[{"_1":2,"_112":-5,"_113":-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",[32,76,88,100],{"_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",6620570,"mediaKeyId","2805804-84f8e9a2963e9d39a3d9f4f2b5924f8f","parentId",2805804,"title","Bill to move cannabis wholesale tax to point of sale aims to stabilize industry; retailers and independents warn of cost shifts","audioSeconds",1551,"startMs",9099000,"endMs",10650000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=2805804-84f8e9a2963e9d39a3d9f4f2b5924f8f&start=9099&end=10650","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2805804-84f8e9a2963e9d39a3d9f4f2b5924f8f/thumbnail_9099000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6620570/Nevada/Bill-to-move-cannabis-wholesale-tax-to-point-of-sale-aims-to-stabilize-industry-retailers-and-independents-warn-of-cost-shifts","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6620570-981cb83d94a1f5af6434446435b77c44/orig.mp4?Expires=1771182671&Signature=J5B2snlR-z4pihjeRUft~4BFDHZqiium4w3A-M3ZuS3m414ZQjfb64YSAQ0fBY3py305ysQTNGFNXHTbp0RFWVkfii3c~7weFkYMJyyHj030GPyzfwqF2dFJSXn8yhYed9mlqdDPHlmZJC3LbDl-yZ11JfXtZZTBFILZmUdXryKQXW9-w-Vf~oqyCwNzk3aPfxsF0N77crxSIbvViG3u7HrxZWXVcM~Ht3AVQKJ5GflWariM6g856dw13WYvblnwSYlUmsCCvQo5nZxzXAEqKlVKjD~Rqum~3gTQ1413LZExbPYGLaAobasAppZCCOeLzmnuJsIjYZZOrNWZ8zrDMA__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","Nevada Legislature","date","2025-03-28T02:17:42.743Z","article","CARSON CITY — Assembly Bill 307, presented March 26, 2025, would change the state’s cannabis tax structure by eliminating the use of a legislatively determined \"fair market value\" assessed to cultivators and instead shifting taxation to the point of retail sale. Sponsor Assemblymember Danielle Gallant and industry witnesses framed the proposal as a fix to persistent arrears and a volatile wholesale valuation system.

Background and sponsor rationale

Under existing practice, as described at the hearing, cultivators pay a tax based on a statutory fair‑market value per pound — a figure that is updated quarterly — even when the cultivator has not yet been paid by wholesale buyers or retailers. Assemblymember Gallant said cultivators were being taxed on the assessed fair market value even while awaiting payment from retailers, creating cash‑flow pressure and unpaid tax arrears. Fiscal staff and the Department of Taxation reported that outstanding cannabis tax liabilities for open accounts fell from about $15.4 million to roughly $4.9 million over the session as enforcement and collections proceeded.

What AB307 would change

The bill (as amended conceptually at the hearing) would: remove the statutory fair‑market value assessment used to tax cultivators; shift the taxation event to point of retail sale so taxes are collected when consumers pay retailers; preserve a $5 million distribution to local jurisdictions for enforcement and funding related to legalization; and maintain funding to the Cannabis Control Board and other designated accounts. Sponsors said the change would be revenue neutral overall but reduce the pressure on cultivators forced to prepay tax obligations.

Support, opposition and neutral testimony

Supporters included vertically integrated operators and trade groups that said the bill would simplify compliance and reduce unhealthy arrears. Will Adler of GTI (Green Thumb Industries) testified in support, saying a single point of collection tied to actual sales would yield more reliable tax data.

Opponents included independent dispensaries and some producers who warned that the bill shifts the tax burden to retail customers and could increase retail prices if wholesale prices do not decline in response. David Goldwater, representing independent dispensaries, said the bill would effectively increase retail costs for stores that do not own production, and noted the market’s sizable black‑market competition. Industry counsel raised concerns that a retail‑point tax could reduce legal market competitiveness if price relief does not materialize.

Neutral testimony included county associations and local governments that emphasized the need to preserve distributions that support public services and enforcement. The Nevada Association of Counties said the sponsor’s amendment restoring those funds addressed county concerns and asked for clear allocation language.

