Legislature(2011 - 2012)SENATE FINANCE 532
04/04/2011 09:00 AM Senate FINANCE
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| SB23 | |
| SB92 | |
| SB87 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| += | SB 23 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | SB 92 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | SB 66 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | SB 87 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED |
SENATE BILL NO. 23
"An Act relating to transferable film production tax
credits; and providing for an effective date by
amending the effective dates of secs. 3 and 4, ch. 63,
SLA 2008."
9:22:07 AM
Co-Chair Hoffman proposed committee substitute, work draft
#27-LS0252\S. Co-Chair Stedman OBJECTED for purpose of
discussion.
MATT MOSER, STAFF, SENATOR ELLIS, discussed the changes in
the committee substitute work draft, version S from
previous version M. He stated that the changes included the
sponsor's efforts to address the concerns of the public, as
well as the concerns of the Senate Finance Committee (SFC).
Mr. Moser stated that section 1 was a new section, and
pointed out page lines 27 through 30. This was an update to
the powers and duties section of the statutes related to
the Legislative Audit Division (LAD). It would require LAD
to conduct a series of three audits of the film and
television production incentive program. He stated that the
first audit would be completed in 2013, to assess the
program at the end of the initial five years of the
program. He stressed that a second audit would be completed
with data from the first five years of the ten year
extension, to be available in 2018. He remarked that the
section would provide for a third and final audit at the
end of the final five years of the ten year extension.
Mr. Moser stated that section 2 amended the existing film
production incentives statutes to require the Department of
Revenue (DOR) to provide a certificate for a film
production incentive. He stated that section 3 and 4 also
added references to the film production incentive
certificates.
Mr. Moser looked at section 5, page 3, on line 17. He
stated that the period that the tax credit could be used
was changed from 3 years to 6 years. He remarked that the
change was made to allow for more flexibility and value for
Alaska corporate income tax payers to use the credits over
additional tax years.
Mr. Moser addressed section 6, and stated that it was the
same as section 1 of version M. This section created $200
million in additional film and television production
credits in the ten year extension. This would allow for
$100 million incentives for the first five years, and
allowed for $100 million in incentives for the second five
years of the extension.
Mr. Moser stated that section 7, page 3, lines 24 and 25
created two new subsections. He remarked that subsection G
created a cap of 44 percent on the total amount of tax
credits available for a single production. He stated that
subsection H would authorize the pooling of film production
incentive credits, which would clarify in statute that a
person or entity may buy and pool multiple credits.
Mr. Moser remarked that section 8 would add to the duties
of the film office additional reporting requirements. He
stated that the film office would be required to report the
total amount paid by productions qualifying for incentives
to Alaskan businesses and Alaskan residents.
Mr. Moser stated that section 9, lines 22 through 24 would
add to the duties of the film officer requirement to design
a logo that would represent the film office. He stated that
the logo would be included in films that qualify for the
incentives.
Mr. Moser reported that section 10 was the same as section
2 of version M. It would change the qualified expenditure
period from 24 to 36 months.
9:27:04 AM
Mr. Moser looked at section 11, page 5, line 11, and stated
that it would add a subsection to include Natural Resource
Development in the state, as one of the considerations when
determining whether a production was in the best interest
of the state.
Mr. Moser stated that section 12 was the same as section 3
from previous version M.
Mr. Moser remarked that section 13 was a conforming statute
that would deal with subsection I, that was added by
section 17. He stated that subsection I was a requirement
that a thank you to the state of Alaska and Department of
Commerce be included to qualify for the film production
incentive.
Mr. Moser stated that section 14 changed the base
production incentive for non-fiction television programs
from 30 to 20 percent.
Mr. Moser remarked that section 15, page 6, line 2,
increased the credits available for qualified production
expenditures made in a rural area from 2 to 6 percent.
Mr. Moser stated that section 16, page 6, lines 10 and 12
added a requirement for verification by an Alaskan
independent certified public accountant include
verification that there were no outstanding balances for
qualified expenditures due to a person in Alaska.
Mr. Moser addressed section 17, page 6, lines 14 through
22, and stated that it was the aforementioned subsection I.
Mr. Moser stated that section 18 was the same as section 4
of version M.
Mr. Moser explained that section 19 updated the definition
of "rural" to include communities of a population of up to
10,000 that were not connected by road or rail to Anchorage
or Fairbanks.
Mr. Moser stated that sections 20 through 23 were the same
as sections 5 though 8 from version M. It updated statutory
references to match the program extension.
Senator Thomas wondered if there was any attempt to gather
information about indirect economic impacts and activity,
outside of traditional state audits. Mr. Moser responded
that some film companies had performed independent audits.
Senator Olson wondered the stance of DOR related to section
7 of the bill. Mr. Moser replied that DOR had contributed
to the formulation of the language.
Senator Ellis supported the upgrades in the committee
substitute, specifically related to rural definitions.
9:33:11 AM
Co-Chair Stedman WITHDREW his OBJECTION. There being NO
OBJECTION, it was so ordered.
Co-Chair Stedman noted the two fiscal notes.
Senator Ellis MOVED to report CSSB 23 (FIN) out of
Committee with individual recommendations and the two
accompanying fiscal notes. There being NO OBJECTION, it was
so ordered.
CSSB (FIN) 23 was REPORTED out of Committee with a "do
pass" recommendation and with two zero fiscal notes from
the Department of Revenue Tax Division and the Department
of Commerce Community and Economic Development.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| CSSB 23 Version U (FIN).pdf |
SFIN 4/4/2011 9:00:00 AM |
SB 23 |
| SB 23 Additional Support Letters.pdf |
SFIN 4/4/2011 9:00:00 AM |
SB 23 |
| SB 23 Markel Letter of Concern.pdf |
SFIN 4/4/2011 9:00:00 AM |
SB 23 |
| SB 87 Fiscal Note SFIN 040411 .pdf |
SFIN 4/4/2011 9:00:00 AM |
SB 87 |