Tax staff asks committee to clarify communications-property language to exclude broadcasters

Jill Remick, director of property evaluation and review at the Tax Department, asked the Finance committee to consider small changes to proposed language in the bill’s appeals section to avoid unintentionally changing the tax treatment of broadcaster-owned towers or subscriber-based services.

Remick displayed a decision tree used locally to determine tower taxability and told members she and her team “agree with and understand the concept,” but want wording that makes clear the change does not “inadvertently, expos[e] or changing the treatment of things like cable providers or dish networks.” She suggested adding language clarifying the exclusion applies to property used “solely” for general-public broadcast transmission, such as AM/FM radio and television, while subscriber-based equipment should remain within communications-property reporting rules.

Wendy Mays, executive director of the Vermont Association of Broadcasters, asked whether a broadcaster who owns a tower and rents small space to telecoms would still be treated as the tower owner (a landlord) rather than as a communications-provider; Remick confirmed broadcasters’ inventory would remain with the broadcaster and telecom firms would report attached antennas as their communications property.

The committee asked drafters to produce cleaner statutory language reflecting those clarifications while avoiding unintended consequences for cable or subscriber services. Chair (S3) and members signaled general assent to move forward with a refined draft by email to Kirby and to continue the discussion when drafters return with revised text.

Next steps: drafters will circulate a revised amendment clarifying that the change does not apply to property used solely for general-public broadcast transmission and specifying reporting responsibilities for telecom antennas installed on broadcaster-owned towers.