Procedure and next steps

The committee heard presentations and public testimony; the Department of Taxation confirmed outstanding collections remain subject to current law and would still be collected unless a bill provision specifically forgave liabilities. With an agreed technical amendment on status of municipal distributions and Cannabis Control Board funding, sponsors said stakeholders had largely coalesced around a revenue‑neutral solution. The committee did not take a recorded vote at the hearing.

Selected direct quotes (from committee hearing)

\"Cultivators are required to pay a tax on this fair market value... And then they have to pay that tax at the end of the month, whether they've actually received the money for the product,\" Assemblymember Danielle Gallant said when describing the current system's cash‑flow issue. (Transcript block s=9151.965)

\"If the bill does lower cost for consumers, we'd be happy to be proven wrong,\" Harrison Vaughn, counsel for Deep Roots Harvest, said while opposing the bill on behalf of some independent operators. (Transcript block s=10185.375)

Evidence (selected transcript excerpts)

Topic intro: \"We will go ahead and open the hearing on assembly bill 307,\" Chair Backus announced as the committee moved to its final bill of the evening. (Transcript block s=9069.851)

Topic finish: \"Thank you. We can go ahead and close the hearing on Assembly Bill 307...\" (Chair Backus) (Transcript block s=10638.845)

Ending

AB307 would restructure the timing and incidence of cannabis taxation. Sponsors, some operators and the Department of Taxation said the change would reduce industry arrears and align tax collection with cash receipts; other retailers and independent operators warned the change could shift costs to consumers or raise retail prices absent a corresponding wholesale price adjustment. The bill requires further drafting and fiscal review before any committee vote.","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","3/27/2025 - Assembly Committee on Revenue","oneSentenceSummary","Assembly Bill 307 would shift Nevada’s cannabis wholesale tax from a cultivator‑assessed fair‑market valuation to collection at retail, a change sponsors and some industry groups say would reduce arrears and simplify administration.","taxTitle","2025 Legislature NV, Nevada","taxId",78440,"location","Nevada","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},6620575,"Bill to tax transfers of controlling interests aims to close 'drop‑kick' transfer tax loophole, sponsors say",1190,5768000,6958000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2805804-84f8e9a2963e9d39a3d9f4f2b5924f8f&start=5768&end=6958","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2805804-84f8e9a2963e9d39a3d9f4f2b5924f8f/thumbnail_5768000.jpg","/articles/6620575/Nevada/Bill-to-tax-transfers-of-controlling-interests-aims-to-close-dropkick-transfer-tax-loophole-sponsors-say","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6620575-c7a5f29ca96ec598d70fd499458584dc/orig.mp4?Expires=1771182671&Signature=bOJxTRyuIviE8zRq-6q4beWfC~vr~U2hbfIXuvVM72S0AFK-gKaQ2cTJDQ1EhHTN5GHbWhdZn3czxae7Ukf~We42d8F8TzrpHJ6uL-UhP8E3FAu157iIU2KzhurlSJvtOoKPdbhMiBRjoi1I28ZNpElojuxDd7y3MwH~20At4JnDtPx3zGsU~HWsf3fSYhJGHRqGRXXdAVHNjH~JtVWFZhRpi8swjDQfVN9DX2B~YvBCQt1OJLjleae4d-zFYctGYihTIuFZKEKZB-b2BzPpKsGOg~svpq5ty-UcJdKeJGRXPxUG8U0LoTCMAsp0clJGvI1eciMWkhZ6FahCpe~blA__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","CARSON CITY — Assembly Bill 362, presented March 26, 2025, by Vice Chair Venetia Considine, would tax the sale or transfer of a controlling interest in an entity that possesses an interest in Nevada real property. Considine said the intent is to close a practice—sometimes called a \"drop‑kick\"—in which buyers acquire a company that owns real property rather than buying the property directly and thereby avoid the real property transfer tax.

Considine walked the committee through bill sections and a proposed conceptual amendment. The amendment clarifies the taxable base as the fair‑market value of the real property when an entity holds a controlling interest, extends a related lookback period from six to 24 months for related transactions, adds a 25% penalty for inaccurate self‑reporting, and provides that counties — rather than the Department of Taxation — receive tax deposits and retain a 2% administrative fee for five years.

Don Griswold, a senior fellow at the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities who previously advised corporations on state tax strategies, described the drop‑kick technique and urged the committee to tax the \"kick\" (the stock/interest sale) as New York City did after a similar problem decades ago. Griswold said Nevada's earlier fix left a purpose‑based anti‑abuse rule that was easy to litigate around; AB362, he said, closes the remaining avoidance pathways.

