Legislature(2001 - 2002)
04/27/2001 03:30 PM House L&C
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE
HOUSE LABOR AND COMMERCE STANDING COMMITTEE
April 27, 2001
3:30 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Lisa Murkowski, Chair
Representative Andrew Halcro, Vice Chair
Representative Kevin Meyer
Representative Pete Kott
Representative Norman Rokeberg
Representative Harry Crawford
Representative Joe Hayes
MEMBERS ABSENT
All members present
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
HOUSE BILL NO. 229
"An Act imposing a tax on employment; and providing for an
effective date."
- HEARD AND HELD
HOUSE BILL NO. 226
"An Act relating to the employment of persons 14 years of age or
older and under 19 years of age on licensed premises, including
hotels, restaurants, or eating places; and relating to hours of
work of minors under 16 years of age."
- HEARD AND HELD; ASSIGNED TO SUBCOMMITTEE
CONFIRMATION HEARINGS
Alcoholic Beverage Control Board
Duane S. Udland - Anchorage
- CONFIRMATION ADVANCED
Board of Dental Examiners
Rena L. Anderson - Anchorage
Dr. James Blasingame - Anchorage
Dr. Patricia Bergdahl - Fairbanks
- CONFIRMATIONS ADVANCED
State Medical Board
Dr. David Head - Nome
Sheila Means - Juneau
- CONFIRMATIONS ADVANCED
Board of Certified Direct-Entry Midwives
Sharon Evans - Chugiak
- CONFIRMATION ADVANCED
Board of Nursing
Mary S. Nikodym - Wrangell
- CONFIRMATION ADVANCED
Occupational Safety & Health Review Board
Representative Cliff Davidson - Kodiak
- CONFIRMATION ADVANCED
HOUSE BILL NO. 258
"An Act converting the business license fee to a business
license tax; adding, as an element of that tax, computation of
the tax based on the taxpayer's gross receipts; establishing
adjustments to that tax; and transferring administration of the
levy to the Department of Revenue; and providing for an
effective date."
- HEARD AND HELD
PREVIOUS ACTION
BILL: HB 229
SHORT TITLE:EDUCATION TAX ON EMPLOYMENT
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S)STEVENS
Jrn-Date Jrn-Page Action
04/02/01 0810 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME -
REFERRALS
04/02/01 0810 (H) L&C, FIN
04/02/01 0810 (H) REFERRED TO LABOR & COMMERCE
04/27/01 (H) L&C AT 3:15 PM CAPITOL 17
BILL: HB 226
SHORT TITLE:EMPLOYMENT OF PERSONS UNDER AGE 19
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S)HARRIS
Jrn-Date Jrn-Page Action
04/02/01 0809 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME -
REFERRALS
04/02/01 0809 (H) L&C, JUD
04/02/01 0809 (H) REFERRED TO LABOR & COMMERCE
04/17/01 1021 (H) COSPONSOR(S): KERTTULA
04/25/01 (H) L&C AT 3:15 PM CAPITOL 17
04/25/01 (H) Scheduled But Not Heard
04/27/01 (H) L&C AT 3:15 PM CAPITOL 17
BILL: HB 258
SHORT TITLE:CHANGE BUSINESS LIC. FEE TO RECEIPTS TAX
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S)SCALZI
Jrn-Date Jrn-Page Action
04/25/01 1206 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME -
REFERRALS
04/25/01 1206 (H) L&C, FIN
04/25/01 1206 (H) REFERRED TO LABOR & COMMERCE
04/27/01 (H) L&C AT 3:15 PM CAPITOL 17
WITNESS REGISTER
REPRESENTATIVE GARY STEVENS
Alaska State Legislature
Capitol Building, Room 428
Juneau, Alaska 99801
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified as the sponsor of HB 229.
CHUCK HARLAMERT, Juneau Section Chief
Tax Division
Department of Revenue
PO Box 110420
Juneau, Alaska 99811-0420
POSITION STATEMENT: Answered questions regarding HB 229.
SENATOR AUSTERMAN
Alaska State Legislature
Capitol Building, Room 417
Juneau, Alaska 99801
POSITION STATEMENT: Spoke as the sponsor of the companion
legislation, SB 165, to HB 229.
BRETT FRIED, Economist
Tax Division
Department of Revenue
PO Box 110420
Juneau, Alaska 99811-0420
POSITION STATEMENT: Answered questions regarding HB 229 and HB
258..
SEAN REILLY
1109 C Street
Juneau, Alaska 99801
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on HB 229.
REBECCA NANCE GAMEZ, Director
Division of Employment Security
Department of Labor & Workforce Development
PO Box 25509
Juneau, Alaska 998902-5509
POSITION STATEMENT: Answered questions regarding HB 229.
Testified that DLWD is supportive of Sections 3 and 4 of HB 226.
JOHN MANLY, Staff
to Representative John Harris
Alaska State Legislature
Capitol Building, Room 513
Juneau, Alaska 99801
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on behalf of the sponsor of HB
226.
DOUG GRIFFIN, Director
Alcoholic Beverage Control Board
Department of Revenue
550 W 7th Avenue, Suite 540
Anchorage, Alaska 99501-3510
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to HB 226.
REPRESENTATIVE DREW SCALZI
Alaska State Legislature
Capitol Building, Room 13
Juneau, Alaska 99801
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified as the sponsor of HB 258.
PAM LaBOLLE, President
Alaska State Chamber of Commerce
217 2nd Street, Suite 201
Juneau, Alaska 99801
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to HB 258.
JAMIE PARSONS, Executive Director
Juneau Chamber of Commerce
3100 Channel Drive, Suite 300
Juneau, Alaska 99801
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to HB 258.
CATHERINE REARDON, Director
Division of Occupational Licensing
Department of Community & Economic Development
PO Box 110806
Juneau, Alaska 99811-0806
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on HB 258.
ACTION NARRATIVE
TAPE 01-69, SIDE A
Number 0001
CHAIR LISA MURKOWSKI called the House Labor and Commerce
Standing Committee meeting to order at 3:30 p.m.
Representatives Murkowski, Halcro, Crawford, and Hayes were
present at the call to order. Representatives Meyer, Kott, and
Rokeberg arrived as the meeting was in progress.
