MINUTES OF THE ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON TAXATION Sixty-Eighth Session June 22, 1995 The Committee on Taxation was called to order at 4:15 p.m., on Thursday, June 22, 1995, Chairman Bob Price presiding in Room 332 of the Legislative Building, Carson City, Nevada. Exhibit A is the Agenda. Exhibit B is the Attendance Roster. COMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT: Mr. Bob Price, Chairman Ms. Jeannine Stroth, Chairman Mr. Pete Ernaut, Vice Chairman Mr. Michael A. (Mike) Schneider, Vice Chairman Mrs. Maureen E. Brower Mrs. Joan A. Lambert Mr. Mark Manendo Mr. John W. Marvel Mr. P. M. Roy Neighbors Mr. Larry L. Spitler COMMITTEE MEMBERS EXCUSED: Mr. Morse Arberry, Jr. Mr. Brian Sandoval GUEST LEGISLATORS PRESENT: None STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT: Mr. Ted Zuend, Deputy Fiscal Analyst OTHERS PRESENT: Mr. Gary Johnson, Clark County Nevada Department of Aviation, Las Vegas Mr. Robert M. Rowen, Vice President & General Counsel of Reno Air Ms. Janice Wright, Department of Taxation Mr. John Sullivan, Grand Canyon Air Tour Council and CEO of Sundance Helicopters OTHERS PRESENT, CONT. Mr. Larry J. Siggelkow, Vice President of Grand Canyon Air Tour Council and President of Eagle Canyon Airlines Mr. Jim Petty, President of Grand Canyon Air Tour Council and President of Air Vegas Airlines Mr. Glenn Woods, Legal Council for Grand Canyon Air Tour Council Mr. Bob McCune, Executive Director of the Grand Canyon Air Tour Council Mr. Bob Shriver, EDAWN Mr. John Sande, Airport Authority of Washoe County Mr. Robert "Bob" Trimborn, Manager, Reno Stead airport, Airport Authority of Washoe County Mr. Steven E. Tackes, Chairman of the Carson City Airport Authority Mr. David Howard, Reno-Sparks Chamber of Commerce Mr. Kit Weaver, Assessor Mr. Hale Bennett, Silver Springs Airport Mr. John Bartlett, Senior Deputy Attorney General Chairman Bob Price opened the late afternoon meeting and opened the hearing for Senate Bill 311. SENATE BILL 311 - Proposes various changes governing exemption from sales and use taxes for aircraft and parts of aircraft. Testifying in favor of S.B. 311 was Mr. Gary Johnson, Clark County Nevada Department of Aviation, Las Vegas. He announced the bill was not in the form they desired. It dealt with two components: one was the portion that could be handled through the Legislature, the other was the part that had to go before the general public for vote. The way S.B. 311 was presently structured was to take the entire package before the vote of the people, which Mr. Johnson thought was unnecessary. Mr. Johnson elaborated on the bill. An exemption existed under NRS 372 and NRS 374 intended for aircraft based in the state of Nevada. Unfortunately, there was a court challenge to the constitutionality of the way the law was written. The wording probably needed to be modified to make it more secure constitutionally. There was discussion with bill drafting about changing the language. The major areas of concern to Clark County's Department of Aviation were: (1) The challenge that might be successful against the present statutes that would have an effect on Nevada-based air carriers (i.e., Reno Air) and, (2) The 10th largest air carrier in the nation had approached southern Nevada as a possible location for a major maintenance facility and/or corporate headquarters, but they were now leery because of the statutes. Mr. Robert "Bob" Rowen, Vice President and General Counsel of Reno Air, testified next. He declared S.B. 311 had the entire support of Reno Air. The bill clarified the aircraft purchase exemption contained in Nevada's sales and use tax. The bill also expanded the exemption to cover an aircraft maintenance facility, which was necessary to attract such facilities to the state. This would foster the economy of Nevada. Presently, Reno Air sent their aircraft for maintenance to Oklahoma and Texas. His testimony is (Exhibit C). Assemblywoman Joan Lambert questioned if there was a fiscal note connected with the bill. Mr. Ted Zuend, Deputy Fiscal Analyst, stated S.B. 311 was a "legematic bill," and was unsure if the fiscal note connected with it was still true. Ms. Janice Wright, Department of Taxation, informed the fiscal note the committee had was for the old version of the bill. There was no request to produce a fiscal note on the new version. They would work on one, however, without a formal request. Assemblyman Lambert asserted the aircraft industry was already enjoying a certain exemption and was now looking to expand it by doing some word smithing. She had ascertained that was the reason for an additional fiscal note. Mr. Rowen replied they were seeking to clarify the exemption. It was subject to a pending lawsuit that questioned the constitutionality of the exemption because it only applied to Nevada-based airlines. That provision had been challenged. Reno Air believed expanding the exemption to cover all airlines was necessary to preserve