Support, opposition, and neutral perspectives

Supporters, including the Nevada State Education Association, New Day Nevada and housing advocates, told the committee the measure would restore revenue that currently erosion of the property transfer tax account for affordable housing and school capital funds.

Opponents included the Nevada Resort Association, the Vegas Chamber, renewable energy developers and trade groups. They cautioned that many corporate transactions transfer more than real estate — they argued the value of a casino or utility‑scale renewable project includes operations, customer lists and out‑of‑state assets that complicate apportioning the real‑estate share. Renewable energy developers warned the bill could raise project development costs and ultimately increase rates for utility customers.

Neutral witnesses recommended clearer definitions and implementation details. The Nevada Assessors Association said the measure would increase assessor workload and urged that counties receive funds and administrative support to implement the requirement. The Nevada Taxpayers Association said clear definitions of \"controlling interest\" and indirect sales are essential to limit double taxation and unintended consequences.

Procedure and next steps

No fiscal estimate to quantify annual revenues was provided at the hearing. Michael Nakamoto of the Fiscal Analysis Division told the committee the office had not produced a revenue estimate and would do so if the bill moves forward. The committee kept the record open for further written materials and stakeholder input.

Selected direct quotes (from committee hearing)

\"This loophole is coming at a significant cost to the state. 1 estimate projected that at least $27,500,000,000 worth of transactions have occurred since 2007 in Southern Nevada with the majority on or near the Strip with no publicly reported transfer taxes,\" Vice Chair Venetia Considine said when explaining the bill's purpose. (Transcript block s=5990.85)

\"The drop is very easy to manipulate around a rule... Shell companies that we're talking about here... they've been created years ago. So you pull one out for a dropkick,\" Don Griswold said while describing past avoidance strategies and why a purpose clause is weak. (Transcript block s=6794.355)

Evidence (selected transcript excerpts)

Topic intro: \"Thank you, Chair Backus and members of the committee. I am Venetia Considine... I will be presenting Assembly Bill 362...\" (Transcript block s=5818.905)

Topic finish: \"If appropriate, I'd be happy to, take any questions,\" Don Griswold said after his presentation. (Transcript block s=6938.19)

Ending

AB362 drew support from school and housing advocates and resistance from business groups and renewable developers. The committee requested additional technical drafting and fiscal work; no committee vote was taken at the hearing.","Assembly Bill 362 would impose a tax on sales or transfers of a controlling interest in an entity that owns Nevada real property, a measure sponsors say closes a legal workaround used to avoid the state's real property transfer tax; industry groups cautioned about valuation complexity and potential project‑level impacts.",{"_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},6620580,"Assemblymember Anderson presents constitutional amendment to reset property depreciation on sale; supporters cite school funding gains",4739,1016000,5755000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2805804-84f8e9a2963e9d39a3d9f4f2b5924f8f&start=1016&end=5755","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2805804-84f8e9a2963e9d39a3d9f4f2b5924f8f/thumbnail_1016000.jpg","/articles/6620580/Nevada/Assemblymember-Anderson-presents-constitutional-amendment-to-reset-property-depreciation-on-sale-supporters-cite-school-funding-gains","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6620580-e96b35e35aa5099fc16bccde3a42e36c/orig.mp4?Expires=1771182671&Signature=HwA6uw94OBCJyYF5sg9GiSBHkA5xF0NfBYd-Z7zhHcSP9PUwZdF8500LHjCN6~e~1aaI7VRQOspsdId6rUQgqppxwC6XH6X5s7DTt9HSlTb6yRW8p92W~kMslJypvoSPYWIAWe2dpbfEFujh5s0PLBS0A-fuqFNZi6fv4uIfsPDrc3hb6qY0jMiuK7Xp5Y1XOqIshIz6wheXw57L29HQ4QHXHGxs5ZlzMD6lCLXmcVNk73bn~Zb4kkj-vvcDFwM7gY9VcKqhbzAAkGXs7OU-IXpxpXpuYyAu0aF8ClzFleBSJeGq4yR3CF7SbAvtIy3bRiFmnc--2WkfIhOBe7I7oA__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","CARSON CITY — Assemblymember Natalie (Nathan) Anderson introduced Assembly Joint Resolution 1 (AJR1) on March 26, 2025, asking the Assembly Committee on Revenue to send a constitutional amendment to voters that would reset the depreciation clock used in Nevada property taxation when property transfers to a new owner.