HB 229-EDUCATION TAX ON EMPLOYMENT
CHAIR MURKOWSKI announced that the first order of business would
be HOUSE BILL NO. 229, "An Act imposing a tax on employment; and
providing for an effective date."
Number 0105
REPRESENTATIVE GARY STEVENS, Alaska State Legislature, testified
as the sponsor of HB 229, which is a companion bill to SB 165.
Representative Stevens paraphrased his sponsor statement, which
read as follows:
Throughout the session, legislators have been
approached by numerous educators requesting an
increase in K-12 education funding. Bills to increase
the foundation formula have been introduced in both
bodies, each requiring additional general fund
dollars, but without a new source of revenue for that
increase. HB 229 will solve that dilemma by creating
an education head-tax.
Under HB 229, the state will impose a tax of $100 a
year on each employed individual age 19 or older,
including the self-employed. HB 229 would require the
employer to deduct $50 from the employee's salary on
each of their first two regular payrolls after January
1 of the calendar year. A provision has been added to
prevent this tax from being taken out more than once
when the employee provides proof to their new employer
that the tax has already been satisfied.
Preliminary estimates by the Department of Revenue
indicate that the state would collect between $35 and
$36 million a year in new revenue generated by this
legislation. Approximately $2 million a year would be
required to administer the increased workload by staff
in that division if this measure becomes law. This
revenue would more than fund the $145 per student
increase in the foundation formula as proposed in SB 1
and HB 105.
The tax collected under AS 43.45.021 would be
deposited into the state's general fund, but accounted
for separately. In turn, the legislature may then
appropriate the amounts collected under the section
for education.
This authorization is not intended to create a
dedication of fund in violation of Article IX, Sec. 7,
of the Constitution of the State of Alaska.
I urge you to join me in showing a commitment to
public education in Alaska by supporting HB 229.
Number 0272
REPRESENTATIVE HAYES asked whether Representative Stevens had
considered making a statutory designation in order to make more
of an opportunity for this money to be used for education.
REPRESENTATIVE STEVENS answered that such wasn't part of Senator
Austerman's original bill. If that is of interest, it could be
reviewed.
REPRESENTATIVE HAYES inquired as to why this tax wouldn't be
implemented until February 1, 2003. He related his belief that
June 1, 2003, would probably be a better date because he
recalled that June or July is the highest month for employment
in this state.
REPRESENTATIVE STEVENS said that was a good idea. Furthermore,
it may be more difficult to collect this money in January, after
the holidays. Representative Stevens indicated his openness to
consider various options.
CHAIR MURKOWSKI remarked that collection of this tax from the
self-employed or commission-based employees would be more
difficult. Therefore, she asked if the difficulties had been
worked through.
REPRESENTATIVE STEVENS said that he hadn't worked through that.
He noted that such would need to be handled through the
Department of Revenue.
Number 0435
REPRESENTATIVE CRAWFORD said that he remembered the $10
education tax, which he was glad to see eliminated. He related
his personal experience in which he worked for many employers in
a year and thus would have to wait for a specific time of year
to obtain a rebate from the education tax. He asked if the
financial burden this creates had been reviewed.
REPRESENTATIVE STEVENS pointed out that under HB 229 it would be
a matter of proving whether the money had already been collected
versus a rebate situation.
REPRESENTATIVE HAYES inquired as to how this would work for
military personnel and those who work outside of the state, but
claim residency in Alaska.
REPRESENTATIVE STEVENS answered that military personnel would
pay this tax. However, he acknowledged the difficulty in
collecting the tax from checks that are cut in Washington, D.C.
Representative Stevens acknowledged the need to work on that.
REPRESENTATIVE HAYES also inquired as to why the age 19 was
chosen instead of 18.
REPRESENTATIVE STEVENS said that Representative Hayes could
chose 18 years of age if he wanted.
REPRESENTATIVE HALCRO asked if there is any institutional
knowledge regarding how the $10 education tax was collected then
from military personnel.
Number 0763
CHUCK HARLAMERT, Juneau Section Chief, Tax Division, Department
of Revenue, related his understanding that such a tax can be
collected from military personnel who are legal residents of
Alaska, but not from personnel that are assigned to Alaska who
aren't legal residents of Alaska.
REPRESENTATIVE HALCRO asked if there is a process in place to
account for such a contribution in order to avoid double
dipping.
MR. HARLAMERT said in order to avoid double dipping it looks as
if HB 229 places the responsibility on the employee to show a
second employer that the employee had already had the tax
withheld by a former employer.
REPRESENTATIVE HALCRO related his understanding then that those
in the military in active service wouldn't pay the $100
education tax.
MR. HARLAMERT answered, "Correct." In further response to
Representative Halcro, Mr. Harlamert related his belief that
other federal employees would have to pay the education tax.
Number 0875
REPRESENTATIVE KOTT posed a situation in which an active duty
military person, who is a resident of the state, is assigned to
Elmendorf. He related his understanding that the state is going
to approach the federal government's Department of Finance
office in Colorado and request them to withhold $100 and send it
to the state.
MR. HARLAMERT replied, "I think your understanding of it is
probably as good as mine."
REPRESENTATIVE KOTT said he felt that would be problematic. He
then inquired as to the difference between applying the $100
education tax to military personnel stationed in Alaska who
aren't residents of this state and any other person, nonresident
of the state, who seasonally works in the state and would be
taxed. He indicated that there would be an equal protection
problem.
MR. HARLAMERT explained that the military personnel aren't being
taxed due to a federal law.
REPRESENTATIVE KOTT asked if the working spouse of military
personnel in the state would be taxed.
MR. HARLAMERT related his belief that such a spouse would be
taxed.
Number 1005
SENATOR AUSTERMAN pointed out that federal military salaries are
exempt from state taxes. However, if military personnel worked
in a cannery, for example, as an extra job, then that person
would be taxed.
REPRESENTATIVE KOTT related his understanding then that military
personnel are exempt due to their federal pay rather than their
military position. Therefore, federal government workers that
are nonresidents would not pay the education tax.
CHAIR MURKOWSKI interjected her belief that this relates to the
Soldiers & Sailors Civil Relief Act, which says that specific
taxes aren't paid as long as the persons income is from military
employment. She agreed with Senator Austerman that military
personnel who have a job separate from military service would
pay the education tax through that separate job.
REPRESENTATIVE KOTT requested a copy of the aforementioned
Soldiers & Sailors Civil Relief Act.
