Number 0040                                                                                                                     
The  meeting   reconvened  5:05   p.m.    Members   present  were                                                               
Representatives  Hawker, Whitaker,  Rokeberg, Weyhrauch,  Wilson,                                                               
Gruenberg,  and  Moses.     Representatives  Heinze  and  Kohring                                                               
arrived as the meeting was  in progress.  Representatives Ogg and                                                               
Seaton were also present.                                                                                                       
HB 293-STATE SALES AND USE TAX                                                                                                
CO-CHAIR  WHITAKER  announced that  the  next  order of  business                                                               
would be  HOUSE BILL NO.  293, "An  Act levying and  collecting a                                                               
state sales and use tax; and providing for an effective date."                                                                  
MR. PERSILY  explained that originally  HB 293 was a  state sales                                                               
and use  tax.  The version  before the committee now  includes an                                                               
increase of  $.12 per gallon in  highway motor fuel tax  that had                                                               
been proposed  by the governor  at the beginning of  the session.                                                               
There are no  changes in aviation gas, jet fuel,  marine fuel, or                                                               
off-road motor fuel, he added.                                                                                                  
Number 0223                                                                                                                     
CO-CHAIR HAWKER  moved to adopt CS  for HB 293, Version  CSHB 293                                                               
bil.doc, dated 5/8/03,  as the working document.   There being no                                                               
objection,  Version CSHB  293 bil.doc,  dated 5/8/03,  was before                                                               
the committee.                                                                                                                  
Number 0225                                                                                                                     
MR.  PERSILY  explained  that  Section  1  of  the  bill  is  the                                                               
enforcement provision for motor  vehicles that might be purchased                                                               
out  of state.   What  this says  is if  an individual  wishes to                                                               
register his/her vehicle in Alaska,  it will be necessary to show                                                               
proof  that the  sales and  use  tax has  been paid.   Section  2                                                               
rewrites a  significant portion of  Title 29, it is  rewritten to                                                               
eliminate  the  municipal  authority  to  enforce,  collect,  and                                                               
administer sales and use taxes, he  said.  Under this version the                                                               
Department of  Revenue would  be responsible  for administration,                                                               
enforcement,  and collection  of  the  sales and  use  tax.   The                                                               
exemptions would be  set by the legislature in  statute and would                                                               
be applied to the rate  rules municipalities want collected.  The                                                               
[tax] rate for municipalities would still  be up to them, but the                                                               
exemptions,  rules,  and  enforcement  would be  handled  by  the                                                               
MR. PERSILY  went on to say  Section 7 deals with  the motor fuel                                                               
tax increase which would  go from 8 cents a gallon  to 20 cents a                                                               
gallon.   He  reiterated  that this  increase  would not  include                                                               
aviation gas, jet fuel, marine fuel, or off-road motor fuel.                                                                    
Number 0409                                                                                                                     
REPRESENTATIVE WEYHRAUCH asked about Sections, 3, 4, 5, and 6.                                                                  
MR. PERSILY  responded that  those sections  are the  rewrites of                                                               
Title 29.   He  explained that this  legislation sets  a combined                                                               
cap of  state and municipal  sales tax of  8 percent.   Section 3                                                               
covers a phase-in  [sales tax].  This  legislation specifies that                                                               
when the tax goes into effect  on January 1, 2004, whatever [tax]                                                               
the municipality has in place at  that time will remain in place.                                                               
Therefore, if there is not  sufficient room between the 8 percent                                                               
cap and  what the municipalities  have [on the books],  the state                                                               
would collect  less [in state  sales taxes].   For example,  if a                                                               
city gets a 6 percent tax as  of January 1, 2004, the state would                                                               
collect 8 percent  in that community, the city  would receive its                                                               
full  6 percent,  and the  state would  receive 2  percent.   Mr.                                                               
Persily noted that this bill has  a seasonal sales tax feature to                                                               
it because there is a 2  percent sales tax from October 1 through                                                               
March 31  and 4 percent sales  tax from April 1  to September 30.                                                               
He explained that he is providing  an overview of the bill rather                                                               
than going section by section.                                                                                                  
Number 0617                                                                                                                     
MR.  PERSILY turned  attention to  Section  9, page  9, line  21,                                                               
where it  spells out  the state's  portion of  the tax  under the                                                               
seasonal tax.  Section 3, page  4, describes how the sales tax is                                                               
shared with municipalities.                                                                                                     
REPRESENTATIVE  WEYHRAUCH commented  that this  would mean  if an                                                               
individual purchased  a car in  the summer he/she would  pay more                                                               
tax than if it was purchased in the winter.                                                                                     
MR. PERSILY responded  that would depend on  where the individual                                                               
lives.  For  example, Petersburg has a 6 percent  tax and because                                                               
there is an  8 percent cap, those residents would  pay 8 percent.                                                               
However, if  the buyer  lives in  Anchorage, there  would be  a 2                                                               
percent tax  in the fall  [and winter] and  4 percent tax  in the                                                               
spring  and summer  because  Anchorage [don  not  already have  a                                                               
municipal sales tax].                                                                                                           
REPRESENTATIVE WILSON asked if a  Petersburg resident could buy a                                                               
vehicle  in Anchorage,  pay the  sales  tax there  because it  is                                                               
lower.   She asked if the  sales tax would only  be charged where                                                               
