Representative Van Fossen

Jamie Van Fossen


The Week In Review 
Printer friendly page    

February 11, 2005
E-mail: jamie.van.fossen@legis.state.ia.us 

 Session Week 5
Fax: 563-355-9954

FISCAL YEAR ’05 TAX REVENUE ABOVE “REC” ESTIMATE THROUGH JANUARY

 Last Tuesday, February 1, Fiscal Services released the revenue figures through the first seven months of the fiscal year (FY).  Due to strong growth of income tax receipts, revenue continued to exceed the December estimate set by the Revenue Estimating Conference (REC).

 Through January 31, 2005 total general fund revenue increased by $230 million, or 8.2 percent compared to FY ‘04.  This is up from December ‘04, when revenue was up $172.5 million, or 7.2 percent compared to FY ‘04.

 The REC estimate for FY ‘05 is $141.5 million, or 2.7 percent above FY ‘04, so the general fund has already exceeded the REC estimate for the year and there are still five months to go.  Some of the increase in January was due to having an extra processing day, and that will be reflected in February.

 However, even taking into account the extra processing day, personal income revenue continues to grow at a rapid rate.  Year-to-date personal income tax receipts are up $123.5 million (8.9 percent) and were up 16 percent compared to January of 2004.  That suggests that taxpayers made a profit on the stock market in 2004 because they would have to pay capital gains taxes on that profit in January.

 Sales and use tax receipts and corporate income tax receipts continue to grow as well.  Year-to-date sales and use tax revenue was up $51.9 million (5.4 percent) and corporate income tax was up $29.5 million, or 27 percent.  Other taxes and receipts were up $25.4 million, or 16 percent compared to FY ‘04.

 The economy is finally showing signs of booming like it did in the 1990s.  The increased revenue means that priorities of education, public safety and health care can be funded without raising taxes.  If the FY 06 and FY 07 spending increases are limited to a reasonable amount, the remainder of the surplus will go to repay the cash reserves and the Senior Living Trust Fund and the state’s finances will remain sound.

 Our resistance to the constant drumbeat to raise taxes during the recession has paid off!

NEW VILSACK BUDGET—SAME OLE TAX INCREASE ON JOB CREATORS

When Governor Vilsack released his budget proposal, he included several tax increase provisions.  One that has received quite a bit of attention is the combined corporate income tax reporting.

 Iowa corporations currently use separate entity reporting, allowing Iowa franchise or income tax to apply to each separate corporation doing business in the state.  These separate entities must file separate tax returns reporting net income.  Combined tax reporting requires that two or more related entities engaged in businesses in and outside of Iowa calculate their tax burden as a single unit under the apportionment formula.


 It is a radical change in the way corporate income taxes are calculated.  This is the third consecutive year that the Governor has proposed this tax change and estimates that the state general fund would see approximately $25 million in new revenue in fiscal year 2006.


 

Why Combined Reporting is Bad for Iowa:

-Multi-state corporate tax managers generally consider combined reporting a negative factor when evaluating states for new or expanded industrial plants.

-This tax increase would further stall economic development in Iowa.  Tax increases slow productivity increases that lead to economic growth.

-Forty-one percent of manufacturers nationwide in 1998 reported they would seek to lower their state and local tax burden when expanding or relocating a facility.  (G. Thornton Survey of American Manufacturers, 1998).

-Combined reporting runs counter to the principle of simplicity.  The definition of a unitary business is a subjective determination.

-For small to medium-sized multi-state corporations, a move to combined reporting creates a costly administrative burden in order to comply with the complexities of combined reporting.

-Professor William Raabe, (of Samford University), stated in his 1999 report “when a fundamental change in the tax law comes about, businesses and individuals change their behavior.  Other factors remaining unchanged, taxpayers will move home and jobs, offices and plants, to find the lower tax liabilities to which they are accustomed.  Taxpayers disadvantaged by a move to combined reporting are likely to move physical, financial, and human capital out of the state, in managing their tax costs.”

-States with combined reporting discovered that business taxpayers reacted negatively to the highly subjective and arbitrary applications of the method’s rules by courts and administrators.  Since then, legislatures in most other states have unwound combined reporting from their statutes.  The device remains on the books largely as an election at the taxpayer’s disposal, not as a required computation.

-Where a move to combined reporting translates into a tax increase for companies, they will mitigate these circumstances by moving or passing on the costs to consumers.

 Currently, sixteen states require combined reporting.  Of the states that border Iowa-- Illinois, Minnesota and Nebraska require combined reporting.  This fact puts Iowa at a competitive advantage over those three states, since we do not currently require it.


  Ways & Means Update
 

Bills introduced in committee this week:

HSB 126- A study bill modifying the road use tax fund allocations and providing an effective date.

Bills passed out  of committee this week:

HF 216-
A bill for an act relating to motor vehicle regulation by the state department of transportation, including motor vehicle registration and titling, restricted and special driver's licenses for minors, driver licensing, regulation of commercial vehicles, the use of flashing lights on certain vehicles, citations for child restraint violations, permits for vehicles of excessive height or weight, procedures for motor vehicle dealers, and persons with disabilities parking, and relating to refunds of taxes on motor fuel used in taxicabs and buses that provide certain services.

   Week in Review Archives

2005 Session
02-04-05
01-28-05
01-21-05
01-14-05

2004 Session
09-07-04
04-28-04
04-16-04
04-09-04
04-02-04
03-26-04
03-19-04
03-12-04 Rep
03-05-04
02-27-04
02-20-04
02-13-04
02-06-04
01-30-04
01-23-04
01-16-04

2003 Session
06-04-03 Special Session
05-30-03 Special Session
05-02-03
04-25-03
04-18-03
04-11-03
04-04-03
03-28-03
03-21-03
03-14-03
03-07-03
02-28-03
02-21-03
02-14-03
02-07-03
01-31-03
01-17-03
01-24-03

2002 Session
05-28-02 Special Session II 
05-10-02 Special Edition
04-22-02 Special Session I
04-12-02
04-05-02
03-29-02
03-22-02
03-15-02

03-08-02

03-01-02
02-22-02
02-15-02
02-08-02

02-01-02
01-25-02
01-18-02

2001 Session
05-04-01
04-27-01
04-20-01
04-13-01
04-06-01

03-30-01

03-23-01
03-16-01
03-09-01
03-02-01
02-23-01
02-16-01
02-09-01
02-02-01
01-26-01
01-19-01

01-12-01

2000 Session
04-28-00
04-21-00
04-14-00
04-07-00
03-31-00
03-24-00
03-17-00
03-10-00
03-03-00
02-25-00