[{"_1":2,"_100":-5,"_101":-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",6349423,"mediaKeyId","2238703-a6318ff37aa25b82851bb0d7df97aeeb","parentId",2238703,"title","Committee debates SB 26 sales‑tax exemption for bowling centers; staff to seek Revenue input before working bill","audioSeconds",308,"startMs",2226615,"endMs",2534820,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=2238703-a6318ff37aa25b82851bb0d7df97aeeb&start=2226&end=2534","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2238703-a6318ff37aa25b82851bb0d7df97aeeb/thumbnail_2226615.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6349423/Kansas/Committee-debates-SB-26-salestax-exemption-for-bowling-centers-staff-to-seek-Revenue-input-before-working-bill","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6349423-4124d22e40905c05b11626c1718aaf6f/orig.mp4?Expires=1775597478&Signature=NCwWFslRv4ANTRsGNmj65DkFYYiiMs4rLBOZRuI0ulpyGwEOk~358DNeBpmWa1P5GTp5fO90rUsmHmejcYj8UX3inYRsowjfcH6zScGEqLit63D9ZvFtnAZZ8VvHH~NKDbCc79S~xGvZFaXSOPxCgfie2--RqbeC0wNpm8u1RHM5Ift0HamW~v3Y7yO43urZ-p5k3p0qTQPepneWDgX~91R9~fk36DM282aPpCPm690DgCyGwn8~CV2fe4mGeCaudbSGsMHAmFUqrBcEDjDc4miePn6XTFwzEgiy-oV895db9F7No4ZhNyIBbUz8oonCjU2f2q8ygYRVpXiKR6bwAw__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","State of Kansas","date","2025-02-05T00:00:00Z","article","Committee members debated Senate Bill 26, which proposes a sales-tax exemption for purchases by bowling centers. A committee staffer, Amelia, summarized the bill: “It would exempt all sales of tangible personal property or services, purchased by a bowling center and used in such bowling center business. And then it includes, but it is not limited to, purchases of the items in the list… That way that language reads, it's an illustrative example.”

Several senators raised concerns about picking winners and losers and asked how the bill would distinguish between ordinary machinery and equipment that other businesses might use. One senator asked whether items such as bowling pins or a soft-serve machine at a Dairy Queen could be considered machinery or manufacturing equipment. Amelia told the committee that if the members want to exclude items from the illustrative list they must be explicitly excluded by amendment and that the department should be asked how it draws the line between machinery and equipment.

Members said they preferred to hear from the Department of Revenue before formally working the bill; one senator cautioned that many industries could seek the same treatment and urged care. The committee agreed not to work SB 26 that day and to invite Revenue staff back to explain administrative distinctions and likely enforcement/administrability concerns.

The chair also noted outstanding questions on Senate Bill 25 (the Insurance Savings Account Act), telling members the fiscal-note discrepancy between parties remained unresolved and that the committee would await updated fiscal information before taking action. The meeting adjourned without votes on either bill.","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","Senate Committee on Assessment and Taxation 02/05/2025","oneSentenceSummary","Committee members debated Senate Bill 26, which would exempt tangible personal property and services used by bowling centers, and requested Department of Revenue input on where to draw exemptions for machinery and equipment.","taxTitle","Assessment and Taxation, Standing, Senate, Committees, Legislative, Kansas","taxId",20419,"location","Kansas","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},6349427,"Department presents tax-credit report; refundable and confidential credits highlighted",850,993360,1843435,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2238703-a6318ff37aa25b82851bb0d7df97aeeb&start=993&end=1843","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2238703-a6318ff37aa25b82851bb0d7df97aeeb/thumbnail_993360.jpg","/articles/6349427/Kansas/Department-presents-tax-credit-report-refundable-and-confidential-credits-highlighted","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6349427-8dbaad259e75259fc8bad781612a193d/orig.mp4?Expires=1775597478&Signature=kjObbyZm0kRqYx-5iHYm7zwhxhOIw~-x5Zht8BRREQMT32FBBGqanZwvOEmg68N68q7hkyeKhEwxYaoNyhqZDqFI-u40QIqzRKzIZlHqoZQmPcuCVtGJQ0sSeHGas-Vl~VeT1hknpZzYF3Wk3R6tHzURsyoFnsvMtmDj8VVcgZzLmWvBwujFSMAEfuArkgiKi7~NjhXaZU9pOK9-2dGPBcn1Qyxtl~gJRtIgNOrpKebJ2d-phKZY462cm5kEKbvalOyINr~IKmV~Ti4NY8pgqZ44Ibm6Hi8KnaDz0jm42qu~CtTwCEHAxi5OPE95w8-xjfPPhVk-Z7GGfRUC9hGqjA__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Eddie, presenting a tax-credits report to the committee, walked members through the report’s color coding, availability and confidentiality rules and flagged several large credits and administrative issues. He told the committee the report uses color codes to indicate refundable credits, credits available only to C corporations, and credits that were not in effect during the tabulated years. He explained that “if the value of the credit to the taxpayer exceeds that amount of the taxpayer's tax liability… the state actually pays the balance of that amount to the taxpayer.”

Eddie described why tax-credit data lag can be substantial: taxpayers often file amended returns and many complex credits involve pass-through reconciliation, so the Department is still finalizing tax year 2022 data. He explained confidentiality rules for small numbers of filers—individual credits with fewer than five filers are flagged confidential and grouped for reporting but the Department can report the aggregate of confidential credits if the sum is based on five or more filers.