Anderson and policy consultant Dylan Shaver said the current formula reduces taxable value of structures by 1.5% per year and results in lower tax bills for long‑held property. Shaver summarized the calculation used under current practice: assessed value is multiplied by 35% to compute taxable value, depreciation of structures is applied, and the result is multiplied by the tax rate which is capped at 3.64%.

\"The constitution, Article 10 requires this body to impose a uniform and equal assist system of property taxation,\" Dylan Shaver told the committee while describing how Nevada calculates taxable property value. He and the bill team argued AJR1 would reduce a structural shortfall that, they said, leaves local governments and schools without adequate and predictable revenue.

Why proponents say it matters

Supporters—including the Nevada State Education Association, local firefighters’ organizations, city associations and labor groups—said AJR1 would provide a stable revenue base for schools, public safety and local services without raising tax rates. Dawn Echeverria of the Nevada State Education Association said a similar change would have produced an estimated $330 million for school operations and $240 million in capital funds in a single recent year, citing a 2017 study commissioned by the Legislature.

Assemblymember Anderson described the proposal as a single, focused ballot question after she removed a separate provision from an earlier draft. \"This was done after lengthy conversations... so it is only 1 decision to be made,\" Anderson said.

Concerns and questions from the committee and public

Committee members asked whether the proposal would raise the cost of homeownership. Anderson and Shaver replied that current homeowners would not experience an immediate change; the depreciation reset would apply to a property at the point of sale, so a new buyer would see a tax base that reflects the purchase price rather than a long‑running depreciation schedule. \"If you chose to stay where you are, nothing would change about their tax bill,\" Shaver said.

Opponents and neutral witnesses urged caution. Nevada Families for Freedom and other speakers said more revenue would mean higher costs for some residents and urged fiscal restraint; county officials and assessors expressed concerns about administrative complexity and implementation workload. The Nevada Assessors Association testified from a neutral position, noting the state uses a \"modified cost approach\" and cautioning that the measure would add complexity and require additional assessor resources if enacted. Chris Sarmer, president of the Nevada Assessors Association, told the committee that \"without a doubt, we're gonna absolutely need to expand our staff in order to administrate this provision.\" He cautioned that removing depreciation in some cases could produce new inequities between neighboring properties.

Process and next steps

AJR1 would amend the Nevada Constitution and, if passed by the Legislature, go to voters. Anderson outlined a multi‑step process: the Legislature would adopt the resolution in two consecutive sessions and then the public would vote on the amendment. She said more technical questions—such as precise definitions of \"transfer\" and exemptions—would follow in later legislative work or implementing statutes.

What the record shows

- Proponents cited a 2017 applied analysis study commissioned by the Legislature to estimate impacts by taxing district and to show potential revenue to schools and local governments.
- Supporters presented estimated long‑term revenue increases across multiple local jurisdictions (examples included millions for some fire districts, library and senior services in specific localities), and said the change could help close gaps identified by the Commission on School Funding.
- Neutral testimony from assessors and Nevada Taxpayers Association requested clear definitions, administrative funding for assessor offices and careful drafting to avoid unintended effects.

Ending

The committee received broad public testimony in support and opposition and kept the record open for written comments on NELIS. No final committee vote on AJR1 was recorded at the hearing; the item remains scheduled for further legislative consideration and potential amendment.

Selected direct quotes (from committee hearing)

\"AGR 1 is trying to address this issue by asking voters to amend the constitution to reset the depreciation clock of the fiscal structures when property is sold to a new owner,\" Assemblymember Nathan Anderson said when introducing the resolution. (Transcript block s=1038.205)

\"The constitution, Article 10 requires this body to impose a uniform and equal assist system of property taxation,\" Dylan Shaver said while describing the tax formula. (Transcript block s=1189.775)

\"If you chose to stay where you are, nothing would change about their tax bill,\" Dylan Shaver said in response to a question about homeowners. (Transcript block s=2895.375)

Evidence (selected transcript excerpts)

