Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Tax Policy topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Committee advances TABOR-accounting bill amid opposition warning of potential taxpayer risk
Summary
HB 14‑19, which sponsors said would spread an accounting correction related to HR 1 across two fiscal years, advanced to the Committee of the Whole after contested testimony; an opponent warned of roughly $300 million in exposure and possible high interest, while a state official said staff are confident the approach is legally supported.
The House Appropriations Committee advanced House Bill 14‑19 to the Committee of the Whole after a contested discussion over how to correct a prior-year TABOR over‑refund linked to the passage of HR 1.
Madam Vice Chair described the bill as “simply directing the controller to determine an amount that is equal to the difference between what the state required refund was for fiscal year ’25 and then the difference of what would have been required due to the passage of HR 1,” with sponsors saying the measure spreads the correction across two fiscal years to reduce impacts on upcoming TABOR refunds.
Representative Bottoms pressed sponsors on legal risk. In opposition testimony, Natalie Menton said the JBC memo she heard identified substantial risk and urged caution. Menton told the committee the risk to taxpayers could be “$300,000,000 with a 4 year look back on interest if the court should find that it was inappropriate ... at a 10% interest rate,” and said the approach is outside established norms for backtracking fiscal-year accounting.
Mark Ferrendino, director of the Office of State Budget (as he identified himself), told the committee staff had analyzed the matter and that “we feel very confident... this is supported by law and case law to be able to do this and be able to reclaim this money because we did over refund that money to taxpayers.” Ferrendino said further data would come with April filings and defended the legal basis for the approach.
Committee members debated the likelihood of judicial challenge; Representative Bottoms said she disagreed with the sponsor’s legal assessment and expected litigation if the bill proceeds. The committee adopted a J amendment (J001) over objections and moved HB 14‑19 as amended to the Committee of the Whole; the committee vote was 8–3.
The record shows both explicit legal concerns and a staff defense; the Committee of the Whole will consider whether to adopt the committee’s approach.
