Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Tax Policy topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Broadcasters press Finance Committee for clarification after Act 145 inventory letters sweep in one‑way radio and TV
Summary
Local broadcasters told the Senate Finance Committee that the Department of Taxes’ inventory letters tied to Act 145 have wrongfully swept one‑way over‑the‑air radio and television into a communications‑property inventory; the department and PVR said they are still gathering first‑year data, and committee staff were asked to draft clarifying language to ensure two‑way telecom property—not routine broadcasters—are treated as intended.
Broadcasters, tax officials and property valuation staff clashed and then largely agreed on one point at the Senate Finance Committee’s April 15 hearing: confusion over how Act 145’s new communications property category should be implemented has prompted inventory notices that alarmed some over‑the‑air radio and television stations.
Wendy Mace, executive director of the Vermont Association of Broadcasters, told the committee that local radio and TV stations received an inventory notice in February and ‘‘panicked’’ because the industry believed Act 145 excluded one‑way broadcast. Mace said the association hired counsel and secured an email concession from the Department of Taxes’ general counsel. Quoting that message, she said the department’s counsel wrote, "If a tower has only radio or television, one way communication to not communications property." Mace asked the committee to add a clear definition of a "communication service provider" to Section 6 of the miscellaneous tax bill (H.933) so broadcasters would be explicitly exempted from inventories intended for two‑way telecom property.
Jill Ramik, director of Property Valuation and Review (PVR), said the department and its contractor are in the middle of the first‑year inventory effort. PVR hired a consultant, created six different inventory forms to reflect different communications technologies, and sent broad mailings to cast a wide net. Ramik told the committee PVR ‘‘never intended for this to be like a gotcha’’ and that appeals are anticipated during the initial implementation year: "We fully expected, anticipate and are prepared for—and in a way hope for—appeals and things like that so that we can also use those determinations to help us narrow what this definition is and is not." PVR said it is offering extensions and working with towns and providers to collect accurate data.
Industry representatives and members of the committee pressed the department on statutory scope. Scott Mackey (who identified himself as representing tax department interests during the hearing) acknowledged past litigation and statutory complexity and said the department is implementing the enacted text; industry lawyers argued the Senate’s floor amendment narrowed the measure and that the department’s inventory requests appear broader than the statute’s final text.
Tax department staff and the PVR team said their approach is to gather information widely in year one and refine definitions based on appeals and clarifications; they also emphasized that if telecom companies willfully refuse to provide inventories the existing penalty language—resulting from prior statute—could apply, though PVR said it does not plan to use fines as a first response during initial collection.
Municipal reporting and double‑reporting were another concern. Industry witnesses warned that reporting all items to the state and to municipalities that still tax business personal property could create duplication and unintended local tax consequences; senators asked Legislative Council and department staff to draft clarifying statutory language identifying what property must be reported to the state versus what remains municipal business personal property.
What the committee asked for: senators instructed staff to work with Legislative Council, the Department of Taxes, PVR and industry stakeholders to produce clarifying text for Section 6 of H.933 (and related Act 145 provisions) that makes explicit that routine one‑way broadcasters are not subject to communications property valuation while ensuring two‑way telecom and leased equipment on towers are reported by the party that owns and uses that equipment.
Why it matters: This is the first year of a new inventory and valuation regime created by Act 145. The results will determine which entities appear on grand lists and who receives property tax bills this fall; the committee’s clarifying language could prevent small broadcasters—many with limited staff and budgets—from hiring engineers to complete inventory forms for equipment that was not intended to be taxed.