the vehicle  was purchased, provided  the purchase took  place in                                                               
Number 0745                                                                                                                     
ROBYNN  WILSON,  Revenue  Auditor, Tax  Division,  Department  of                                                               
Revenue,  answered  questions   on  HB  293.     In  response  to                                                               
Representative  Wilson's  question,  she replied  that  it  would                                                               
depend on whether  that municipality had a use tax.   She pointed                                                               
out that many localities do not have  a use tax.  For example, if                                                               
a car  was purchased in  Anchorage and  taken to another  city if                                                               
that city  had a use tax,  there would be some  rate adjustments.                                                               
If the  city where the  purchaser lived did  not have a  use tax,                                                               
then he/she would just pay the tax where it was purchased.                                                                      
Number 0809                                                                                                                     
REPRESENTATIVE WILSON concluded then that  if she purchases a car                                                               
in state, and returns  home with it, she would not  have to pay a                                                               
tax where she lives.                                                                                                            
MS. WILSON  replied that  if the  town where  she lives  does not                                                               
have a use tax,  that would be correct.  If the  town does have a                                                               
use  tax  then there  may  be  an  additional  fee.   In  further                                                               
response to Representative Wilson,  Ms. Wilson clarified that she                                                               
would not pay  the state tax again, but there  may be a municipal                                                               
portion that  may be adjusted  if the  city [in which  she lives]                                                               
has a use tax.                                                                                                                  
Number 0933                                                                                                                     
MR. PERSILY  provided the  following example.   If  an individual                                                               
buys  a vehicle  in a  community  that has  a 2  percent tax  and                                                               
brings it  back to his/her community  where there is a  5 percent                                                               
use tax.   In this case,  the individual would owe  the community                                                               
the 3 percent difference.                                                                                                       
CO-CHAIR  WHITAKER pointed  out that  is no  different than  [the                                                               
current policy].  He explained his  comment by saying that if she                                                               
were to purchase  a vehicle in Anchorage today and  return to her                                                               
community  with   the  vehicle,  she   would  have  to   pay  her                                                               
community's use tax.                                                                                                            
REPRESENTATIVE WILSON  responded that she  did not do  that [when                                                               
she purchased a vehicle].                                                                                                       
MR.  PERSILY  pointed out  that  without  the connection  to  the                                                               
vehicle registration, enforcement is  very difficult.  Therefore,                                                               
this  legislation includes  a provision  that  specifies that  in                                                               
order to  register a  vehicle there  must be  proof of  sales tax                                                               
payment.   The  aforementioned would  ensure that  individuals do                                                               
not buy cars in the Lower 48 in order to avoid sales tax.                                                                       
Number 1036                                                                                                                     
MR. PERSILY told  the committee that in Section  3 the department                                                               
was directed by the co-chairs to  craft a way to phase-in a point                                                               
at which  the state gets  its full 2  percent and 4  percent, and                                                               
the communities  get their 2 percent  and 4 percent.   This would                                                               
allow  time for  communities to  adjust their  sales tax  to stay                                                               
within the  8 percent  cap.   On January  1, 2004,  any municipal                                                               
sales tax that is in effect  will be collected by the full amount                                                               
by the  state.  On January  1, 2008, the maximum  municipal sales                                                               
tax  would  be   6  percent.    In   response  to  Representative                                                               
Gruenberg,   Mr.  Persily   specified  that   the  aforementioned                                                               
language is in Section 3 on page 4, line 22.                                                                                    
Number 1141                                                                                                                     
CO-CHAIR  WHITAKER announced  that  Mr. Persily  will be  working                                                               
through the bill  section by section, but if he  comes to a point                                                               
in the bill  where it is necessary to look  at another section to                                                               
fully understand  it, then  he will  move to  that section.   The                                                               
committee is looking at Section 3, page 4, lines 21-26, he said.                                                                
CO-CHAIR  WHITAKER  noted  for  the  record  that  Representative                                                               
Seaton had joined the committee.                                                                                                
Number 1220                                                                                                                     
MR. PERSILY  told the  members that  municipalities with  a sales                                                               
tax will  continue to  receive the full  amount of  the municipal                                                               
tax for  four years, through January  1, 2008.  After  January 1,                                                               
2008,  state statute  would specify  that  the maximum  municipal                                                               
sales and  use tax would  be 6  percent.  Therefore,  a community                                                               
with a 7  percent sales tax would see a  decrease in tax revenues                                                               
by 1 percent.   On Jan 10, 2010, the  maximum municipal sales tax                                                               
rate would go to 5 percent  during the summer, because during the                                                               
winter the  state is only  taking 2 percent  so there is  still 6                                                               
percent  available  for  municipalities.    However,  during  the                                                               
summer of 2010 the maximum municipal  rate would go to 5 percent.                                                               
During the summer  of 2012 the maximum municipal  sales tax would                                                               
be 4 percent,  and the tax could  still be 6 percent  the rest of                                                               
the year.   The intent  of this  [phased-in approach] is  to give                                                               
municipalities time to adjust to  a state-mandated lower rate and                                                               
also allow  municipalities to  see how  the state  exemptions and                                                               
