A searchable audio archive from the 2013-2016 legislative sessions of the North Carolina General Assembly.

searching for


Reliance on Information Posted The information presented on or through the website is made available solely for general information purposes. We do not warrant the accuracy, completeness or usefulness of this information. Any reliance you place on such information is strictly at your own risk. We disclaim all liability and responsibility arising from any reliance placed on such materials by you or any other visitor to the Website, or by anyone who may be informed of any of its contents. Please see our Terms of Use for more information.

House | July 23, 2013 | Committee Room | Finance

Full MP3 Audio File

Good morning. We have only two bills this morning so hopefully we can move swiftly. Senate Bill 523. Senator Rucho and Rabin. Gentleman, welcome to the Finance Committee. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Madam Chairman, thanks very much for allowing us to be here. Senator Rabin is enjoying a cup of coffee right now but he’ll be available. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Senator, let me interrupt you. Representative Carney is recognized for a motion that we have a PCS before us for the purpose of discussion. All in favor will say aye, all opposed no. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you, madam Chairman. Just to give the committee a quick briefing, we don’t want to delay this. The department is introducing the TIM system, hopefully sooner than later. The existing law is very onerous and what we were trying to do in this case was to make it simple so that the department and the TIM system would be able to comply with what is supposed to be the law. The issue of income tax is a small part of it, the real issue is on sales tax. We have a number of companies in the state that just refuse to submit sales tax returns, even as bad as the penalty is, upwards of 25%. The problem with that is the fact that when the department gets the money, it can’t disperse it until it has a return to be able to say, this is where the money is collected from what counties and the like and in essence sits in limbo. It just accumulates there and it does no good for providing monies to the municipalities and the counties. That really is the crux of this bill to try to make it perfectly clear. On the part dealing with the income tax, the belief in the Senate was that if you are a taxpayer in this state, you have a responsibility to file your taxes. You can either file it, you can ask for an extension, there are a lot of other options in there. But the fact is, if you don’t file, there has to be a penalty. If you speed going home on I-85 or I-40 there is a penalty because the law says there is a penalty for not filing, for not speeding. What that is, is it introduces a very flat $100 penalty that if, under circumstances the Secretary of the Department of Revenue can actually say, no this is not going to be that way. There was a lot of confusion about a penalty with a refund. The department does not understand that there is a refund due until a tax...until you’re taxes actually submitted for them to review. That’s why it’s very important for everyone to file their taxes. It’s a simple $100 penalty. Madam Chairman, if I may, the folks from the department can be here to explain in more detail about the TIM system and why this change is necessary. This was a request from them. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Absolutely. Someone from the Department of Revenue? Sir, if you will give us your name and your position please. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Eric Wayne, Director of Sales Tax, Department of Revenue. This originally started back a couple years ago in preparation of the design for the TIM system and more specifically to the problems that the department faces for sales and use tax because both the state and local taxes paid on one return and how we would go about splitting the penalties and applying the 5% minimums. It was 5% state and 5% county, so that was where this originally started from was how can we avoid or alleviate the problem for the separate minimum penalties. Along the same time, we were also doing a number of things at the department to try to obtain tax returns that were not filed by large businesses. What we did was mandate that all taxpayers that file on a monthly file with prepayment of $20,000 or more were mandated to file electronic returns. What often happens is taxpayers would send the tax payments in and they would not send the returns in. If the return is not received then we cannot distribute the money to the local governments because there is a question is how much is state and how much is local, so that was kind of the backdrop for how this initially started. We also had the same problem because the unfortified and fortified line is on the same return, there’s not a separate return for those. It had the same problem that the sales and use tax had. We did request that they remove the $5 minimum penalties and we were going to do it on a per return basis, however, during discussions over the last couple of years, what we determined is that the fair to file penalty is being applied as an additional failure to pay penalty, meaning if you had not filed...if you had paid...

