Skip to main content
Colorado General AssemblyToggle Main Menu
Agency NameToggle Agency Menu

I_TaxTask_2017A 08/15/2017 09:00 AM Committee Summary




Date: 08/15/2017
Time: 09:03 AM to 04:46 PM
Place: RM 271
Brendon Reese
Bruce Nelson
This Meeting was called to order by
Bryan Archer
Representative Kraft-Tharp
Dianne Criswell
Heather Pezzella
This Report was prepared by
Judith Birch Vorndran
Luisa Altmann
Kristin Baumgartner
Neil Pomerantz
Paul Archer
Steve Ellington
Tracy Hines
Neville T.
X = Present, E = Excused, A = Absent, * = Present after roll call, R = Remote Participation
Bills Addressed: Action Taken:
Special District Association

Colorado Tax Auditors Coalition

Overview of 2015 Audit and Department of Revenue Response

Discussion of Local Control

Discussion of Other States' Experiences


Discussion of Benefits and Costs of State/Local Sales Tax Administration

Public Comment








09:05 AM -- Special District Association

Geoff Wilson, Special Counsel with Murray Dahl Kuechenmeister & Renauld, explained that most special districts do not have the authority to levy a sales tax and instead rely on property tax revenue to operate. The Regional Transportation District (RTD) and Scientific and Cultural Facilities District (SCFD) have both used the same sales tax base as the state base since the passage of House Bill 13-1272 during the 2013 legislative session. Other special districts that levy a sales tax generally operate in a matter similar to a statutory county or municipality.

09:08 AM -- Colorado Tax Auditors Coalition

Brandy Zink, representing the Colorado Tax Auditors Coalition, introduced the coalition and its mission.

A copy of their presentation is provided in Attachment A.

Attachment A.pdfAttachment A.pdf

Ms. Zink discussed how training sessions occur multiple times per year and focus on issues of importance to the business community, but also include trainings for auditors. A special course is offered for construction use tax issues.

Sophia Hassman, representing the City and County of Denver, continued the presentation with a discussion of local tax compliance and collection. She posited that people have voted for services that are funded through sales tax revenue, which is collected on a different tax base according to the relevant jurisdiction. She explained that voters can allow jurisdictions to retain revenue in excess of their spending limit through a de-Brucing process that precludes refunds that would otherwise be required in Article X, Section 20 (7) of the Colorado Constitution.

Ms. Hassman explained that audits are required to ensure that revenue is received and local bond payments are made. This allows the jurisdiction to achieve low delinquency rates, which is especially important in light of disparate zoning, construction, and liquor licensing requirements. Home rule cities are thereby able to serve residents and voters and ensure that businesses are responsive to the tax code. Auditors participate in education programs so that businesses are aware of their tax requirements. Ms. Hassman explained that, in Denver, businesses are able to pay in person or online and that these systems allow for increased compliance at the local level.

Ms. Hassman explained that most home rule jurisdictions include provisions in their tax codes to provide a “coordinated auditing procedure,” but taxpayers do not often request this. An example is in Section 53-5 of the Denver Revised Municipal Code. Another option afforded to the city is to make limited compliance efforts in lieu of a full-scale audit. For example, a restaurant that is remitting at the non-food rate may warrant a visit from an auditor to ensure that they remit taxes at the correct rate in the future.

In response to the 2015 audit of the Department of Revenue, Ms. Hassman acknowledged that Denver could improve the administration of its sales tax through improvements in local coding via the use of GIS tools. Home rule municipalities that self-collect try to ensure that businesses are licensed in the correct jurisdictions. She also discussed the auditors’ role in ensuring compliance with other taxes, including lodging taxes and special excise taxes.

Ms. Hassman addressed the hold harmless address database. The purpose of the database is to ensure that businesses relying on a government-provided database are not penalized for errors originating with faulty coding by the jurisdiction. While Ms. Hassman explained that the database is a good idea, she argued that the database does not always provide accurate information to taxpayers, which can result in incorrect remittance by taxpayers and damage local revenues. There is also a limit on the number of addresses that can be checked per day, which means that large retailers may have to pay to check the addresses for all of their business locations. In response to a request from the task force, Ms. Hassman explained that the current software system uses algorithms to estimate the probability that a particular address is in a particular set of jurisdictions, which occasionally results in errors. She suggested that it would be preferable to utilize local GIS programming in order to ensure that retailers are informed of their precise jurisdictional tax remittance requirements.

