Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Tax Policy topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Senate approves narrow tax protection for customers of in‑state printer after job‑creation arguments
Summary
SB260, described by the sponsor as a targeted measure to shield customers of an in‑state printing facility from nexus‑based taxation claims, was circled for amendments and later passed by the Senate after proponents emphasized local job expansion.
Senate Bill 260, presented on the floor by Senator Holmgren, would address taxation of customers of in‑state printer facilities — in the debate, the company most frequently referenced was called Donnelly. Sponsor Holmgren emphasized the bill would not give Donnelly a tax break but would protect out‑of‑state customers from being deemed taxable because their product was produced in Utah. He said the company planned an expansion in West Valley that would bring “several hundred jobs in this area of above average salary type jobs.”
Several senators expressed concern about establishing unfamiliar nexus rules and the difficulty of undoing any future unintended expansion of the exemption. One senator asked for time to consult with the Tax Commission and offered two proposed amendments — one to tighten the language and another to put a sunset provision on the exemption — and asked that the bill be circled. The Senate accepted the motion to circle and returned later in the day after additional consultation.
When the body returned, senators reported that some proposed amendments were withdrawn after consultation with the Tax Commission. Roll call later recorded SB260 as passing the Senate with 25 ayes, 1 nay and 3 absent; the bill was then sent to the House for further action.
Provenance
This article is based on the sponsor’s floor presentation ("Senate bill 2 60, taxation, customers of in state printer facilities by senator Holmgren") and the later roll‑call reporting ("Senate bill 2 60 shows 25 ayes, 1 nay, 3 absent. Bill passes").
Why it matters
The bill illustrates how tax‑nexus questions can intersect with economic‑development goals: sponsors argued the narrowly tailored change would encourage local investment and job creation, while some senators cautioned about creating broad or permanent exemptions that would be difficult to repeal.
