Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Tax Policy topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
House amends, then passes remote-sales tax bill after removing food-tax intent language
Summary
The House debated First Substitute Senate Bill 172 on taxing remote vendors and an amendment creating a 'remote sales restricted account'; members removed language directing revenues to offset a food tax and passed the amended bill (65–2), after questions about local impacts, distribution formulas and the restricted-account mechanics.
First Substitute Senate Bill 172, addressing sales and use taxation for remote vendors and Internet sales, was debated on Feb. 28. Representative Short described the measure as an interim approach: it permits voluntary vendor collection, sets a single statewide rate for remote transactions, distributes revenues to local governments on a population basis and includes a Senate amendment creating a "remote sales restricted account" using a base year to capture early revenues.
The House recorded extensive floor discussion about the restricted account language introduced in the Senate. Representative 19 (Hickman) and others questioned intent language that directed future revenues from the account to be used to reduce the sales tax on food. Short said the restricted account and base-year calculation were intended for accounting transparency and not as an automatic food-tax reduction; the account would track revenue differences in future years.
Representative 19 moved to strike several intent subparts (lines 661 g–i in the printed amendment) that would have narrowed the account’s purpose; the House voted to delete that intent language. Representatives also questioned the possible impact on local governments and how point-of-sale attribution might be handled; Short said collections from many remote vendors already occur voluntarily and the bill distributes revenue to localities by population rather than point of sale.
After adopting a set of technical Senate amendments and deleting the contested intent lines, the House voted the bill out to the Senate (final tally reported as 65 yes, 2 no). Members noted remaining technical issues and asked staff to follow up on local-government impacts, distribution formulas and the base-year accounting method before implementation.
Next steps: SB172 as amended will proceed to the Senate for further action; the House record shows the bill passed the chamber with most substantive debate focused on the reserved-account and distribution mechanism.