REPRESENTATIVE HAYES inquired as to which month is the highest
month of employment for the State of Alaska.
MR. HARLAMERT remarked that he wasn't sure that would matter
because the bill calls for withholding $50 per paycheck from the
first two paychecks of the year. Therefore, it would be
dependent upon the effective date of the law. Regardless of
whether an employee starts work on January 1 or July 1, the
employee would pay the same.
REPRESENTATIVE KOTT posed a situation in which an employee
begins work December 1 and thus would receive the first two
checks in December. He asked how much time the employer has to
submit that [withheld education tax] to the Department of
Revenue. He also asked if there is enough time built into HB
229 that would allow the department to make the disbursement on
February 1.
MR. HARLAMERT explained that in Representative Kott's situation,
the withholding would be payable in February 1 of the following
year. Therefore, he didn't foresee that being a problem. A
more problematic scenario is one in which an full-year employee
has the [education tax] withheld in January, but it isn't turned
over to the department until February of the following year.
REPRESENTATIVE KOTT asked if 30 days is enough time.
MR. HARLAMERT answered that the department didn't see it as
problem. The money collected in February 2002 would be fiscal
year 2002 money and would be appropriated by the legislature in
the 2003 budget, he suspected.
Number 1313
BRETT FRIED, Economist, Department of Revenue, explained that
withholding would begin January 1, 2002, and continue for that
entire calendar year. However, the department wouldn't receive
the returns with the payments until February 1, 2003.
REPRESENTATIVE HALCRO remarked that the aforementioned didn't
make much sense to him because allowing an employer to hold onto
payments doesn't make sense for the state. Furthermore, there
are seasonal employers. Representative Halcro felt that once
the money is withheld from the employee, it should be filed in
conjunction with some monthly report, which would help the cash
flow side of this.
MR. HARLAMERT said that the department drew the same
observations and felt that the delay from the point of
withholding and the point of payment was unusual and subjects
the state to the risk of loss. However, a monthly withholding
would result in a more expensive tax to administer. One
suggestion within the department was to have a payment date of
February of the same year the employer withheld, [the tax]. A
monthly report is of concern.
Number 1444
REPRESENTATIVE HALCRO related his belief that waiting an entire
year for every employer's education tax was due on February 1,
then it seems to indicate that auditing and enforcing of this
will be tremendous. Therefore, he suggested having multiple
reporting times throughout the year. It seems that the employer
holding the receipts for a year lends itself to fraud and
nonpayment.
MR. HARLAMERT acknowledged that [the department] shared
Representative Halcro's observations when reviewing the bill.
In regard to the risk of loss, Mr. Harlamert felt that
Representative Halcro was on target. However, Mr. Harlamert
wasn't sure that more routine filings would result in better
compliance. He mentioned that seasonal employers represent
compliance issues. Therefore, Mr. Harlamert viewed the cash
flow issue as the most valid point and thus it was thought that
the collection would occur February 1 for money withheld on
January 1.
REPRESENTATIVE HALCRO reiterated concern over the seasonal
workforce in Alaska. He felt that it would be beneficial to the
employer to have an additional box for the education tax on the
ESC [Employment Security Cost] report. Therefore, the first
quarter that the ESC taxes are done, the education deduction
would be submitted with it and then the next quarter, the
employer can check a box indicating that the contribution has
already been made. From a reporting standpoint from the
employer, such would seem more convenient.
Number 1669
REPRESENTATIVE CRAWFORD asked whether an employee showing the
employer an original pay stub illustrating that they had already
paid the education tax would suffice.
MR. HARLAMERT explained that the bill actually requires that the
department supply a form that enables the employee to prove to a
subsequent employer that the education tax has already been
withheld.
REPRESENTATIVE KOTT posed a scenario in which an individual
opens a business in mid-June and closes it in mid-July. This
employer has two or three employees. In such a situation
Representative Kott inquired as to the mechanisms that the state
currently has in place to identify these employees.
Furthermore, what assurance is there that this employer would
deliver the education tax deductions to the department. He also
inquired as to the provisions in law that would penalize the
employer if the employer didn't forward the education tax to the
department.
MR. HARLAMERT noted that the Department of Labor would have the
wherewithal to know who is employed and who isn't. Mr.
Harlamert pointed out that there isn't a provision at this time
that would hold the employer who withheld the money responsible.
However, there is a penalty if the employer fails to forward the
money to the department. Essentially, the employee's money is
held in trust by the employer to be turned over to the
department and thus there should be some enforcement and penalty
provisions placed on the employer to pay for this. In further
response to Representative Kott, Mr. Harlamert said that HB 229
doesn't include a penalty. However, a reference to existing
penalties under Title 43 could be inserted.
REPRESENTATIVE KOTT asked if the department has taken a position
on HB 229.
MR. HARLAMERT answered that the department has not taken a
position on HB 229.
Number 1919
REPRESENTATIVE MEYER related his understanding that this
education tax will collect about $35-$36 million.
MR. FRIED noted that was a preliminary estimate. However, the
fiscal note actually estimates that $38.2 million will be
collected. In further response to Representative Meyer, Mr.
Fried explained that it would cost $822,000 to collect this
education tax in the first year.
REPRESENTATIVE MEYER pointed out that Representative Stevens'
sponsor statement estimates a cost of $2 million for the
collection cost and thus there seems to be a discrepancy between
that [and the department's fiscal note]. Representative Meyer
inquired as to why the collection costs so much.
MR. HARLAMERT said that the education tax is a reasonably simple
tax to collect. The difficulty lies in the volume,
predictability, and seasonality. He informed the committee that
about 28,000 returns are received per year and he expected [HB
229] to generate about 50,000 as well as 50,000 payments.
REPRESENTATIVE MEYER related his assumption that the money
collected from the education tax goes to the general fund to be
allocated to the schools through the foundation formula in order
to be equitable.
Number 2101
REPRESENTATIVE HAYES asked if more than eight folks would be
necessary to perform the computing. He assumed that people will
attempt to "play the system" and thus he wondered if the
department had enough people to perform enforcement if someone
decides not to pay.
MR. HARLAMERT answered that in the department's preliminary
review, the principle enforcement types were included at some
level. That is, either reviewing returns for reasonableness or
going out in the field examining returns. He indicated that the
hope was to achieve compliance goals through technology.
