Lawmakers consider inserting Kansas Legal Tender Act language into HB 25-15 as governor signs related bill
Loading...
Summary
During a legislative session, members reviewed adding Senate Bill 39language (the proposed Kansas Legal Tender Act) into House Bill 25-15, clarified that exchanges of gold and silver would generally not trigger tax liability (with a retirement-account exception), and noted HB 2591 was signed into law during the meeting.
Lawmakers in a legislative meeting discussed taking language from Senate Bill 39, the proposed "Kansas Legal Tender Act," and inserting it into House Bill 25-15. Chair announced the governor had signed HB 2591 into law during the session, which carries related virtual-currency-kiosk provisions.
"This was the virtual currency kiosk consumer protection act," David, the reviser, said in summary of HB 25-15, and he described SB 39 as the vehicle for legal-tender provisions. David said SB 39 "would establish the Kansas Legal Tender Act" and "would reaffirm that gold and silver coin are legal tender," adding the bill would create definitions and a subtraction modification in income taxation for gains from sales of specie.
On tax treatment, David told the panel the draft language would prevent exchanges of specie from creating tax liability: "no specie or legal tender should be characterized as personal property for taxation or regulatory purposes," and "the purchase, sale, or exchange of any type or form of specie shall not give rise to any tax liability of any kind." He noted a key exception: distributions from retirement plan accounts that hold specie would remain taxable.
Members raised practical and policy questions. One committee member asked whether businesses or government entities could be forced to accept gold or silver as payment; the Chair replied they would not be required to accept specie as payment and that the legislative amendment specifically addresses not forcing acceptance. Another member pressed how the change would affect collectors and dealer reporting; David pointed to the bill's definitions and where the retirement-account exception appears in the text.
The Chair also noted a fiscal estimate attached to the bill: "it looks like the fiscal note's about $200,000 a year" in expected revenue, according to the transcript. Members agreed to caucus and reconvene later to allow time to absorb the details and consult with staff and audience experts about implementation and reporting.
The discussion did not record a formal motion or vote on amending HB 25-15; the panel planned to resume consideration after caucus to decide next steps.