Eddie highlighted several specific credits and totals. For the state’s earned income tax credit (EITC), which largely piggybacks the federal credit, he noted a sharp increase in 2021 tied to temporary federal COVID-era expansions and provided the report’s 2021 figures: about $83,400,000 of credit allowed; of that, $33,500,000 offset tax liability and $49,900,000 was refunded to taxpayers. He also called attention to the High Performance Incentive Program (HPIP) and said the report listed roughly $58,900,000 in credit for 2021; Eddie cautioned that because many HPIP awards flow through pass-through entities, the number of individual taxpayers ultimately affected is larger than the count of qualified entities.

Eddie emphasized that one large omission from the tabulation explains much of the difference between the report’s lines and the broader tax-expenditure totals: the credit for taxes paid to other states. He said that credit applies to about 125,000 filers and “amounts to approximately $500,000,000 in a given year,” and that it serves primarily to prevent double taxation for residents who earn income in other states.

Committee members asked about credits listed as confidential and about supply of additional information. A senator requested a complementary report showing tax credits issued but not yet claimed (exposure) and transferability and sunset information for credits; Eddie agreed some of that detail can be provided but said not all data are universally available without additional work. The committee did not act on legislation but requested further departmental follow-up and updated datasets.","Department staff outlined a multi-page tax-credit report, explained color-coding for refundable, C-corporation-only and not-yet-available credits, discussed data lags, and highlighted large credits including the earned income tax credit, the high-performance incentive program and the credit for taxes paid to other states.",{"_33":89,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":90,"_41":91,"_43":92,"_45":93,"_47":94,"_49":95,"_51":96,"_53":97,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":98,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":99,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},6349431,"Committee hears overview of appraisal, mill levy and taxpayer appeals process",998,26465,1025000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2238703-a6318ff37aa25b82851bb0d7df97aeeb&start=26&end=1025","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2238703-a6318ff37aa25b82851bb0d7df97aeeb/thumbnail_26465.jpg","/articles/6349431/Kansas/Committee-hears-overview-of-appraisal-mill-levy-and-taxpayer-appeals-process","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6349431-618ed9d3d479132383f5c1c40749495a/orig.mp4?Expires=1775597478&Signature=dKPOO5XreaQcDKdrvazAh7mT92Azq16Dcr-z7eGsvqvr5LhPxQJ02G~e~CF14VqKhagkZaemDBZT7GjVwZR8KHmC5fgppZU3Vsihanx4no9Hgwk4SM1nV6KL~EklQm5UjDV~EvfeOq-mabGVZ6Hf4RZyzBecHi9Pnvuaxw6~PVh8myuTxRUld3NG8afqkGcd7q8OLsK14KKoq9udRBilkDIMZUuvao2w87TDopuoEIsEN1jrE4jK6N123oQnqvFaIvJxB41ePIYn9NvmUeRymvP2x6~9RbNNDD29HZGkadIRl-3Wjn0e6KSGS-k2E2Pz-xiKxwmQ~ok5xbN3CBjCTg__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Bob, a presenter to the committee, gave a technical overview of how a mill levy is developed and described the taxpayer appeal timeline for property valuations. He told the committee that a mill levy has two components—the budget and the assessed value—and illustrated the calculation with an example: “If we have a $50,000,000 budget and we have a $400,000,000 assessed value … the calculation would be 1.25. And if we convert that into mils … we would get 125 mils.”

Bob summarized the informal appeal process and statutory deadlines. He said valuation notices are sent statutorily by March 1 and that “any taxpayer can appeal the… county appraisal to the county appraiser within 30 days after the date of the mailing and evaluation notice.” He also noted that taxpayers have multiple opportunities to challenge valuations during the year (informal meeting with the county appraiser in the spring, paying taxes under protest in December or in May when the second half is due, and then appeals to higher bodies such as the Board of Tax Appeals).

The committee pressed staff on limits to state intervention after a member cited a widely reported March 11, 2024, instance in which the Property Valuation Division (PVD) threatened stronger enforcement actions. Ted Smith, chief counsel with the Department of Revenue, told the committee that the department conducts ratio studies and communicates findings to county commissioners under statute and that “there are appeal rights in both those cases. If a county appraiser or its county commissioners disagree with what PVD's done, they can protest that, take it straight to the board of tax appeals, and the board of tax appeals will basically evaluate that and see if PVD was correct in its assessment.” Smith added the department typically augments local offices' resources rather than taking over operations.

Committee members asked whether counties are always informed of their appeal rights when the department raises compliance concerns. Smith said he would locate and share correspondence sent to the member’s county over recent years and described typical follow-up (letters to roughly 20–25 counties per year and offers to appear in person or virtually).

The presentation also touched on valuation methodology for special property types: commercial income properties can be assessed using an income approach if rent and other data are available, and agricultural land valuation relies on soils information provided by federal agencies and academic studies, not onsite soil testing by county appraisers. Bob emphasized that a property’s appraised valuation need not increase to be appealable.

The committee did not take formal action on the material and directed follow-up questions and document requests to staff.","Committee received a technical briefing on how mill levies are calculated, the timeline and limits of taxpayer appeals and whether the state can remove a county appraiser; Department of Revenue counsel outlined statutory appeal rights to the Board of Tax Appeals.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Committee debates SB 26 sales‑tax exemption for bowling centers; staff to seek Revenue input before working bill

Department presents tax-credit report; refundable and confidential credits highlighted

Committee hears overview of appraisal, mill levy and taxpayer appeals process