Fiscal impact
reports (FIRs) are prepared by the Legislative Finance Committee (LFC) for
standing finance committees of the NM Legislature. The LFC does not assume
responsibility for the accuracy of these reports if they are used for other
purposes.
Current FIRs (in
HTML & Adobe PDF formats) are available on the NM Legislative Website (legis.state.nm.us). Adobe PDF versions include all attachments,
whereas HTML versions may not.
Previously issued FIRs and attachments may also be obtained from the LFC
in
SPONSOR |
|
DATE TYPED |
|
HB |
290 |
||
SHORT
TITLE |
Provide Local Option Compensating Taxes |
SB |
|
||||
|
ANALYST |
|
|||||
REVENUE
Estimated Revenue |
Subsequent Years Impact |
Recurring or
Non-Rec |
Fund Affected |
|
FY04 |
FY05 |
|||
|
(3,000.0) |
(3,100.0) |
Recurring |
General
Fund |
|
(750.0) |
(770.0) |
Recurring |
Small
Cities/Counties |
|
9,600.0 |
9,800.0 |
Recurring |
Municipalities |
|
4,500.0 |
4,600.0 |
Recurring |
Counties |
(Parenthesis ( ) Indicate Revenue Decreases)
Duplicates SB118
LFC Files
Responses
Received From
Taxation
and Revenue Department (TRD)
SUMMARY
House Bill 290 allows county and municipal
governments to impose a local option compensating tax. The local option compensating tax is imposed pursuant
to current local option gross receipts taxes. Local option compensating tax rates mirror
local option gross receipts tax rates.
As is the case with the gross receipts tax, a credit against the state
compensating tax is provided. The bill requires TRD to administer the tax and
transfer payments to local governments in the same way it does the state
compensating tax. It prescribes how to
determine in which jurisdiction the use of property occurs. It extends the prohibition on TRD taking
collection action to compensating tax liabilities to local option compensating
taxes. It also extends the liability for
payment of the compensating tax to the local option compensating tax. The bill has an effective date of
FISCAL IMPLICATIONS
TRD estimates that
enacting a local government compensating tax in FY05 would increase local
government recurring revenues by $14.1 million ($9.6 million for
municipalities; $4.5 million for counties) and reduce state general fund recurring
revenues by $3.0 million. There is also
an estimated negative impact to the small cities and small counties assistance
fund of $750 thousand.
TRD’s analysis assumes
the FY05 compensating tax base is $975 million.
The 0.5 percent credit is applied for taxpayers living within municipal
boundaries (approximately 77 percent implied by the analysis). Multiplying the tax base of $975 by the 77
percent of the population living in municipalities’ yields and then by the
credit rate of 0.5 percent implies that state revenues will decline by $3.75
million. Eighty percent or $3 million of
the revenue loss would be absorbed by the general fund and the remaining 20
percent would be lost to the small cities and small counties fund.
Revenue gains for the
cities and counties can be estimated in the same way by applying an assumed
municipal rate of about 1.25 percent and a county rate of 0.5 percent.
TRD provides the
estimated revenue gains for all counties and cities. This table is reported in the other impacts
section of this report.
ADMINISTRATIVE IMPLICATIONS
TRD reports that this
bill would have major administrative impacts.
Their analysis is repeated here:
The provisions in this bill would have a major
administrative impact on the department. In order to capture the appropriate
data to distribute revenue from the new local option taxes, larger Combined
Revenue System (“CRS”) reporting forms would be required. This, in turn would
require at least two full-page scanners at a cost of about $350 thousand
apiece. Three additional FTE would be
required to enter the additional data and verify distribution amounts. Absent
full-page scanners and additional resources, there is a high likelihood of late
revenue distributions to local governments resulting from increased time for
processing tax returns.
Major
computer systems changes would be necessary to make the appropriate local revenue
distributions. Reprogramming the system
is possible. However, the
effective date of
Section 7-1-6.41 NMSA 1978 authorizes the department
to withhold an administrative fee for local option gross receipts taxes
distributed. Similarly, current statutes
regarding the various local option gross receipts taxes clearly recognize an
administrative fee for collecting and distributing the revenue. However, this proposal does not contain
similar provisions allowing an administrative fee to be
withheld for local option compensating taxes. The costs of administering the provisions
would therefore have to be funded out of the
department’s General Fund appropriation.