state  administered sales  tax [impact  revenues].   Mr.  Persily                                                               
noted that if  this bill were to pass, many  communities may find                                                               
they could collect the same revenue with a lower tax rate.                                                                      
Number 1348                                                                                                                     
CO-CHAIR WHITAKER  asked Mr.  Persily to  comment on  what affect                                                               
the period  between January 1,  2004, and January 1,  2008, would                                                               
have on municipalities.                                                                                                         
MR.  PERSILY responded  that during  that time  period the  state                                                               
would collect  whatever sales tax  rate is  on the books  and the                                                               
cities would receive  the full collections off of that  rate.  He                                                               
agreed with Co-Chair Whitaker's statement  that there is a 4-year                                                               
adjustment period and then a four-year set-down period.                                                                         
Number 1431                                                                                                                     
REPRESENTATIVE   SEATON   asked   for  clarification   that   the                                                               
percentage goes up  to 4 percent in the summer  because the state                                                               
anticipates that  there will be  higher revenues then.   However,                                                               
he interpreted that to mean  that when there are higher revenues,                                                               
the municipalities will collect less taxes.                                                                                     
MR.  PERSILY clarified  that what  the  state is  saying in  this                                                               
legislation is that a seasonal  feature is important to pass more                                                               
of  the burden  on to  nonresident visitors.   Those  cities that                                                               
have sales  taxes at 5-7 percent  will have to reduce  their rate                                                               
to  stay within  the 8  percent cap  for the  eventual 4  percent                                                               
state collection.  Mr. Persily  noted that because of fewer state                                                               
exemptions these cities may not see  a loss of revenue.  It would                                                               
be necessary, once the state code  is adopted, to compare it with                                                               
the municipal  code item  by item  in order to  see how  it would                                                               
affect local collections.                                                                                                       
Number 1542                                                                                                                     
REPRESENTATIVE  SEATON surmised  that legislators  will not  know                                                               
what affect  this required seasonal  reduction in sales  tax will                                                               
have on municipalities until the entire process is complete.                                                                    
MR. PERSILY  responded that each  of the  municipalities' finance                                                               
officers  could look  at the  bill,  compare it  to its  existing                                                               
code, and probably reach a good  estimate with regard to how this                                                               
bill would affect municipal collection.                                                                                         
Number 1621                                                                                                                     
REPRESENTATIVE OGG said in the summer  Kodiak has a lot of people                                                               
buying groceries for the fishing  season.  Kodiak's current sales                                                               
tax is 6 percent,  [with this bill it] would be  up to 8 percent.                                                               
Therefore, he surmised  that the tendency would be  for people to                                                               
purchase supplies in Anchorage where  the sales tax would only be                                                               
4 percent.  He asked if  Mr. Persily believes that kind of impact                                                               
will be felt [by communities such as Kodiak].                                                                                   
MR.  PERSILY acknowledged  that imposing  a higher  sales tax  on                                                               
communities  that already  have one,  means  there is  a risk  of                                                               
affecting  the  local economy.    He  stated  that he  could  not                                                               
speculate on the  impact, although it is  something the committee                                                               
will want to  consider.  Mr. Persily commented  that human nature                                                               
being what  it is there  will be some people  who will go  out of                                                               
their way  to save a  little money.  Adding  to the sales  tax is                                                               
going  to increase  the cost  of purchasing  goods.   He said  he                                                               
could not  provide any estimates between  communities, but common                                                               
sense says that it would affect some spending decisions.                                                                        
Number 1815                                                                                                                     
REPRESENTATIVE OGG commented that most  of the testimony heard on                                                               
this bill has  come from areas outside the  metropolitan areas of                                                               
Fairbanks  or Anchorage  and many  of  these communities  already                                                               
have high  sales taxes.   He said it would  be good to  know what                                                               
impact this bill  will have on small communities.   He questioned                                                               
whether  this  will  cause  commerce   to  flow  out  of  smaller                                                               
communities to [larger urban] areas.                                                                                            
MR.  PERSILY  replied  that  the department  does  not  have  the                                                               
ability  to create  a model  to predict  the impact  of a  higher                                                               
sales  tax  and the  effect  it  will  have on  shopping  habits.                                                               
Although there  may be economists  somewhere in the  country that                                                               
could do that, he said he does not  know of anyone who could do a                                                               
credible model.                                                                                                                 
Number 1930                                                                                                                     
REPRESENTATIVE OGG said  he believes there is  a delicate balance                                                               
and if  it is altered,  then things start to  shift.  He  said he                                                               
wants to  know what  that potential shift  will be  before moving                                                               
into it.                                                                                                                        
CO-CHAIR WHITAKER reiterated that if  the legislature does not do                                                               
something, the consequences  are dire.  He added that  it will be                                                               
necessary to  make adjustments to the  bill in this body  as well                                                               
as  the other  body.   This  bill  allows for  a  time period  of                                                               