the exemption. Assemblyman Roy Neighbors was disgruntled about the bombardment of bills that whittled away at the sales tax. He demanded to know why Reno Air thought they were different from, for example, someone who brought major interstate trucks to the state and decided to buy parts to maintain their fleet. Would the maintenance facility for the trucks deserve exemption, too? Mr. Rowen could not address the interstate truck industry. The airline industry, though, was characterized by extreme mobility. Of which Mr. Neighbors said he was very much aware. Californians, for example, often flew their brand new airlines to park in Tonopah until the California tax deadline passed. That would be a personal property tax, argued Mr. Rowen, of which they did not seek exemption. They wanted exemption from the sales and use tax, which was based on where an airline was headquartered or where it first placed the craft into service. It would be entirely feasible for Reno Air to be headquartered anywhere they fly (or even anywhere they did not). Where the headquarters was maintained, though, should not be determined by whether or not there was a sales and use tax. Therein ensued a discussion which Mr. Johnson entered regarding sales and use tax versus personal property taxes, as well as headquarter questions and craft part examples (Nevada Freeport law). Assemblyman Jeannine Stroth surmised S.B. 311 was a complimentary bill to S.B. 520, an economic development bill that encouraged industry to move and/or stay in Nevada. She felt that was the intent of S.B. 311, because they had not been paying the sales tax now. Therefore, if they did not pay it in the future, there was nothing lost. We gained, in fact, by encouraging industry expansion in the state. Ms. Stroth was not clear on what part of the S.B. 311 needed to be worked on. Mr. Johnson's response was anything that expanded NRS 372 would certainly require a vote of the people. NRS 374 could be handled through legislation. He agreed with Ms. Stroth's statements about economic development. If the company they were talking with moved to the state, the jobs created would be approximately 1,200 -- plus secondary jobs (approximately 741). That was a significant economic multiplier. Assemblyman Maureen Brower asked, with the Chair's permission, for Janice Wright to provide a comparison fiscal note. Mr. Johnson replied there was only one instance where the state had sought to impose the sales tax, and that was on Key Airlines (and they were no longer in Nevada). The greater fiscal impact, though, arose from uncertainty in current legislation. Testifying next for S.B. 311 was Mr. John Sullivan, who represented the Grand Canyon Air Tour Council and his own company Sundance Helicopters. He introduced colleagues Mr. Larry Siggelkow, President of Eagle Canyon Airlines and Vice President of Grand Canyon Air Tour Council; Mr. Jim Petty, President of Grand Canyon Air Tour Council and President of Air Vegas Airlines; Mr. Glenn Woods, Legal Council for Grand Canyon Air Tour Council; and Mr. Bob McCune, Executive Director of the Grand Canyon Air Tour Council. Their presentation is (Exhibit D). Mr. Sullivan stated S.B. 311 enabled them to stay competitive in the airline business. Their dominant market was Grand Canyon tours, but they also did a significant amount of charter operations out of Las Vegas. Their largest charter accounts were government agencies, as well as utility companies (Nevada Power Las Vegas Water District). They were able to win and retain contracts simply because they were competitive. Their competition were companies located in California and Arizona, who currently had the exemptions, and clearly intended to keep the exemptions for the carriers. Nevada was one of 39 states that had the exemption, as well. To lose the exemptions, they would not be competitive with airlines in the neighboring states. In a nutshell, they needed to preserve and clarify the tax exemption. Next to testify was Mr. Larry Siggelkow, President of Eagle Canyon Airlines and Eagle Jet Charter. They had been in business in the state of Nevada since 1974. In 1985, their fleet of aircraft consisted of 4; today, they had 22 aircraft. They had a $50 million project at McCarran International Airport; the building of a new FBO facility and also Grand Canyon Air Tour center. Along with those, they were building large maintenance facilities and hangars in hopes of enticing major repair stations into the state. Without S.B. 311, they would not be competitive, especially against the states of California and Arizona where they enjoyed the exemptions. Therefore, Eagle totally supported the passage of S.B. 311. Mr. Jim Petty, President of Air Vegas Airlines, spoke next. The exemption they enjoyed needed to be left intact for the future. In 1991, his company had 22 aircraft; now they had 14. However, the price of the fleet had gone from $2 million to $10 million because they invested $8 million in upgrading to