Jeff Cadiz, representing the City of Centennial, discussed auditing by home rule, self-collecting municipalities. Centennial is a relatively young city, and Mr. Cadiz posited that voters approved home rule status for the municipality in part because of the autonomy that the city is able to exercise in the area of sales tax collection and administration. In the area of licensing, Mr. Cadiz explained that he was tasked with visiting every business location in the city. The result of the project was that 194 retailers were discovered that had not been licensed to collect Centennial sales tax, representing 13 percent of all retailers located within the city. Mr. Cadiz explained that in the area of tax return processing, Centennial contacts delinquent taxpayers in order to ensure their prompt compliance, a benefit to the city, and avoidance of penalty and interest, a benefit to the taxpayers. The city had previously received disbursement reports from the Department of Revenue, but found the amount of data to be insufficient to resolve delinquencies.

Mr. Cadiz explained that he’d previously worked in the tax audit and compliance division of the Department of Revenue. In this role, he found that DOR focused its limited resources on income tax issues. During Centennial’s state collection experience, about 2.5 audits were conducted per year. Upon beginning local collection as a home rule jurisdiction, Centennial now conducts about 68 sales tax audits per year. This improves compliance relative to what the city received as a state-collected entity. Mr. Cadiz explained that in 2008, as a state-administered entity, the city collected $18.1 million in tax revenue. In 2016, as a locally-collected entity, Centennial collected $38.7 million in tax revenue. Mr. Cadiz acknowledged that part of the discrepancy is attributable to economic changes, but posited that a significant portion of the difference is attributable to increased compliance that came about as a result of Centennial becoming a self-collected jurisdiction.

In response to a question from the task force, Mr. Cadiz stated that Centennial intends to adopt standard sales tax definitions by the end of calendar year 2017. Ms. Hassman stated that Denver has already adopted these definitions. Later, Ms. Quade stated that Parker did so in April. The task force continued with a discussion of the resources needed to self-administer. Mr. Cadiz explained that there are 2 FTE that administer sales tax in Centennial, though the city also contracts for additional taxpayer compliance services from the private sector. Mr. Cadiz also suggested that jurisdictional idiosyncrasies, in his view, make city administration preferable even if the state compliance division were better staffed. The task force also discussed the option businesses have for a coordinated auditing procedure and how coordinated audits might disadvantage businesses because individual jurisdictions administer similar ordinances differently, even if the ordinance in different jurisdictions have the same text. In response, Mr. Ellington and Ms. Hassman explained that, in Denver specifically, auditors look to the totality of the situation for a given taxpayer and coordinates with different municipalities in order to ensure equal application of ordinances across jurisdictions.

Linda Quade, representing the Town of Parker, discussed the cost of self collection for the Town of Parker. She also explained that Senate Bill 16-050 holds retailers harmless if they utilize the state’s location database and the database inaccurately advises them vis-à-vis their taxing jurisdiction(s). The bill does not apply to home rule, self collecting jurisdictions.

Ms. Quade responded to task force questions concerning what Parker would do in order to ease compliance for businesses while also preserving revenue neutrality for the town. She explained that the system is complicated, but that because municipalities receive relatively little from the state government (compared with municipalities in other states), pressure is placed on municipalities to carefully preserve their own revenue streams.

10:41 AM -- Break

The task force took a break.

10:54 AM -- Overview of 2015 Audit and Department of Revenue Response

Trey Standley, representing the Office of the State Auditor (OSA), presented on OSA’s 2015 audit of the Department of Revenue's administration of local sales taxes. OSA is in the Legislative Branch and charged with conducting external audits of executive branch agencies. OSA examined four key areas concerning the Department of Revenue’s (DOR) administration of local sales tax, including how the department identifies each retailer’s jurisdiction(s) and efforts to provide assistance to local governments. The audit focused on the activities of DOR itself, and not on the collection and compliance requirements for local governments or businesses.

