Tag Archives: Stephen D. Haner

On Friday, after skirting the topic in a major address to a business conference in Williamsburg, Governor Ralph Northam told a reporter that “he’s planning to ask the General Assembly to tackle business tax reform,” adding it would be “comprehensive.”

The reporter asked about it because of other comments made by Secretary of Finance Aubrey Layne and the President of the Virginia Economic Development Partnership, Stephen Moret.  Since his arrival in Virginia, Moret has from time to time mentioned local business taxes as a hindrance to economic recruitment and business start-ups. He did that again Friday in his own presentation to the Virginia Chamber of Commerce.

For more than a decade local business taxes, especially two of them, have been the focus of the Thomas Jefferson Institute for Public Policy, among others.  The taxes are generally despised by the business community, but local governments are highly attached to them, because they are a revenue source other than residential real estate taxes.

Continue reading →

It’s all in how you ask the question.

The Judy Ford Wason Center for Public Policy at Christopher Newport University has done a pre-General Assembly poll testing various issues that may dominate the 2019 session.  The headlines are driven by the favorable and unfavorable rankings (ask me about President Tariff Man this morning as I survey my portfolio) and the apparent openness of Virginians to ending restrictions on gambling.

The poll’s authors took a dive into the complex world of tax policy, as well, seeking to tease out how voters view various moves related to the windfall tax conformity revenue.  It could have been more useful.  To start the discussion, here is the question they used:

Q8: Virginia is expected to receive as much as $600 million in additional tax revenue as a result of the recent federal tax reform. There are several ideas about what to do with this additional money. I’m going to read two of them and I’d like you to tell me if you support it or oppose each one.

1. Provide an across-the-board tax cut to all Virginians who pay state income taxes.
2. Provide a fully refundable tax credit to low and moderate-income Virginians regardless of how much they pay in state income taxes.
3. If only one of these options could be done, which one would you most prefer to see done, an across-the-board tax cut to all Virginians who pay state income taxes or a fully refundable tax credit to low and moderate-income Virginians regardless of how much they pay in state income taxes?

The results were ambivalent, with a healthy portion of voters liking either approach.  There were predictable partisan divides, with Republicans preferring the idea of a broad-based cut for all taxpayers and the Democrats leaning towards a tax credit targeted to the lower and middle income.  But 59 percent of Democrats were positive on Q1 and 49 percent of Republicans were positive on Q2.  Forced to choose by Question 3, the partisan divide appeared again.

The problem is those are not the choices, at least based on the discussions so far.

First, missing from the mix was the idea which may yet prevail, taking no steps to return the money.  A fair additional option to give the poll respondents would have been: “Retain the money to increase the state’s financial reserves and spend it on other pressing state priorities.”  Listing especially popular priorities would have pumped up the positives on that question.

That is the biggest and most important question:  does the General Assembly keep the money or give it back?  They didn’t ask it.

Second, nobody has proposed an across the board tax cut to all those who pay the income tax.  We at the Thomas Jefferson Institute have come closest to that, with a proposal to double the standard deduction that might reach 70 percent of taxpayers, and we may tout the Wason result as supporting our case.  But that is not a tax cut for everybody who pays, so they didn’t poll our idea.

Third, I doubt if more than a handful of people polled know what a “fully refundable” tax credit is (or a partially refundable one, for that matter).  It sure sounds nice; everybody loves a refund – the word by itself may inject a bit of question bias.  Which of course is why it has always been used to describe the Earned Income Tax Credit grant payments.

But imagine the answer to this question, which more accurately describes the proposal around the Earned Income Tax Credit: “Provide an annual cash payment to low- and moderate-income Virginians who do not owe any income tax but are still struggling to meet the needs of their families.”

There still would have been positive responses to that, but how many?  Would it have proven to be as popular a choice as a general tax cut?  More popular?  We will never know.   Will we hear repeatedly in the coming weeks that this or that idea has been “strongly supported in a poll”?  Probably.

To borrow a line used about modeling, all polls are wrong, but some polls are useful.  This poll unfortunately is not very useful because it left off the main choice – keep it or give it back – and didn’t really describe the two choices for giving it back getting the most attention.

I do commend the CNU center for releasing the full text, cross-tabs and demographics of their sample.  Absent those, nobody should believe any poll result featured in the media or in campaign materials.

