Legislature(2013 - 2014)BELTZ 105 (TSBldg)
04/03/2013 01:30 PM Senate JUDICIARY
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| HB83 | |
| HB69 | |
| HB9 | |
| SB65 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| += | SB 65 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | HB 9 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | HB 69 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | HB 83 | TELECONFERENCED | |
SB 65-RETIREMENT PLANS; ROTH IRAS; PROBATE
2:35:57 PM
CHAIR COGHILL reconvened the meeting and announced the
consideration of SB 65. "An Act relating to property exemptions
for retirement plans, individual retirement accounts, and Roth
IRAs; relating to transfers of individual retirement plans;
relating to the rights of judgment creditors of members of
limited liability companies and partners of limited liability
partnerships; relating to the Uniform Probate Code, including
pleadings, orders, liability, and notices under the Uniform
Probate Code and the Alaska Principal and Income Act, the
appointment of trust property, the Alaska Uniform Prudent
Investor Act, co-trustees, trust protectors, and trust advisors;
relating to the Alaska Principal and Income Act; relating to the
Alaska Uniform Transfers to Minors Act; relating to the
disposition of human remains; relating to insurable interests
for certain insurance policies; relating to restrictions on
transfers of trust interests; relating to discretionary
interests in irrevocable trusts; relating to the community
property of married persons; and amending Rule 64, Alaska Rules
of Civil Procedure, and Rule 301(a), Alaska Rules of Evidence."
CHAIR COGHILL moved to adopt the proposed committee substitute
(CS), labeled 28-LS0473\O. He explained that it removes what was
Section 37 in version C, and asked if there was objection.
SENATOR WIELECHOWSKI asked what Section 37 did.
2:37:41 PM
CHAD HUTCHINSON, Staff, Senator John Coghill, sponsor of SB 65,
explained that Section 37 amends AS 21.09.210(m). He read the
subsection (m) as follows:
(m) The tax imposed under this section for a
single[AN INDIVIDUAL] life insurance policy or for a
group or other type of policy that insures the life of
one or more individuals shall be computed at the rate
of
(1) 2.7 percent of policy year premium up
to $100,000; and
(2) one-tenth of one percent of policy
year premium exceeding $100,000.
MR. HUTCHINSON deferred to Beth Chapman or David Shaftel to
explain what that means and why it was eliminated.
CHAIR COGHILL said the policy call was to avoid the fiscal
impact this year.
MR. HUTCHINSON agreed, and added that it could be taken up in a
separate bill in the future.
2:38:51 PM
CHAIR COGHILL found no objection and stated that version O was
before the committee. He directed attention to the new fiscal
note, and stated his intention to take action on the bill
tomorrow.
2:39:46 PM
MR. HUTCHINSON addressed the question Senator Wielechowski
raised during the last hearing regarding the single subject
rule. He explained that he corresponded with Senator
Wielechowski's office and sent a legal opinion that was prepared
by Representative Thompson for House Bill 292. It was introduced
last year and was substantially similar to SB 65. Mr. Hutchinson
said he, too, reviewed the opinion and cross-referenced the
cases stated in the memorandum on the Westlaw database.
He highlighted that the single subject rule has a broad
interpretation, and an act generally qualifies under the rule as
long as there is a logical connection or popular understanding.
The Alaska Supreme Court has heard eight of these cases and
seven were deemed to have qualified because of the broad
interpretation. The case that did not qualify under the single
subject rule tried to include both oil taxes and a clean
election program. He opined that SB 65 would qualify because the
subjects all address trusts and family or estate financial
planning matters.
2:42:16 PM
SENATOR WIELECHOWSKI said the opinion that Legislative Legal
Services issued certainly raises the question about whether the
bill violates the single subject rule. He suggested the
committee could manage the risk by removing the offending parts.
He warned that some attorney would challenge it if there was a
lot of money involved.
2:43:49 PM
DAVID SHAFTEL, Attorney, Anchorage, Alaska, said the group of
estate planning attorneys and trust officers that has worked to
improve the laws in this area has received similar opinions from
Legislative Legal Services nearly every time a bill like this
has been introduced. One particular attorney feels an obligation
to bring the issue up because it is a possibility. Mr.
Hutchinson and other attorneys believe that it won't be a
problem, and the Supreme Court has taken a broad view on these
challenges. He acknowledged that there was a small risk that
some attorney would make an argument in the future, but it
wasn't a realistic concern. The bill has 17 subjects but they're
all related to family and estate planning.
2:48:02 PM
CHAIR COGHILL asked if he had been working in this venue for 16
years.
MR. SHAFTEL clarified that he began working with the legislature
in 1997, but he's been practicing in Alaska for about 40 years.
CHAIR COGHILL asked if the single subject rule had always been a
topic of conversation.
MR. SHAFTEL said yes.
CHAIR COGHILL asked if there had been a court challenge.
MR. SHAFTEL said not in the area of estate planning and estate
and trust administration.
SENATOR WIELECHOWSKI said it's a risk but he wouldn't push it
any further.
2:50:10 PM
CHAIR COGHILL said he intended to have a sectional analysis at
the next hearing.
He held SB 65 in committee.