A copy of the audit report highlights can be found in Attachment B. A copy of the full audit report can be found here:

Attachment B.pdfAttachment B.pdf

Mr. Standley explained that the key takeaway from the audit was that DOR could use GIS to ensure that businesses are properly registered and to ensure correct local sales tax collections. OSA used GIS software and mapping information from the Department of Local Affairs (DOLA) and the Office of Information Technology (OIT) to cross-check DOR’s taxing jurisdiction registrations against these mapping tools. In the audit, OSA found that about 11,000 of about 104,000 businesses evaluated were improperly registered, which may have increased or reduced a business’s total tax obligation and a local government’s total sales tax revenue. A few causes were identified by OSA: inaccurate information provided by businesses, jurisdictional boundaries that were too complicated to simply use an address for coding purposes, etc. Discussions with department staff revealed that they would sometimes use a publically available mapping tool, like Google Maps, even though these tools do not show special district boundaries and occasionally misrepresent county or municipal boundaries.

Mr. Standley explained that businesses were also inconsistent in reporting their information if they had a mailing address in one city but a physical location in another city. The Department had not been physically checking these inconsistencies to ensure compliance.

Mr. Standley explained that the audit found that $3.3 million was over-collected and $3.8 million was under-collected in 2014.

Mr. Standley then discussed Senate Bill 16-050, which addressed these issues during the 2016 legislative session. The bill holds harmless those retailers that use the department’s location database and, as a result of the database error, underremit tax revenue.

OSA’s audit recommendations included the development of GIS tools to assist staff in registering businesses and to assist businesses in developing correct locations and tax collection amounts. OSA also recommended that the department ensure businesses have access to adequate resources to encourage tax collections and to determine the feasibility of a state-managed system to provide that information, as well as a tracking system to track local government contacts. The department provided a status update in February 2017 to OSA and the Legislative Audit Committee and reported that it had implemented most of the audit recommendations, with the remainder to be implemented by July 2017. Senate Bill 16-050 came from the General Assembly and addressed concerns regarding the potential for incorrect remittances resulting from database inadequacies.

Eric Myers, representing the Department of Revenue, testified regarding DOR’s implementation of the audit recommendations. He explained that the department has included new procedures in its licensing process to ensure that new registrations are applied to the correct jurisdictions. Only about 35 misregistered businesses had a consequence for state taxation purposes – DOR provides information on locally registered businesses to the relevant local jurisdictions, and DOR perceives it to be the local governments’ obligation to examine records to determine that the correct businesses are being taxed (or not) in that jurisdiction.

A copy of DOR's presentation and associated handouts can be found in Attachments C, D, E, and F.

Attachment C.pdfAttachment C.pdf Attachment D.pdfAttachment D.pdf Attachment E.pdfAttachment E.pdf Attachment F.pdfAttachment F.pdf

In response to task force questions, Mr. Myers explained that jurisdictions are provided with information that can be placed in a database and reviewed, depending on the amount of background check work that a jurisdiction has done or is able to do. Task force discussion with Mr. Myers continued on the topics of queries that are done by DOR to review the status of a particular business and the statutory requirement that the databases certified by DOR by 95 percent accurate.

Mr. Myers then continued the presentation by discussing DOR's address lookup tools. While the Department does not own a GIS database, it certifies third party databases if they achieve 95 percent accuracy for business locations. Businesses may look up their location information beginning from an online landing page. Mr. Myers explained that some addresses straddle jurisdictional boundaries and cannot be reliably positioned in most software systems. These businesses require human intervention in order to determine which tax remittance responsibilities exist. Mr. Myers explained that the location database is a tool to improve compliance but does not assist in sales tax simplification. While a quality database can assist taxpayers in knowing their jurisdictional obligations, the underlying sales tax complexity exists and poses challenges. For example, different vendor fees are assessed across jurisdictions, and some of these are capped on a monthly basis. The department believes that the tax structure could be partially simplified by streamlining the vendor fee across jurisdictions. Mr. Myers discussed other suggestions from DOR, including changing the boundaries of special districts to be coterminous with existing jurisdictions and streamlining exemptions across jurisdictions.

11:56 AM

Representative Kraft-Tharp discussed the task force sending a letter encouraging cities to adopt the standardized definitions ordinance.

BILL: Letter to Municipalities
TIME: 11:58:25 AM
MOVED: Neville T.
MOTION: Draft and send a letter to municipalities on behalf of the task force concerning the adoption of the standardized definitions ordinance. The motion passed without objection.
Neville T.

11:59 AM

The task force broke for lunch.

01:20 PM -- Discussion of Local Control

Esther van Mourik, representing the Office of Legislative Legal Services, provided an overview of home rule authority and the relevant case law.

A copy of her presentation is provided in Attachment G.

