Legislature(2021 - 2022)ADAMS 519
02/02/2022 09:00 AM House FINANCE
Note: the audio
and video
recordings are distinct records and are obtained from different sources. As such there may be key differences between the two. The audio recordings are captured by our records offices as the official record of the meeting and will have more accurate timestamps. Use the icons to switch between them.
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| HB54 | |
| HB90 | |
| HB111 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| += | HB 54 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | HB 90 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | HB 111 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED |
HOUSE BILL NO. 90
"An Act relating to rental vehicles; relating to
vehicle rental networks; relating to liability for
vehicle rental taxes; and providing for an effective
date."
9:25:16 AM
Co-Chair Foster reported that the bill was previously heard
on May 13, 2021.
REPRESENTATIVE ADAM WOOL, SPONSOR, indicated that HB 90
applied the existing vehicle rental tax that Alaska already
had in place to peer-to-peer network rentals like Turo. He
reiterated that there was already a 10 percent tax on
rental cars in the state that should be applied to the
peer-to-peer rentals. However, the state did not enforce
it. He detailed that the state had lacked the information
to collect the tax and the Department of Revenue (DOR)
asked Turo for a list of names of drivers and the company
did not comply. The tax would apply to the person renting
the car through the app and Turo would pay the tax to the
state. He emphasized that similar to renting a car though a
company like AVIS, the tax was paid by the person renting
the car through the app and the owner of the car did not
pay the tax. He noted that through the pandemic, Turo use
soared due to the scarcity of rental cars. He guessed that
the tax would raise several million dollars for the
state. He analogized Airbnb that paid a bed tax, which was
a similar premise as the peer-to-peer car rental networks.
Co-Chair Foster reviewed the testifiers available online.
Representative Wool also pointed out that the municipality
of Anchorage in addition the states tax had its own
municipal tax for vehicle rentals. Anchorage passed a law
requiring the peer-to-peer networks to pay the city tax.
9:29:32 AM
Representative Thompson reported that Recreational Vehicle
(RV) rentals only required a 3 percent tax. He asked if
Turo had engaged in any discussions regarding the disparity
in the tax percentages or offered to compromise between 3
percent and 10 percent.
Representative Wool relayed that the 3 percent tax RV was
already in state law. He did not want to change existing
statute. He commented that if someone rented an RV from
Turo they would pay the 3 percent tax. He was uncertain why
there were different rates for the different vehicles. He
noted that the bill did not attempt to change the existing
tax rates. The peer-to-peer tax rate would be the same as
what existed in state law. He was merely wanting to apply
the car rental tax to the peer-to-peer network model.
Representative Thompson asked whether the municipality of
Anchorage collected 3 percent on RV rentals. Representative
Wool acknowledged that the Anchorage vehicle rental tax was
8 percent and did not know what the municipality did
regarding taxing RV rentals. He reiterated that the state
tax for RV rentals was 3 percent, and a brick and mortar RV
rental agency was accountable for the tax.
9:33:03 AM
Vice-Chair Ortiz asked if it was safe to say if the bill
were to pass it would apply to all peer-to-peer vehicle
rental networks. It would not be limited to Turo.
Representative Wool answered in the affirmative. He noted
that other peer-to-peer vehicle rental networks existed
besides Turo.
9:33:55 AM
Co-Chair Merrick declared a conflict of interest as her
family rents out a car as a Turo vehicle.
9:34:35 AM
AT EASE
9:35:12 AM
RECONVENED
Co-Chair Foster did not hear any objections to her
conflict.
9:35:28 AM
AT EASE
9:36:41 AM
RECONVENED
Co-Chair Foster asked for a motion to move the bill out of
committee.
Vice-Chair Ortiz requested an at ease.
9:36:41 AM
AT EASE
9:37:35 AM
RECONVENED
Vice-Chair Ortiz MOVED to report HB 90 out of Committee
with individual recommendations and the accompanying fiscal
notes.
There being NO OBJECTION, it was so ordered.
HB 90 was REPORTED out of committee with a "do pass"
recommendation and with a new zero fiscal note by the
Department of Administration and a new fiscal impact note
by the Department of Revenue.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| HB 30 Letter ASPTA Support 4.9.21 .pdf |
HFIN 2/2/2022 9:00:00 AM |
HB 30 |
| HB 30 Presentation 2.23.21.pdf |
HFIN 2/2/2022 9:00:00 AM |
HB 30 |
| HB 54 Amendment 1 051921.pdf |
HFIN 2/2/2022 9:00:00 AM |
HB 54 |
| HB 111 Amendment #1 Wool 020222.pdf |
HFIN 2/2/2022 9:00:00 AM |
HB 111 |
| HB 54 Amendment w adopted conceptual amendment 020222.pdf |
HFIN 2/2/2022 9:00:00 AM |
HB 54 |
| HB 90 Public Testimony rec'd by 020222.pdf |
HFIN 2/2/2022 9:00:00 AM |
HB 90 |