Legislature(2011 - 2012)BARNES 124
04/13/2011 03:15 PM House LABOR & COMMERCE
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| SB23 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| += | SB 23 | TELECONFERENCED | |
SB 23-FILM PRODUCTION TAX CREDIT/AUDITS
3:23:34 PM
CHAIR OLSON announced that the only order of business would be
CS FOR SENATE BILL NO. 23(FIN), "An Act relating to transferable
film production tax credits and film production tax credit
certificates; requiring the legislative audit division to audit
the Alaska film production incentive program; and providing for
an effective date by amending the effective dates of secs. 3 and
4, ch. 63, SLA 2008." [Before the committee was Version G.]
3:24:09 PM
KONRAD JACKSON, Staff, Representative Kurt Olson, Alaska State
Legislature, on behalf of the House Labor and Commerce Standing
Committee offered to explain the draft amendments to SB 23 in
members' packets.
3:24:27 PM
REPRESENTATIVE THOMPSON made a motion to adopt Amendment 1,
labeled 27-LS0252\G.1, Bullock, 4/12/11, which read, as follows:
Page 6, line 10, following "accountant":
Insert ", licensed in the state and"
Page 6, line 11, following "office":
Insert ","
CHAIR OLSON objected for the purpose of discussion.
MR. JACKSON explained Amendment 1 was recommended by a committee
member who wanted to ensure that any certified public
accountants (CPAs) conducting the audits on the film production
tax credits are licensed by the State of Alaska (SOA).
3:25:03 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SADDLER acknowledged Amendment 1 would require
CPAs conducting audits to be licensed to practice in the state.
He asked whether the business must also be domiciled in Alaska
MR. JACKSON answered that the specific requirement for being
domiciled in Alaska is not specified in the language. He
offered his belief that a person would not need to be domiciled
in Alaska to obtain a business license. He also offered to
confirm this with the department.
REPRESENTATIVE THOMPSON assumed licensure in Alaska meant that
the CPA's credentials would be approved by the Alaska Board of
Public Accountancy.
MR. JACKSON referred to page 6, line 7, of Version G, and
related the proposed section addresses the verification by
independent certified public accountants.
REPRESENTATIVE HOLMES clarified that the question the committee
is considering is whether the CPA conducting the audit on the
film production tax credits must have a CPA license or only a
business license from the SOA.
MR. JACKSON remarked he did not delve into that detail during
the discussion on licensure. He offered his belief that
"licensed" in the SOA referred to the business license, not
necessarily to the CPA's license. He offered to obtain further
clarification from the Department of Commerce, Community &
Economic Development (DCCED) or the legal drafter. He said he
was unsure if this provision covered both licenses.
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON stated the language of Amendment 1 reads,
as follows: "independent certified public accountant licensed
in the state and..."
REPRESENTATIVE THOMPSON recalled previous wording related to
licensure. He suggested that language read: certified public
accountant firm doing business in and licensed in the State of
Alaska."
MR. JACKSON referred to the regulations in 3 AAC, which listed
the requirement that the CPA must hold a current license issued
under AS 08.04 by the Board of Public Accountancy. Thus, the
CPAs would be required to hold the CPA license by regulation.
CHAIR OLSON removed his objection. There being no further
objection, Amendment 1 was adopted.
3:28:26 PM
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON made a motion to adopt Amendment 2,
labeled 27-LS0252\G.2, Bullock, 4/12/11, which read:
Page 7, line 11, following "(10)":
Insert "subject to the limitation in (c) of this
section,"
Page 7, following line 27:
Insert a new bill section to read:
"* Sec. 19. AS 44.33.236 is amended by adding new
subsections to read:
(c) The qualified expenditures described in
(a)(10) of this section may not exceed
(1) 15 percent of the total production
budget after June 30, 2013, and before July 1, 2016;
(2) 12 percent of the total production
budget after June 30, 2016, and before July 1, 2018;
and
(3) 10 percent of the total production
budget after June 30, 2018.
(d) For the purposes of (c) of this section,
"total production budget" means the sum of the total
qualified expenditures and the total expenditures that
are not qualified expenditures that are incurred by
the producer in connection with a film production
approved by the film office."
Renumber the following bill sections accordingly.