Attachment G.pdfAttachment G.pdf

Article XX, Section 6 of the Colorado Constitution allows voters in cities or towns with more than 2,000 people to create or amend a home rule charter, which supersedes any state law in conflict.

Ms. van Mourik explained that in People ex rel. Stokes v. Newton (1940), the Supreme Court ruled that home rule charters delegate ultimate authority over matters of municipal concern to the appropriate home rule municipality. However, the state retains its authority in matters of statewide concern. The Supreme Court ruled in Berman v. City and County of Denver (1965) that municipalities retain the authority to levy taxes as a matter of municipal concern. Subsequent case law extended the Berman precedent in regards to sales tax specifically.

Ms. van Mourik proceeded to discuss instances in which conflicting state and local laws supersede one another. Home rule municipalities retain authority in areas of local concern. The General Assembly retains authority in areas of statewide concern. In areas of mixed state and local concern, municipalities may enact ordinances, but ordinances that conflict with state law are superseded by state law. This doctrine derives from the Supreme Court’s ruling in Denver v. State (1990). However, a test to determine which doctrine applies has not been developed. Instead, a court is able to make an ad hoc decision on what constitutes a statewide concern, and may consider the need for statewide uniformity as contemplated in Walgreen Co. v. Charnes (1991). In particular, Walgreen Co. v. Charnes acknowledged that the General Assembly has stated that sales and use tax have an extraterritorial impact, i.e. an impact beyond the municipalities in which they are imposed.

Winslow Construction Co. v. City & County of Denver (1998) reaffirms that the imposition of sales and use taxes is a matter of local concern. Ms. van Mourik explained that this case indicates that the Supreme Court is unwilling to overrule the precedent that sales and use tax is a matter of local concern, and the Supreme Court would need to overrule this precedent in order for state policy to supersede home rule jurisdictions in future sales tax matters.

In response to questions from task force members, Ms. van Mourik explained that the General Assembly cannot unilaterally overrule the Supreme Court’s decisions in cases like Winslow. For example, if the General Assembly were to enact a law that requires sales tax simplification measures in home rule municipalities, the legislation would carry a presumption of constitutionality. However, a lawsuit brought by a home rule jurisdiction could allege that the legislation had overstepped the state’s authority to regulate this area, and the ultimate decision regarding the constitutionality of the law would rest with the judicial branch.

Task force discussion ensued concerning the impact of the case law Ms. van Mourik discussed on the work of the task force.

01:50 PM -- Discussion of Other States' Experiences

Nikki Dobay, representing the Council on State Taxation (COST), began by presenting information on her organization. Members of COST include large multistate taxpayers and COST's aim is to promote equitable and nondiscriminatory tax collection across states. Fred Nicely, representing COST, and Jared Walczak, representing the Tax Foundation, also introduced themselves.

A copy of their presentation can be found in Attachment H. Two additional handouts were provided to the task force (Attachments I & J).

Attachment I.pdfAttachment I.pdf Attachment J.pdfAttachment J.pdf

Mr. Nicely explained that COST has its own policy positions that are representative of COST’s 600 member companies. These are selected by the COST board, which consists of about 20 representatives. COST believes that sales and use tax should be easily administered and easily understood and should apply to all sellers equally, including both brick-and-mortar and remote sellers. Mr. Nicely described COST's policy positions, which include advocating for a uniform tax base with uniform definitions.

Mr. Walczak presented on the policy positions of the Tax Foundation regarding sales taxes. The Tax Foundation advocates broad based taxes with low tax rates, and recommends taxation of services which are currently untaxed in Colorado. Mr. Walczak explained that the Tax Foundation also recommends that business inputs be excluded from the tax base in order to avoid tax pyramiding.

Because state tax systems are modeled after one another, virtually every state tax system is modeled after the Mississippi sales tax system, the first enacted in 1930. Because Mississippi did not tax services, most states did not either and now only tax goods despite services comprising 67 percent of consumer spending nationally and 80 percent of consumer spending in Colorado.

Mr. Nicely testified that Colorado, Louisiana, and Alabama are the only states that allow local jurisdictions to collect their own sales taxes. A majority of other states, newly including Arizona, allow local jurisdictions to assess sales taxes, but these are collected by the state government.

The presenters responded to task force questions concerning how Colorado municipalities compare to municipalities in other states in terms of their dependence on sales taxes rather than property taxes.

