Joint
Subcommittee to Study and Revise Virginia's State Tax Code
HJR 60 (2002)
HJR 685/SJR 387 (2001)
December 17, 2001
The joint subcommittee appointed to study
and revise the state tax code held its fifth and final meeting of 2001in
Richmond and heard from several interested parties, in its continual effort
to gather information relating to concerns about and suggested changes
to the state tax code. This was the second meeting during which group
representatives and individuals were invited to address the joint subcommittee,
with the November meeting being the first. In addition, representatives
from the Virginia Municipal League ("VML") and the Virginia Association
of Counties ("VACo") supplied answers to questions raised during their
presentations to the subcommittee during its November meeting. Finally,
one of the joint subcommittee members, who also served on Governor Gilmore's
Commission on Government Finance Reform for the 21st Century, gave a brief
overview of that commission's final report and recommendations to the
subcommittee.
Representatives of Interested Organizations
The organizations that sent representatives
to speak to the joint subcommittee in December included the Virginia Retail
Merchants' Association ("Retail Merchants"), the Commissioners of the
Revenue Association ("CRA"), the Virginia Manufacturers' Association ("VMA"),
the Virginia Interfaith Center for Public Policy ("Interfaith Center"),
the Apartment and Office Building Association of Greater Washington ("AOBA"),
the Virginia Association for Commercial Real Estate ("VACRE"), and the
Retail Alliance.
The Retail Merchants oppose any regional
referendum on retail sales tax because it could "open Pandora's box."
Instead, uniformity should be maintained throughout the state with regard
to the retail sales tax. Furthermore, they encourage the Commonwealth's
participation in the streamlined sales tax project. Finally, the Retail
Merchants favor the state providing localities with another source of
revenues while eliminating the business, professional, and occupation
license tax and the merchants' capital tax.
The CRA representative expressed the group's
awareness of the complexity of the tax code and explained that the complexity
allows flexibility in administering the taxes and ensures compromise.
An expanded role for the commissioners of the revenue in administering
all taxes having a local connection, emphasizing convenience for and face-to-face
contact with the taxpayer, was suggested to the subcommittee.
Whatever substantive changes in the Commonwealth's
state and local tax system might be recommended by the joint subcommittee,
the CRA believes the principles of fairness and equity should be paramount
in the subcommittee's deliberations. Furthermore, while uniformity may
seem to be a laubable goal, one must not lose sight of the fact that economic,
geographical, and demographic differences exist throughout the Commonwealth,
making a "one size fits all" approach impractical. However, the CRA, the
Weldon Cooper Center for Public Service and the State Compensation Board
have created an educational program to ensure more uniformity as elected
officers are trained. Commissioners of the revenue are underutilized when
it comes to providing traditional state services and are more than willing
to provide, with proper training and technology, more services with a
higher degree of accessibility for the Commonwealth's citizens. The CRA
concluded by offering its assistance to the joint subcommittee in developing
a more efficient, accessible government having a fair and equitable tax
system.
Four issues were addressed by the VMA.
First, it favors the continued use of income, sales, and property taxes
rather than creating new taxes that increase the number of returns filed
by business and administered by government. Second, redistribution of
existing taxes, based on specific local needs, is preferable to additional
new taxes. Third, the Commonwealth should participate in the streamlined
sales tax project. And fourth, taxpayers should be able to dispute a tax
assessment prior to paying the tax, which is the current requirement.
Taxpayers must "pay in order to play" (i.e. pay the tax before they may
go to court). There are many ways the Commonwealth could change the current
policy ranging from keeping the existing procedures but not requiring
payment as a prerequisite to a court suit, to possibly creating an administrative
board to hear taxpayers' appeals for both state and local tax assessments.
The focus of the comments by the Interfaith
Center's representative was on tax equity; how the Virginia tax code affects
those in poverty. Recognizing that taxation issues are of concern to all,
the representative pointed out that they have an even greater effect on
those living in poverty. It was suggested that a representative from the
Center on Budget and Policy Priorities be invited to address the joint
subcommittee during 2002 to offer its assessment of the burdens on and
opportunities for relief for those living below the poverty line.
The AOBA and VACRE spokesperson talked
about the unfairness of the local real estate assessment and appeals process.
Many taxpayers pay the tax rather than fight city hall because the burden
of proof is so difficult to overcome. The localities' Boards of Equalization
should have the authority to determine fair market value. The taxpayer
could appeal a real estate assessment to that board or the commissioner
of the revenue and then go to court if dissatisfied with the board's or
commissioner's decision, rather than go straight to court as is the case
under current law. More uniform statewide assessment procedures for personal
and real property based on a uniform fair market value methodology and
better training for local assessors would improve the system greatly.
The final speaker for interested organizations
spoke on behalf of the Retail Alliance, an organization representing over
1800 Hampton Roads retail businesses. The focus of his comments was the
business, professional and occupational license (BPOL) tax. A good tax
structure should (i) favor economic growth; (ii) take the taxpayer's ability
to pay into consideration; (iii) be equitable and broadly based; and (iv)
be simple to administer. The BPOL tax, according to the Retail Alliance,
fails on all counts. The 1996 BPOL tax reform improved the administration
of the tax but it is still intrinsically inequitable. While the business
community does not have a proposed replacement for the BPOL tax, the Retail
Alliance expressed an interest in working with the joint subcommittee,
the Virginia Chamber, other business groups and local governments in all
the tax issues facing the subcommittee.
2002 Legislation
Following a presentation by VML and VACo
during which answers were given to questions arising from their November
presentation to the joint subcommittee, two pieces of legislation, both
being resolutions, were discussed and circulated for signatures. One of
the resolutions supports the participation by members of the General Assembly,
or their designees, in the Streamlined Sales Tax Project. The other continues
the joint subcommittee's study of the state tax code and adds four more
members, bringing the total membership to eighteen. The new members include
one from the House of Delegates, one from the Senate, the Secretary of
Finance and the Tax Commissioner. Both resolutions will be filed during
the 2002 General Assembly Session.
Finally, the creation of two task forces
comprised of members of the joint subcommittee and a tentative meeting
schedule for 2003 were discussed. The full committee would meet in April,
followed by task force meetings in May, June and July. The full committee's
next meeting would be in August with a public hearing in September. The
task forces would hold their last meetings in October with the full committee
issuing its report with recommendations during its final meeting in November.
Membership on the two task forces will be determined at the full committee's
first meeting in 2002.
SUBCOMMITTEE
HOME
Privacy Statement
| Legislative Services | General
Assembly |