CHAIR OLSON objected for the purpose of discussion.
3:28:40 PM
MR. JACKSON explained Amendment 2 would help limit some of the
"above the line" expenditures that would qualify for film
production tax credits. The intention of Amendment 2 would be
to limit some "above the line" costs to make more of the film
production tax credits available for the "below the line" costs
related to film production.
REPRESENTATIVE SADDLER asked whether "above the line" refers to
costs including actors, producers, and directors. He related
his understanding that Amendment 2 would limit the percentage of
the entire project's cost for productions that companies could
receive related to the film production tax credits.
MR. JACKSON answered yes. He elaborated that "above the line"
is a term of art in the film industry which refers to actors,
writers, and producers, or the higher paid individuals, as
opposed to the "below the line" which he characterized as the
"worker bees."
REPRESENTATIVE SADDLER asked how the 15 percent credit and the
"stair step" down percentages were determined as the percentage
amounts of the tax credit.
MR. JACKSON answered that the "stair step" would range from 15
percent to 12 percent and then to 10 percent of the total
production budget. He related "stair step" approach is an
attempt to avoid a "major hit" to the entire film production tax
credit program in the early years. The goal of the credit
program is to build up the film industry in Alaska and the
attractiveness of Alaska to the industry. Amendment 2 addresses
a concern that Alaska does not have a full labor pool to perform
the production work. The intention would be to gradually reduce
the tax credits to allow Alaska's labor pool to increase.
REPRESENTATIVE SADDLER related his understanding the film
production tax credits would be wider initially and then
decrease as the industry becomes more established in Alaska. He
asked how the specific percentages were determined.
MR. JACKSON explained that the film industry would be directly
affected by this so obtaining industry input on the cap was
important so as to not damage the program. The goal has been to
provide incentives to hire Alaskans. "We did not want to kill
the golden goose so to speak," he said.
CHAIR OLSON related his assessment of the bill's chances for
support also determined the percentage of the tax credit.
3:31:36 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SADDLER offered this provision would relate to
people that would not likely be Alaskan residents, for example
actors. He asked whether Amendment 2 would limit the type of
production. He further asked whether this would mean only big
budget productions or small television productions would be
interested.
MR. JACKSON related he heard anecdotally the effect of Amendment
2 could limit big star productions. He pointed out that it
really is a policy call for the committee and the legislature as
to whether the limits are appropriate. He acknowledged the
committee has not had sufficient time to vet the percentages
used, but offered that Amendment 2 would offer some steps to
encourage local hire on productions in Alaska.
3:32:46 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SADDLER related everyone has heard about
Everybody Loves Whales. He asked for the percentage of tax
credit the film production film received.
MR. JACKSON answered he did not have the figures. He offered
his belief that the final expenditures have not yet been filed.
He suggested the film office may be able to address any cost
claims on the film.
CHAIR OLSON removed his objection to Amendment 2. There being
no further objection, Amendment 2 was adopted.
3:33:24 PM
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON made a motion to adopt Amendment 3,
labeled 27-LS0252\G.3, Bullock, 4/12/11, which read:
Page 8, line 30:
Delete "2024"
Insert "2029"
Page 8, line 31:
Delete "one year"
Insert "six years [ONE YEAR]"
CHAIR OLSON objected for purpose of discussion.
MR. JACKSON referred to page 7, lines 28-30 of proposed Section
19 of Version G, which changed the "look back" period for the
state to recover film production tax credits after an audit is
conducted. Amendment 3 corrects a corresponding change at the
tail end of bill that would go six years beyond the date the tax
credit was awarded. Thus, the date of 2029 represents the
corresponding change, and changing one year to six years.
CHAIR OLSON removed his objection. There being no further
objection, Amendment 3 was adopted.
3:35:03 PM
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON made a motion to adopt Amendment 4,
labeled 27-LS0252\G.4, Bullock, 4/12/11, which read:
Page 3, line 9:
Delete "this title"
Insert "AS 21.09.210, AS 21.66.110, AS 43.20,
AS 43.55, AS 43.56, AS 43.65, AS 43.75, and AS 43.77"
CHAIR OLSON objected for the purpose of discussion.