Mr. Nicely suggested that Arizona could serve as a model for Colorado if it is interested in moving sales tax administration to the state level. Effective January 1, 2017, Arizona’s state government took over the administration of municipal sales taxes that had previously been administered at the local level.

Ms. Dobay presented information on federal legislation that would increase states’ authority to tax out-of-state retailers. Mr. Nicely testified that COST supports equal taxation of remote sellers and brick-and-mortar sellers in the taxing state. Mr. Walczak suggested that federal legislation on taxation of remote sales is possible, and perhaps even likely, within the next two to four years.

Mr. Nicely testified on the Streamline Sales and Use Tax Agreement (SSUTA). The SSUTA proposes applying the same requirements to in-state and out-of-state retailers. It advocates state level administration, uniformity, and simplification (section 102), state administration (section 301) including collection and auditing, and similar state and local tax bases (section 302), with exceptions to uniformity for fuel, motor vehicles, and mobile homes. Among states collecting sales taxes, Colorado is the only fully non-participating state that has not recently considered legislation to join the agreement. Mr. Nicely testified that full member states are allowed full authority for collection of taxes on remote sellers. Discussion ensued regarding the possibility of establishing uniform definitions across states. On this subject, Mr. Walczak posited that uniform definitions across states is a less significant goal than establishing uniform definitions within Colorado, as complying with 45 states is easier for business than complying with unique rules across the country’s 10,000 taxing jurisdictions.

Ms. Dobay provided testimony on the obstacles faced by large taxpayers, including big box stores with locations in multiple home rule jurisdictions. She provided quotes from tax compliance personnel at large retailers, who stated that Colorado was either the most difficult state with which to comply or one of the most difficult states, except perhaps Louisiana. When asked what made Colorado tax administration difficult, retailers complained about overlapping jurisdictions within single zip codes, differing tax bases, public improvement fees, the high number of returns, and filing frequency. In particular, one retailer stated that they file 12 returns per year in Texas and over 2,000 returns per year in Colorado. Mr. Nicely also identified definitional inconsistencies in the areas of construction, food, and others, and conveyed retailer frustration with high audit volumes across individual jurisdictions.

Mr. Nicely presented on states that are making progress in the area of sales and use tax administration. He presented the case of Alabama. Though Alabama has not adopted central administration, local jurisdictions are generally required to use the same tax base and centralized appeals. Out-of-state retailers are allowed to use an 8 percent tax rate remitted to the state, with parcels made to the correct local government(s), so as to preclude the need for reporting by out-of-state retailers to all local governments.

Ms. Dobay presented the case of Arizona, which, effective January 2017, now administers all local sales taxes at the state level. This allows for registration, collections, audit, and appeals at the state Department of Revenue. Arizona still has different tax bases across localities, and state costs increased to add administrative personnel. Mr. Nicely suggested that aggregate government costs decreased, however, as increased costs at the state level were more than offset by reduced administrative costs at the local level.

Mr. Walczak presented recommendations for Colorado sales tax simplification to the task force. First, the Tax Foundation recommends that Colorado taxing jurisdictions adopt common definitions and interpretations. He suggested that this is an area where it might behoove the state to assert its authority over municipal governments.

A second recommendation concerns central administration. Mr. Walczak suggested that local governments may be more willing to voluntarily submit to state administration if they are confident in the state’s capability. Certain deficiencies, for example in the area of address lookups, are likely unacceptable to local governments and aren’t found in other states. He recommended that the state can incentivize local governments to use state collection mechanisms without requiring them to do so. This could enhance simplification further if paired with unified audit authority.

A third recommendation concerns standardized tax forms – either single licensure at the state level or, barring that, the creation of an online registration portal to simplify filing for sales tax licenses. Mr. Walczak suggests that Maryland’s means of aggregating local filing mechanisms in one state web form may be useful to Colorado administrators. Mr. Walczak also suggested that the state should ultimately, at some point, adopt a uniform tax base. The only states that do not currently do so are Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Colorado, and Louisiana.

Finally, Mr. Nicely recommended a carrot-and-stick approach for tax administration. As a carrot approach for local governments, the state should require all sellers to collect local sales tax revenue even without having nexus in the locality. As a stick, local governments should be required to agree to central administration of the tax.

03:39 PM -- Break

The task force took a break.

