Tuesday, February 15, 2011

Today was an interesting day in the tax on services issue. After having been away last week, I returned to see that H, 243, a committee bill containing the recommendations of the Blue Ribbon Tax Structure Commission was introduced by the House Ways and Means Committee. Normally when a committee introduces a committee bill, it goes directly on the calendar for action the next day. In this case the bill was introduced and then committed back to the Ways and Means Committee. Here’s the statement of purpose as it appears in the bill:


Statement of purpose: This bill proposes to begin the tax reform process
recommended by the Vermont Blue Ribbon Tax Structure Commission for
creating transparency in Vermont’s tax system by providing for a high level of
ongoing scrutiny of the multiple exemptions embedded in Vermont’s major tax
structures. This process would be implemented by an initial, prospective sunset of nearly all tax incentives in the personal income tax, sales tax, meals and rooms tax, and property tax. It is not the intent of the commission to actually repeal all of the tax incentives set out in this bill, but by these prospective repeals, to ensure that the legislature does scrutinize each of these incentives and make an active decision as to whether to continue each incentive. This bill also proposes to implement the commission’s recommendation to extend the sales tax to services provided at the retail level.

I understand that some members of the committee were not happy with signing on to the bill as it could be interpreted as their supporting various parts of it, including the tax on services. I’m still awaiting my turn to testify before the committee. There’ll be plenty more on this before May
It was just about two years ago when our legislature raised the homestead exemption to $125,000; well, now H. 253 would raise it to $300,000. That bill was just introduced today and it’s way too early to know whether it will even get a hearing.

On the Senate side, S. 68 was introduced today and it would establish an 80% rule for verdicts in civil cases. This is the same language that was introduced in the last two sessions but didn’t go anywhere.
I had the opportunity to sit in on testimony of two of our uniforms law commissioners today. Carl Lisman appeared before the House General Affairs Committee on H. 101, a bill that would authorize a common interest community to change the number of units in the community that may be leased upon a vote of 67 percent of the unit owners. Later in the day, Peter Langrock appeared before the Senate Finance Committee in support of S. 7, the uniform limited cooperative associations bill. This is the same bill as H. 21 being worked on in the House Commerce Committee. That in itself is pretty unusual- the same bill moving forward in each chamber at the same time.

The UCCJEA (H. 88) passed second reading in the House on a voice vote with no opposition. One more favorable vote and it’s off to the Senate. H. 79, the adult guardianship bill I’ve written about before is being worked on outside of committee and should be poised for a move soon- hopefully before the town meeting recess.

Tonight Justice Dooley, Judges Wesley and Levitt are scheduled to be interviewed by the Judicial Retention Committee. Tomorrow, Senate Judiciary will be returning to S. 38, collateral consequences. The licensed lender bill hearing expected for today will be delayed at least a week, while the child support bill won’t get any attention next week. it will most likely see action after the town meeting recess.