MR. JACKSON referred to Amendment 4. Initially, the intention
was to make tax credits available to other corporate tax payers,
including programs in all of Title 43. It was decided to narrow
the tax credit to eight programs. He previously outlined the
programs affected when he introduced Amendment 4, but it was
subsequently discovered the Fisheries Business Tax and Fishery
Resource Landing Tax are taxes tied to municipal revenue
sharing. The concern was that some communities may lose
funding. He asked the committee to consider a conceptual
amendment to delete line 4, which read: "AS 43.75, and AS
43.77" which would eliminate the two fisheries taxes which may
adversely affect revenue sharing to some communities.
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON made a motion to adopt a Conceptual
Amendment 1 to Amendment 4 to delete line 4, which read as
follows:
AS 43.75, and AS 43.77"
There being no objection, Conceptual Amendment 1 to Amendment 4
was adopted.
CHAIR OLSON removed his objection. There being no further
objection, Amendment 4, as conceptually amended, was adopted.
3:37:34 PM
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON made a motion to adopt Conceptual
Amendment 5, labeled, By Representative Olson, (Olson #1), which
read, as follows [original punctuation provided]:
Page 7, line 11:
Delete
"payroll"
Insert
"expenditures"
CHAIR OLSON objected for the purpose of discussion.
3:38:01 PM
MR. JACKSON referred to page 7, line 11, and explained that
Conceptual Amendment 5 would help to ensure expenses are
covered. It was discovered that some actors, the "above the
line" members, are sometimes paid via limited liability
corporations (LLCs) and are not included as part of the direct
payroll.
CHAIR OLSON removed his objection. There being no further
objection, Conceptual Amendment 5 was adopted.
3:38:44 PM
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON made a motion to adopt Conceptual
Amendment 6, labeled, By Representative Saddler, (Saddler #1),
which read [original punctuation provided]:
Page 5, line 7
After (2), insert "both the immediate and long-
term prospects for"
Page 5, line 9
After (3), insert "both the immediate and long-
term prospects for"
CHAIR OLSON objected for the purpose of discussion.
REPRESENTATIVE SADDLER explained that Conceptual Amendment 6
attempts to extend language on page 5, line 5 and apply it to
the other two paragraphs in proposed Section 11. Since the
proposed section would consider the immediate and long-term
prospects for the film industry it made sense to extend the
short and long-term effects of the production to the employment
of Alaska residents and the economy of the state.
CHAIR OLSON remarked that Conceptual Amendment 6 would provide
more tools.
REPRESENTATIVE SADDLER pointed out that some cases may exist in
which the short-term benefits may exceed the long-term benefits.
CHAIR OLSON removed his objection. There being no further
objection, Conceptual Amendment 6 was adopted.
3:40:35 PM
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON made a motion to adopt Conceptual
Amendment 7, labeled By Representative Saddler, (Saddler #2),
which read [original punctuation provided]:
Page 4, lines 16 - 20:
Delete all material.
Insert
"(5) the total amount of qualified expenditures
that were paid by productions
qualifying for the film production tax credit to
Alaska businesses; and
(6) the total amount of qualified expenditures
that were paid by productions
qualifying for the film production tax credit to
Alaska residents as wages."
CHAIR OLSON objected for the purpose of discussion.
3:40:55 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SADDLER explained the purpose of Conceptual
Amendment 7 is to breakout more information with respect to how
much was spent on wages to Alaska residents and how much was
spent with Alaska businesses. This could help provide a tool to
assess the benefits of the film production tax credit program on
Alaska's businesses and its residents.
CHAIR OLSON removed his objection. There being no further
objection, Conceptual Amendment 7 was adopted.
3:41:31 PM
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON made a motion to adopt Conceptual
Amendment 8, labeled: By Representative Saddler, (Saddler #3),
which read [original punctuation provided]:
Page 5, line 11
After (4) insert "the public perception of"
CHAIR OLSON objected for the purpose of discussion.
3:41:46 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SADDLER explained the importance of considering
the productions subsidized by the film production tax credit
program to ensure the tax credits don't harm Alaska's interests.
A large part of the interest in Alaska is the public perception
of how well state government safeguards and provides stewardship
of its natural resources and our wildlife. Conceptual Amendment
8 would seek to include consideration of the public perception
of the state's policy on utilization and development of the
state's natural resources.
