| |
Welcome to the new home of Lee's Summit Tribune. We are dedicated to providing you the most current and accurate news and events in Lee's Summit
|
|
Home
»
News
»
Capitol Report September 8
|
|
|
| | |
|
 | |  |
|
Capitol Report September 8
September 8, 2012
Mike Cierpiot
Veto Session to Include Discussion of Vehicle Sales Tax Measure
As I mentioned in a previous report, the annual veto session will take place next week. One of the vetoed bills that is certain to get a great deal of discussion on the House floor is one that would reinstate local vehicle taxes on out-of-state purchases. It’s a bill we passed with bipartisan support during the regular session but also one that has caused a great deal of debate and discussion.
The root of the issue is a Missouri Supreme Court ruling handed down earlier this year that denied municipalities the ability to collect local sales taxes on out-of-state vehicle purchases. The court ruling made an important distinction between sales taxes that are collected on in-state purchases and what are known as use taxes that can be collected on products used in Missouri but purchased in other states.
With its ruling, the Supreme Court said cities could collect use taxes on out-of-state vehicle purchases but not sales taxes. The court also applied the ruling to person-to-person sales that occur when individuals choose to sell a vehicle on their own. In effect, the court said that cities and counties can collect vehicle sales taxes only on purchases made at Missouri dealerships, and that their only option to collect taxes on other purchases is through a use tax.
Because the majority of municipalities in our state have no existing use taxes in place, the ruling effectively cut off a major revenue source for cities and counties in all parts of Missouri. The change had the additional impact of making out-of-state vehicle purchases more desirable because of their tax-free nature, which put in-state auto dealers in a competitive disadvantage with their competitors across the border.
In an attempt to help solve the problem, the legislature passed a bill that would allow local governments to once again collect sales taxes on all vehicle purchases. With the change, auto dealers in Missouri would once again be on equal footing with their out-of-state competitors. More importantly, cities and counties would once again be able to collect tax revenue that provides funding for so many vital services.
When Governor Nixon chose to veto the bill, he claimed the legislature’s fix circumvented the will of the voters. The governor would prefer that each municipality give the people the opportunity to vote on whether to put a use tax in place. The governor also claimed that if the bill went into law it would allow cities and counties to retroactively collect taxes on all purchases made in the months since the Supreme Court’s decisions. Estimates place the total number of Missourians who would have to pay the retroactive tax at nearly 123,000. However, it’s also important to note that there is some dispute about whether the tax should be applied retroactively and the original sponsor of the bill has vowed to take steps to ensure it is not.
With all of these factors in mind, we go into the annual veto session with the opportunity to overturn the governor’s veto and put the law into effect. It’s an issue that will require careful consideration. On one hand we have a large number of cities and counties that saw the elimination of a revenue source they had collected and relied on for years. We also see our in-state auto dealers losing business to their competitors across state lines. On the other hand, we have the many Missouri citizens who have certainly enjoyed the reduced tax burden on their vehicle purchases. The idea of reinstating a tax on Missourians without a vote of the people is one that doesn’t sit well with many of us in the General Assembly.
As always, I am interested in hearing your thoughts on this issue. Is it right to put the tax back in place so that our cities and counties can once again collect tax revenue that is used to fund services provided to our communities? Or is this an issue that should not be settled by the legislature, but instead by voters in the many municipalities that don’t currently have a use tax in place? I look forward to hearing your thoughts.
Health Care Exchange Ballot Language Struck Down
Just last week, a Cole County Circuit Judge struck down ballot language prepared by the Missouri Secretary of State dealing with the issue of the creation of a health insurance exchange here in Missouri. Health exchanges are part of the federal health care plan and here in Missouri we’ve seen our governor attempt to lay the groundwork for the implementation of an exchange without any input from the legislature or the people. Because we feel strongly that the people should have a say in this important issue, we put Proposition E on the ballot to ensure the governor can’t put an exchange in place on his own.
The issue took an ugly turn when the Secretary of State wrote ballot language for Proposition E that was clearly biased and intended to mislead voters on the issue. Lt. Gov. Peter Kinder and legislative leaders immediately took action by way of a lawsuit to get the biased language thrown out. Their lawsuit highlighted the fact the existing ballot language did not give Missouri voters a factual representation of the issue on which they would be voting. With his ruling, the Cole County Circuit Judge agreed. In his decision he stated, “the ballot summary prepared and certified by Secretary of State Robin Carnahan is not fair and sufficient.” His ruling orders Secretary of State Carnahan to use alternative ballot language put forth by Republican Leaders.
The difference between the language that was thrown out by the court and the new language that will be used is startling. The new language will read: “Shall Missouri law be amended to prohibit the Governor or any state agency, from establishing or operating state based health insurance exchanges unless authorized by a vote of the people or by the Legislature?” Carnahan’s language that was struck down by the court had read: “Shall Missouri law be amended to deny individuals, families, and small businesses the ability to access affordable health care plans through a state-based health benefit exchange unless authorized by statute, initiative or referendum or through an exchange operated by the federal government as required by the federal health care act?”
Whatever side of the issue you may be on, I hope we all can agree the original ballot language was not designed to give voters an idea of the true intent of Proposition E. The new language will make it clear to Missourians that they are deciding if the governor should have the power to implement a part of the federal health care plan without legislative or voter approval.
| |
 | |  |
| | |
|
Other Recent Articles from the News Category:
| |
| | |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Lee's Summit North Broncos Fall in First Round at Columbia
|
|
|
