Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Timeshare Taxation topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Committee rejects bill to classify timeshares as residential; assessors and counties clash over revenue and feasibility
Summary
After extended testimony and questioning, the committee voted down HB 889, which would have set a statewide rule classifying timeshare interests as residential except where occupancy taxes apply. Assessors’ representative warned the change would overturn case law and be administratively infeasible; a Sevier County mayor said the shift would cost his county about $1.1 million.
The State and Local Government Committee voted down House Bill 889 after an extended debate and several rounds of public testimony and questioning.
Sponsor Representative Todd framed the amendment as clarifying that timeshare properties should generally be classified as residential for property-tax purposes, with commercial treatment where units are rented and subject to occupancy taxes. Will Denami, testifying for local assessors, urged the committee to vote no, saying "This this this bill would overturn the law" and that an administrative regime requiring annual reviews of individual owners’ rental activity would be infeasible.
Addison Russell, representing the American Resort Development Association, argued the amendment is designed to match the controlling court holding and to protect owners who bought timeshares as vacation homes. "Most owners do use them as their vacation home," Russell said, adding that associations receive a single bill and apportion assessments to owners.
Mayor Lehi Waters of Sevier County testified in opposition, saying timeshares function like hotels in his jurisdiction and estimating a fiscal impact: "This would cost the county about $1,100,000," he said, describing timeshares as marketed to tourists and operated by management companies. Members pressed witnesses on whether developers’ unsold units or proprietors' rental activities should trigger commercial treatment.
After members called the previous question and voted the bill up or down, the clerk announced the tally: 7 ayes, 12 noes, and 2 present not voting. The bill failed in committee and will not advance on this calendar.