CO-CHAIR  WHITAKER  noted  for the  record  that  Representatives                                                               
Heinze and Kohring had joined the meeting.                                                                                      
Number 2108                                                                                                                     
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON  asked Mr.  Persily if he  understands this                                                               
correctly.   In communities that  have, for example, a  6 percent                                                               
sales taxes in place, the tax would  be capped at 8 percent.  The                                                               
same  8 percent  will  be charged,  but based  on  whether it  is                                                               
winter or  summer will  determine what  [percentage] goes  to the                                                               
city and what [percentage] goes to the state.                                                                                   
MR. PERSILY responded that is correct.                                                                                          
Number 2149                                                                                                                     
REPRESENTATIVE  WILSON offered  a hypothetical  example in  which                                                               
the sales tax is 6 percent in  Kodiak.  In such a situation, what                                                               
would the City of Kodiak collect in 2004, she asked.                                                                            
MR.  PERSILY replied  that on  January 1,  2004, the  state would                                                               
collect a total  of 8 percent with 6 percent  going to Kodiak and                                                               
2 percent to the state.   Under this bill, in Kodiak's case there                                                               
would be  a 5 percent limit  January 1, 2010.   During the summer                                                               
months the state  would continue to collect 8 percent  of which 5                                                               
percent would go  to Kodiak and 3  percent to the state.   In the                                                               
winter months, the  state would continue to collect  8 percent of                                                               
which 2  percent would go to  the state and 6  percent to Kodiak.                                                               
On January  1, 2012,  the final  year of  the phase-in,  when the                                                               
municipal  limit is  4 percent  in the  summer months,  the state                                                               
would  collect 8  percent,  keep  4 percent,  and  give Kodiak  4                                                               
percent.   In the winter  the state  would give Kodiak  6 percent                                                               
and keep 2 percent.                                                                                                             
Number 2319                                                                                                                     
REPRESENTATIVE WILSON  asked if  she understands  this correctly.                                                               
In Kodiak's case the state will  collect 8 percent, and give back                                                               
6  percent until  the  year 2010  at which  time  the state  will                                                               
continue  to collect  8 percent,  but  only return  5 percent  to                                                               
MR.  PERSILY responded  that Kodiak  will  get 5  percent in  the                                                               
summer  months, and  6  percent  in the  winter  months when  the                                                               
state's rate  drops.  Mr.  Persily turned  to Section 5,  page 5,                                                               
which covers the  same phase-in language for cities.   It has the                                                               
same effect, one for boroughs, and one for cities.                                                                              
Number 2417                                                                                                                     
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG asked about unified municipalities.                                                                    
MR.  PERSILY  responded  that  he is  not  sure  whether  unified                                                               
municipalities fall under boroughs or cities.                                                                                   
Number 2440                                                                                                                     
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON related  that the community of  Homer has a                                                               
3.5 percent [sales tax] while the  borough has a 2 percent [sales                                                               
tax], and  therefore the total sales  tax is 5.5 percent.   Which                                                               
entity loses money, he asked.                                                                                                   
MR. PERSILY responded  that since both the borough  and city fall                                                               
under  the  [8  percent  cap],   the  state  would  lose  out  on                                                               
collections while  the city  and borough  would receive  the full                                                               
Number 2559                                                                                                                     
MR. PERSILY  pointed out that  Sections 6-8 deal with  motor fuel                                                               
tax change.                                                                                                                     
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG noted that Sections  6 and 7 refer to 20                                                               
cents per  gallon and Section  8 refers  to 18 cents  per gallon.                                                               
He asked why there is a difference in [the motor fuel] tax.                                                                     
MS.  WILSON replied  that Section  8 addresses  the fuel  used on                                                               
highways.  Currently, an individual would  pay [a tax of] 8 cents                                                               
a gallon on fuel.  If  the fuel is used off-road, that individual                                                               
would be entitled  to a 6-cent refund, which means  2 cents would                                                               
be paid.   This bill  does not change  taxation of net  fuel used                                                               
off-road, so an individual would pay  20 cents for that gallon of                                                               
fuel and  then be refunded  18 cents.   This section is  a refund                                                               
provision which maintains the status  quo under which 2 cents per                                                               
gallon is paid for off-road use.                                                                                                
Number 2746                                                                                                                     
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG  commented that there is  an increase of                                                               
12 cents per gallon.                                                                                                            
MS.  WILSON replied  that  is  correct.   The  fuel  used on  the                                                               
highway is increased by 12 cents  per gallon.  To keep status quo                                                               
on the off-road highway use,  the refund is increased which keeps                                                               
the fuel tax at 2 cents per gallon.                                                                                             
REPRESENTATIVE WEYHRAUCH  commented that  many people  pull their                                                               
boats or RVs  to the gas station, and fill-up  both tanks at same                                                               
time.  He  said he is pretty  sure that most people  do not apply                                                               
for a refund even though these are off-road vehicles.                                                                           
Number 2853                                                                                                                     
