Legislature(2005 - 2006)
05/07/2005 06:12 PM House FIN
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| HB37 | |
| SB102 | |
| SB124 | |
| SB125 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
CS FOR SENATE BILL NO. 124(L&C)
An Act relating to requirements to obtain and maintain
a fisheries business license; relating to security
required of fish processors and primary fish buyers;
and providing for an effective date.
Vice-Chair Stoltze MOVED to ADOPT work draft #24-GS1013\L,
Utermohle, 5/6/05, as the version of the bill before the
Committee. There being NO OBJECTION, it was adopted.
JERRY BURNETT, LEGISLATIVE LIAISON, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE,
stated that SB 124 requires, as a condition of obtaining and
maintaining a fisheries business license under AS 43.75.020,
an acknowledgment of the obligation to pay the taxes levied,
Alaska Seafood Marketing Institute (ASMI) assessments under
AS 16.51, employment security contributions under AS 23.20
and Alaska Occupational, Safety, and Health Administration
(OSHA) fines under AS 18.60. The bill proposes to deny the
applicant a fisheries business license until they have paid
in full, all those taxes, assessments, contributions, and
fines that are outstanding.
Mr. Burnett pointed out that the bill also repeals and
reenacts AS 44.25.040, requiring the filing of a performance
bond by fish processors and primary fish buyers. The bond
would be more accessible for collection of claims by the
Department of Labor and Workforce Development (DLWD) for
unpaid employment security contributions. That action would
be achieved by providing a process for the Department to
file directly with the Commissioner of Revenue, a claim
against the bond instead of obtaining a court judgment.
Additionally, the bill preserves existing statutory priority
for use of the bond to pay fishermen and employees first.
In order to achieve that, the Department would be obligated
to return money collected from the bond if the processor or
buyer did not replenish it and the fisherman or employee
obtained a final judgment against the bond.
In conclusion, SB 124 provides that if a bond is depleted by
the Department's claim, the fish processor or fish buyer
would be subjected to an increased bonding requirement.
7:40:07 PM
AT EASE: 7:41:38 PM
RECONVENE:7:43:43 PM
Representative Moses MOVED to ADOPT Amendment #1, #24-
GS1013\I.2, Utermohle, 5/7/05. Co-Chair Meyer OBJECTED.
7:44:00 PM
MARK HICKEY, LOBBYIST, JUNEAU, explained that he represents
two rural boroughs with significant fishing activity. He
noted that both client's support and urge prompt passage.
The current bill deals with applicable local fishery taxes.
In effect, if the bill passes, in order to retain the
license, there are criterion the processor must be current
on and that includes local fishery taxes. The section the
amendment attempts to change is on Page 2, Lines 22-24.
Mr. Hickey explained why the amendment was needed. It
replaces current language with new wording that triggers a
decision relating to the processor paying taxes at the local
jurisdiction. One of two things could occur:
· Final judgment through the court; or
· An administrative determination made by the
municipality regarding the unpaid fishery taxes,
certifying due process.
Mr. Hickey stated without the provision, a final judgment
becomes a lengthy process to obtain. Incorporating the
amendment provides a quicker "trigger".
7:48:48 PM
Representative Hawker asked if the proposed language would
provide a final administrative determination challenge
during the legal process. Mr. Hickey said during a typical
process, payment would be held in escrow and the mechanism
would not be triggered. He had no idea what the end result
would be; however, the intent is to determine a reasonable
and useful structure.
Co Chair Meyer requested legal assistance in response to
Representative Hawker's query.
7:50:59 PM
CHRIS POAG, ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL, DEPARTMENT OF LAW,
commented that an administrative appeal to the Supreme Court
would address if the administrative action was challenged in
the Superior Court and could result in a different finding.
He spoke to the State, not municipal law. If a license
action were taken, a final administrative decision could be
implemented.
Representative Hawker noted that if there were an
administrative determination made at the final level, it
could provide a strong base not taking that action. He
indicated support for Amendment #1.
7:53:14 PM
Representative Kelly agreed, noting it could help the
municipality and raise the trust level.
7:53:50 PM
Mr. Poag explained that the difference with the political
subdivision administrative process, the provision provides
administratively before the State taxes are used to deny a
license. There are processes used before the final penalty
affects the license. When the Department of Revenue
receives the notice from a political subdivision, they have
to refer that to the Department of Law to provide a case
analysis, which requires that the Department of Law
determine if the procedural safeguards were provided. It is
important that when an administrative process takes place,
taxes owing cannot be relied upon unless the taxpayer knows
that their license may be affected. Such action could
trigger a review necessary by the Department of Law.
Mr. Poag advised if the amendment were implemented, the
Department would need to deal with the State's hearing
process regarding unmet concerns.
7:56:52 PM
Vice-Chair Stoltze asked if the process could be simpler.
Mr. Poag stated that the way the amendment was drafted, the
political subdivision presents the Department of Revenue,
the administrative finding. If there were a sufficient base
to deny that license, they would be afforded a hearing
before it could be denied. The burden falls upon the
Department of Revenue and that causes concern.
7:58:43 PM
Representative Hawker inquired if there was any reason not
to resolve the conflict through the regulatory process. Mr.
Poag explained that the Department of Revenue would be
denying the person the license and in order to do that, it
is important that procedural safeguards are in place. Such
action is done on a case-by-case base. The Department of
Law is responsible for each one.
8:00:16 PM
Representative Hawker recommended that the amendment should
move forward with the understanding of that intent. He
encouraged work to be done with the sponsor of the amendment
in order to resolve departmental concerns.
Representative Kelly commented on "good faith" during the
process.
8:01:50 PM
Co-Chair Meyer WITHDREW his OBJECTION to Amendment #1.
There being NO further OBJECTION, it was adopted.
8:02:03 PM
Vice-Chair Stoltze MOVED to REPORT HCS CS SB 124 (FIN) out
of Committee with individual recommendations and with the
accompanying fiscal notes. There being NO OBJECTION, it was
so ordered.
HCS CS SB 124 (FIN) was reported out of Committee with a "no
recommendation" and with zero note #2 by the Department of
Commerce, Community & Economic Development, zero note #3 by
the Department of Fish & Game, zero notes #4 & #5 by the
Department of Labor & Workforce Development and zero note #6
by the Department of Revenue.
8:02:42 PM
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|