Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Lawful Gambling Expenditures topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
LBO finds lawful‑gambling exclusions and raffle credit meet stated objectives; fiscal impacts small
Summary
LBO staff told the commission that six lawful‑gambling tax expenditures (four exclusions, one exemption and a raffle credit) likely meet their objectives of simplifying compliance and directing raffle proceeds to targeted relief; estimated fiscal impacts are generally small and LBO identified no modifications needed.
Legislative Budget Office staff presented a bundled evaluation Dec. 10, 2025, of six lawful‑gambling tax expenditures and concluded the exclusions, exemption and raffle credit generally meet their approved objectives.
Thomas Rainey, a program evaluator with LBO, reviewed the bundle and said five of the six items share an objective — simplifying compliance with and enforcement of lawful gambling and reducing administrative burden — while the raffle credit specifically aims to direct a higher share of net raffle proceeds to relieve poverty, homelessness or disability.
Jeopardized activities differ by mechanic: some exclusions (for limited raffles or bingo at fairs) require no license or permit, while others require permits but not licenses. LBO reported estimated fiscal impacts for FY2026 that are modest: several items under $50,000, the smaller-raffles exclusion at about $300,000, and one exemption (lawful gambling under certain conditions) estimated at roughly $2.9 million.
Annie Lemieux (LBO) summarized the required statutory review components and reported that, based on discussions with the Gambling Control Board and an analysis of filing data, the exclusions and exemption likely reduce administrative burden as intended; enforcing the lawful‑gambling tax on currently excluded activities would increase reporting burden on organizations. The raffle credit requires organizations to direct net proceeds to qualifying relief and, because of that requirement, likely advances its objective without further analysis.
Because these expenditures are small or mechanically simple, the LBO did not identify potential modifications to increase efficiency or effectiveness and found additional analysis unnecessary. LBO staff made available slide‑deck appendices and invited members to request follow‑up if desired.