03:50 PM -- Discussion of Benefits and Costs of State/Local Sales Tax Administration

Scott Peterson, representing Avalara, a company providing tax management software, provided testimony to the task force. Mr. Peterson explained that using Avalara, businesses remitted twice as much tax to the state government and state-administered local governments in Colorado than to locally-administered home rule governments, but that businesses were required to file three times as many tax returns to home rule governments as to state-administered local governments. He posited that some portion of Colorado sales tax remittance simply cannot be automated because the administrative responsibilities are complicated and complex. Comparing the time required to remit Colorado sales tax versus other states, Mr. Peterson suggested that Colorado returns require approximately twice as long to file as for a state-administered, streamlined state like South Dakota.

Eric Myers, representing the Department of Revenue, testified on the costs of collecting sales taxes administered at the state level. Mr. Myers explained that the department has approximately 120 auditors on staff and that the state allocates approximately $3.7 million annually for this audit presence. On the front end of the process, the department has about 30 people who are dedicated to reviewing returns as they come in and prepping these returns for disbursement to local governments. For this, and to handle any protests the department receives, and process any refunds, the department spends approximately $1.6 million annually. Mr. Myers discussed how the department partners with various software companies and how about 84 percent of returns are filed electronically, which has rapidly increased over the past several years. During FY 2016-2017, the department processed 2.6 million tax returns for the state and local jurisdictions. The state has allowed the department to recoup certain costs for the collection of sales taxes for special districts.

Mr. Myers discussed areas where economies of scale could be achieved if the state began administering sales taxes for all jurisdictions, including in the upfront process. Areas like auditing and other backend processes would see less economies of scale.

Task force discussion ensued concerning the impact of the recaptured DOR costs on TABOR, the interaction DOR has with various software companies, and the cost to implement a new system for state collection.

04:16 PM -- Public Comment

04:16 PM --
Totsy Rees, Enterprise Holdings, read a statement from Meegan Wood-Trombley. The statement explained how Enterprise Holdings deals with the current complex system and that Enterprise requests that the task force explore a single licensure approach and uniform tax definitions to limit confusion among taxpayers and consumers.

04:22 PM --
Jeff Hansen, Finance Director for the City of Golden, testified in support of keeping most sales tax decisions in local tax offices rather than at the state government. Mr. Hansen discussed the potential for optional centralized licensing and remittance. Mr. Hansen also described the desire to maintain audit and enforcement efforts locally.

04:25 PM --
Trevor Vaughn, Manager of Tax and Licensing for the City of Aurora, testified that 70 percent of Aurora’s general fund revenue comes from sales and use taxes, making sales tax issues greatly important to the city. Relative to other cities in other states, this is a very high rate – for example, Cincinnati collects only 3 percent of its revenue in sales tax and Plano collects only 27 percent of its revenue in sales tax. Mr. Vaughn also discussed the importance of audit controls at a local level. Mr. Vaughn discussed the opportunity to simplify the system and also discussed Aurora's efforts to ease compliance for businesses, such as by adopting CML’s uniform sales tax definitions. Mr. Vaughn also discussed difficulties with the exemptions at the state level.

04:30 PM --
Joe Suppers, NodeCom, Inc., suggested that simplifying the state's sales and use tax system may help in attracting businesses to the state. Additionally, Mr. Supper discussed the role that the state's 2.9 percent sales and use tax has had in discouraging large scale data centers to locate in Colorado and encouraged the task force to examine adopting a sales and use tax exemption for data centers.

04:32 PM --
Nicole Heide, Accounting Manager with Food Services of America, provided testimony to the task force related to the impact of the complexity of the current sales and use tax system on their business as a food distributor company. Ms. Heide suggested the current system could be greatly simplified by having one place to register, one place for answers, and one place to file.

04:35 PM --
Jennifer Goodrum, Colorado Dental Association (CDA), discussed the impact that the current complexity of the state's sales and use tax system has on small local dental practices throughout the state. The CDA supports a single point of remittance and consistency in application.

04:40 PM --
Owen Nieberg, All About Braces, spoke about the impact of the current sales and use tax system on his 6-location orthodontic practice, including determining which products are taxable in each taxing jurisdiction. Mr. Nieberg discussed his desire for simpler, unified rules that make sense; simpler, unified filing; and rules that adhere to common sense across medicine, including not taxing the tools used in a practice.

04:44 PM

Representative Kraft-Tharp made closing remarks.

04:46 PM

The committee adjourned.