[{"_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",6089788,"mediaKeyId","2871885-a28ebc473dd74dd1820c1f62a932f468","parentId",2871885,"title","House Finance hears bill to add B&O surcharge on highest‑grossing businesses, raises financial institution surcharge","audioSeconds",4362,"startMs",11000,"endMs",4373000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=2871885-a28ebc473dd74dd1820c1f62a932f468&start=11&end=4373","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2871885-a28ebc473dd74dd1820c1f62a932f468/thumbnail_11000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6089788/Washington/House-Finance-hears-bill-to-add-BO-surcharge-on-highestgrossing-businesses-raises-financial-institution-surcharge","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6089788-b9034b63e705b257b94b5939d7de4556/orig.mp4?Expires=1771044436&Signature=SRo4ymm~Cafo9kOEDOVTULi-LyO~GnSUO01bpIPVxlfnUr~BpvRvMdbXV4nwXXBOE7Ci9XzH3lFxFIRIrkOKKbTputJXk5bnrNBOhMHzftVPitjani8VD1DmzoZRu2fdaYiSt2LkaHK5XgQdokpjUztlQXVHjhO~1oqVrHZJk92RzxtN1LL03zyQYN1fVAgLF05ZJifPn49ey9je1DqIMlnfvplelADlHkNJvXfGjKSfglYXmDIE7vfjcked~j2pMOmKH7vZOMWp-rM3P7J9jt0gX5ZoIn9rLjB6TRpaEVI4rSDYkWUkG~CXAbxLmRCCMTpj2~9D~2Ed2tCSVwlPow__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","House Finance","date","2025-04-03T00:00:00Z","article","House Finance on April 3 heard testimony on HB 2045, a proposal to add a supplemental business‑and‑occupation (B&O) tax on the state’s highest‑grossing businesses and to increase an existing surcharge on specified financial institutions.

Committee staff and the bill’s sponsor told members the bill would impose a 1% surcharge on a business’ Washington taxable gross receipts above $250 million beginning Jan. 1, 2026, and increase the existing financial‑institution surcharge from 1.2% to 1.9% effective July 1, 2025. Committee staff also described exemptions in the draft language for manufacturing income and certain farmers and beekeepers; the bill would not apply the new 1% surcharge to income related to manufacturing activities.

Supporters framed the measure as a progressive revenue source to avoid cuts to education, childcare and health services. \"These businesses benefit from us having quality public schools, colleges and universities, a social safety net, nursing homes for the elderly, public safety, transportation,\" Representative Fitzgibbon, prime sponsor, told the committee. Advocates and coalitions said the surcharge would protect services relied on by low‑ and middle‑income households.

Committee staff provided fiscal estimates used in the hearing record: the Department of Revenue projected the proposal would affect about 370 businesses with more than $250 million in Washington taxable income and roughly 250 specified financial institutions; estimated revenue was $554.6 million for the final eight months of fiscal 2026 and approximately $1.9876 billion in fiscal 2027 (the first full year), with state implementation costs in the low six figures in the near term.

Public testimony was sharply divided. Labor, education and social‑services advocates urged passage. Eli Goss of the Washington State Budget & Policy Center said the measure would raise progressive revenue \"to stabilize families and schools\" and cited multi‑billion dollar four‑year revenue projections tied to the surcharge. Planned Parenthood Alliance Advocates and health and anti‑poverty organizations also supported the bill.

Business groups and industry associations warned of price and service impacts. Grocery and food‑service trade groups asked for exemptions for wholesalers and retailers of food, citing very low grocery profit margins; one independent grocer said their net take‑home profit margins are around 1%, and a pharmaceutical distributor testified that its members operate on margins below 1% and would be unable to absorb the increase without passing costs to consumers. Hospitals and health systems, including Evergreen Health and Providence Swedish, testified they face multi‑million‑dollar impacts and said the surcharge would force further service reductions or staff cuts.

Several health and provider witnesses emphasized that some health care entities do not set prices and argued an added levy would be similar to an equivalent budget cut to services. Other testifiers — from organized labor, teachers, childcare providers and municipal officials — described the potential for the revenue to blunt proposed cuts to schools and social services.

The committee took testimony from both in‑person and remote witnesses and closed the public hearing on HB 2045 at the end of the panel. No committee vote occurred during the hearing.