State revenue impacts of conformity to federal business tax changes without a corresponding cut in tax rates. Source: Department of Taxation

“I’m not going to get into it unless anybody wants me to.”

So said Kristin Collins, policy development director for the Virginia Department of Taxation, as she neared the end of her November 19 slide presentation on federal tax conformity and its impact on Virginia state taxes.  The final handful of slides focused on the business tax issues, and not one member of the legislative panel asked her to get into them.

With all the focus and political discussion swirling around individual income taxes and conformity, the business tax issues have received little notice.  In the projections on the state’s revenue windfall the higher business taxes produced by conformity play a big role.  In 2023 and 2024, the later years in the state’s projection, higher business taxes account for over 40 percent of the new revenue, according to an outside consultant’s study.

Collins was presenting to the Joint Subcommittee to Evaluate Tax Preferences, the closest thing Virginia has to a permanent tax commission in its legislative body.  Many key players on the money committees belong.   The chair, Delegate Lee Ware of Powhatan,  who also chairs House Finance, intends to call the joint panel together again for a deeper discussion and perhaps some decisions before the General Assembly starts in January.

A group I’m working with has already recommended on the individual side that Virginia increase its standard deduction, and on the corporate side we think Virginia should start to cut the corporate income tax rate, from 6 percent now down to 5.5 percent for this tax year and 5 percent for next tax year.  The full Thomas Jefferson Institute paper on our proposal is now available.

The business community needs to get its act together and decide what it wants, or it’s going to get the full effect of these business tax increases.  Unincorporated businesses – S corporations, pass-throughs, partnerships – do very well under conformity but incorporated businesses get hit.  The cut in the corporate income tax rate we propose effectively short-circuits that tax increase in general but does not return the benefit directly to the companies hit with the highest new taxes.

Some in the business community would prefer to leave the tax rates intact but instead get the General Assembly to restore the corporate deductions targeted by Congress.  They would have Virginia refuse to conform to those certain aspects of the federal system, which does target the corrective action directly to those facing higher taxes.

Our proposal is full conformity but rate cuts aimed at all corporate taxpayers.  It represents general tax reform, not maintenance of the status quo.

A short list of changed business provisions create the big tax hike, and they are spelled out in the Tax Department chart above.  You can see that several grow in impact over time, and a major change in the treatment of research and development expenses doesn’t even kick in for three years.   Unlike some of the new individual tax provisions, these changes have no sunset date.

What is wrong with that chart – and potentially misleading – is it includes provisions for both unincorporated and incorporated businesses.  The two changes producing lower taxes are mainly for the entities exempt from the corporate income tax, and most of those raising taxes are for corporations.  It also fails to detail one of the more controversial changes dealing with repatriated international earnings.

That provision, which goes by the wonderful acronym GILTI, is already the subject of a lobbying effort by some Virginia corporate taxpayers, who note some other states (Tax-achusetts included) have already elected to allow that deduction despite the federal action. It stands for Global Intangible Low-taxed Income, and the IRS guidance runs to 150 plus pages.  The argument over whether and how to tax intangible income (royalties on patents and copyrights for example) is an old one.

The Section 199 deduction also known as the domestic production activities deduction (DPAD) has been a source of contention in Virginia before, because when Congress expanded it Virginia balked at going along in full.  Its purpose was to lower the effective tax rate on manufacturers, and by lowering the tax rate for everybody by 40 percent Congress largely addressed that problem.  It then killed Section 199. (Virginia should do the same:  accept the change and lower its rates!)

The largest cash impact comes from new limits on the deduction for interest expenses, and here Congress also had reasons for its move.  Why subsidize excessive debt?  Apparently there is also a push on in Virginia to keep that deduction in place on Virginia corporate returns.

The limits on amortization of research and development expenses have a delayed impact, but eventually a large one.  That’s another one where Virginia could stay the course, maintain the old rules, but at the cost of a lost opportunity to lower overall rates.

The business community has some decisions to make, and it may be a handful of companies who have a developed presence at the General Assembly who get to make them.  Long-term considerations and discussion of overall economic policy tend to get ignored when lobbyists can angle for their own client’s advantage. That game is now afoot.