2009 House Bill 4126

Authorize subsidies for selected auto industry suppliers

Introduced in the House

Jan. 27, 2009

Introduced by Rep. Richard LeBlanc (D-18)

To repeal the <a href="http://www.michiganvotes.org/2007-HB-5408">21.99 percent Michigan Business Tax surcharge</a> imposed on businesses as part of a $1.4 billion tax hike passed in 2007, and repeal certain tax credits against the surcharge authorized subsequent to it which benefit particular interests. Note: This provision was stripped out when the bill became a "vehicle" for auto supplier subsidies.

Referred to the Committee on Tax Policy

March 25, 2009

Reported without amendment

A version of the bill that removes the MBT tax cut for all firms, and instead gives $250 million in tax breaks/subsidies to auto industry supplyers selected by state officials.

March 26, 2009

Substitute offered

To replace the previous version of the bill with one that uses this as a legislative "vehicle" for up to $250 million in subsidies to auto industry suppliers. This version was subsequently superseded by another substitute revising details of the subsidies.

The substitute failed by voice vote

Substitute offered by Rep. Richard LeBlanc (D-18)

To replace the previous version of the bill with one that uses this as a legislative "vehicle" for up to $250 million in subsidies to auto industry suppliers.

The substitute passed by voice vote

Amendment offered by Rep. Richard LeBlanc (D-18)

To tie-bar the bill to House Bills 4716 to 4720, meaning this bill cannot become law unless that one does also. Those bills contain additional details of the proposed subsidies.

The amendment passed by voice vote

Passed in the House 106 to 3 (details)

To authorize up to $250 million in Michigan Business Tax credits for auto manufacturing suppliers that enter job retention agreements with the state. Several future years worth of credits could be claimed all at once by a company, meaning that the state would be writing checks to them. The bill authorizes "clawbacks" if the firms don't meet the job retention goals, but if a firm went bankrupt then presumably the state would be in line with other creditors for a piece of whatever assets remain.

Received in the Senate

March 31, 2009

Referred to the Committee on Finance