HB 2045 now moves to the committee’s internal process for possible amendment and scheduling; the committee record contains written fiscal notes and a departmental estimate cited during the hearing.","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","House Finance - 4/3/2025 8:00 AM","oneSentenceSummary","House Finance on April 3 heard testimony on HB 2045, a bill that would add a 1% business‑and‑occupation surcharge on Washington taxable gross receipts above $250 million beginning Jan. 1, 2026, and raise the financial‑institution surcharge from 1.2% to 1.9% on July 1, 2025.","taxTitle","Finance, House of Representatives, Legislative Sessions, Washington","taxId",20261,"location","Washington","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},6089778,"House Finance reviews bill to raise local revenue growth cap, expand levy authority and change special‑education funding rules",7160,7173000,12199,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2871885-a28ebc473dd74dd1820c1f62a932f468&start=7173&end=12","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2871885-a28ebc473dd74dd1820c1f62a932f468/thumbnail_7173000.jpg","/articles/6089778/Washington/House-Finance-reviews-bill-to-raise-local-revenue-growth-cap-expand-levy-authority-and-change-specialeducation-funding-rules","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6089778-49990809623bb7083b63cf85de047bd8/orig.mp4?Expires=1771044436&Signature=nbJm8Qgo4gJRnO147-WTNBug8HmmvjUNTRpDvzxb5PUPqAxzq5aD6aa4ao6uElCPocLkIoC~s9Jf7VvL~yJF~qZXe-CgNOsqo0XwiWO9wRP1W5zDEOiT8iK7-v~Dt1vqQ6AyxVNgKBgBVUCOMlCZJbS2yPhsf~3PWJAU61H4V6Og8HNOiTqUkfYQWTnuTk0sh655XQak-7zfnRc7asHmCbLiRTRsZWgtKtez38nSIo9k4gZdEdwFADNOT0rdRpFrv6JVLzfZ243dJELN~VRkCLY8I1eKOTTuZkAGPqqb6S7lnsAU4Fkntz0zTY7eaWFRxlXaasQkbO8ukJ1qyMkrMA__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","House Finance took testimony on HB 2049 (presented in committee on April 3), a package of changes that would give local governments and school districts more room to raise property tax revenue over time and adjust several K–12 funding formulas.

Nonpartisan fiscal staff briefed committee members on the bill’s main elements: it would change the existing 1% annual revenue growth limit for regular state and local property taxes to a formula that incorporates population growth plus inflation, capped at 3% in a given year; raise the per‑pupil cap for enrichment levies (the voter‑approved levies that districts may use for programs beyond basic education) beginning in 2026 and phased to a higher cap in later years; increase the local effort assistance (LEA) threshold so more low‑property‑wealth districts qualify; and remove the statutory 16% cap on students that generate special‑education funding while standardizing the portion of a special‑education student’s general‑education allocation that is redirected to special education to 30% statewide.

Fiscal staff and the committee’s briefers gave revenue estimates included in the bill package: an increase in the state portion of property tax revenue estimated at about $200 million in the first biennium and $618 million in the second (a four‑year total of about $818 million), and increased local (non‑school) jurisdiction revenues estimated at $236 million in the first biennium and $741 million in the second (four‑year total about $977 million). On the school side, the per‑pupil levy cap increases and LEA enhancements were estimated to add roughly $130–$150 million to local levy collections in the 2025–27 biennium and more in subsequent years; the proposal to remove the 16% special‑education enrollment cap was estimated in the house‑passed operating budget context at about $82.3 million beginning in FY 2029.

Proponents — including mayors, county executives, city and county associations and many school districts — said the 1% limit is outdated and has produced a persistent structural revenue gap that forces local jurisdictions into service cuts or more regressive revenue solutions such as higher utility taxes. \"This is a more realistic approach to allow revenue to keep up with increasing costs,\" the mayor of Duval told the committee. Several municipal and county witnesses emphasized that the bill would be an optional tool, not a mandate; local elected officials would still decide whether to use the increased authority.

Opponents — including taxpayers’ groups, business organizations and some homeowner advocates — said the change would effectively raise property taxes over time and argued the right approach is greater state budget transparency, spending restraint or asking voters directly. Multiple witnesses cited recent public opposition petitions and urged the legislature to respect the voter‑approved 1% cap (Initiative 747, 2001) or to send any major change to the ballot.

School finance advocates and some districts supported aspects of the bill that target inequities, such as raising LEA and removing the special education enrollment cap, but several K–12 finance officials cautioned against an accounting shift that moves funds between general apportionment and special education without additional state base funding. School district officers and education associations asked the committee to pair local options with stronger direct state investments in basic education and special education to avoid widening inequities between districts.

