[{"_1":2,"_99":-5,"_100":-5},"loaderData",{"_3":4,"_26":27},"root",{"_5":6,"_17":10,"_18":19,"_20":21,"_22":10,"_23":-5,"_24":-5,"_25":10},"user",{"_7":8,"_9":10,"_11":10,"_12":-5,"_13":-5,"_14":15,"_16":-5},"roles",[],"isAuthenticated",false,"isPremium","planName","subscriptionStatus","featureFlags",{},"insightsBudget","isDevelopmentHost","userPreferences",{},"recaptchaSiteKey","6LcvOJcUAAAAAHsB-gPGfGktcRlKpH7OTIU_dMTD","isImpersonating","impersonation","affiliateStatus","isFreedomPortal","routes/v2/article/layout",{"_28":29,"_30":31},"notFound",true,"relatedArticles",[32,76,88],{"_33":34,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":40,"_41":42,"_43":44,"_45":46,"_47":48,"_49":50,"_51":52,"_53":54,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":60,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":66,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},"mediaId",6357742,"mediaKeyId","2213773-1701ba1406fdd7a84ea8b64cb96f4151","parentId",2213773,"title","Committee advances bill to define business location for in‑state tax sourcing; sponsors say bill prevents PO‑box abuses","audioSeconds",4283,"startMs",4000,"endMs",4287000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=2213773-1701ba1406fdd7a84ea8b64cb96f4151&start=4&end=4287","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2213773-1701ba1406fdd7a84ea8b64cb96f4151/thumbnail_4000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6357742/Arizona/Committee-advances-bill-to-define-business-location-for-instate-tax-sourcing-sponsors-say-bill-prevents-PObox-abuses","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6357742-2a2d251af788b8914f2f30a54101a788/orig.mp4?Expires=1771186535&Signature=Dmt6bQzgPMLZIWDijYObdx1HaEwbGsrtSnuY2787PceAzg2BuETxidvy3xsj3cplCN2qNXvMRPp82Y66qjJbhphrV5i5C3qT~U5mxvwJfO806vgmuwBAacBgzuwFDUIELVx6n-ymGhsYrQEYBwPhAYrzcCovm3SyP2eGQqgMYg4J-2viiNQU1NwIa1RWLC3wsLIn3aBXhOWLtVIkuTf9LQDhye9rtiXIR9Tg10qjN3GGEPErraaT2N2oYdG33OXqurJCOMP3bE65i3UZMiN5cu6g4hxi0TFllPcFsszzD7K0Rkyu8cN3xolxFrFHCqUZZANxjLgWwy57qe-tqq56BA__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","Arizona State Legislature","date","2025-01-29T00:00:00Z","article","Members of the Arizona House Committee on Ways and Means voted to return House Bill 2118 with a due‑pass recommendation after debate over how to source certain in‑state transaction privilege tax transactions and how cities and the Department of Revenue (DOR) interpret the current law.

House Bill 2118, discussed and advanced in committee on Jan. 27, 2025, would define “business location” for purposes of sourcing taxable transactions and specify that the buyer's place of residence, the location of servers used to transmit order information, or a post‑office box does not by itself determine where an order is received for sourcing purposes. The committee returned the bill with a due‑pass recommendation by a recorded vote of 6 ayes and 3 nays.

The change is intended to clarify an ambiguity that DOR officials and bill proponents said has led taxpayers, auditors and cities to different conclusions about where taxable sales must be reported. Vince Perez, Ways and Means analyst, summarized the measure for the committee: “House Bill 21/18 specifies that the location of servers does not determine where an order is received for purposes of sourcing certain transaction privilege tax transactions involving tangible personal property, and it also defines business location,” Perez said.

Representative Carter, the bill sponsor, told the committee the Department of Revenue had repeatedly asked for a statutory definition to prevent businesses from listing a post‑office box or other nominal address as their in‑state business location and to codify the department's draft revenue ruling. “The Department of Revenue is worried that people will be, for example, using a post office box as a business location when it really isn't,” Representative Carter said.

Business and taxpayer groups testified mostly in support of the clarification. Kevin McCarthy, president of the Arizona Tax Research Association, told the committee the bill aims to stabilize sourcing rules for in‑state taxable sales and avoid a patchwork of city interpretations that could impose unpredictable audit liabilities on Arizona sellers. “The only thing worse than the payment of taxes is not knowing how much you really need to pay or who to pay this to,” McCarthy said.

