Introduced
by
To eliminate a cap on the maximum amount that property tax assessors can raise the assessment of commercial rental property due to a higher occupancy rate, if the assessment had been previously lowered as a result of a lower occupancy rate. A recent Supreme Court ruling held that raising these assessments faster than inflation violates the Constitutional tax cap put in place by Proposal A in 1994, which limits assessment increases to five percent or the rate of inflation, whichever is less. The bill gets around this by replacing the property tax on commercial rental property with an identical “specific tax”.
Referred to the Committee on Tax Policy
Reported without amendment
With the recommendation that the substitute (H-2) be adopted and that the bill then pass.
Substitute offered
To replace the previous version of the bill with one that revises details but does not change the substance of the bill as previously described.
The substitute passed by voice vote
Amendment offered
by
To place in statute a specific definition of "net occupancy loss" as it applies to commercial rentals.
The amendment passed by voice vote
Amendment offered
by
To tie-bar the bill to the other business tax cut and tax exemption repeal bills in the package, meaning this bill cannot become law unless those ones do also. Specifically, these are House Bills 4972, 4973, 4980, 5095, 5097, 5098, 5106, 5107, and 5108.
The amendment passed by voice vote
Passed in the House 56 to 51 (details)
To eliminate a cap on the maximum amount that property tax assessors can raise the assessment of commercial rental property due to a higher occupancy rate, if the assessment had been previously lowered as a result of a lower occupancy rate. A recent Supreme Court ruling held that raising these assessments faster than inflation violates the Constitutional tax cap put in place by Proposal A in 1994, which limits assessment increases to five percent or the rate of inflation, whichever is less. The bill gets around this by replacing the property tax on commercial rental property with an identical “specific tax.” The bill is part of tax revision package that trades off tax cuts with certain increased tax levies and other measures to create a net business tax cut. See House Bill 5108.
Referred to the Committee on Finance
Substitute offered
To replace the previous version of the bill with one that makes it part of a business tax cut proposal offered by Sen. Majority Leader Ken Sikkema as an alternative to a <a href="http://www.michiganvotes.org/RollCall.aspx?ID=173410">larger tax cut passed by the House</a>. This is linked to <a href="http://www.michiganvotes.org/2005-SB-633">Senate Bill 633</a>, which would cut the SBT rate from 1.9 percent to 1.84 percent.
The substitute passed by voice vote
Passed in the Senate 20 to 17 (details)
To eliminate a cap on the maximum amount that property tax assessors can raise the assessment of commercial rental property due to a higher occupancy rate, if the assessment had been previously lowered as a result of a lower occupancy rate. A recent Supreme Court ruling held that raising these assessments faster than inflation violates the Constitutional tax cap put in place by Proposal A in 1994, which limits assessment increases to five percent or the rate of inflation, whichever is less. The bill gets around this by replacing the property tax on commercial rental property with an identical “specific tax.” The bill is part of tax revision package that trades off tax cuts with certain increased tax levies and other measures to create a net business tax cut. See Senate Bill 633.
Substitute offered
by
To replace the previous version of the bill with one that reflects the agreement struck between Gov. Jennifer Granholm and Republican legislative leaders to adopt modest business tax cuts and a scaled-down "21st Century Jobs Fund." See House-passed version for details.
The substitute passed by voice vote
Amendment offered
by
To not link the bill to Senate Bill 634, which would eliminate the weighting or apportionment of in-state payroll and property in the formula used to calculate a firm's Single Business Tax liability, and base the liability 100 percent on sales.
The amendment passed by voice vote
Passed in the House 58 to 47 (details)
To adopt a version of the commercial rental property assessment cap legislation with minor changes reflecting the agreement struck between Gov. Jennifer Granholm and Republican legislative leaders to adopt modest business tax cuts and a scaled-down "21st Century Jobs Fund." See <a href="http://www.michiganvotes.org/RollCall.aspx?ID=176636">Senate Bill 633</a> and <a href="http://www.michiganvotes.org/RollCall.aspx?ID=176597">House Bill 5047</a>.
Passed in the Senate 24 to 14 (details)
Which ordinarily would mean that a package of <a href="http://www.michiganvotes.org/2005-HB-5047">bills</a> creating a new business subsidy program also will not go into law, because they are "tie-barred" to this bill, meaning none can become law unless they all do. However the tie-bar language was reportedly drafted incorrectly, so those bills will go into law anyway despite the veto of this and related business tax cut bills.
