Legislature(2003 - 2004)
05/05/2003 09:16 AM House FIN
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
HOUSE BILL NO. 216
An Act relating to municipal taxation of refined fuel
products.
Co-Chair Harris MOVED to ADOPT work draft #23-LS0822\U,
Cook, 5/4/03, as the version of the bill before the
Committee. There being NO OBJECTION, it was adopted.
JOSH APPLEBEE, STAFF, REPRESENTATIVE TOM ANDERSON,
accompanied Randy Ruaro to the table.
RANDY RUARO, STAFF, REPRESENTATIVE BILL WILLIAMS, noted that
changes had been made to Section 3, which addresses the
"scope" of the bill. The previous version was broad and the
language needed to be narrowed so that the bill would
prohibit tax on both sale transfers of fuel refined within
the boundaries of the borough. He stated that the previous
version created issues across the State within the
municipalities. He claimed that the proposed version was
acceptable.
Representative Croft questioned the changes. Mr. Ruaro
stated that the entire Section 3 had been rewritten to
preclude taxes on wholesale transfer of fuel refined within
the boundaries of a borough.
Representative Croft noted that language from the "Q"
version would be deleting fuel used in the aircraft and
leaving in the wholesale transfer portion. Mr. Ruaro
replied that the initial difference was in regard to what
the prohibition actually could apply to. In the previous
"Q" version, it would apply to any borough around the State,
whereas, the current version allows it to be limited to
boroughs where the prohibition applies. He added that in
the previous version, fewer boroughs could apply. That
language is listed on Page 1, Lines 11 & 12.
Co-Chair Harris asked if the bill dealt with an increase to
the fuel tax. Mr. Ruaro responded that the bill does not
levy a fuel tax.
Representative Joule inquired why would the Legislature want
to remove a tool from the municipalities. He thought that
section would "hurt" the municipalities. Mr. Ruaro
clarified that it had been a policy decision. He noted that
Mr. Cook had addressed the idea in a previous committee
hearing. Representative Joule understood that the bill's
language currently only affects a few areas in the State.
Representative Croft advised that the policy was more
logical than that. It currently states that the "only
boroughs that can not access the tax, would be the ones that
have the refinement in their district". He commented that
it would be best to indicate only boroughs that actually
refine it, could tax it. By passing the "U" version,
Fairbanks could not tax but every other municipality could.
Representative Croft warned that there will be problems
within the multiple jurisdictions.
Representative Whitaker agreed with Representative Croft's
interpretation. In response to Representative Joule's
concerns, he admitted that he too had concerns. He believed
that it would be challenged and overturned. The conclusion
is that the only tax that remains in place would be the ones
imposed within the boundaries of the borough. He noted, a
broader statewide concern is that by allowing a borough to
tax, then the transfer of goods becomes essentially a
"restraint of trade". He believed that would create
problems for the State. He added that the legislation does
have significant merit. Representative Whitaker agreed with
the concerns voiced by Representative Croft.
Mr. Ruaro referenced the May 29th, 2002, letter received
from attorney, Mr. Avrum Gross, regarding the ability of
successive jurisdictions to tax. The version of the bill
does not give authority to the successive jurisdictions to
impose a tax. (Letter in Packet). He reiterated that in
the proposed bill, that question would be left unanswered.
Representative Croft noted that it would remove the right
that municipalities know they have and leave the right that
we are not sure they have. He did not understand the "fix".
Co-Chair Williams noted that he would like to hold the bill
in Committee until some of the questions have been answered.
Co-Chair Harris noted that the "Q" version deals with turban
powered aircraft. He asked why that had not been in the
proposed version. Mr. Ruaro replied that section of the
"Q" version was part of a tax that would occur outside
borough boundaries and have refineries in them. The
committee substitute was changed to apply only to boroughs
with refineries within their boundaries.
Co-Chair Williams noted that HB 216 would be HELD in
Committee for further consideration.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|