MS. WILSON  told the  members that a  boat is  considered "marine                                                               
use" and  is in a  separate section, so  it is not  consider off-                                                               
road  for state  purposes.    She agreed  that  it  is true  that                                                               
refunds are available for off-road  vehicles by submitting a form                                                               
and receipt for purchase of the fuel to the state.                                                                              
Number 2905                                                                                                                     
REPRESENTATIVE  OGG asked  if this  section  delineates that  the                                                               
state will be the collector of sales tax.                                                                                       
MR. PERSILY,  in response  to Representative  Ogg, said  that the                                                               
state  would administer,  collect, enforce,  audit, and  send the                                                               
checks  to  the communities  where  the  state has  collected  on                                                               
behalf of that community.                                                                                                       
Number 2940                                                                                                                     
REPRESENTATIVE  OGG suggested  that there  may be  [some economic                                                               
advantage] by  using tax collection  systems that  cities already                                                               
have in place and suggested  some flexibility be written into the                                                               
legislation.  Cities  may be better at tax collection  due to the                                                               
fact  that they  know the  people and  the system  is already  in                                                               
place.  He reiterated that he  believes it would be beneficial to                                                               
allow the  state to use  the existing municipal tax  structure to                                                               
collect the sales tax.                                                                                                          
MR. PERSILY  pointed out that  this bill would bring  Alaska into                                                               
compliance with  the Streamlined  Sales Tax  Project, which  is a                                                               
nationwide  effort.   This compliance  would allow  the state  to                                                               
obtain sales  tax from the  Internet purchases, mail  orders, and                                                               
catalog sales if Congress changes the  law.  This will be worth a                                                               
lot in future.   One of the requirements of  [compliance] is that                                                               
the state  be the administrator  of the sales  tax.  The  idea is                                                               
that businesses would send one check  to the state rather than to                                                               
many  different local  jurisdictions.   Although  this would  not                                                               
stop the state  from working on contract or  some other agreement                                                               
with  local  municipalities to  assist  in  enforcement work,  in                                                               
order to comply with the  Streamlined Sales Tax Project the state                                                               
must be the central administration point.                                                                                       
Number 3143                                                                                                                     
REPRESENTATIVE  OGG replied  that is  exactly his  point; if  the                                                               
state is the central administration  point why not give the state                                                               
the option  of allowing  a city  to be  agent.   The city  as the                                                               
agent  would not  mean  that sovereignty  of  collecting the  tax                                                               
would  passes to  the municipality,  but it  could allow  for tax                                                               
collection locally.   If this  would save money and  collect more                                                               
taxes, he said he believes it would be a viable option.                                                                         
MS.  WILSON  explained  that  this   is  an  effort  to  maintain                                                               
simplicity for businesses, particularly  for businesses that have                                                               
commerce in  multiple locations.   The goal is for  that business                                                               
to write  one check.  For  instance, a company could  contact the                                                               
state and ask  for the sales tax rate for  a particular zip code.                                                               
This would enable businesses to rely  on the state to advise them                                                               
when there is a change in the rate.   Ms. Wilson said that to the                                                               
extent   that  arrangement   is   not   threatened,  a   contract                                                               
arrangement would not be a problem.   The overall goal is to keep                                                               
it simple for  businesses and not to have, for  example, 10 audit                                                               
teams coming in to audit  a business for 10 different localities.                                                               
Only  the state  would  do  the audit;  however,  there would  be                                                               
nothing  to prevent  the state  from contracting  with a  city to                                                               
perform an audit.                                                                                                               
Number 3410                                                                                                                     
REPRESENTATIVE  GRUENBERG  referred to  Section  7,  page 7,  and                                                               
asked  why  the  legislature  would increase  the  tax  on  motor                                                               
vehicle  fuel  when  there  is   no  increase  on  aviation  gas,                                                               
watercraft fuel, and aviation jet fuel.                                                                                         
MR.  PERSILY   responded  that  was   a  decision  made   by  the                                                               
administration.  He  pointed out that in Alaska's  case the motor                                                               
fuel tax rate  is the lowest in the nation  and has not increased                                                               
in  over  30 years.    Mr.  Persily  commented that  those  facts                                                               
entered greatly into the decision.                                                                                              
Number 3450                                                                                                                     
REPRESENTATIVE  GRUENBERG  asked  how  aviation  gas,  watercraft                                                               
fuel,  and aviation  jet fuel  rates  compare with  the rates  in                                                               
other states.                                                                                                                   
MR. PERSILY  commented that  he could get  that information.   He                                                               
said  the  collections  on aviation  gas,  watercraft  fuel,  and                                                               
aviation jet fuel is not very  significant.  If this is an effort                                                               
to look for more revenues to  pay for public services, there is a                                                               
lot  more gas  that  goes  into cars,  pickup  trucks, and  SUVs.                                                               
Currently, there  are exemptions written into  state statutes for                                                               
the cargo business out of Anchorage airport, he added.                                                                          
Number 3545                                                                                                                     