…tax due by the due date but you have not filed the return, basically there wasn’t enough there to file a penalty. So the Department asked for direction from the General Assembly. You know we identified this. This has been done for the most part, I was not in the current position, but when we converted to the ITAS system back in like 1993, for instance, for income tax purposes, it’s my understanding that the decision was made that what we did for individual income tax had to apply for all tax types because there was not a way to do it per tax type. So, the default was to do it on the net tax due or there would be no penalty if the tax was paid by the due date. So the cost of that decision, all the other tax types followed. So, again in an attempt to try to ensure that we can distribute the money to the local governments that was the backdrops for the discussions for this. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Members of the committee do you have questions for Mr. Wayne? Mr. Stam. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Not a question for him. I have an amendment. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Ms. Holley? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you. My question is about the personal penalty of $100 for someone who hadn’t filed but is owed money. What if they’re owed less than $100? The balance they still have to pay or how does that happen? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Mr. Wayne. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Could you repeat your question? I’m sorry I was thinking to reach an answer to that. [SPEAKER CHANGES] OK. The $100 penalty for not having filed even if you’re owed taxes. Well if you’re owed less than $100 is the fine still $100 and now you’re in the red? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Based on the current draft of the bill that would be that you would owe an additional $100 penalty. That was something that we discussed yesterday with Senator Rucho so he probably could speak to that. Because for the most part A came from leadership, B was more for the Department. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Senator Rucho… [SPEAKER CHANGES] Madam Chairman, Representative Holley, we looked at trying to draft language if it was less than $100 that the penalty would be whatever the refund that was due. The problem is getting the language drawn where you could simply do it. But it goes back to the original intent that if everyone has to file, if you’re required to file then you should file it. If you don’t file it there is no penalty. Everyone who abides by the law there is no penalty for. We couldn’t get the language and Ms. Finnell might be able to explain what some of the concerns are or challenges are on that. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Heather Finnell. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Part of the concern with tying it to the amount of the refund if the refund is less than $100 is the amount of your refund is partly due on your actions and partly due on your employer’s actions. So for example, you could have an individual who has a tax liability of a certain amount and another individual who has a tax liability of the exact same amount but one receives a refund because their employer withheld taxes correctly and one did not. So we were trying to tie the penalty to the amount of the taxes due. If you tie it to the amount of the refund you actually are going to end up treating two similarly situated taxpayers differently based on actions that are outside of their control. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Other members of the committee, Mr. Wayne has left the podium. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Madam Chair. [SPEAKER CHANGES] So, if you’ll just stay right where you are until we get our questions answered. Representative Davis. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you Madam Chairman. A question for the bill’s sponsor for the Tax Department. Would the Tax Department still have the right to waive that penalty under extenuating circumstances? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Madam Chairman. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Yeah. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The secretary still does have the right. The circumstance is they say, “Hey, that’s not what we intended to do.” They still have that ability. Yes sir. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Members of the committee. Mr. Brawley. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman… [SPEAKER CHANGES] Mr. Wayne. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Does the Department of Revenue intend on waiving the penalty if there’s a refund owed? [SPEAKER CHANGES] I have not at this point heard that that would be the plan. The Department does have a penalty policy that is applicable to any taxpayer. They get a one-time waiver on a tax type. One time every three years that would be available for a taxpayer to ask for a penalty waiver. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Madam Chair. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Senator Rucho. [SPEAKER CHANGES] What that means Representative Brawley is don’t screw up more than once. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Mr. Moffitt. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you Madam Chair. In regards to Senator Rucho’s comments, on line 11, the word “shall” is in that line and I’m not sure that gives the secretary flexibility to actually waive. Do we need to change that to “may”?

