The legislature has sent to the governor several bills dealing, in one form or another, with the amount of taxes that taxpayers pay and/or the way in which they pay them.
Among those, five have the potential for significant impact among taxpayers. Three of those were vetoed and two were signed.
These are the ones that were vetoed:
HB2515 AZLEG summary: “Adds the tax rate and estimated cost associated with each proposed capital improvement for a single-family home valued at $400,000 to the information required to be included in an informational pamphlet for certain budget override and bond elections. Adds the estimated tax impact of an increase in property taxes on a home valued at $400,000 to the information required to be included in a statutorily required Truth in Taxation hearing notice of tax increase (TNT notice)”.
In her veto letter, Hobbs stated, “Election laws should not be changed based on the expression of messaging with which we do not agree.”
This is a bogus argument because there was nothing in HB2515 that would change any election law. All HB2515 would have done is add transparency language to pamphlets that promote tax increases.
SB1091 AZLEG Summary: “Prescribes required ballot language for elections related to a school district budget override continuation or a school district’s authority to continue issuing and selling bonds that states the estimated average secondary property tax reduction if voters reject the override or bond proposal.”
In other words, if an expiring tax is renewed, it is in fact a tax increase because the level of taxation would be higher than if the tax had not been renewed.
Apparently, Hobbs could not come up with a credible argument against this bill, so she went silly by writing in her veto letter, “S.B. 1091 is duplicative, ineffective, nonsensical and objectionable.”
SB1464 AZLEG Summary: “Requires the Arizona Department of Revenue (ADOR) to notify the Legislature of a proposed interpretation or application of tax law that will adversely affect taxpayers before the new interpretation or application is adopted and requires ADOR to provide testimony regarding the interpretation or application, if the Legislature holds a hearing.”
This was a very simple bill. All it called for was for the AZ Department of Revenue to notify the legislature of any changes in the way tax laws are interpreted by the ADOR. This would allow for an open discussion of the merits of the interpretation change.
Again, Hobbs mischaracterized this bill in her veto letter by stating, “S.B. 1464 would politicize the administration of the tax code and interfere with responsibilities outlined in the Arizona State Constitution.”
The opposite is really the case. Requiring disclosure of interpretation changes would discourage politization of the tax code. This bill would have required ADOR to be informative and transparent, nothing more.
The governor ended up signing two bills that may provide some benefits to some tax payers.
SB1122 AZLEG Summary: “Changes the inflation index used to annually calculate the maximum assessed property value for widows, widowers, persons with a total and permanent disability and disable veterans to qualify for a property tax exemption.”
The change involved here is from the Gross Domestic Product (GDP) Price Deflator to the Federal House Price Index when determining the maximum assessed property value for qualifying real estate owners.
It seems that the Federal House Price Index is a better gauge of property values than the GDP Price Deflector. However, it is not clear whether tax payers are better off with one method versus the other.
HB2119 AZLEG Summary: “Requires a municipality that proposes an ordinance to adopt or repeal a Model City Tax Code (MCTC) model or local option to notify all affected businesses in an affected business classification by mail at last sixty days prior to the proposed ordinance being approved or rejected by the municipality.”
This bill benefits only businesses that would be affected by the adoption or repeal of the tax. However, it benefits everyone indirectly because it provides ample notice of pending action by the municipality, and that is generally a good thing.
As usual, when formulating opinions on legislation, it is best to read the bills themselves. This may be easily accomplished by clicking on the bill titles of the bills listed.