REPRESENTATIVE  GRUENBERG questioned  [why]  this exemption  [for                                                               
cargo] is in state statute and  is letting huge planes go through                                                               
Alaska and not raising taxes at all.                                                                                            
MR.  PERSILY  responded  that  the  decision  [to  provide  these                                                               
exemptions]  was made  by the  legislature some  years ago  as an                                                               
incentive  to  help build  the  international  cargo business  in                                                               
Number 3621                                                                                                                     
REPRESENTATIVE  ROKEBERG  commented that  it  is  a very  complex                                                               
issue, and  not merely an  incentive [to the  international cargo                                                               
CO-CHAIR WHITAKER  pointed out  that this is  not such  a complex                                                               
issue  that  an  answer to  Representative  Gruenberg's  question                                                               
cannot be  obtained.   He told  Representative Gruenberg  that an                                                               
answer to his question would be provided.                                                                                       
Number 3652                                                                                                                     
MR. PERSILY explained  that in Section 9, page 9,  Chapter 44, is                                                               
the sales  and use tax  language and  most of the  language deals                                                               
with  the  mechanics of  collecting  and  administering the  tax.                                                               
Page 9, line  21, covers the state portion of  the tax, 2 percent                                                               
in the winter and 4 percent  in the summer, and explains that the                                                               
amount is  decreased based on  what the  city or borough  tax may                                                               
be.   Mr. Persily pointed to  one provision on page  10, line 22,                                                               
which  requires  that  the  sales  and use  tax  must  be  stated                                                               
separately on the sales so the  purchaser knows the amount of the                                                               
tax  and the  amount  of the  goods.    On page  11,  line 3;  he                                                               
explained that  "Nexus" means  to the  full extent  under federal                                                               
law and  the U.S. Constitution.   Therefore,  if an entity  has a                                                               
nexus or  any connection with  the State  of Alaska, a  sales and                                                               
use tax can be collected.                                                                                                       
Number 3829                                                                                                                     
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG  offered a technical amendment,  on page                                                               
11, line 5, insert the word  "a" before the words "nexus with the                                                               
State  of  Alaska".   There  being  no objection,  the  technical                                                               
amendment was adopted.                                                                                                          
REPRESENTATIVE  WILSON asked  for an  example of  someone with  a                                                               
nexus with the State of Alaska.                                                                                                 
MS.  WILSON posed  an example  in  which a  catalog company  buys                                                               
products.   If  the  aforementioned company  has  no presence  or                                                               
connection  in  the state  of  Alaska,  [the consumer]  would  be                                                               
responsible for the  use tax.  If, however,  that catalog company                                                               
had an  office or  some a  physical presence  in the  state, then                                                               
that catalog company would have to collect the tax.                                                                             
Number 3927                                                                                                                     
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG  pointed out  that the language  on page                                                               
10, lines  27-28, AS 43.44.040(c),  impinges on free speech  in a                                                               
commercial context  and the  ability to contract.   He  asked why                                                               
the  state has  such an  overriding interest  in imposing  such a                                                               
MS.  WILSON replied  that she  is not  an attorney;  however, she                                                               
related that  most states have this  provision.  The goal  of the                                                               
provision  is  to ensure  that  all  businesses  are on  a  level                                                               
playing  field, so  that there  is not  one retailer  advertising                                                               
that it will absorb the tax.                                                                                                    
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG  asked if anyone  has checked to  see if                                                               
this provision [is allowable under the constitution].                                                                           
Number 4028                                                                                                                     
CO-CHAIR WHITAKER  replied that  he would guess  that it  has not                                                               
been  checked.   He  told  Representative  Gruenberg that  he  is                                                               
making notes of questions that need  to be answered and a written                                                               
opinion  will be  obtained from  Legislative  Legal and  Research                                                               
Number 4044                                                                                                                     
MR. PERSILY referred to page 11,  line 7, which deals with exempt                                                               
sales.      This   legislation   includes   a   requirement   for                                                               
certificates.    If, for  example,  an  individual is  purchasing                                                               
something   that  is   exempt  from   sales  tax,   an  exemption                                                               
certificate would  be presented to  the business so  the business                                                               
has some assurance that it is  a nontaxable item.  The department                                                               
shall provide these exemption certificates.                                                                                     
REPRESENTATIVE HEINZE  commented that  she feels  very frustrated                                                               
that she did not  have time to read the bill.   The review of the                                                               
bill  is  going so  fast,  she  said,  that  she does  not  fully                                                               
understand what the committee is doing.                                                                                         
Number 4214                                                                                                                     
MR.  PERSILY  referred to  page  12,  line  6, which  deals  with                                                               
exemptions.  Line  6 explains that any sales to  or by government                                                               
agencies, whether  federal, state, or municipal,  would be exempt                                                               
from sales tax.  Subsection (b)  on page [12] makes it clear that                                                               
utilities are not exempt from the sales and use tax, he said.                                                                   