There is a different statute that gives the secretary the ability to waive those penalties. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Okay, thank you. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Mr. Luebke. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Madame Chair thank you, my question was about shall [??]. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Mr. Brawley. [SPEAKER CHANGES] For a motion at the appropriate time. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Well, Madame Chair? [SPEAKER CHANGES] I believe we'll hold the motion for just a few minutes Mr. - further questions from the committee? None. Mr. Stam. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Yes, I have an amendment which Ms. Fennelle [SP] says she can explain and it's on behalf of the tax council and the CPA's if they could be heard on it to give you a little background before she does it. A couple weeks ago we had a bill where we stripped out a section that tried to do something like this, and this makes it worst. This committee stripped it out and this makes it worse. And before I further explain could Ms. Fennelle [SP] read the amendment? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Do you have copies of the amendment Mr. Stam? [SPEAKER CHANGES] We don't have copies, can we get the copies made? [SPEAKER CHANGES] I think we better because I see it's quite lengthy. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Okay. [SPEAKER CHANGES] We'll be at ease until the amendment is brought back. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Madame Chair? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Other amendments? Mr. Luebke? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Well I would just - since we're waiting. On the explanation on the amount of the refund I heard ms. Fenelle's [SP] explanation, it still seems unfair to the taxpayer if the penalty is $100 dollars and the refund is $50 or in other cases it might be $60. It seems the taxpayer's being held responsible because of potential actions by the employer. And why not simply make the penalty what the refund is? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Madame Chair? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Senator Rucho. [SPEAKER CHANGES] First of all, the issue of failure to file is the $100 dollars. Okay? That no matter whether you owe or don't owe, if you don't file your return and you're required to file your return then there's a penalty. That's nothing to do with any other charges afterwards. And there was a problem that Ms. Fennelle [SP] either explained or may explain better, the fact that to try to say you only owe $50 dollars, you got a refund of $50 and you should only owe pay $50. We thought about that, we tried to work it through but apparently we couldn't get the language to work to make that happen and maybe Madame Chairman she can explain that in more detail. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Yes, Ms. Fennelle [SP]. [SPEAKER CHANGES] I'll go back through what I was describing before. The amount of your refund is due on all your tax credits ad payments as you know. Whether or not you file is something that the individual taxpayer controls. So just for an example say if the general assembly fails to withhold the correct amount of money for me, I would basically if I failed to file I could owe a significant amount and I would pay a penalty of $100 dollars versus if they withhold too much from Cindy and she has a refund and she fails to file, she will no longer now have a penalty even if she fails to file. So you have two similar situated taxpayers who owe the same amount of money who did the exact same actions but one of them gets a penalty and one of them does not. So we could draft language that does that but that's the concern we raised. So we could draft you something to do that but I'm still not sure you overcome the problem that you have two similar situated taxpayers and you're treating them differently. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Hamilton. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you Madame Chairman. My question is I think similar in nature but I have a little different philosophy behind it. If someone is owed a refund and they fail to file their return on time aren't they in essence giving the state a bit of an interest free loan? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Senator Rucho. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Madame Chairman, Representative Hamilton, if you don't file there's no way of knowing you were owed a refund or not owed a refund based on whatever is in there. So that's why it's essential that filing occur. If you don't file then there's no way of knowing if you actually do a refund or not do a refund, if you have a tax liability. So that's why it's critical to be able to require a person that everyone should and must file their tax return in a timely manner or ask for an extention. Okay? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Bill Brawley. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you Madame Chair. Just to kind of straighten out a few things that are rolling around. First it is the policy to waive penalties on individual taxpayers once every three years. So as a practical manner if this is the first time you've done it you're not gonna have a penalty whether you do a refund or not. The small refunds are going to tend to be people like teenagers that have had a summer job, they've made a little money, they've paid a...