Topic intro: \"So with that, I will go ahead and open up the hearing for assembly joint resolution 1...\" (Chair Backus) (Transcript block s=969.475)

Topic finish: \"Thank you... Nevertheless, we do appreciate the opportunity to present today and help take a step forward to solving some of these really challenging problems that have grown over the years.\" (Dylan Shaver closing remarks) (Transcript block s=5740.415)

","Assembly Joint Resolution 1 (AJR1) would ask voters to amend the Nevada Constitution so property depreciation resets on sale, supporters say the change would increase local revenue for schools and services; opponents warned of higher costs for buyers and urged caution.",{"_33":101,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":102,"_41":103,"_43":104,"_45":105,"_47":106,"_49":107,"_51":108,"_53":109,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":110,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":111,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},6620585,"Assembly Revenue Committee advances seven work‑session bills, most unanimously",835,101000,936000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2805804-84f8e9a2963e9d39a3d9f4f2b5924f8f&start=101&end=936","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2805804-84f8e9a2963e9d39a3d9f4f2b5924f8f/thumbnail_101000.jpg","/articles/6620585/Nevada/Assembly-Revenue-Committee-advances-seven-worksession-bills-most-unanimously","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6620585-89afb1ee64433f62742b809748d2a12a/orig.mp4?Expires=1771182671&Signature=VVZSBngwwXjSsmg6jU2k9EnE8n97zs0NeOi41Gc0aJ2l9-PNI7Q8sUYR9vzJ3LpakueZa1hqAYYlqyZHkIDrHGebU1Hlmko8oMGgFEFXGkbG27aWoYx6rYdGuycj9zrlH3MyXCOKyj3b0JQ~UMJ7-nFp2jupmdPmEIT1n3x8kI2jdJe6NsTvCE7WRd2CO4mq0~Nm39VjHc9ruPleJ6sT69Z0AYju1IGf9ZMxmSw~CjRMYSR9y2RCo5l7CHcp5kZZsMyxkzhU9ewAUqRzB4e0SQ4fTiROMVc9N31HSUIWAZ27E~ZMlgayN0EiAmRZixe-9LOEVBSq3uk9aRGzVFOsXA__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","CARSON CITY — The Assembly Committee on Revenue advanced seven bills from a work session on March 26, 2025, voting to send the measures to the next steps of the legislative process. Committee members heard staff summaries from the Legislative Counsel Bureau and approved motions to “do pass” or “amend and do pass” for each item.

The committee began the work session after calling roll and noting two excused absences. Susanna Powers, deputy fiscal analyst with the Legislative Counsel Bureau, presented work‑session summaries for each bill; committee members then made and voted on motions.

Key outcomes

- Assembly Bill 11: The committee voted to “do pass.” The bill moves the Nevada Department of Taxation’s deadline for submitting a proposed budget and legislation to the Nevada Tax Commission from June of even‑numbered years to January of odd‑numbered years. Vice Chair Venetia Considine made the motion; Assemblymember Wynne seconded it. The motion carried unanimously. Chair Backus took the floor statement.

- Assembly Bill 28: Sponsored on behalf of the Regional Transportation Commission of Southern Nevada, the bill extends the deadline for the commission to recommend a Clark County gross‑receipts retail tax for transportation projects from Dec. 31, 2024, to Dec. 31, 2028. Assemblymember Da Silva moved to “do pass”; Assemblymember Flanagan seconded. The motion carried; Assemblymember Da Silva accepted the floor statement.

- Assembly Bill 62: Sponsored on behalf of the advisory committee on housing, the bill revises the process for transferable affordable‑housing tax credits, increases the total cap from $40,000,000 to $100,000,000, allows land acquired through long‑term ground leases to qualify, and shortens the final application deadline from 45 to 15 days before project closure. Assemblymember Wynne moved to “do pass”; Assemblymember Da Silva seconded. The motion carried, with two recorded no votes from Vice Chair Considine and Assemblymember Hafen. No floor statement was assigned.

- Assembly Bill 69: Sponsored on behalf of Nye County, the bill removes a prospective sunset (Sept. 30, 2027) for an optional county sales and use tax for public safety; an amendment would extend the date to Oct. 1, 2047 and require a two‑thirds vote of the Nye County Board of Commissioners to reauthorize beyond that date. Assemblymember Wynne moved an amendment and to “do pass”; Assemblymember Hafen seconded. The motion carried unanimously. Assemblymember Wynne was assigned the floor statement.