turbine- powered equipment. The company had increased employees 100 percent. They would not have been able to stay competitive and operate the larger, safer equipment if they did not have the sales tax exemption. If they do not have the exemption in the future, they would not be able to expand. All they were asking for was to keep intact what they already had and clarify it so it was not in jeopardy of being unconstitutional in the future. Mr. Bob Shriver, Vice President of EDAWN and past-president of the statewide Nevada Economic Development Association, stated they endorsed the concept of S.B. 311. The exemption currently existed and the bill expanded it to include maintenance operations. He spoke for Bob Rowen (Reno Air) who asked Mr. Shriver to announce to the committee they, too, were looking at maintenance facilities in the Reno area. The same modeling formula discussed in S.B. 520 could be applied to the jobs maintenance operations would create. They were significant and the pay scale was good. The fact that any of the airlines could locate anywhere else, plus the tourism industry being one of the main sources of revenue, made it critically important the exemption be continued and the bill clarified. Testifying in support of S.B. 311 was Mr. John Sande, representing the Airport Authority of Washoe County. They thought it would be very beneficial for the airports in the state and allowed them to continue to have a great relationship with Reno Air. Chairman Price asked Mr. Pitlock and Ms. Wright, Department of Taxation, if they planned to calculate a fiscal estimate; they did. Ms. Stroth projected if the comparison figures were similar to those in S.B. 520, there was a gain of 83 cents on every dollar. Seeing there was no further testimony on the bill, Chairman Price closed the hearing on S.B. 311 and opened the hearing on Senate Bill 324. Mr. Price also noted the meeting was operating as a subcommittee. SENATE BILL 324 - Reduces rate of tax on aviation fuel. Testifying for the bill was Mr. John Sande, representing the Airport Authority of Washoe County. Mr. Sande asserted S.B. 324 would be of great benefit to the sale of aviation gas in the state of Nevada and contended it also helped pilots. Aviation fuel was treated as a motor vehicle fuel, except it was higher in octane than gasoline. Gasoline used for transportation on the highway went to the highway fund; however, with aviation the funds from any tax collected from aviation fuel, up to $85,000 went to the civil air patrol for its purposes, with the remainder going to each county based upon where the tax was collected. Ultimately, it went to the airports in those counties. The unusual thing about the tax, in Mr. Sande's opinion, was it gave a refund to anybody who used 200 gallons or more in any six month period. As a result, over $1 million of tax was collected each year (at least in 1994), of which $800,000 was refunded! It was a very inefficient taxing system; there was no real benefit to the state. Therefore, the proposal was made to reduce the tax from 23 cents to 10.5 cents per gallon, eliminate the refund provision, and then the bill became revenue neutral. Mr. Sande thought the revenues might actually increase because people would not try to avoid the state of Nevada to purchase their aviation fuel (which was used for piston aircraft, not jet aircraft). Currently, many people avoided Nevada's higher tax and purchased their fuel by going into places like Truckee, where the tax was much cheaper, as it is in other surrounding states. Mr. Sande pointed out S.B. 324 had received no opposition and high support from all parties, including pilots who had been able to get the refund. In conclusion, Mr. Sande asserted is was good policy and he thought ultimately it would generate even more sales and more tourism in Nevada. Assemblyman Joan Lambert mentioned she had a constituent who requested a bill like S.B. 324; Ted Zuend had done some research, and she had started the process of getting a bill drafted. She found it to be "revenue neutral." Her constituent who had complained, "I would be no better off! Instead of paying no tax, though having to go through the refund process, I would have to pay a tax of maybe 13 cents per gallon." How could Mr. Sande assert everyone was pro-S.B. 324; had he talked to the pilots who actually lived in Nevada? Mr. Sande confirmed his organization and he had talked to several pilots and groups. From a tax policy standpoint, it made no sense whatsoever to say, "If you are a large user, you do not have to pay any tax! But if you are a small user, and only use your plane occasionally, you must bear the brunt of this tax and support the airports and civil air patrol!" Even large fuel users, however, had expressed their preference to pay lower taxes to avoid the paperwork to get a refund. Mr. Sande assured Ms. Lambert he had not heard of one pilot opposing S.B. 324. Mr. Price stated, from a historical perspective, the tax