REPRESENTATIVE HAYES expressed his fear is that there wouldn't
be enough people doing enforcement and thus people will slip
through the cracks, which is what happened with the ABC Board.
Representative Hayes didn't believe three [enforcement] folks
for the state would be enough. Representative Hayes inquired as
to how this education tax would work for those that are self-
employed.
MR. HARLAMERT said that he thinks that the paycheck provision
would be ignored for self-employed people and the self-employed
would pay the $100 for the year, if they qualify. Mr. Harlamert
noted that there would be no way to pick up the self-employed
under the ESC rules. "This tax base really doesn't fit
perfectly with any existing program that the state has, that I'm
aware of," he said.
Number 2186
SEAN REILLY highlighted that thus far the committee has focused
on how people would potentially be able to fall through the
cracks. Although there have been some valid questions, he
expressed the need to emphasize the positive aspects of this
bill. Mr. Reilly said that a large portion of the revenue that
would be generated from this bill would come from out of state
to earn money and return home, where their state has the
opportunity to tax them. Therefore, this legislation would
provide the state with an opportunity to obtain a portion of
that tax.
MR. REILLY pointed out that this session the legislature has
given the Department of Education & Early Development (EED) a
strong dictate to implement a program for an exit exam. He
expressed the need to provide EED with the tools to implement
such a program. One tool would be to fund the programs.
Additionally, Mr. Reilly remarked that school board members
request additional funds due to declining enrollment, which he
felt was partially due to the lack of services. Therefore,
funding the schools would alleviate that problem. This
legislation is a wonderful way to implement that funding, which
would give EED a clear indication of support. In conclusion,
Mr. Reilly said that HB 229 is a step forward in addressing a
long-term fiscal planning.
MR. REILLY recalled an earlier question regarding going after
employers that didn't report for their employees. He recalled
that AS 23 addresses action regarding the reporting of wages and
workers' compensation and thus perhaps similar wording could be
utilized with this.
MR. REILLY, in response to Representative Meyer, recalled that
the school tax, $10 at that time, was eliminated around 1980.
REBECCA NANCE GAMEZ, Director, Division of Employment Security,
Department of Labor & Workforce Development, responded to
Representative Halcro. She said that the Division of Employment
Security receives the ESC reports. She explained that employer
taxes are due to the division 30 days after each quarter.
TAPE 01-69, SIDE B
MS. NANCE GAMEZ continued by explaining that the division
verifies wages and investigates possible fraudulent failure to
report taxes. Although she knew that there are penalties, she
wasn't sure of the specifics.
REPRESENTATIVE HALCRO asked if the division's staff is proactive
in ensuring that people are compliant.
MS. NANCE GAMEZ informed the committee that the division has
auditors that audit employers. Furthermore, the division
proactively works with the employer community in helping them
understand the best tax rate that the employer could achieve.
There is also the fraud detection unit.
Number 2400
CHAIR MURKOWSKI announced her intention to hold HB 229 while
recognizing that this is a piece of a larger puzzle. She
indicated the need to address some of the details discussed
today.
REPRESENTATIVE HALCRO indicated agreement that this education
tax is one way to get out-of-state residents to contribute.
Furthermore, he felt that a very easy reporting system could be
created in conjunction with the ESC by working with various
departments and utilizing existing infrastructure.
REPRESENTATIVE MEYER asked if this education tax would be
deductible from the federal income tax.
[REPRESENTATIVE CRAWFORD] indicated that this could be deducted
from one's federal tax, if one itemizes their deductions.
There seemed to be agreement with Representative Crawford's
remark from members of the Department of Revenue.
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG pointed out that there are
constitutional provisions preventing poll taxes and other types
of head taxes.
REPRESENTATIVE KOTT related his belief that this is an ingenious
way to generate revenue for the state. Certainly, the revenue
could be applied to education. He wondered whether the
department would be interested in developing an exception for
the working poor.
Number 2253
REPRESENTATIVE STEVENS related his belief that the meeting was a
fruitful discussion that has highlighted some issues that need
further attention. Representative Stevens reminded the
committee that the education tax worked in Alaska in the past.
He informed the committee that the companion bill is in the
Senate Finance Committee.
REPRESENTATIVE KOTT remarked that perhaps the department may
want to review the possibility of filing this tax on-line with a
credit card.
REPRESENTATIVE HAYES reiterated the need to review how this
would relate to the self-employed.
[HB 229 was held.]
HB 226-EMPLOYMENT OF PERSONS UNDER AGE 19
CHAIR MURKOWSKI announced that the next order of business would
be HOUSE BILL NO. 226, "An Act relating to the employment of
persons 14 years of age or older and under 19 years of age on
licensed premises, including hotels, restaurants, or eating
places; and relating to hours of work of minors under 16 years
of age."
Number 2133
REPRESENTATIVE KOTT moved to adopt CSHB 226, Version 22-
LS0368\O, Cramer, 4/27/01, as the working document before the
committee. There being no objection, Version O was before the
committee.
JOHN MANLY, Staff to Representative John Harris, Alaska State
Legislature, testified on behalf of the sponsor. Mr. Manly
paraphrased the following sponsor statement:
House Bill 226 was introduced with the objective of
making it easier for minors to obtain summer and after
school employment, especially in hotels, restaurants
and other eating establishments. Many more kids could
get jobs as dishwashers, hotel maids, busboys, etc.,
if not for the fact that most of the businesses where
they might be employed have beverage dispensary
licenses.
Current state law also makes it unnecessarily
difficult for employers, as well as the job-seeking
youth. Finding workers willing to take jobs that
typically are not high-paying becomes more difficult
if high school-age kids are not eligible. And it
becomes a real problem during the short but intense
tourist season when kids on summer vacation are
required to get their parents' permission before they
can start working. This is a process that can take
days or weeks, during which time the youth lose income
and employers go without help.
HB 226 seeks to streamline this process by allowing
youth 16-18 years of age to work in these jobs without
having to obtain their parents' permission.
Provisions in current law are retained that prevent
minors from serving, mixing, delivering or dispensing
alcoholic beverages, and requiring the employer to
notify the Department of Labor and Workforce
Development of the fact that a minor is working for
them. HB 226 also extends state law to allow 14- and
15-year-olds to work in these hotels, restaurants,
resorts, and other eating places, with their parents'
permission.
