NOTE: As provided in LFC policy, this report is
intended only for use by the standing finance committees of the
legislature. The Legislative Finance Committee does not assume
responsibility for the accuracy of the information in this report when used for
other purposes.
The most recent FIR
version (in HTML & Adobe PDF formats) is available on the Legislative
Website. The Adobe PDF version includes
all attachments, whereas the HTML version does not. Previously issued FIRs and attachments may be
obtained from the LFC in
SPONSOR: |
McSorley |
DATE TYPED: |
|
HB |
|
||
SHORT TITLE: |
Personal Income Surtax for Wildlife Programs |
SB |
329 |
||||
|
ANALYST: |
Neel |
|||||
REVENUE
Estimated Revenue |
Subsequent Years Impact |
Recurring or
Non-Rec |
Fund Affected |
|
FY03 |
FY04 |
|
|
|
|
$3,200.0 |
$3,200.0 |
Recurring |
Wildlife
Conservation |
|
|
|
|
|
(Parenthesis ( ) Indicate Revenue Decreases)
Duplicates:
HB 240, Personal Income
Surtax for Wildlife Programs
LFC files
Responses
Received From
Taxation and Revenue Department (TRD)
Department of Game and Fish (DGF)
SUMMARY
Synopsis
of Bill
Senate Bill 329 creates a new section of the Tax Administration Act that
distributes a portion of the State’s personal income tax receipts to a newly
created fund in the State Treasury. The
bill would create a new tax assessment in addition to existing taxes in the
amount of two dollars ($2.00) for each
federal exemption allowable for federal income tax purposes for each individual
included in the return, or twelve dollars ($12.00), whichever is less. This surtax would be referred to as the Wildlife Conservation Surtax. The revenue generated would be deposited
into the newly created Wildlife
Conservation Fund. Beginning with
fiscal year 2005, the legislature would be able to appropriate money in this
fund for use by the Department of Game and Fish. The bill lists allowed uses of the
funds. The major uses are to fund the
operations of the Conservation Services Division, the Wildlife Conservation Act
and to acquire, lease, develop, land for wildlife habitat.
FISCAL IMPLICATIONS
TRD notes the
following assumptions:
828 thousand personal income tax returns were filed
with the state in tax year 2001. These were distributed as follows: 318
thousand were married filing joint returns; 367 thousand were single returns; 8
thousand consisted of separate returns, while 135 thousand were filed by heads
of household. The federal exemption generally totaled $2,900 per dependent in
Tax Year 2001. The estimate above assumes single filers will each pay $2 per
return, joint filers will pay an average of $5.80 per return, separate filers
will pay an average of $2.56 per return, and individuals filing as heads of
household will pay an average of $5.04 per return. These figures were developed
partially by dividing the total number of exemptions claimed (see the
Technical Issues section below) by the number of filers in each category, and
are somewhat imprecise because: 1) there is no way to know how many exemptions
taxpayers were allowed based on state tax return data, 2) the standard
$2,900 exemption amount varies to some extent with income, and 3) in some cases
– families with four children or more – taxpayers would opt for the $12 per
return surcharge allowed by the proposal, rather than multiplying the number of
dependents by $2.
TECHNICAL ISSUES
The
proposed measure specifies $2 per federal exemption allowable – not
actually claimed. If the intent is to specify $2 per exemption claimed for federal
tax purposes, the measure should be modified accordingly.
SN/ls