was initially being used for the road fund. Most pilots were disgruntled about that and then the "refund deal" was set up. Generally, Mr. Price thought the pilots were ambiguous, with many of them not even bothering to get their refunds. Speaking next as Mr. Robert Trimborn, who worked for the Airport Authority of Washoe County. Many people were not purchasing their fuel at the F.B.O.'s (and flew to Truckee). Therefore, business was being lost. Fuel was also being "tankered" into Reno and those people flew out without purchasing fuel, because they knew the added burden of 23 cents. Mr. Steven Tackes, Chairman of the Carson City Airport Authority, testified, echoing what Messrs. Sande and Trimborn had expressed. Mr. Tackes believed S.B. 324 would be a very advantageous bill for Nevada airports. They, in particular, saw a lot of traffic go to the Truckee airport. The reason the pilots went there was because the fuel was cheaper; California had a much, much lower aviation tax than Nevada. At their last airport authority meeting, they fielded the question to the pilots who experienced a net increase because they were no longer getting the refund. To answer Assemblywoman Lambert's question, Mr. Tackes said every single one of them said they would rather not file the forms. A number of pilots felt they were being discriminated against by the tax because they did not use enough fuel to reach the threshold to file for the refund. El Aero Services, the largest F.B.O. that serviced Carson City airport, supported S.B. 324 -- they recognized they also would get less money back, but thought the bill would bring more business to Nevada and, in the end, everyone would be better off as a result. Chairman Price inquired if there were others who wished to speak on S.B. 324. Seeing none, he moved the hearings to Senate Bill 518, with no action taken on S.B. 324. SENATE BILL 518 - Makes various changes concerning Airport Authority of Carson City. First to testify was Mr. Steve Tackes, Carson City Airport Authority. He felt S.B. 518 did two things: (1) It included in the Carson City Airport Authority the special act that applied to the airports. Even though he had been an attorney practicing in the state for 15 years, it had taken him 5 years before he realized some of the laws were not in the "loose leaf" notebooks. There were paperbacks that went at the end of the statutes: therein one would find the laws that applied to the airport authorities for Carson City, Washoe County, and Battle Mountain. But before he could proceed to his second point, Chairman Price interrupted Mr. Tackes' testimony, saying Mr. Ted Zuend had information pertinent to Section 1 of S.B. 518, which had to do with exempting the possessory interests. Mr. Zuend announced to the committee that Assemblyman Stroth had talked to him about Section 1 and her first inclination was Carson City needed to amend its special act to accommodate the change. But, Mr. Zuend continued, Ms. Stroth decided there were no conflicts in the airport authority statutes. Senate Bill 519 (on the agenda to be discussed) would cover Carson City airport authority in that the possessory interest would be exempt from the tax. As Ms. Stroth pointed out, it would do no harm to keep Section 1. Senate Bill 519 was likely to become law, so Section 1 was not required. Of course, Mr. Zuend acknowledged Mr. Tackes might have a second section in the bill that was needed. Mr. Tackes preferred the committee retain Section 1 in the bill, as it was consistent with what was being done in Senate Bill 519. His concern was there were three airports in the state of Nevada controlled by airport authority special acts. The Washoe county airport already had the language in it. Mr. Tackes thought having uniform acts would be better so all airports operated under the same language with regard to Section 1. Section 2 of S.B. 518 was also very important to the airport authority. It provided for a city official member of the airport authority of Carson City to be eligible for reappointment to the board upon the expiration of his term. Currently, the law stated after the city official served on the airport authority, there was a wait of four more years to serve again. But Mr. Tackes apprised there was not a big pool to choose city officials from who (a) had an interest in aviation, (b) knew something about aviation, and who wanted to donate their free time to work for the city. As a result, the authority had a difficult time getting city official personnel on the airport authority. In fact, to date they had found only two individuals in Carson City with the skills and interest. Ms. Janice Wright, Department of Taxation, announced the property tax dollar loss was $2,300. ASSEMBLYMAN BROWER MOVED TO DO PASS S.B. 518. ASSEMBLYMAN LAMBERT SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY BY THOSE PRESENT. ******** Chairman Price asked if there were other bills the committee desired to move now that a quorum was