Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Taxation Small Business topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Sen. Moore files bill to raise Massachusetts small-business receipts thresholds and tie them to CPI
Summary
Sen. Michael O. Moore filed Senate Bill No. 2043 on Jan. 8 to increase the total receipts thresholds in Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 63, §32D from $6 million to $12 million and from $9 million to $18 million and to adjust those thresholds by the Consumer Price Index, with protections against decreases.
Get email alerts on the Taxation Small Business topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Sen. Michael O. Moore filed legislation on Jan. 8 that would raise two total-receipts thresholds used in Massachusetts tax law to define small-business treatment and establish a Consumer Price Index adjustment for those thresholds. The bill was entered as Senate Docket No. 119 and appears as Senate Bill No. 2043.
The measure would amend Section 32D of Chapter 63 of the Massachusetts General Laws by replacing each occurrence of “$6,000,000” with “$12,000,000” and each occurrence of “$9,000,000” with “$18,000,000.” A separate provision says the “total receipts thresholds shall increase by the percentage of the Consumer Price Index from the previous calendar year issued by the federal Bureau of Labor Statistics or shall remain the same in the event of a decrease in the Consumer Price Index.”
If enacted, the numeric changes would raise the statutory receipts amounts that trigger the definitions set out in Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 63, §32D. The CPI language in the bill ties future changes in those thresholds to the BLS Consumer Price Index for the previous calendar year but explicitly prevents a statutory reduction of the thresholds when the CPI falls.
The filing identifies "Revenue," which indicates referral to the Senate Committee on Revenue for consideration, but the bill text and docket entry do not specify an effective date, implementation schedule, or whether the CPI adjustment is to be applied annually beyond the phrasing referencing “the previous calendar year.” The bill also contains typographical inconsistencies in the docket text (for example, a duplicated closing quotation mark) that do not change the numeric amounts stated.
No committee action, votes, or executive approvals are recorded in the filing; this docket entry reflects the bill’s introduction to the legislative process rather than final action. Further committee hearings, amendments, or votes would be required for enactment.