Will, Texas and Louisiana tech's liability and I can't say no knowledge of some unwinding using time, researchers events in bringing the two and half of four and half for a major free money in fact if you can't wait for a few from the stage time that many investors from April 15 because as they testified that she did and they'll start events for pencil identification and paying interest of the fonts off hours later wartime exchange service and Watson Wyatt individuals in your room was like people to be stopped $100 fine when it is a $50.00 refund yet and Sermons concern I have the ball 091, still an influx of eight women and small city for the defenders and markets, and we do and so it is known for years with this is working in the explanations of the time the cities of me of their questions and if it means you're misunderstanding, but wages of sin, a $5.00 an offsite. (SPEAKER CHANGES)And, on the bill would say, is there is time for him to the shared many men didn't seem pleased 89 minutes and here is the correct syntax authority under the tax counsel and rival association of former assistant secretary under 200 former acting on CNN, intestinal disorder known as the Fresno bee pollen $1,000,000 last time survival against the scenes was variables and steel for his reasons for small feature is unnecessary differences between stain on a final time and place and Federal law does not necessarily complication engine Cessna 17 rebounds more harshly time and-butter that occurring on a Federal law is a storage area of us time is running against his company in 19 Carries a penalty when contestants are increasing on higher income taxpayers and the surrounding towns and fax numbers are taxed@Orinda City says he doesn't even recognize that I'm missing industry consensus business trends are causing all the company has a monopoly united and undergone the times exit the business and the is not fair to be a success and reserve raises a number of Srebrenica $100 or 70% of the statement was never the same as that sounds hometown time, john Wayne, satisfied on as planned. (SPEAKER CHANGES) All eyes as investors and analysts, Dornan easier on the night time tax money from the January 1998 funding copy of the unsavory settings of the amount access to meet the needs are there for us know the facts about $10,000 in here and you are $10,025 a pound lying on the following: $25.00 at + is understanding is that friend of the latest incidents as the founder of the SMS in the final 2956700 #: fast and is often a difference, he says answering it is clearly not my time these are based on personal things nineties has been cease and Seymour Hoffman and colleges are 17 times asking here Sony S and I need to use our resources are needed us the same houses onto the scene, and science and foreign commerce and times of the areas where there is an SDI soda fountain, and second-and-such as asthma, sang for 16 times magazine and another radio and is ready and waiting time in every instance, South Pasadena taxpayers can get, and he finds the best of my own ancestors from the North Carolina (one of the sample, knowledge and time prices sank last year in Miami, $500 from San , chanting, and formatting ?? …………

what I- a lot of money. I paid over $10,000 in tax, so I was due a refund. Under this bill, if I filed my return late, under the current law, I would owe no refund. I mean I would owe no penalty, but under this, I would still owe that same hundred dollar penalty. I would've paid over $10,000 of tax and I would have paid the same hundred dollar penalty that my nice would pay under this bill. And I just do not think this is right. Plus to put this into perspective, a hundred dollars is 5% of 2000. So to have a tax liability of $2000 requires a taxable income of somewhere around $31,000 and so that would roughly- median income is around $44,000, and so you can see that a lot of the taxpayers in the state would be affected. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you Ms. Ferris. Members of the committee, you do have the amendment before you at this time. Sen. Rucho, on the amendment please. [SPEAKER CHANGES] ?? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Rep. Stam, if you'd like to explain your amendment we'll have comments. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Sure, I think it's fair, I think it's more consistent with federal law, and not that we have to be consistent with federal law, but in the tax preparation it just reduces complications. This is unfair to lower the bill as it is without the amendment, it's unfair to lower income people, and they shouldn't have to go through that requesting the waiver procedure when hundreds of thousands of them are just going to bother. So I would urge adoption of the amendment, and then I can support the bill with- and as I say, we did this 2 weeks ago, we fixed it we thought, but here it comes again. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Sen. Rucho. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you Madam Chairman. A couple of points Ms. Ferris was talking about. There's 2 separate actions. There's a penalty for not filing, and then there's a penalty that- and then there's whatever the tax liability is for that. What we tried to do, and let's not get confused, the income tax is only one small part of this. The part that really matters is the one that's significant, and that is the sales tax, because it puts money in limbo. I'd like to hear, Madam Chairman, from the department regarding this amendment if possible. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Mr. Wayne, would you like to address the issue? Yes. On the amendment, please. [SPEAKER CHANGES] I'm Eric Wayne, Department of Revenue. I would just as far as on the net tax after credits and payments, that does not alleviate the problem that we have today relative to distributing the local sales and use taxes to determine whether it's state tax or local tax. So that would be very problematic for the sales tax perspective and also for the fortified and unfortified wine. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Rep. Bill Brawley on the amendment, sir. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Yes. This amendment addresses the idea of whether or not someone do a small refund would end up paying a penalty. And I was absolutely convinced, I heard the department say that they were going to waive it. Now I'm hearing the tax people say they're not going to waive it, you're going to have to apply, and I want a clear answer. What has to happen-Becky, let me ask my question.- I would like the department to please address that issue clearly so we know what's going to happen. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Mr. Wayne, if you would like to take that question please. We're getting tested here this morning, so let's see if we can get this taken care of. Mr. Wayne. [SPEAKER CHANGES] To reiterate, the current penalty policy does allow for an automatic waiver. However, the taxpayer would not- must not have any delinquent returns or any other taxes outstanding. One thing that could be done would be to change the penalty policy in order to grant a one time waiver if this should be enacted. To identify that, it would be an automatic waiver for the first time around. That would certainly be at the discretion of the secretary for that penalty policy to be changed. I'm not speaking on his behalf, I do think it's an option, I think we hear your concerns, I do think that there is some middle ground that could be met on that issue regarding the waiver. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Mr. Brawley, did that answer your question? Mr. Stam? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Yes, a question to the department and Sen. Rucho after he speaks. If the amendment only applied to the income tax part and not to the sales tax part would that be acceptable? [SPEAKER CHANGES] We believe that it will- that we can administer, we can distribute the sales and use tax. There would be a reason for a taxpayer to be penalized for a payer to file the return for sales tax, which was again, one of the

initial things behind this. It would put the income tax back to the current administrative practice. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Sen. Rucho. Miss Stam are you finished? [SPEAKER CHANGES] If that's agreeable with Sen. Rucho, I'm having prepared a perfecting amendment if that would be acceptable. So my amendment would only apply to the income tax part and not the sales tax part. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Question to Mr. Wayne, and again, my main concern was the sales tax, because that's really the onerous part of this deal for the state. But Mr. Wayne, will that allow us to solve the problem that we had with where the law stated one specific requirements and the department over the last number of years used some kind of other practical way of doing it? Are we clarifying that so that the law is actually what you're going to implement? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Mr. Wayne. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Again, I think that from the department's perspective we were basically assess an additional fair to pay penalty. If it's clear that for income tax purposes that the fair to pay penalty is based on the net amount of tax, that can be implemented. The concern was that what the statute said and the practice that was implemented years ago was not consistent. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Follow up? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Follow up, Sen. Rucho. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Mr. Wayne, with this amendment, if it's perfected will this allow you to operate under the law without any special practical solutions and not legal solutions? [SPEAKER CHANGES] I'm looking to the assistant for corporate income tax, and we believe that is correct, that we can operate under the law without any problems and implement it in the new system without any problems. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Rep. Stam? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Is it perfecting, or separate amendment? I withdraw my previous amendment and ask Miss Finnell to read a substitute amendment. [SPEAKER CHANGES] I believe we're gonna get copies again, Rep. Stam. Rep. Luebke? [SPEAKER CHANGES] I just want to support the Stam amendment now. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Which one? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Well, I was going to support the perfecting amendment, but he just withdrew the perfecting amendment, so I'm on the amendment. And the reason why, is that [SPEAKER CHANGES] Rep. Luebke, I believe the member has withdrawn the amendment that is before you. And he is getting ready to be recognized to offer an amendment that's being copied now. But you have the floor and you may speak on [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Whichever amendment. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Well I'm gonna speak on the bill hoping some amendment comes along the way. Members of the committee, everyone's concern here is about the income tax for lower income people. And Sen. Rucho's concern is about the sales tax. And so the amendment just seems perfect to move us forward. And I support the amendment, Madam Chair, whenever it appears. [SPEAKER CHANGES] It'll be here shortly. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you ma'am. [SPEAKER CHANGES] I'm just being told that the amendment that is going to be before you in just a minute is one sentence, so hopefully we do not have to have copies. So, Heather is going to explain the amendment. Rep. Stam makes motion to have the amendment before us. [SPEAKER CHANGES] There are copies being made but in the meantime I'll explain what the amendment does. If you look on page 1, line 14, at the end of that sentence it adds the following language: So for individual income tax, the penalty is $100 if the net amount of the tax due is greater than 0. And then it defines the net amount of the tax to include the tax imposed after credits and tax payments. And so what that would mean is basically that the penalty would only be imposed if there is not a refund due. So if there is a refund due there would be no penalty. Or if your tax liability is 0. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Members of the committee on the amendment, Rep. Starnes. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you Madam Chair. I want to do the right thing, and somehow can't believe that we're flying by the seat of our pants, can I ask Mr. Ayler with the CPA association to weigh in on the amendment, and does this address the concerns that they have or have we hit the target or have we missed the target? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Sir if you'll give us your name and your position for the records. [SPEAKER CHANGES] I will do that. Good morning. Jim Ayler, CEO of the North Carolina association. I appreciate the opportunity to be before you today representing 13,000 CPAs, and I have a tax expert with me, a tax partner with Johnson Lambert, who I'm going to yield to if you will give me permission to do so, and

SPEAK TO THEM SPEKAR CHANGES YES SIR SPEAKER CHANGES AND ITS GARY POWER SPEKER CHANGES MR POWER IS GAIN IF YOU GIVE US YOUR NAME AND YOUR POSITION SPEAKER CHANGES YA, GARY POWER IS THE TAX POWER INCHARGE OF THE TAX CHANGE OF THE TAX PRACTICE WELL, HE GOT THE CBI FROM UP AND DOWN HIS COURCE PROMERLILL IS MOSTLY PROMINENT WORK ,WELL AGREE WITH THE, ITS EVERY ONE RESPONSIBILITY FOR THE RETURN OF THINGS COME UP YOU DO HAVE TO ASK FOR AN OPPORTUNITY TO GIVE TO THEM A PENALTY. SPEAKER CHANGES THE MEN WITH A DO YOU WITH AN INDIVIDUAL PEICE SECTION B DEALING WITH PARTNERSHIP WITH COPS I DIDNT HEAR ANY THING TALKING ABOUT THAT TALKING ABOUT LINE 14, THAT WAS A QUESTION? SPEAKER CHANGES MS FENAL CAN YOU YA WITH HIM HIM THE SECOND TIME SHOULD YOU HAVE A COPY OF THE PCS. SPEACKER CHANGES NO I DONT HAVE THE PCS, NO I DONT HAVE AND REMEMBER OF ALL SPEAKER CHANGES DO YOU HAVE THE COPY OF THE PCS .WE DONT HAVE THE COPY OF THE MM AND EITHER. SPEAKER CHANGES YES MAM I DID SPEAKER CHANGES OK, WHAT FROM THE IDENTIFICAINE SPEAKER CHANGES THE LINE WITH THE GENTLE MAN IS ASKING ABOUT IS NOT CHANGED BY THE MM AND SO IT IS CONCERN IS IN THE PCS ADD IS AS IT IS NOT ADDRESS BY THE MM AND WHAT THE PCS DOES SAID THAT THE PENALTY FOR THE PERSONAL INCOME TAX ITS IS NOT APPLY THE INCOME TAX PAID AND HALF OF THE PARTNERSHIP ON US CORD, THOSE INCOMETAXS ARE IN PART B, SO US CORD IN PARTNERSHIPS THEY ARE SUBJECTS TO THE 5% PENALTY ON THE IMANUER OF TAX, THIS IS SOMETHING OF WE WERE ASK TO THE DEPARTMENT WE MAY ASK TO THE DEPARTMENT TO TRUST AS WELL BECAUSE THAT IS THE POWER DECISION WHICH WE HAVE TO MAKE HOWEEVER IF YOU DUE TO THE CHANGE TO TAKE THEM