Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Bank Branch Excise Tax topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Committee hears bill to change Nevada bank‑branch excise tax, sponsors say change modernizes policy
Summary
Senate Bill 412 would revise the excise tax on bank branches — the sponsor's conceptual amendment would keep the existing per‑branch rate but impose it annually rather than quarterly and delay the effective date — proponents said the tax discourages in‑state branch expansion and generates modest revenue.
CARSON CITY — The Senate Committee on Revenue and Economic Development heard Senate Bill 412 on a narrow excise tax that applies to bank branches and proponents said the measure will modernize Nevada's tax structure and make it easier for banks to open branches inside the state.
Senator Julie Pizzina, sponsor of SB412, told the committee the state first enacted a bank excise tax during a 2003 special session and it was refined in a 2005 special session. In the hearing she said the bill would repeal the excise tax imposed on bank branches in excess of one branch per county but that a conceptual amendment would instead retain the per‑branch rate while changing the frequency: under the amendment the per‑branch charge would be imposed once per calendar year instead of once per quarter, and the amendment sets an effective date of July 1, 2027.
Paul Meratkin of the Las Vegas Chamber said the tax is narrow and produces only modest general‑fund revenue, and that it disproportionately affects brick‑and‑mortar Nevada banks versus out‑of‑state and online banks. "The purpose of the bill is threefold: help maintain Nevada's competitive tax structure, reduce a targeted tax in an industry that does not generate much revenue, and help modernize the state's tax structure," Meratkin said.
Fiscal staff presented revenue context. According to testimony citing Department of Taxation data, the bank branch excise tax generated roughly $558,000 in the fourth quarter of 2023, or about $2.2 million for fiscal year 2023; fiscal analysis staff estimated the forecast for FY2026–FY2027 at about $2.0 million per year. Under the sponsor's conceptual amendment, moving the per‑branch charge from quarterly to annual collection would reduce receipts by roughly three‑quarters in a full year, fiscal staff said — on the order of about $1.5 million annually in reduced general‑fund revenue when the change takes effect.
Supporters included the Nevada Bankers Association, which said the change could make branch expansion decisions more economically feasible for banks that operate only in Nevada or that evaluate Nevada against neighboring states. Phyllis Gurgevich, president and CEO of the Nevada Bankers Association, told the committee members that banks considering an additional Nevada branch had found it less costly to open in California under current rules.
The Council for Better Nevada testified in support on broader tax‑policy grounds, urging the committee to view SB412 as part of ongoing discussions about modernizing the state's public finance system. Becky Dutra of the Nevada Taxpayers Association testified in neutral, noting the association had not taken an official position but that the bill moves toward tax‑policy goals of equitable treatment.
No opposition testimony was offered at the hearing. Committee members asked technical questions about revenue impact and whether the change would encourage more brick‑and‑mortar branches in underserved or rural counties; witnesses said it could help level the field for smaller local banks.
The bill was presented with a conceptual amendment described on the legislative information system; sponsors and fiscal staff answered committee questions but no vote was taken at the hearing.