- Assembly Bill 160: Sponsored by Assemblymembers Yaeger and O’Neil, AB160 would create a Nevada‑Ireland Trade Commission and a special account for its activities; an amendment added Assemblymember Gray as a co‑sponsor. Assemblymember O’Neil moved to amend and “do pass”; Vice Chair Considine seconded. The motion carried unanimously. Assemblymember O’Neil was assigned the floor statement.

- Assembly Bill 277: Sponsored by Assemblymembers DeLong and Gurr, AB277 amends confidentiality provisions in NRS chapter 360 to authorize disclosure related to the Department of Taxation’s computation of gross proceeds and cross yield for minerals. Assemblymember Wynne moved to “do pass”; Vice Chair Considine seconded. The motion carried unanimously. Assemblymember DeLong was assigned the floor statement.

Procedure and context

Each bill’s work‑session document was available on NELIS, the Legislature’s public information site, and staff noted whether a bill had been denoted eligible for exemption by the fiscal analysis division. Several presenters emphasized that these work‑session approvals advance the bills to the next committees (typically Ways and Means) where fiscal details will be reviewed. Where votes were recorded, committee members used voice votes and the chair announced the tally when a roll was needed.

What the committee did not do

The work session covered committee actions to forward bills; the committee did not adopt substantive amendments beyond the ones noted, nor did it take final action to enact any statutory changes. All measures advanced are subject to subsequent committee review, fiscal analysis, and floor action.

Votes at a glance

- AB 11 — Motion: Do pass. Mover: Vice Chair Venetia Considine. Second: Assemblymember Wynne. Outcome: Carried, unanimous. Floor statement: Chair Backus.
- AB 28 — Motion: Do pass. Mover: Assemblymember Da Silva. Second: Assemblymember Flanagan. Outcome: Carried. Floor statement: Assemblymember Da Silva.
- AB 62 — Motion: Do pass. Mover: Assemblymember Wynne. Second: Assemblymember Da Silva. Outcome: Carried; recorded no votes: Vice Chair Venetia Considine, Assemblymember Hafen.
- AB 69 — Motion: Amend and do pass. Mover: Assemblymember Wynne. Second: Assemblymember Hafen. Outcome: Carried, unanimous. Floor statement: Assemblymember Wynne.
- AB 160 — Motion: Amend and do pass. Mover: Assemblymember O’Neil. Second: Vice Chair Considine. Outcome: Carried, unanimous. Floor statement: Assemblymember O’Neil.
- AB 277 — Motion: Do pass. Mover: Assemblymember Wynne. Second: Vice Chair Considine. Outcome: Carried, unanimous. Floor statement: Assemblymember DeLong.

Evidence (selected transcript excerpts)

\"We do have 3 bills on the agenda this evening. We have Assembly Bill 307... Assembly Bill 362... and Assembly Joint Resolution 1,\" Chair Backus said when opening the session. (Transcript block s=101.525)

\"Assembly Bill 11 revises the timeline for the Nevada Department of Taxation to submit its proposed budget and legislation to the Nevada Tax Commission from June of each even numbered year to January of each odd numbered year,\" Susanna Powers, deputy fiscal analyst, summarized. (Transcript block s=119.420006)

\"With that, those in favor say aye... The motion carries unanimously,\" Chair Backus announced after the AB 11 motion. (Transcript block s=191.255)

Ending

The committee concluded its work‑session business and asked bill presenters for 15‑minute presentations at the evening’s hearings. The items advanced in this work session will next face fiscal analysis and committee consideration as part of the regular legislative process.","The Assembly Committee on Revenue voted to advance seven bills from its work session on March 26, 2025, including measures on department reporting timelines, transportation tax deadlines, housing tax credits, and county sales tax authority. Most motions carried unanimously; one bill drew two recorded no votes.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Bill to move cannabis wholesale tax to point of sale aims to stabilize industry; retailers and independents warn of cost shifts

Bill to tax transfers of controlling interests aims to close 'drop‑kick' transfer tax loophole, sponsors say

Assemblymember Anderson presents constitutional amendment to reset property depreciation on sale; supporters cite school funding gains

Assembly Revenue Committee advances seven work‑session bills, most unanimously