MS. WILSON pointed out that  page 12, lines 11-12, clarifies that                                                               
that  although government  entities  are  exempt, that  exemption                                                               
does not  include utilities that might  be provided by a  city or                                                               
governmental entity.                                                                                                            
Number 4411                                                                                                                     
MR.  PERSILY further  clarified that  if there  is a  municipally                                                               
operated utility that sells services  to residents or businesses,                                                               
those  services are  subject to  a sales  tax as  opposed to  the                                                               
government,  for example,  selling land,  which would  be exempt.                                                               
In  response to  Representative Wilson,  Mr. Persily  pointed out                                                               
that the City of Wrangell  provides utilities and charges a sales                                                               
tax on those utilities.   That practice would continue under this                                                               
legislation,  he  said.   Mr.  Persily  explained  that  although                                                               
subsection  (a) on  page 12,  line 6,  specifies that  government                                                               
sales are  exempt from sales  tax, that exemption does  not apply                                                               
to utility services provided by government.                                                                                     
Number 4506                                                                                                                     
MR. PERSILY addressed page 12, line  13, regarding sales to or by                                                               
501(c)(3) corporations.   That language  specifies that  sales to                                                               
or by  the IRS are  exempt from the  tax.  Mr.  Persily clarified                                                               
that this is about charitable  organizations.  Although there are                                                               
other  IRS  tax-exempt organizations,  a  501(c)(3)  is the  IRS'                                                               
designation for charitable organizations.                                                                                       
Number 4604                                                                                                                     
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG  directed attention to page  12, line 9,                                                               
where it refers to federally  recognized tribes and asked if that                                                               
would include all Native organizations.                                                                                         
MS.  WILSON  responded   that  there  is  a   list  of  federally                                                               
recognized tribes.                                                                                                              
MR. PERSILY  added that  the federally  recognized list  does not                                                               
include regional Native corporations.                                                                                           
TAPE 03-25, SIDE B                                                                                                            
Number 4648                                                                                                                     
REPRESENTATIVE  WEYHRAUCH agreed  that  the federally  recognized                                                               
tribe list does not include regional corporations.                                                                              
Number 4631                                                                                                                     
MR. PERSILY  reviewed exemptions from  the sales tax  starting on                                                               
page 12,  line 17, which  provides that purchases made  under the                                                               
food stamp  program or WIC  program are exempt; line  23 provides                                                               
that  wages,  salaries,  and  commissions  are  exempt;  line  27                                                               
provides  that insurance  premiums are  exempt; line  31 provides                                                               
that  dividends and  interest are  exempt;  and page  13, line  5                                                               
provides that garage  sales or isolated or  occasional sales, and                                                               
fundraising by nonprofit  groups that may not be  a 501(c)(3) are                                                               
also exempt.                                                                                                                    
Number 4500                                                                                                                     
REPRESENTATIVE  SEATON  asked  why  proceeds from  the  sales  of                                                               
stocks, bonds, or securities are exempt.                                                                                        
MR.  PERSILY  said  there  would  be  very  tough  administrative                                                               
problems  with  [taxing  stocks,  bonds,  or  securities].    For                                                               
example, would the sales tax be  on gross proceeds of the sale or                                                               
just on the profit.  Furthermore,  if an individual lost money on                                                               
the sale,  would the state  want to send  back some sales  tax on                                                               
the amount the individual lost.                                                                                                 
Number 4417                                                                                                                     
MS. WILSON replied that traditionally  sales tax has been applied                                                               
to tangible  personal property.   This  legislation is  a broader                                                               
bill and direction was given to exempt those items.                                                                             
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG commented that he  can see why the state                                                               
might not  want to  tax a citizen  who sold stock.   He  asked if                                                               
that would also apply to the purchase of the stock.                                                                             
MR.  PERSILY  restated  Representative  Gruenberg's  question  by                                                               
using the  example of an  individual who buys stock  from Merrill                                                               
Lynch.   Does Merrill Lynch  charge that individual sales  tax on                                                               
the purchase of the stock, he asked.                                                                                            
MS.  WILSON  replied  that  the  bill  taxes  sales  of  tangible                                                               
personal property and  services; stock is intangible  so it falls                                                               
outside the prevue of this bill.                                                                                                
Number 4255                                                                                                                     
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG asked if he  is correct in saying that a                                                               
copy write or a patent purchase is not taxable.                                                                                 
MS. WILSON responded that is correct.                                                                                           
Number 4228                                                                                                                     
MR. PERSILY  explained that  normally a sales  and use  tax deals                                                               
with  tangible  personal  property;  those  items  Representative                                                               
Gruenberg  mentioned are  intangible.   He added  that he  is not                                                               
aware of  a constitutional  prohibition against  a sales  and use                                                               
