Committee approves bill to allow judges to intercept state tax refunds for unpaid fines and fees

Senator Joshua Bryant (presenting) said Senate Bill 260 would give judges an additional collection tool to recover backlogged fines, fees and court costs by allowing a court, after specified findings, to intercept a defendant’s state income-tax refund. Bryant told the committee that district courts are dealing with substantial unpaid balances and that current civil-judgment procedures to collect are cumbersome and underused.

Bryant said the bill is not a first resort but an additional remedy available when a judge finds the defendant knowingly failed to comply with payment terms and no other mitigating circumstances prevent collection. He said statutory priorities — such as child-support orders and victim restitution — remain in force under existing law, and that tax-intercept requests are ordered pursuant to statutory process (cited in testimony as existing code citations) and are subject to existing priorities.

Committee members asked practical and equity questions. Representative Collins worried that intercepting tax refunds could punish low-income people who can only pay because they are employed and who receive refunds; he warned the measure could disincentivize on-the-books employment. Witnesses and the sponsor said the option is meant for cases where other remedies have been exhausted and could incentivize compliance by using a refund that would otherwise be disbursed.

Representative Gazewell and others asked the fiscal/legal staff’s note that an amendment might change language on line 30 to refer to a tax “refund” rather than a tax “return,” because the two terms have different meanings in tax code; the sponsor said he had not been aware of that drafting detail and acknowledged technical edits may be appropriate. Committee members discussed priority of claims that already exist in statute (for example, child support and restitution) and that an intercept would follow the statutorily established priority order.

Supporters said judges already have limited statutory tools to seek civil judgments to collect fines and fees but that the process is cumbersome; SB 260 would streamline one authorized collection mechanism for judges who find the statutory prerequisites are met. Sponsors told the committee they had consulted stakeholders including CLEST, sheriff and police associations, and the fiscal/legal office; testimony indicated stakeholders were either neutral or supportive. The committee voted to give the bill a do-pass recommendation.