This bill also makes changes to state law governing
the number of hours and time of day a minor can work,
while school is in session and when it is not, mainly
to align Alaska law with current federal limits.
MR. MANLY turned to the proposed CS, which attempts to cleanup
one of the statutes that was left on the books when the state
changed the legal drinking age from 19 to 21.
Number 1980
REPRESENTATIVE KOTT said that this seems to head in the
direction that "we" have been trying not to go. That is, "we"
have been trying to disassociate kids from alcohol.
Representative Kott asked whether there is a potential problem
with this legislation regarding the ability of a 16-year-old
busboy busing tables where alcohol was left on the table.
MR. MANLY acknowledged that such may be a potential problem.
Clearly, in the past the legislature didn't want kids working
near [alcohol].
REPRESENTATIVE KOTT remarked that perhaps the delivering portion
of the legislation would cover this potential problem; however,
he wasn't sure. Representative Kott surmised that the
restaurant owner will have to establish drinking and nondrinking
sections in the restaurant. He recalled that under current law,
a person under age 21 can't even lift an alcoholic beverage.
MR. MANLY pointed out that it may be a matter of segregating
duties and training staff that employees under age 21 aren't
allowed to bus tables with alcohol or the [of age employee]
removes the alcohol before [the underage employee] buses the
table.
Number 1816
REPRESENTATIVE HALCRO said that as an employer he wasn't sure
that he would place himself in a position of risk by hiring a
14- or 15-year old to bus tables in a place where there is
alcohol. Representative Halcro inquired as to who is requesting
this legislation.
MR. MANLY answered that this legislation was introduced upon the
request of one of Representative Harris' constituents who has a
combination hotel restaurant lounge in Valdez. This constituent
has difficulty obtaining even dishwashers due to the way the law
is written. Mr. Manly related his understanding that the
current law says that minors cannot sell alcoholic beverages and
thus restaurants that serve beer would not be able to have a
[minor] run the cash register because that constitutes selling
the alcoholic beverage.
MR. MANLY, in response to Chair Murkowski, said that he believes
that an employer of a combination hotel restaurant lounge
wouldn't be able to hire a 15-year-old as a maid because the
building houses a place where alcohol is sold.
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG pointed out that the licensing law
requires a diagram of a licensed premise, which may limit
service to a specific area. However, he acknowledged that there
may be room service.
REPRESENTATIVE CRAWFORD said that he wasn't clear on the current
law.
REPRESENTATIVE MEYER related his understanding that if a
business has a full dispensary license, then all employees must
be 21. However, if the business has a beer and wine license,
then there can be employees that are under 21.
Number 1621
DOUG GRIFFIN, Director, Alcoholic Beverage Control Board,
Department of Revenue, testified via teleconference. Mr.
Griffin explained that places that have beverage dispensary
licenses [such as a Red Robin] are allowed to employee people
under 21 years of age if a restaurant designation permit has
been received. The restaurant designation permit requires
approval by the local governing body and review of the floor
plan. An [underage] employee in such a location can engage in
duties that don't involve the serving, dispensing, or selling of
alcoholic beverages. For example, a Red Robin could have [an
employee under the age of 21 as a] hostess, kitchen staff, or
busboy. Mr. Griffin agreed with Representative Kott that the
busing of tables is one area in which it is possible for an
underage individual to come into contact with alcoholic
beverages that are unconsumed on the table. In such situations,
[the ABC Board] encourages the contents of the beverages to be
dumped into a bin at the table in order to avoid consumption by
the underage employee. Mr. Griffin noted that an [underage]
employee, perhaps a cashier, is allowed to carry the bill even
though the bill may contain alcoholic beverages. Mr. Griffin
emphasized that in all cases the establishment has to have a
restaurant designation permit [in order to employee underage
people]. He clarified that under current law [an underage
employee in a location that serves alcohol] has to be at least
16 years of age. In regard to the maid example, Mr. Griffin
said that Representative Rokeberg was correct in that a hotel
with room service would be part of the licensed premises, which
has been problematic and thus even a 14- or 15-year-old hasn't
been allowed to be employed as a maid on such a premises.
Number 1403
MR. GRIFFIN confirmed that the [ABC Board] is opposed to
lowering the age limit from 16 years of age to 14. Although Mr.
Griffin was sympathetic to a brief "labor shortage" in isolated
areas in Alaska, he didn't feel that it's good policy to lower
the age to 14 in an attempt to deal with that issue. He felt
that there are other areas that the employer could explore in
order to deal with a "labor shortage." Furthermore, he
expressed concern with regard to the lack of parental
permission. Mr. Griffin related his belief that things are
liberal enough now and the system is working. Moreover, this
legislation may have some unintended consequences. Mr. Griffin
also agreed with Representative Kott in that this legislation
seems, by allowing younger and younger people to be involved in
jobs that serve alcohol, to send a mixed message. Therefore,
the ABC Board is opposed to HB 226.
CHAIR MURKOWSKI referred to Section 2 of HB 226 that refers to
an exception outlined under AS 04.16.049(c), which doesn't allow
a minor to consume, possess, or control alcohol. She asked if
she was missing something.
MR. GRIFFIN replied no and explained that "we're" saying that
there are some jobs that can be performed on a liquor license
premises, assuming the restaurant designation permit is in
place, by [the designated age group of minors]. Mr. Griffin
reiterated the ABC Board's position that the age of 16 for these
jobs is liberal enough. He pointed out that 14- and 15-year-
olds are middle kids versus 16-year-old high school kids and
there is a difference between the maturity level of those ages.
REPRESENTATIVE CRAWFORD returned to the exceptions and asked if
these [employees that are minors] would be allowed to stock the
bar after hours and perhaps even carry in beer to stock the bar.
Such actions don't seem to fall under serving, mixing,
delivering, or dispensing.
MR. GRIFFIN answered that the general rule would be that such
wouldn't be allowed and would probably be considered delivering.
Number 1001
MR. GRIFFIN, in response to Representative Rokeberg, answered
that if the establishment is in an unorganized area, the
restaurant designation permit can be obtained directly from the
ABC Board. Mr. Griffin indicated that this permit involves a
more detailed diagram than that existing in the liquor license
file because the board is interested in employment as well as
the circumstances under which an individual under the age of 21
may be able to enter a restaurant that serves alcohol for the
purpose of dining. In further response to Representative
Rokeberg, Mr. Griffin clarified that [when there is a local
governing body] that local governing body has to approve the
permit.