Representatives of the League of Arizona Cities and Towns countered that the draft language could create complexity for online transactions and shift revenues among municipalities. Nick Ponder, testifying for the League, said the 2019 Wayfair‑era sourcing changes were designed to minimize administrative burdens on sellers and that the bill as written could produce unintended shifts of revenue toward jurisdictions that host distribution facilities. “If the online transaction was done and you were picking it up at the store, you pay taxes based on where you pick it up at, not at your home address. Simple as that,” Ponder said.

Chad Heinrich of the National Federation of Independent Business testified in support, saying the bill provides clarity that benefits small businesses and reduces the risk of surprise audits. Heinrich emphasized the measure applies to in‑state transactions and does not address out‑of‑state Wayfair sourcing rules.

Committee members raised lingering concerns about municipal revenue impacts. Several members said they supported clarifying that a PO box is not a business location but wanted further outreach with cities and DOR staff to minimize unintended consequences for jurisdictions that host large distribution centers.

The committee recorded its motion to return the bill with a due‑pass recommendation; the motion carried 6–3. The committee chair and members said they want DOR to remain engaged as the bill moves through the process.

Votes at a glance: House Bill 2118 — returned with a due‑pass recommendation (6 ayes, 3 nays).","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","01/29/2025 - House Ways & Means","oneSentenceSummary","Members of the Arizona House Committee on Ways and Means voted to return House Bill 2118 with a due‑pass recommendation after debate over how to source certain in‑state transaction privilege tax (TPT) transactions and whether a post‑office box or server location can qualify as a seller's business location.","taxTitle","2025 Legislature Arizona, Arizona","taxId",78572,"location","Arizona","headline","","shortSummary",{"_33":77,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":78,"_41":79,"_43":80,"_45":81,"_47":82,"_49":83,"_51":84,"_53":85,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":86,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":87,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},6357735,"Committee raises sample property values in bond and tax notices and adds clearer bond‑payment language",156,5984000,6140000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2213773-1701ba1406fdd7a84ea8b64cb96f4151&start=5984&end=6140","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2213773-1701ba1406fdd7a84ea8b64cb96f4151/thumbnail_5984000.jpg","/articles/6357735/Arizona/Committee-raises-sample-property-values-in-bond-and-tax-notices-and-adds-clearer-bondpayment-language","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6357735-a7a6ff6fe59978426a5067a7a5840e43/orig.mp4?Expires=1771186535&Signature=DVH0ESMUEYXT3QpkVDTr7miJocSzeANbURuVxLSmdI1la0b3UqWE0n8zXElTPZiCkD0HQ6iBv36xlaT9IkCjsCOvV9eJ6U2vHRHd0ham0Eb-H0BrknxtXyj1~HLDV7KLSN4zthRrlycHCS3PI2DRh2X2sSrxhUpGf63eYImAOMk30q5GUbS52dc4x576~uR1H7TJlyCTCBU92fJeMGzVvH~QpZ1Typy5dux50DUmsQOfjKCy74qup~WHN0nn94KaPkDOfJe3o8Ypte7gTaRsre63broiVqRX~yy65oDf7ZmeCBmd-vgjR6SzmiOehCmVIQDsDEp96D1aw-GLeSwp2A__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The Arizona House Committee on Ways and Means adopted an amendment and returned House Bill 2515 with a due‑pass recommendation, 9–0, after voting to update example property valuations used in bond publicity pamphlets and truth‑in‑taxation notices and to add clearer language about how general obligation bonds are paid.

House Bill 2515 would increase the sample home values used in informational pamphlets for override and Class B bond elections and in truth‑in‑taxation notices. Under the committee amendment, publications would include a $400,000 example home value (up from $80,000 or $100,000 in current statute, depending on the section) and maintain a $100,000 example to allow voters to scale the examples to other property values.

Sponsor remarks emphasized voter clarity: Representative Olsen, speaking as sponsor, said the change was intended to provide voters with examples that reflect current market values so that taxpayers can better understand likely tax impacts. “This is the publicity pamphlet that voters will receive, prior to voting on a bond election. … the median residential property value today is in the $400,000 range. And so it's more appropriate for folks to be able to see a clear example of what would be the tax impact on their property,” Olsen said.

The bill also adds standardized language to publicity pamphlets describing that bond principal and interest are payable from a continuing ad valorem tax levied on all taxable property in the jurisdiction, “without limit as to rate or amount.” Kevin McCarthy of the Arizona Tax Research Association supported the change as a transparency and legal‑risk reduction measure, saying the added phrase mirrors wording used in bond prospectuses and helps prevent conflicting statements in official pamphlets that could later complicate bond sales.