HOW AND PUT THEM IN PERSONAL IMCOME TAX YOU HAVE COOPERATION WITH EACH DEFIRENTLY AND IN THAT WING. SO THE POWERCIY DECISION ABOUT WITH CARACTER YOU HAVE PUT THEM AND YOU WANT TO TREAT THEM AS PERSONAL INCOME TAX OR WITH THEM ALL THE TAX PAYERS. SPEAKER CHANGES SO YOU HAVE MAKE COME IN ON THE BEAR WITH THE PROPOSED MAN MAID ON THE PREPAIRED IS THAT THE SPEAKER CHANGES YES I THINK THE WE ARE DOING IN THE BEAR AND DID NOT SPEAKING ABOUT THE ANYTHING BUT MENMAID ARE THE BOTH ARE INDIVIDUAL AS WELL AS THE PARTNERSHIP AND ELSE COT THE COOPERATION UNARLY TENS IN DO IN THIS, THERE ARE LOTS OF SMALL BUISENESS OUT THERE AND WHAT EVER THE REASON CAN I GET THE INFORMATION FROM US TP THE CBI FROM TO TRY THE TO PREPAIRY, WE KNOW FOR BECAUSE WE HAVE DONE AS TO MANY TAXES CALCULATION AND WE MAY KNOW HOW MUCH THE TAX HAVE TO PAID, WELL OF HUNDERDS OF DEPARTMETS HAS ON ISSUED AND THEY DONT NESSACARLY KNOW THE TITLE OF THE LEGENT WE DO IF SOMETIMES IT HAPPENS WERE TAX PAYER CANNOT GET THE INFORMATION IN TIMELY WE CANNOT GET THE RETURNS PREPARED IN TIMELY THERE FORE BECAUSE WE KNOWS THAT THE GOES TO BE THE REFUND WE RETURN TO THOSE IN THE WAY IF FALSE ELSE AS ITS USE INFACT ITS ONE TO THE STAY AND THAT POINT BECAUSE HE KNOW HE GOT THE MONEY AND HE CAN DO WHAT EVER HE CAN DO , THATS ALL. SPEAKER CHANGES SENATOR RETURN SPEAKER CHANGES THANKYOU MAM JAMES BOB WE NOT TO RESPECT AND I DO A BUISINESS 33 YEARS EITHER I HAVE ASKED FOR THE EXTENSION OR I GOT A TAKING A CARRER EVEN I CAN DO A BUISENESS AND ,MAY BE I SHOULD BEEN THERE AND THE FACT IS THE MATTER IS AS IN COUNT IN THE CBI WHAT EVER YOUR RESPONSIBLE IS FAULE THATS UP TO THE TAX PAID OR SEMILIER, WE HAVE GIVE IN CLEAR DEFERENCE TO THE INDIVIDUAL WITH DOES TO FACT THE PARTNERSHIP INDIVIDUAL AND THE ESCOPS INDIVIADUAL WILL HAVE THAT PROTECTION BUT THE BUISENESS WILL EXPECT SOME RESPONSIBILITY IN THE PROCESS AND THAT IS THE FALL THE TAX ON THE TIME. SPEAKER CHANGES AGREE ,AGREE THEY SHOULD FOLLOW THE TAXES IN THE TIME , THEY ALREADY PAID , BUT MY POINT IS THEY ALREADY OVER PAID THE TAXES AND THE REFUND BACK AND WHAT EVER THE REASON AND THE LOTS OF RESONS OUT THERE IS THE MINOR GOT THERE IS NON OF SELL IS BAD DOES TO SPEAK SPEAKER CHANGES FOLLOW UP SPEAKER CHANGES FOLLOW UP SPEAKER CHANGES AND IN ANY TIME COMING TO YOU I WOULD TO SAY YOU ARE MY REPRESENTATIVE I NEED A EXTENSATION YOU DO IT DONT YOU NOT SPEAKER CHANGES I TRIED MY BEST I DONE , I UNDERSTAND SPEAKER CHANGES REPRESENTATIVE MOGAN ON THE AMEN SPEAKER CHANGES YES MAM THANK YOU I THINK THE QUESTION IS EITHER FROM THE MEN RESPONCER OR STAFF OR ANY ONE YOU WANTS TO HELP ME I AM FIRST TO COUPLE TO MORE ATTENSION ON THE INCOME TAX CLASS IN MOXCOW AND SECOND ABOUT I SUPPORT THATS A LOOK KEEP IN STAND FORD I REALYY WAY THE BOTH AGREE ON, MY QUESTION IS IF THAT THE STAM IS THE PHASES IS IF AN INDIVIDUAL IS TAX PAYER IS YOU IS TIDLED REFUND SOME THING L ESS THAN AN 100 HOURS SAYS SEMI FIVE DOLORS IF THEY STILL OOU PENALTY . SPEKER CHANGES. MR YAIN I BELEIVE THAT THE QUESTION IS BACK TO YOU YOU ARE YA ARE STAY OFF SPEAKER CHANGES WE GON GET THROUGH THIS SIMPLE IN THIS MORNING SO SO STAY OFF LESS MISS SAFE WE CANEN ANSWER THEIR QUESTION SPEAKER CHANGES SO REPRESENT OF THE MORNING THE NAIR OF THE TAX IS NOW WITH OR CAN

If you were owed a refund of one dollar, you would have no penalty. It doesn't matter the amount of the refund, all refunds, no penalty. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Members of the committee on the amendment. Representative Stam moves that we have the amendment before us. All in favor will say, "Aye." All opposed, "No." I believe the amendment passes back on the bill as amended. Senator Rucho. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Madam Chairman, I accept this, and as a friendly amendment. Hopefully, we'll get the Representative Brawley's motion, for a favor report would be wonderful. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Brawley, you're recognized for a motion. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you Madam Chair. Move that the proposed House Committee substitute as ammended be rolled into a new committee substitute, favorable to the new substitute, unfavorable to the original. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Members of the committee you have heard the motion. All in favor will say, "Aye." All opposed, "No." Senator Rucho... [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you. [SPEAKER CHANGES] We're glad to have you in. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Madam Chairman, thank you. It's always exciting to be with y'all. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Who is going to handle the bill for you on the floor? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Brawley is going to be mine. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Brawley. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you, mam. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you, sir. Senate Bill 354, Senator Davis. Is there someone here to handle Senator Davis' bill? Is there someone here from the auditors office? Obviously not. We stand adjourned.