Number 0842
REBECCA NANCE GAMEZ, Director, Division of Employment Security,
Department of Labor & Workforce Development (DLWD), referred to
Sections 3 and 4 of HB 226 to which DLWD would be supportive.
Those sections place the state in compliance with federal
regulations by clearly defining the hours and days that minors
under the age of 16 may work. The department has no opinion on
the other sections of the bill.
There was discussion regarding a CS [Version L] that was never
before the committee. The discussion concluded that Version O
merely lowers the age while the process remains the same.
MR. MANLY agreed that the main difference in the legislation and
the current law is the lowering of the age as well as the fact
that 16- to 20-year-olds wouldn't have to obtain their parent's
written permission to start work. However, if their parents
don't want them to work at a particular place, there is still
the common law fundamental that these children are wards of
their parents and thus the parents could notify the employer
that they don't want their children working at the
establishment.
MR. MANLY, in response to Chair Murkowski, agreed that this
legislation would repeal subsection (d), which will allow young
people to now work the cash register where alcoholic beverages
may be sold.
The committee took a brief at-ease from 4:57 p.m. to 5:02 p.m.
Number 0345
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG noted that the committee has a number of
issues before it involving youth employment and thus he thought
the committee should research those issues, including this
topic. Representative Rokeberg wasn't sure that this
legislation addresses an issue that is applicable statewide. He
expressed the need to develop a streamlined youth employment
system.
CHAIR MURKOWSKI noted that Representative Rokeberg had been
chairing the subcommittee on HB 128 and thus she asked if he
would be willing to take on a subcommittee on HB 226 and other
related issues. She appointed herself and Representative
Crawford to be members of this subcommittee.
[HB 226 was heard and held.]
CONFIRMATION HEARINGS
CHAIR MURKOWSKI announced that the committee would now turn to
the governor's appointments that have been assigned to this
committee. She noted that the committee packet should include
the resume of every nominee.
Alcoholic Beverage Control Board
Number 0022
REPRESENTATIVE HALCRO moved that the House Labor and Commerce
Standing Committee forward the name of Duane S. Udland for the
Alcoholic Beverage Control Board to the entire legislature for
consideration. There being no objection, it was so ordered.
TAPE 01-70, SIDE A
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG reminded members that signing the
reports regarding appointments to boards and commissions in no
way reflects individual members' approval or disapproval of the
appointees, and that the nominations are merely forwarded to the
full legislature for confirmation or rejection.
REPRESENTATIVE KOTT asked if someone had reviewed the
requirements in order to ensure that the nominee is filling the
appropriate position.
CHAIR MURKOWSKI said that she had done so.
Board of Dental Examiners
Number 0109
REPRESENTATIVE HALCRO moved that the House Labor and Commerce
Standing Committee forward the name of Rena L. Anderson for the
Board of Dental Examiners to the entire legislature for
consideration. There being no objection, it was so ordered.
REPRESENTATIVE HALCRO moved that the House Labor and Commerce
Standing Committee forward the name of Dr. James Blasingame for
the Board of Dental Examiners to the entire legislature for
consideration. There being no objection, it was so ordered.
REPRESENTATIVE HALCRO moved that the House Labor and Commerce
Standing Committee forward the name of Dr. Patricia Bergdahl for
the Board of Dental Examiners to the entire legislature for
consideration. There being no objection, it was so ordered.
State Medical Board
Number 0166
REPRESENTATIVE HALCRO moved that the House Labor and Commerce
Standing Committee forward the name of Dr. David Head for the
State Medical Board to the entire legislature for consideration.
There being no objection, it was so ordered.
REPRESENTATIVE HALCRO moved that the House Labor and Commerce
Standing Committee forward the name of Shelia Means for the
State Medical Board to the entire legislature for consideration.
There being no objection, it was so ordered.
Board of Certified Direct-Entry Midwives
Number 0198
REPRESENTATIVE HALCRO moved that the House Labor and Commerce
Standing Committee forward the name of Sharon Evans for the
Board of Certified Direct-Entry Midwives to the entire
legislature for consideration. There being no objection, it was
so ordered.
Board of Nursing
Number 0216
REPRESENTATIVE HALCRO moved that the House Labor and Commerce
Standing Committee forward the name of Mary S. Nikodym for the
Board of Nursing to the entire legislature for consideration.
There being no objection, it was so ordered.
Occupational Safety and Health Review Board
Number 0234
REPRESENTATIVE HALCRO moved that the House Labor and Commerce
Standing Committee forward the name of former Representative
Cliff Davidson for the Board of Nursing to the entire
legislature for consideration. There being no objection, it was
so ordered.
HB 258-CHANGE BUSINESS LIC. FEE TO RECEIPTS TAX
CHAIR MURKOWSKI announced that the final order of business
before the committee would be HOUSE BILL NO. 258, "An Act
converting the business license fee to a business license tax;
adding, as an element of that tax, computation of the tax based
on the taxpayer's gross receipts; establishing adjustments to
that tax; and transferring administration of the levy to the
Department of Revenue; and providing for an effective date."
Number 0343
REPRESENTATIVE DREW SCALZI, Alaska State Legislature, testified
as the sponsor of HB 258. Representative Scalzi noted that HB
258 is before the committee for discussion purposes only and he
hoped to gather some comments from both business and the general
public during the interim before attempting to finalize a
statewide tax. This legislation would transfer the business
licensing function and enforcement from the Department of
Community & Economic Development (DCED) to the Department of
Revenue. The current fee for the annual business license is $25
a year. In addition to the $25 license tax, each business would
be required to pay a 2 percent gross receipts tax up to $2,000
per item.
REPRESENTATIVE SCALZI pointed out that a gross receipts tax is
easier to calculate and verify than a sales tax. Furthermore, a
gross receipts tax would be on every level of sell, but wouldn't
require a separate listing on sales receipts. The gross
receipts tax would be invisible to the consumer because the
business owner would review the total sales of business and
calculate a 2 percent tax. For those items over $2,000, the
business owner would need to separate those sales and add a $40
tax for each item. This legislation has a limited number of
exemptions as it exempts gross receipts from educational,
religious, many nonprofit activities, hospitals, and municipally
owned and operated utilities. Additionally, home handicraft
sales would be exempted up to $500 annually. He informed the
committee that Alaska had a gross receipts sales tax from 1949
to 1979.