The committee heard many municipal, county and school district speakers, as well as testimony from the Building Industry Association, developers and housing advocates who warned that higher property taxes could increase housing costs or slow development. The hearing concluded with no committee vote; the record includes extensive written testimony and fiscal detail from staff.","House Finance on April 3 heard HB 2049, a proposal to loosen the statutory 1% annual revenue‑growth cap on regular property tax revenue by linking growth to population plus inflation (capped at 3%), raise school enrichment levy limits and change special‑education funding rules.",{"_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},6089783,"Committee debates ‘financial‑intangible’ tax: 0.8% levy on stocks, bonds and funds above $50 million proposed to fund education",2924,4247000,7171000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2871885-a28ebc473dd74dd1820c1f62a932f468&start=4247&end=7171","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2871885-a28ebc473dd74dd1820c1f62a932f468/thumbnail_4247000.jpg","/articles/6089783/Washington/Committee-debates-financialintangible-tax-08-levy-on-stocks-bonds-and-funds-above-50-million-proposed-to-fund-education","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6089783-437f3c7973c87ac0d4b17eb2e9b5bd9b/orig.mp4?Expires=1771044436&Signature=QJ9xFImNSbpecxhD6ZFViyugVwJQg0RS40op35dYu3pCpp~KWOJUUaf~7Mqm1Gxe8wEdtKqqLWwenxQwhyfgP89CL6yDsDqwVSIm~4vC9kNuNAtsFxT0dz9maE-jXhIQv7dWyghfR9adxW3DmcelE0CATLo0SdpaztySoSTbebo9pRvgmBS4M853ENvqx7Jp0rZYYpA5RzpwXRNg-7EM9uHGWu6YkSjIEjjl7YC~Lt4wOv03nO91zlsxqLIQyNoUe4-FE7P1NXO76LLR7DvXWO6Js1BdB982cqA6nk-Tb7dAjsV9Alv~1Q9JvhK8iBUwGD53zaJUqck4Sn2p7LM7nA__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","House Finance received a staff briefing and wide public testimony on HB 2046 on April 3. The bill would impose an annual tax on the true and fair value of specified financial intangible assets — publicly traded stocks, bonds, mutual funds and exchange‑traded funds — with the first $50 million of such assets per taxpayer exempted.

Under the draft text explained by committee staff, the levy rate is $8 per $1,000 (0.8%), with returns and payments due to the Department of Revenue by April 15 each year and revenues deposited to the Education Legacy Trust Account for K–12, early learning and higher education programs. The draft includes a long list of exemptions (retirement accounts, education savings accounts, state and federal debt instruments, nonfinancial intangibles and assets already taxed by another state among them).

Rochelle Harris, committee staff, summarized fiscal projections included in the committee packet: estimated revenues of about $2.4 billion in the first biennium, $4.7 billion in the second biennium and approximately $7.1 billion over a four‑year outlook; an estimated 4,300 taxpayers would be in scope; Department of Revenue implementation costs were estimated at roughly $56.5 million across four years.

Sponsor Representative April Berg framed the proposal as a modernization of Washington’s tax code. \"For many wealthy Washingtonians their wealth is in one of these asset classes,\" she said. \"My home is where I have most of my wealth. For many wealthy Washingtonians their wealth is in one of these asset classes. They are able to borrow against this wealth and when they sell this wealth they will pay an excise tax. But currently, they do not pay a yearly tax on the wealth. This bill changes that.\"

Legal counsel and expert testimony at the hearing addressed constitutionality and administrative issues. Committee counsel and outside counsel noted that Article VII, Section 1 of the Washington Constitution reserves only a specific classification for real property while leaving the legislature discretion to create or define classes of other property. Counsel cited prior decisions (including the Ridpath line of cases described in the memo) that the legislature may create classes of personal property, so long as any classification is reasonable and applies uniformly within the class.

Experts and advocates supplied differing interpretations of likely taxpayer responses. An academic tax expert with experience on wealth taxes told the committee empirical literature shows mobility responses to wealth levies are small in modern contexts and that several European and Swiss subnational examples produced material revenue with limited taxpayer flight. Business and taxpayer advocates warned the tax could prompt taxpayer relocation or restructuring of assets; others argued that the proposed $50 million exemption narrows scope to a very small group.

The hearing included dozens of written and oral testimonies from teachers, local elected officials, hospital and health representatives, small‑business groups, labor unions and fiscal policy organizations. Testimony for the bill emphasized education and equity objectives; opposing commenters warned of legal risk, administrative complexity and potential effects on investment and housing costs if applied to assets held through local entities.

No committee action or vote was taken; the hearing record includes a staff legal memorandum and a departmental fiscal note summarized in committee testimony.","HB 2046 would create a new property‑style tax on certain financial intangible assets (publicly traded stocks, bonds, mutual funds, ETFs) with a $50 million exemption, taxed at $8 per $1,000 (0.8%) on the value as of Dec. 31 each year; revenues are dedicated to the Education Legacy Trust Account and estimated at $2.4 billion in the first biennium.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

House Finance hears bill to add B&O surcharge on highest‑grossing businesses, raises financial institution surcharge

House Finance reviews bill to raise local revenue growth cap, expand levy authority and change special‑education funding rules

Committee debates ‘financial‑intangible’ tax: 0.8% levy on stocks, bonds and funds above $50 million proposed to fund education