tax  on an  intangible  item,  but it  would  put  Alaska at  the                                                               
leading edge in finding things on which to assess a sales tax.                                                                  
REPRESENTATIVE  SEATON   asked  if   fishing  permits   would  be                                                               
MS. WILSON replied that is correct; it is an intangible asset.                                                                  
MR.  PERSILY referred  to  page  13, line  13,  which deals  with                                                               
household effects brought into Alaska  and noted that these items                                                               
would not be taxed.                                                                                                             
Number 4136                                                                                                                     
REPRESENTATIVE MOSES inquired  as to whether the  tax would apply                                                               
to construction camps where there are bunkhouses and mess halls.                                                                
MS.  WILSON responded  that  real property  is  not being  taxed.                                                               
However, there is no exemption  provided for meals, services, and                                                               
lodging.  If these meals and  services are being sold there is no                                                               
exemption, and therefore, they would be taxable.                                                                                
MR. PERSILY  posed an example  in which an  individual contracted                                                               
with a company  to provide meal services to his/her  work crew at                                                               
a construction  or fish  site.   The amount  of money  under that                                                               
contract would be subject to taxation under this legislation.                                                                   
REPRESENTATIVE  MOSES commented  that [in  many cases]  it is  in                                                               
lieu of wages.                                                                                                                  
MR.  PERSILY  replied that  an  argument  could  be made  that  a                                                               
portion of  all purchases goes  to wages of someone  who provided                                                               
the service or someone who built  the product.  This is much like                                                               
a sales tax that  would have to be paid to an  accountant to do a                                                               
tax return, or to a mechanic who  fixes your car, or to a company                                                               
that provides meal  services at the work site;  they are services                                                               
and would be taxed.                                                                                                             
Number 3940                                                                                                                     
MS. WILSON commented  that in this situation, the  business is in                                                               
effect  the consumer  of the  service.   Although the  benefit is                                                               
passed on to  the employees, the business is the  consumer of the                                                               
meal service.                                                                                                                   
REPRESENTATIVE MOSES stated  that he needs more  clarity on this.                                                               
On the  North Slope  [these companies] should  be taxed.   [There                                                               
are employees]  eating in  mess halls  or being  provided lodging                                                               
and not  being charged.   He stated  he believes it  is essential                                                               
[that it be subject to sales and use tax].                                                                                      
MR. PERSILY posed an example  in which an individual is operating                                                               
a  business on  the North  Slope  and contracts  with someone  to                                                               
provide meal service  to the company's workers.   That individual                                                               
would have to  pay sales tax on that service  that was purchased.                                                               
If the business is providing meals  and lodging to the workers at                                                               
no  charge,  as  Representative  Moses  mentioned,  there  is  no                                                               
taxable  transaction there.   There  is no  tax charged  to those                                                               
workers because they did not purchase services or goods.                                                                        
Number 3800                                                                                                                     
REPRESENTATIVE  OGG  asked  about the  exemption  for  occasional                                                               
sales.  He asked about the  language that refers to "other than a                                                               
vehicle" and  asked how  that applies to  a rowboat  or sailboat.                                                               
Would such items be taxed, he asked.                                                                                            
MS. WILSON  agreed that there  needs to be some  clarification in                                                               
reference to the  term "vehicle."  The intent of  this section is                                                               
to not tax  garage sales, for example; however,  if an individual                                                               
sells a car every five years  that should be taxable.  Ms. Wilson                                                               
reiterated that the language could  use some clarification either                                                               
through statute or regulation.                                                                                                  
Number 3643                                                                                                                     
CO-CHAIR WHITAKER agreed  with Ms. Wilson that there  is need for                                                               
clarification; however,  he said  he would  be concerned  if that                                                               
clarification were  to be done  through regulations  because this                                                               
is quite a substantial issue.                                                                                                   
Number 3635                                                                                                                     
MR. PERSILY  referred to page 13,  line 18, where there  is a cap                                                               
on  motor vehicles,  watercrafts,  aircrafts,  and mobile  homes,                                                               
regardless of  the purchase price  of those  items.  A  sales tax                                                               
would  be charged  up to  the  first $5,000  of the  price.   For                                                               
example, if there  were an 8 percent sales tax  and an individual                                                               
bought a  $30,000 car,  sales tax  would only  be charged  on the                                                               
first $5,000.                                                                                                                   
REPRESENTATIVE WILSON asked if the sales tax would be collected                                                                 
when [the buyer] changes the registration.                                                                                      
MR. PERSILY said that is correct.                                                                                               
[HB 293 was held over.]                                                                                                         
Number 2321                                                                                                                     
There being no further business before the committee, the House                                                                 
Special Committee on Ways and Means meeting was adjourned at                                                                    
6:00 p.m.                                                                                                                       

Document Name Date/Time Subjects