The Alaska House Labor and Commerce Committee opened public testimony on House Bill 113 on Monday, March 3, a proposal to reinstate a small‑business corporate income tax exemption that lapsed in 2023.

Business owners and the Alaska Chamber told the committee the exemption has been a narrow but valuable tool for a small number of firms. Kari Noor, director of External Affairs for the Alaska Chamber, said the exemption allowed “Alaska businesses to invest millions of dollars into additional staffing, infrastructure and inventory to help them grow their business and the state's economy.” Noor told the committee the Department of Revenue’s analysis shows a three‑year average cost to the state of about $2,500,000 and that roughly 50 businesses have used the exemption.

Why it matters: Witnesses said the exemption supported reinvestment and employee benefits at small, C‑corporation businesses and that reinstating it would help firms manage rising costs. Industry speakers asked the committee to consider retroactive application to reduce uncertainty for companies that relied on the exemption in recent years.

What witnesses said
- Jesse Glaman (identified in testimony as CEO of Big Ray’s/Big Red) described a longstanding family business that used the exemption to expand to five locations, invest in infrastructure and maintain employee benefit packages. “This exemption has really allowed us to continue to grow our company,” he said.
- Lloyd Staiosny, owner of Eden Management Group, said many small businesses converted to C‑corporation status after federal tax changes in 2018 and used the Alaska exemption to invest and hire. He urged reinstatement and said the exemption should be retroactive because businesses faced uncertainty when the sunset occurred.
- Kari Noor, director of External Affairs for the Alaska Chamber, said the Chamber supports HB 113 and highlighted the statewide economic role of the roughly 700 Chamber members who employ about 58,000 Alaskans.

Committee procedure and fiscal note
Committee members asked about the fiscal differences between HB 94 and HB 113. Brandon Spanos of the Department of Revenue explained that fiscal‑note differences reflect updated data sets: one fiscal note used data through FY2023 while the other incorporated FY2024 data, producing a slightly different three‑year average estimate.

The committee’s staff noted an amendment deadline previously set for HB 113 of Tuesday, March 4 at 4 p.m. No action or vote was taken; public testimony was closed after the listed speakers finished.

Ending note: Witnesses framed the exemption as a narrow, targeted relief for a small number of firms that has helped with capital investment and employee benefits. Committee members acknowledged the testimony and signaled they will consider the exemption alongside other tax proposals.