3:42:11 PM
REPRESENTATIVE MILLER asked for further clarification.
REPRESENTATIVE SADDLER referred to page 5, lines 1-12, of
Version G, as modified by Conceptual Amendment 8, which read:
(b) In determining under (a) of this section whether a
production is not contrary to the best interests of
the state, the film office may consider
[(1)] the effect of the production on
(1) both the immediate and long-term prospects
for the film industry in Alaska;
(2) [THE EFFECT OF THE PRODUCTION ON] the
employment of
Alaska residents; [AND]
(3) [THE EFFECT OF THE PRODUCTION ON] the economy
of the
state; and
(4) the public perception of state policy on the
utilization and development of the natural resource of
the state.
CHAIR OLSON removed his objection. There being no further
objection, Conceptual Amendment 8 was adopted.
3:43:04 PM
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON made a motion to adopt Amendment 9,
labeled, 27-LS0252\G.11, Bullock, 4/12/11, which read:
Page 1, line 6, through page 2, line 29:
Delete all material.
Page 2, line 30:
Delete "Sec. 2"
Insert "Section 1"
Renumber the following bill sections accordingly.
Page 8, line 12:
Delete "July 1, 2023 [JULY 1, 2013]"
Insert "July 1, 2012 [2013]"
Page 8, following line 20:
Insert a new bill section to read:
"* Sec. 22. The uncodified law of the State of
Alaska is amended by adding a new section to read:
AUDIT OF PROGRAM. The legislative audit division
shall conduct an audit of the Alaska film production
incentive program (AS 44.33.231 - 44.33.239) and make
the audit available on the first day of the Second
Regular Session of the Twenty-Seventh Alaska State
Legislature in 2012. The audit must include an
itemized accounting of all approved and disapproved
expenditures that were submitted for the film
production incentive tax credit."
Page 8, line 24:
Delete "2023"
Insert "2012"
Page 8, line 30:
Delete "2024"
Insert "2018"
CHAIR OLSON objected for the purpose of discussion.
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON explained that Amendment 9 would create a
one year sunset of the Alaska film production incentive program
until the legislative audit program is conducted. He expressed
concern over extending the Alaska film production incentive
program for an additional ten years since this program has not
yet been audited. He further expressed concern about the state
"writing checks" to companies that are not licensed to do
business in the SOA, which has happened. He said, "If we are
not watching it any closer than that, it raises great concerns."
He reiterated his concern over extending this program for ten
years, without an audit or an accelerated audit of the program.
He would like to see an audit prior to the program being
extended for ten years, he said.
3:44:09 PM
REPRESENTATIVE MILLER asked whether the Division of Legislative
Budget and Audit has the capability to conduct an audit that
quickly.
CHAIR OLSON recalled discussing this with Pat Davidson, the
Legislative Auditor. He pointed out that any member of the
legislature can request the Legislative Budget and Audit
Committee (LB&A) conduct an audit. He offered his belief if an
audit was requested and the division could not conduct the audit
that it could be contracted out and completed within a
reasonable time frame.
3:44:46 PM
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON expressed his concern, with any measure
that is rushed through the process, noting these bills require
additional scrutiny. He related that the Alaska film production
incentive program would benefit from substantial funds. He
recalled that New Mexico has experienced returns of $.12 on the
dollar. He referred to a study he obtained that questions the
validity of the film production tax credit programs, noting many
states are revisiting their programs. He further noted that
cases involving fraud in Iowa have involved prosecutions. He
maintained his concern to have this bill move so quickly through
the process. He related that Amendment 9 would allow the
legislature to revisit the film production tax credits next
year. He said he thought it was prudent to review the program
prior to spending $100 million. He pointed out that the state
has not yet expended the initial $100 million. He remarked that
SB 23 would double the state's appropriation for this program.
This bill would also extend the program prior to the first
audit. He related that it is harder to "put the genie back in
the bottle than it is to let it out in the first place."
3:46:25 PM
REPRESENTATIVE HOLMES asked for clarification on Amendment 9.