REPRESENTATIVE SCALZI pointed out that HB 258 has two fiscal
notes, which he wanted to explain. One fiscal note is for
approximately $261,000 for the five personnel that currently
operate the business licensing. The fiscal note shows a
negative for the positions [currently within DCED] because their
duties would be moved to the Department of Revenue. The other
fiscal note addresses what this tax would collect, which is
estimated at about $320 million. However, this is difficult to
calculate because of the $2,000 cap.
REPRESENTATIVE SCALZI informed the committee that the packet
includes information regarding Vermont's gross receipts tax
analysis. This information should be helpful in analyzing the
host of options available and thus he encouraged members to read
this information. In response to Chair Murkowski,
Representative Scalzi reiterated that there was a gross receipts
tax from 1949-1979. In 1979 the income tax was eliminated as
well. Representative Scalzi related a discussion he had with
Representative James in which Representative James said that
there needs to be a validation of the gross receipts tax, which
the income tax helped provide. He explained that an income
reporting system would validate what one's gross receipts were.
Therefore, implementing this tax would probably necessitate
regulations requiring a Schedule C to accompany this tax in
order to demonstrate the annual revenue.
Number 0800
REPRESENTATIVE CRAWFORD related his understanding that
Representative Scalzi views the fact that people wouldn't notice
a gross receipts tax as a positive aspect. However,
Representative Crawford did not because the gross receipts tax
is a hidden tax that people don't realize they are paying.
Representative Crawford said that he had a problem with people
not being able to recognize what they are paying in taxes.
REPRESENTATIVE SCALZI remarked that it didn't bother him when
the [gross receipts tax] was in place before. He indicated that
when the municipality implements a tax, people have [concerns].
Representative Scalzi noted that the Alaska Municipal League
(AML) has announced its opposition to a state sales tax, as
encompassed in HB 233, because it believes that a state sales
tax would hinder municipalities from collecting sales taxes.
Therefore, [a gross receipts tax] wouldn't preclude a
municipality from adding a sales tax if the municipality didn't
already have one. In the case of Juneau, if there was a 7
percent [sales tax] and there was the need to add more, then he
believes the municipality would be less reluctant to add more
than if the state had a visible sales tax.
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG recalled that the old [gross receipts]
tax had a significant number of exemptions, which can become
problematic. He asked if there was review of the total amount
of revenue generated by the 2 percent sales tax versus the gross
receipts tax.
REPRESENTATIVE SCALZI answered that the 2 percent sales tax
would generate approximately $200 million, without the $2,000
cap. This legislation, HB 258, would implement a 2 percent tax
with a $2,000 cap for which the department estimated would
generate over $300 million. However, Representative Scalzi
pointed out that the gross receipts tax would be pyramiding in
that each time there is a sale, the item is taxed. Therefore,
by the time the item comes to the consumer, there have been
multiple taxes and thus the consumer is probably really paying a
2.3 or 2.4 percent tax. Representative Scalzi related his
belief that in this case, the gross receipts tax would generate
more money than a flat 2 percent sales tax. Furthermore, the 2
percent sales tax would probably include other exemptions, which
is why he included the $2,000 cap in HB 258. He remarked that
when a tax is visible, people come to lobby for exemptions.
However, when a tax that isn't visible, there is less pressure
for exemptions.
Number 1108
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG likened this to a European-style added
value tax. He posed a situation in which a purchase from a
wholesaler would be a taxable event and if those items are sold
at retail that would be another taxable event. Therefore, he
surmised that the same commodity would have a 4 percent tax.
REPRESENTATIVE SCALZI replied no. He reiterated that it is a
pyramid tax that would amount to more than 2 percent but not 4
percent. He pointed out that the original [gross receipts tax]
in Alaska had no tax up to $20,000, after which the tax was .5
percent and over $100,000 in gross receipts had a .75 percent
tax. Therefore, it was similar to an income tax because it was
graduated.
REPRESENTATIVE MEYER asked if he would be charged an additional
$2,000 if he purchased a car.
REPRESENTATIVE SCALZI answered that in such a situation
Representative Meyer would be charged an extra $40. Therefore,
if one purchases a $30,000 car, that person would be taxed on
the first $2,000.
REPRESENTATIVE MEYER inquired as to who a gross receipts tax
would impact the most.
REPRESENTATIVE SCALZI said that such a tax would impact
everyone. He pointed out that a gross receipts tax is less
regressive than a sales tax because the gross receipts tax more
fairly taxes all businesses, not just point of sale items.
REPRESENTATIVE MEYER expressed concern with regard to whether
such a tax would hurt Alaska commerce in the sense that people
may purchase items out of state or over the Internet in order to
avoid the markup for the gross receipts tax.
REPRESENTATIVE SCALZI remarked that anytime one implements a tax
or increases the sales price, there will be competitive
disadvantages whether it's a hidden sales tax or specified sales
tax. He said that it is all dependent upon the level and how
well the entire taxing scheme in Alaska is balanced. In further
response to Representative Meyer, Representative Scalzi
indicated that the gross receipts tax would include services
such as engineering and consulting services.
Number 1308
REPRESENTATIVE HALCRO related his understanding that a gross
receipts tax is only paid by the business who pays a tax based
on their annual sales. For instance, a retailer with a $28
hammer can't build in the 2 percent gross receipts tax into the
price because the business is paying 2 percent on $28.50.
Representative Halcro emphasized that the problem with the gross
receipts tax is that the consumer doesn't bear any part of it.
He inquired as to how such a tax could be passed on to the
consumer.
REPRESENTATIVE SCALZI said that the business could markup the
item.
REPRESENTATIVE HALCRO posed the following example:
If I have a $28 hammer and I know that at the end of
the day, I'm going to have to pay a 2 percent gross
receipts tax on that. I can't pass that through to
you [the consumer] because that means I would have to
charge $28.20 for that hammer to you [the consumer].
But ... I'm going to pay 2 percent on $28.20 not on
$28. So, there is no way you can pass ... to the
consumer.
REPRESENTATIVE SCALZI clarified that the business wouldn't be
adding 2 percent to the $28 hammer because the business would
have already paid the 2 percent when the hammer was purchased.