TECHNICAL ISSUES
TRD’s analysis also raises
the following technical issue:
Section
8, beginning on page 16, provides a credit against municipal compensating tax
paid. The value of the credit is equal
to one-half percent (.5%) of the value of property for which the taxpayer is
liable “if the rate of the municipal compensating tax in effect at the time of
use was one-half percent.” To be
consistent with the municipal credit for gross receipts tax paid, the value of
the compensating tax credit should be .5% of the value of property if the rate
of municipal tax is at least .5%. On
page 16, line 11 “at least” should be inserted between “was” and
“one-half”.
OTHER SUBSTANTIVE ISSUES
TRD notes a policy
advantage to making the compensating tax equivalent to the gross receipts tax
rate is that it would eliminate a tax induced incentive for buyers to purchase
from out of state vendors.
These two tables, estimating county and municipal
government distributions from the local option compensating tax, were provided by TRD.
Estimated Local Option Compensating Tax Distributions—Counties |
|||||
Bernalillo |
1,064,982 |
Harding |
545 |
|
40,942 |
Catron |
736 |
|
9,862 |
Sandoval |
163,814 |
Chaves |
152,060 |
Lea |
102,254 |
|
414,175 |
|
61,013 |
|
31,198 |
San Miguel |
44,599 |
Colfax |
25,705 |
|
293,384 |
|
672,127 |
Curry |
58,115 |
Luna |
55,375 |
Sierra |
21,752 |
DeBaca
|
2,502 |
McKinley |
272,004 |
Socorro |
11,286 |
Dona Ana |
320,367 |
Mora |
4,343 |
|
152,454 |
Eddy |
189,115 |
Otero |
67,897 |
|
22,524 |
Grant |
77,656 |
Quay |
18,779 |
|
4,818 |
Guadalupe |
6,480 |
|
61,375 |
|
95,835 |
|
|
|
|
All Counties |
$4,520,071 |
Estimated Local Option
Compensating Tax Distributions—Municipalities
|
|||||
|
197,962 |
Eunice |
18,168 |
|
4,210 |
|
3,506,484 |
|
543,802 |
Portales |
64,741 |
Angel Fire |
30,384 |
Floyd |
158 |
Questa |
4,521 |
Artesia |
129,195 |
Folsom |
66 |
Raton |
73,959 |
Aztec |
38,358 |
|
5,438 |
|
18,009 |
Bayard |
6,586 |
|
249,169 |
Reserve |
1,783 |
Belen |
92,545 |
Grady |
143 |
|
244,913 |
Bernalillo |
27,266 |
Grants |
58,562 |
|
292,579 |
|
40,601 |
Grenville
|
32 |
|
1,256 |
Bosque Farms |
11,451 |
Hagerman |
4,075 |
Ruidoso |
141,860 |
Capitan |
4,984 |
Hatch |
9,857 |
Ruidoso Downs |
35,031 |
|
200,137 |
|
322,141 |
San Jon |
1,898 |
Carrizozo |
4,151 |
Hope |
220 |
San Ysidro
|
3,067 |
Causey |
31 |
House |
625 |
|
1,252 |
Chama |
8,650 |
Hurley |
2,699 |
|
1,159,875 |
|
3,414 |
Jal
|
10,542 |
|
26,519 |
Clayton |
15,848 |
Jemez Springs |
1,840 |
|
106,187 |
Cloudcroft |
8,877 |
|
300 |
Socorro |
39,593 |
|
229,789 |
|
732,908 |
Springer |
3,283 |
|
1,965 |
|
108,534 |
|
33,833 |
|
735 |
|
3,602 |
T or C |
33,055 |
Corrales |
15,051 |
Lordsburg |
21,492 |
|
137,685 |
|
6,985 |
Los Lunas |
80,806 |
|
10,635 |
Deming |
68,890 |
Los Ranchos |
19,162 |
Tatum |
4,589 |
|
1,844 |
Loving |
1,878 |
Texico
|
2,349 |
Dexter |
5,484 |
Lovington |
44,099 |
Tijeras |
6,220 |
Dora |
192 |
|
2,240 |
Tucumcari |
41,006 |
Eagle Nest |
2,635 |
Maxwell |
196 |
Tularosa |
7,956 |
|
12,901 |
|
2,515 |
Vaughn |
2,354 |
Elephant |
3,282 |
Mesilla |
10,713 |
Virden |
36 |
Elida
|
1,121 |
|
24,826 |
Wagon Mound |
1,228 |
Encino |
380 |
Moriarty |
24,204 |
Willard |
247 |
Espanola |
135,855 |
Mosquero |
263 |
|
842 |
Estancia |
8,271 |
Mountainair |
3,071 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
All Municipalities |
$9,637,223 |