present. ASSEMBLYMAN LAMBERT MOVED TO AMEND AND DO PASS S.B. 311. ASSEMBLYMAN NEIGHBORS SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY BY THOSE PRESENT. ******** The next bill to be discussed was Senate Bill 68. SENATE BILL 68 - Expands exemptions from tax on transfers of real property to include transfers made to corporation sole from another corporation sole. However, there was no one present who wished to testify on the bill. The Chair advised S.B. 68 would be rescheduled. Mr. Price decided to hear Senate Bill 308. At this juncture, he had to leave and Co- chairman Jeannine Stroth helmed the meeting. SENATE BILL 308 - Requires revenue to support certain districts within redevelopment or urban renewal areas in certain cities to be raised from assessments instead of property taxes. Testifying in favor of the bill was Mr. Roger Means of the Washoe County school district. Although they considered themselves to be peripheral players in the piece of legislation, they were concerned. Reno had passed an ordinance to provide for a police district in the redevelopment. Under the ordinance, the cost of the tax would be weighed against the ad valorem tax, thus effecting the space underneath the ($3.64) cap. S.B. 308 would move that assessment out from under the ad valorem cap; it would no longer be a property tax assessment. It would become a special assessment. The school district's concern was there was a proposed bond issue for 1996 and they wanted to leave enough space under the cap for the bond issue to pass. Assemblyman Lambert observed the mechanics of the bill regarding the fixing of the assessments every year. A mail notice would be sent to each property owner of what the assessment would be for the following year and that would be discussed at a public hearing. She wondered if the notice would include when the public hearing was going to be. But Mr. Means did not have the answer to the question. Ms. Janice Wright, Department of Taxation, explained the notice would be mailed and the public hearing would be the same one where the tentative budget was debated, e.g., the third week in May. Ms. Lambert's concern was very few people showed up at the budget meetings; Ms. Wright agreed "nobody did." Speaking for S.B. 308 was Mr. Samuel P. McMullen, Northern Gaming Industry Association. They were the major taxpayers and seemed to be assessment payers under the legislation. S.B. 308 created police protection or maintenance districts that were voluntarily triggered by the taxpayers for additional taxes/assessments to cover police and/or maintenance in a redevelopment area in a county of 100,000 to 400,000 (functionally, Washoe County). The maintenance district had been in place for 7 years; the police protection district was just now being triggered. Because they had been created initially as special tax districts, therefore property tax districts, they impacted the property tax rate. In Washoe, it put them very close to the $3.64 cap. Since it was a voluntary tax, they thought it appropriate it not affect the tax rate or impact of the tax cap on other funds available. In its original form, S.B. 308 did that, but it was not acceptable to the Senate. What was acceptable was to change it from a property tax based district to an assessment district. The bill now had an assessment formula in it, which would be adapted into over the coming year. By fiscal year 1996-1997, it would be transferred into an assessment district and thereby be outside the cap. Mr. McMullen was aware of no serious opposition to the bill. There had been "quite a bit" of public information, hearing, and exposure. Gaming properties were all in favor of it. Ms. Lambert thought it would be reasonable for the public notice to include the time fixed for the public hearing concerning the assessments. There was no point in having a public hearing if the people affected had no clue of when the hearing would take place! She added with a wry chuckle, "Not many of them sat down and read the N.R.S. too often." Her suggestion was a technical amendment. Mr. McMullen thought Ms. Lambert had made a very valid point. He wondered if a commitment in writing would suffice to ensure that, when the notice went out, the city of Reno included the hearing date. He requested this in lieu of an amendment. Ms. Lambert asserted it was against her better judgement to support the maintenance districts. But she knew how much they were needed; hence, she supported S.B. 308. And since it was only in Reno, Ms. Lambert was satisfied if there were a letter of intent to include the hearing date. Mr. McMullen agreed to write a letter of intent. He reiterated Ms. Lambert had made a very good point. With that, he concluded his testimony. Mr. David Howard, Reno-Sparks Chamber of Commerce, spoke in support of S.B. 308. He said it was a business bill, because it would provide safety and cleanliness to the business area (the most important part of the economy in Washoe County). Mr. Price