Therefore, the price to the consumer is marked up. The 2
percent is absorbed in the initial purchases. There is no 2
percent that is added at the end.
REPRESENTATIVE HALCRO reiterated that a gross receipts tax is a
tax on the businesses gross receipts, which is defined as the
total revenue done by a business in a given time. Therefore, a
hardware store purchases a $20 hammer from a wholesaler, the
hardware store doesn't pay tax on that. The wholesaler will pay
tax on the $20 and that's on the gross receipts at the end.
There is no way to pass that along. He pointed out that the
[wholesaler] will have to pay the same percentage on whatever
amount [the purchaser] is charged.
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG agreed with Representative Halcro that
at the end of the day, the business is at the top of this tax
pyramid. Therefore, if competitive pressures are such that the
business has to lower the cost of its good, then the business
would have to absorb it. Representative Rokeberg remarked that
the playing field is fairly level because everyone is in the
same situation.
REPRESENTATIVE MEYER inquired then why anyone would do business
in Alaska.
Number 1576
REPRESENTATIVE KOTT expressed similar concerns as Representative
Meyer. He said he was concerned about in-state businesses such
as VECO, whom the state has encouraged to use in-state
contractors.
REPRESENTATIVE CRAWFORD related the following question he had
received via e-mail. He asked if a travel agent sold a $1,500
plane ticket, how would the gross receipts be calculated since
the travel agent only receives $25.
REPRESENTATIVE SCALZI estimated that it would amount to about
$30 worth of tax. He remarked that the travel agent could
charge $1,530 in order to absorb the tax. He agreed that the
consumer may then decide to book on the Internet.
Number 1752
BRETT FRIED, Economist, Department of Revenue, turned to an
earlier question regarding the department's estimates of the
sales tax raising 1 percent per $100 million while the gross
receipts tax would raise $160 million. The department viewed
the sales tax as a traditional sales tax that would exempt sales
for resale. However, the gross receipts tax didn't exempt sales
for resale and thus accounts for the additional revenue.
MR. FRIED, in response to Representative Rokeberg, confirmed
that the 2 percent gross receipts tax without exemptions would
raise $320 million with the $2,000 cap. The sales tax would
raise $100 million on 1 percent tax with very few exemptions and
no cap. There was indication that the department had not taken
a position on HB 258.
Number 1874
PAM LaBOLLE, President, Alaska State Chamber of Commerce,
testified in opposition to HB 258. In response to
Representative Meyer's earlier question regarding who a gross
receipts tax would hurt the most, Ms. LaBolle said that those
having the lowest profit margin would be hurt the most. The
only people in Alaska who pay taxes to the state are businesses.
The Alaska State Chamber of Commerce has said that it would
support broad-based taxes that all Alaskans would pay. This
proposed gross receipts tax would place the onus on the business
to pay the tax and then determine how to get it from someone
else. Such a tax will not be seen or appreciated by consumers.
This tax will be detrimental to business.
REPRESENTATIVE MEYER said that HB 258 seems to be anti-Alaska
commerce legislation.
MS. LaBOLLE pointed out that many businesses in this state
operate on a 2 percent profit margin. For example, the travel
agency industry and the mining industry.
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG pondered the gross receipts of the Red
Dog Mine.
MS. LaBOLLE remarked that this would be very far-reaching and
not something that the state needs to look at for revenue.
REPRESENTATIVE HALCRO related a personal experience in which his
family had a business in Hawaii for years. When Hawaii's
economy slumped and tourism declined in the early 1990s, Hawaii
raised the gross receipts tax. That action placed the economy
in a faster spiral. Therefore, he felt that a gross receipts
tax is the fastest way to ruin a local economy, especially in
isolated economies such as Alaska.
Number 2097
JAMIE PARSONS, Executive Director, Juneau Chamber of Commerce,
informed the committee that he is also a business owner. Mr.
Parsons said that this legislation is not a good idea. The
gross receipts tax is a hidden substitute for a sales tax. Mr.
Parsons remarked that the consumer will ultimately pay for this
and those impacted the most will be families and lower income
people. He pointed out that much of this gross receipts tax
will come from grocery stores, which impact those purchasing
food. Mr. Parsons agreed with earlier comments that this gross
receipts tax would add to the impetus for folks to purchase
goods from the Lower 48 and the Internet.
Number 2214
CATHERINE REARDON, Director, Division of Occupational Licensing,
Department of Community & Economic Development, pointed out that
the Division of Occupational Licensing currently administers the
business licensing program that would be moved to the Department
of Revenue with the implementation of the gross receipts tax.
At this point, Ms. Reardon saw the issue as whether the gross
receipts tax is appropriate. Once that is determined and if it
does go forward, Ms. Reardon said that she would discuss the
technical matters involving moving the business licensing
program. She noted that there is a tobacco endorsement program
that is associated with the business licensing program and thus
she assumed the intent of the legislation would be to move that
program with the business licensing program.
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG inquired as to the reason the division
administers the business licensing program rather than the
Department of Revenue.
MS. REARDON remarked that there are a variety of departments in
which the business licensing program could be housed. She noted
that the business licensing program was housed in the Department
of Revenue when the gross receipts tax was in place before. She
related her understanding that once there wasn't a tax and the
program became more of a licensing procedure, it was moved to
her division because it didn't fit well with the Department of
Revenue's mission.
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG asked if it is really a tax or an
information gatherer for various purposes.
MS. REARDON viewed it as both. It charges a $50 fee for a 2-
year business license, which amounts to about $2 million per
year. Furthermore, it provides information regarding what
businesses exist and their primary activities. Ms. Reardon
pointed out that the program has been appropriately housed in
the division because it is a flat amount of money. The division
doesn't need staff to determine whether businesses are
calculating their taxes properly and the associated details,
which she felt would be best for the Department of Revenue to
handle. In further response to Representative Rokeberg, Ms.
Reardon noted that the Division of Banking, Securities &
Corporations registers business names and deals with the
incorporation of businesses as well as partnerships. Therefore,
the two divisions work with each other. Although she felt that
the program is currently in the appropriate place, the
administration would probably want to discuss where this
function should be placed if a gross receipts tax is
implemented.
CHAIR MURKOWSKI announced that HB 258 would be held.
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business before the committee, the House
Labor and Commerce Standing Committee meeting was adjourned at
5:50 p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|