Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Research And Development Tax Credit topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Lawmakers hear business pitches to raise R&D tax credit caps to spur life‑sciences growth
Summary
Representative John Janigian told the Ways and Means committee HB 1102 would raise New Hampshire's R&D tax credit cap from $7 million to $10 million and increase the per‑company cap from $50,000 to $100,000 to attract life‑science firms and higher‑paying jobs; industry groups and small businesses testified in support.
The Senate Ways and Means Committee heard testimony on House Bill 1102, which would increase New Hampshire’s aggregate R&D tax credit from $7 million to $10 million and raise the per‑company credit cap from $50,000 to $100,000.
Representative John Janigian, sponsor, said the change targets smaller, high‑paying companies and supports the state's effort to attract life‑science firms from neighboring states. ‘‘This bill proposes to increase the aggregate tax limit from 7 to 10 million and then the individual limit from 50,000 to 100,000,’’ Janigian said, noting that the individual cap has not been updated in many years.
Speakers representing industry and small business gave examples of how the credit matters. Andrea Chevarria, president and CEO of New Hampshire Life Sciences, said the credit is ‘‘incredibly important’’ for biotech firms with long development timelines and higher average salaries; David Peters, a small business owner, described how an R&D credit helped retain a potential client considering relocation out of state. The New Hampshire Life Sciences association and business groups argued that the credit helps competitiveness and job creation.
Committee members questioned timing and fiscal impact given current revenue uncertainty. Janigian and supporters suggested the credit is an investment in growth and noted the committee had advanced other targeted credits (including a child‑care credit) while killing other tax‑credit proposals. Members discussed options including staggering implementation dates or phasing to limit near‑term revenue effects.
The committee deferred detailed fiscal decisions to executive session, and the record shows further committee consideration will evaluate revenue timing and potential phased implementation.
