Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Tax Policy topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
House defeats bill to require quarterly estimated state tax payments from certain self‑employed taxpayers
Summary
Lawmakers rejected House Bill 5,006, which would have required many self‑employed Utahns to make quarterly state estimated tax payments and—sponsor said—bring roughly $50 million into FY2003. Opponents argued it burdens small businesses and merely shifts timing of tax receipts.
House Bill 5,006 died on the House floor after extended debate on whether the state should require certain self‑employed taxpayers to remit quarterly estimated state income tax payments.
Representative Jackie Biskupski, the bill sponsor, told colleagues the measure would require some self‑employed filers (excluding federal definitions of farmers and fishermen and applying only above a $2,000 threshold discussed on the floor) to file quarterly and estimated it could bring approximately $50,000,000 into the 2003 budget year. She said the payments would be timed to match federal estimated‑payment dates and would go into the Uniform School Fund unless the House chose to designate otherwise.
Opponents called the change a new burden on small businesses and raised multiple conflict‑of‑interest declarations on the floor from lawmakers who are self‑employed. Representative Fairman and Representative Aaron pressed the sponsor for specifics on who would be affected; Representative Aaron argued the measure simply brings forward money from future years and imposes a one‑time cash timing hit on self‑employed households. Representatives Snow, Styler, Thompson and others emphasized the working‑capital impact on small firms and said the current system lets business owners retain cash longer.
Supporters said the measure would improve compliance and modestly broaden quarterly filing to align state practice with most other states. Representative Biskupski and backers argued that better compliance would help current budget constraints and that the law would not create new taxes but accelerate receipts the state otherwise would collect.
After members voted to cut off further debate, the House closed voting. The final tally recorded on the floor was 22 yes and 44 no, and the bill failed, meaning it will not advance from the House.