She offered her belief that Amendment 9 would delete the current
audit requirements and replaces it with an immediate audit to be
completed by January 2012. It would also sunset the program in
one year.
CHAIR OLSON related that it would effectively "gut the bill."
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON argued that it would not take away
everything in the bill, only the ability to provide tax credits
without an audit. He stressed his seriousness to scrutinize the
Alaska film production incentive program. He highlighted his
substantial concern that the SOA would pay over $1 million to a
company not licensed to do business in the state. He said:
Red flags, red lights go off. It causes me a great
amount of concern. This is something I will watch
very, very closely. I will request an audit. It
happened very quickly. I do recognize that it does do
serious damage to the bill. Having said that and
expressed my concerns and put it on the record, I will
withdraw Amendment 9.
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON withdrew Amendment 9.
CHAIR OLSON pointed out a letter in members' packets from the
Pat Davidson, Legislative Auditor which outlines those issues.
He reiterated that Amendment 9 has been withdrawn.
3:48:26 PM
REPRESENTATIVE HOLMES moved to report Version G, HCS CSSB
23(L&C), labeled 27-LS0252\G, Bullock, 4/10/11, as amended, out
of committee with individual recommendations and the
accompanying fiscal notes.
3:49:25 PM
REPRESENTATIVE CHENAULT objected. He spoke to his objection.
He recalled previous concern about the length of time that the
film production tax credits would apply. He also expressed
concern about the way the credits are applied and who receives
the tax credits. He highlighted that he likes the film
industry, noting his son graduated from a film school. However,
he expressed concern about the tax credits and the ten year time
frame, yet the legislature does not know what the level of
revenues will be in ten years. He maintained his concern on the
amount of the film production tax credits and the way in which
the Alaska film production incentive program is administered.
He concluded that he would not object to moving the bill out of
committee, but he hoped the legislature would review all issues,
including that the revenue stream in the state is derived from
the finite resources of the state. He pointed out the state's
primary resource is on the decline, yet the legislature spends
hours in committee to consider ways to "give our money away."
He contended that the legislature has not had meaningful
conversations in terms of the health of the industry that
provides the money to give away these film production tax
credits. As the legislature continues to provide more and more
money to agencies and opportunities, it is important to realize
the source of the state's revenue. He concluded by not ensuring
the healthy resource development in the state, that "we are
setting ourselves up for a fall." He removed his objection to
moving the bill out of committee. He added his belief committee
members and all Alaskans need to understand the state has a
revenue stream that is continuing to decline. The only thing
masking the problem that the SOA does not have compared to other
states in the U.S. is the high price of oil. He reiterated that
he removed his objection.
3:52:04 PM
CHAIR OLSON recapped the work the committee has taken on SB 23.
He explained that when SB 23 first came before the committee it
was lacking any audit trigger or a sunset date. Now the bill
contains three LB&A audit provisions. He offered his belief
that the bill has been significantly tightened up.
3:52:39 PM
There being no further objection, the HCS CSSB 23(L&C) was
reported from the House Labor and Commerce Standing Committee.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| SB23 Draft Proposed Conceptual Amendment Olson.1.pdf |
HL&C 4/13/2011 3:15:00 PM |
SB 23 |
| SB23 Draft Proposed Conceptual Amendment Saddler.1.pdf |
HL&C 4/13/2011 3:15:00 PM |
SB 23 |
| SB23 Draft Proposed Conceptual Amendment Saddler.2.pdf |
HL&C 4/13/2011 3:15:00 PM |
SB 23 |
| SB23 Draft Proposed Conceptual Amendment Saddler.3.pdf |
HL&C 4/13/2011 3:15:00 PM |
SB 23 |
| SB23 Letter - DOR to Rep Olson 4-12-11.pdf |
HL&C 4/13/2011 3:15:00 PM |
SB 23 |
| SB23 Draft Proposed Amendment G.11.pdf |
HL&C 4/13/2011 3:15:00 PM |
SB 23 |
| SB23 Opposing Documents - Email Samuel Pelant 4-13-2011.pdf |
HL&C 4/13/2011 3:15:00 PM |
SB 23 |
| SB23 Supporting Documents - AK Education Tax Credit Information.pdf |
HL&C 4/13/2011 3:15:00 PM |
SB 23 |