Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the State Tax Policy topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Senate adopts substitute for SB102 to neutralize unintended state tax changes from new federal credits

Utah State Senate · February 12, 1998
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

Senate adopted a substitute to Senate Bill 102 to prevent federal child and education tax credits from unintentionally increasing Utah state income tax liabilities and to prevent future budgets from assuming federal tax changes as automatic revenue; sponsors cited an $8 million fiscal implication.

Senators adopted and circled a substitute to Senate Bill 102 aimed at neutralizing an unintended state income‑tax increase that would result from newly enacted federal child and education tax credits.

Senator Bueller and others explained that because Utah’s state income tax ties to the federal tax code, families could see an effective state tax increase this year if the Legislature took no action. The substitute treats certain federal credits (child tax credit, HOPE scholarship, lifetime learning credit) as adjustments so that state income tax liability does not rise automatically with the federal changes.

Senator Stevenson, who sponsored the substitute language, explained the bill also changes the budgeting process for future years: starting with the 1999‑2000 budget cycle, the governor’s budget may not include increases in state revenues resulting from federal income‑tax changes unless the Legislature affirmatively decides to build them into spending plans. Floor discussion emphasizing the fiscal impact noted an estimated $8 million first‑year effect associated with harmonizing state treatment of the federal change.

Senators debated the principle of avoiding automatic revenue gains versus absorbing the windfall for state programs. Some members argued taxpayers should receive the federal benefit without a corresponding state tax increase; others warned of budget pressures and urged legislative control over wholesale revenue assumptions. The substitute was moved, circled for member review and advanced to the third‑reading calendar.