returned to the committee meeting and reassumed the Chair. He asked if there were anyone else who wanted to speak on S.B. 308. He informed he had been trying to find Barbara McKenzie, who had signed to speak in favor of the bill. Mr. Price asked if anyone wanted to speak in opposition; nobody present at the meeting did. ASSEMBLYMAN NEIGHBORS MOVED TO DO PASS S.B. 308. ASSEMBLYMAN MANENDO SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY BY THOSE PRESENT. ******** Mr. Price opened the hearing on Senate Bill 519. SENATE BILL 519 - Revises provisions governing taxation of property that is exempt from taxation when it is leased to entity which is not exempt from taxation. Mr. Kit Weaver, Assessor, informed the bill had already been heard before the Senate Taxation Committee and had been amended to add: ". . . any property owned by the airport . . ." on line 16 (NRS 361.157). Another line was written in NRS 361.159 to add ". . . to a personal property exemption to any personal owned by the public airport . . ." Unfortunately, the bill was passed by the Senate and Mr. Weaver did not see the amendment until very recently. He announced the amendment was not as it was supposed to be (in his opinion). The bill eliminated "park, market, and fairgrounds." Mr. Weaver informed that was never the intention. At those three locations, there were usually concession stands, batting cages, etc. He suggested those words be returned to S.B. 519. Mr. Weaver then passed out (Exhibit E) and discussed his handout. The phrase ". . . or upon similar property which is available to the use of the general public . . ." had been interpreted in a variety ways. The purpose of the bill, in Mr. Weaver's opinion, was so county property was not taxed -- whether it was at the airport, park, fairground, or market. If larger airports got into some commercial enterprises, then it should perhaps be reviewed every (legislative) session. Chairman Price reviewed (Exhibit E). Did Mr. Weaver want the amendment to read, "Property located upon or within the limits of a public airport, park, market, fairground, or any property owned by a public airport?" Mr. Weaver affirmed that was what he wanted. Mr. Hale Bennett, representative for Silver Springs Airport, spoke next. According to Mr. Bennett, the bill put into statute the tax process that had been utilized for about 30 years in most counties in the state of Nevada. In 1965, the Attorney General issued an opinion on the subject that stated "property under the buildings on a city or county owned public airport or municipal golf course was not subject to real estate taxation." That A.G. opinion was followed in most counties until January 1995, when the Attorney General in a new interpretation of an unchanged statute now held the opposite belief. The bill removed the language that was the subject of those two opinions. Mr. Bennett spoke to Dennis Compston, the assessor in Lyon County, who authorized Mr. Bennett to speak in his stead. From Mr. Compston's standpoint, the passage of S.B. 519 would leave the tax situation in Lyon County precisely the way it had always been; conversely, the lack of the bill would force him to tax property under buildings in airports. Mr. Compston believed the cost of the assessment work, combined with the collection work, would far exceed the revenue achieved. In addition, Mr. Bennett asserted the passage of S.B. 519 would put Silver Springs International Airport on a par with Washoe County Reno airport, which did not, by virtue of their charter, have to tax property under the buildings. He wanted a level playing field with Washoe County airport as far as property taxes were concerned. Chairman Price closed the hearing on S.B. 519; no action was taken. SENATE BILL 483 - Makes various changes relating to collection of taxes. Mr. John Bartlett, Senior Deputy Attorney General, stated S.B. 483 was dubbed the "omnibus tax bill." It was prepared to address needed changes to reorganize the tax code to make the rights and remedies available to the Department of Taxation in collecting taxes (as well as to the taxpayer in contesting an assessment of taxes) clearer to follow. Mr. Bartlett detailed the bill in length. Mr. Price noticed the word "willfully" was used in the bill and pointed out that term in other statute had created problems for the attorney general's office in the past in pursuing compliance with the law. Mr. Bartlett informed the language paralleled the Internal Revenue Code statute, but the word could be deleted. Mr. Price also noted throughout the bill, the word "tax" had been eliminated in front of "the tax commission." Mr. Bartlett advised tax commission was defined in Chapter 360. The hearing was thus closed on S.B. 483, with no action taken. The meeting also ended. (Note: The Chair did not formally announce adjournment.) RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED: Carolyn Grabski, Committee Secretary Assembly Committee on Taxation June 22, 1995 Page