Committee members asked whether the new language could be misread by voters; several members said they would work with the sponsor to refine wording if necessary, but they supported the amendment and final bill in committee. The committee adopted the Olson amendment (voice vote) and then voted to return the bill with a due‑pass recommendation by roll call, 9–0.

Votes and actions: Olson amendment adopted (voice); House Bill 2515 as amended returned with a due‑pass recommendation (9 ayes, 0 nays).","House Bill 2515, amended in committee, updates example property values used in informational pamphlets and truth‑in‑taxation notices and requires explicit language that bonds are payable from continuing ad valorem property tax levies. The committee adopted an amendment and returned the bill with a due‑pass recommendation, 9–0.",{"_33":89,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":90,"_41":91,"_43":92,"_45":80,"_47":93,"_49":94,"_51":95,"_53":96,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":97,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":98,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},6357739,"Committee advances larger adoption subtraction; proponents cite rising costs",1689,4295000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2213773-1701ba1406fdd7a84ea8b64cb96f4151&start=4295&end=5984","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2213773-1701ba1406fdd7a84ea8b64cb96f4151/thumbnail_4295000.jpg","/articles/6357739/Arizona/Committee-advances-larger-adoption-subtraction-proponents-cite-rising-costs","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6357739-38df066df13b600e76861ea2f2d75b7c/orig.mp4?Expires=1771186535&Signature=CMGMChl363vjaA8Boj6DUna7El7ItlXy7fK-AjuotLVuTgUSN7eaPQkeY~84BNT-g-yzlXxhN6VUTSDFt8WKq677kpiT9rrJh8v7~QHkVrLIloQmizU-9ggdRM3sB3cmjJAJzp2AXcWMVO~lv8yiyr5F-RHQvoeQqv~A9mKAaGCuNKfZ7Lyv7d91VmrvDIgp1iZaiQGXwjLHM5zAwYgW5ThkSlmjtvlQ6Va~DlHvsu8TcjrS57EgDxq44v3ee7Vo-y5n80mVX0XzBV11wfSgu2s0xC5zdaVPQiGsOb~jq1eoFXn9rRklJWa7LpynOFZnD-jAy8lDL7SUJHbVmRHtMA__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The Arizona House Committee on Ways and Means advanced House Bill 2155 on Jan. 27, 2025, which would increase the state income tax subtraction for adoption expenses. The committee returned the bill with a due‑pass recommendation by a recorded vote of 5 ayes, 3 nays and 1 present.

House Bill 2155 would raise the subtraction available to single individuals and heads of household from $3,000 to $5,000 and increase the combined subtraction cap for married couples filing joint or separate returns to $10,000. The measure would leave the subtraction as a nonrefundable reduction to Arizona gross income rather than creating a refundable credit.

Douglas Dexter, a research intern, summarized the change for the committee: “House Bill 2155 increases the subtraction to Arizona gross income regarding the costs of adoption from $3,000 to $5,000 for single individuals and heads of household and to $10,000 for married couples filing either joint or separate returns,” Dexter said.

Supporters said the measure updates a deduction that has not kept pace with inflation and the rising costs of adoption. Representative Nelson, who described himself as an adoptive father, said the financial burden of adoption can be substantial and that the state should ease the cost for families. “When I adopted my daughter, it cost us $35,000 for that adoption. And so I can tell you that tax credit was extremely helpful overall,” Representative Nelson said, referencing the federal adoption credit that he and the sponsor noted is separate from the proposed state subtraction.

Opponents and some committee members asked for a fiscal note and additional details on budgetary impact before final floor consideration. Committee staff said a fiscal note was not yet available and that staff would produce one if requested. The committee recorded a motion returning the bill with a due‑pass recommendation; members who explained their votes said they support adoption policy but wanted additional fiscal details before final votes on the floor.

Votes at a glance: House Bill 2155 — returned with a due‑pass recommendation (5 ayes, 3 nays, 1 present).","The Ways and Means Committee voted to send House Bill 2155 forward with a due‑pass recommendation. The bill raises the state income tax subtraction for adoption expenses from $3,000 to $5,000 for single filers and to $10,000 for married couples filing jointly, aiming to reflect higher adoption costs and eliminate a marriage penalty.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Committee advances bill to define business location for in‑state tax sourcing; sponsors say bill prevents PO‑box abuses

Committee raises sample property values in bond and tax notices and adds clearer bond‑payment language

Committee advances larger adoption subtraction; proponents cite rising costs