Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Tax Policy topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Rep. Christiansen urges end to North Dakota marriage-penalty in House Bill 1388
Summary
Representative Nels Christiansen introduced House Bill 13-88 to equalize individual and joint income tax brackets and eliminate the state's "marriage penalty." State tax staff described the bill's estimated distributional effects and fiscal mechanics; committee members asked for more data before acting.
Representative Nels Christiansen introduced House Bill 13-88 to the Senate Committee on Finance and Taxation, saying the bill would eliminate what he called an "income tax marriage penalty" by equalizing rate thresholds for single filers and married couples filing jointly.
"Under North Dakota's graduated rate income tax system ... the marriage penalty exists because tax brackets for married taxpayers are less than double those for single tax filers," Christiansen told the committee, adding that "families and family businesses should not be required to pay a higher rate of income tax because they are married." He identified himself as "Nels Christiansen" and said he represents District 18.
Matt Pearl of the Office of the State Tax Commissioner provided staff analysis and answered members' questions about distributional effects and the fiscal footprint. Pearl told the committee that roughly "about 17% of those dollars are paid by part‑year and nonresidents" and that, based on the bill's bracket changes, the department expects about 15,000 filers to move into the zero bracket and about 9,000 filers to move from the top bracket into a lower bracket.
Pearl explained how the bill changes two bracket boundaries (one by roughly $16,000 and another by roughly $191,000) and estimated the maximum benefit for a married filer remaining in the top bracket at about $1,366 under the bill's structure. He also summarized the bill's interaction with the existing marriage‑penalty credit established by the 2007 Legislature, noting that many low‑income joint filers already receive relief under that credit and therefore may not gain additional benefit from the bracket change.
Committee members asked for more data and time to consider the bill alongside pending property tax measures. Senator Rummel and others pressed the tax department for resident versus nonresident impacts; Pearl said staff could run detailed tables on request. No committee action was taken; the hearing was closed for now.
The committee recorded no opposition witnesses and no neutral witnesses beyond the tax department staff who answered technical questions. Members said they want to hear remaining tax bills and property tax items before making a committee decision on 13-88.
The committee closed the hearing and left the bill pending further consideration.
