IBJNews

Indiana lawmakers draw close on business tax deal

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Indiana lawmakers appear close to approving a package of business tax cuts that represents only a fraction of what supporters sought at the beginning of the session.

The House Ways and Means Committee and the Senate Tax and Fiscal Policy advanced two separate measures Tuesday that would cut the state's corporate income tax and the state's business equipment tax in certain cases. But a few key differences remain that will keep lawmakers negotiating to reach a compromise before their 2014 session ends next month.

Neither plan will come close to the complete elimination of Indiana's business personal property tax that Republican Gov. Mike Pence originally sought when the 2014 session began. But House and Senate lawmakers were able to agree on an alternative measure that could save Indiana's heavy manufacturers millions of dollars.

Both proposals include a so-called super abatement, which would allow county leaders to exempt companies from the tax for up to 20 years. Counties can currently exempt businesses from the tax for up to 10 years, and often do so as a means to lure development.

"I think this alternative is not only fiscally responsible but reflects the ability of local government to affect local control," said Senate Tax and Fiscal Policy Chairman Brandt Hershman, R-Buck Creek.

The Senate panel voted 8-4 Tuesday to approve a plan that would cut the corporate income tax from 6.5 percent to 4.9 percent by 2022. It would also allow counties to set "super abatements" and eliminate the equipment tax for small businesses with less than $20,000 worth of equipment.

The House panel approved a similar measure, 11-5, but kept in the so-called local option, which would allow counties to decide whether to eliminate the tax for new businesses and new equipment purchases.

Neither plan includes the "replacement revenue" local leaders have sought as a backfill from the state to cover losses they would take as a result.

Matthew Greller, executive director of the Indiana Association of Cities and Towns, called the altered proposals improvements, but said he would like to see more to protect local leaders.

"It's definitely moving in the right direction in terms of where we started on the business personal property tax and where we need to go" Greller said.

Senate Democrats, who are vastly outnumbered by Republicans, complained they were left out of the discussion and ended up voting against the plan.

"I guess I'm complaining because we weren't really a part of the discussion, and that bothers me to some degree," said Sen. Tim Skinner, D-Terre Haute.

ADVERTISEMENT

  • TAX THE POOR
    Way to go Indiana. Stop taxing the rich and shift the tax burden on the poor where it belongs. Why should the wealthy have to sacrifice when there are so many poor to milk in this state. After all, the poor do not have much to sacrifice anyway.

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in IBJ editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ on Facebook:
Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ's Tweets on these topics:
 
Subscribe to IBJ
  1. How can any company that has the cash and other assets be allowed to simply foreclose and not pay the debt? Simon, pay the debt and sell the property yourself. Don't just stiff the bank with the loan and require them to find a buyer.

  2. If you only knew....

  3. The proposal is structured in such a way that a private company (who has competitors in the marketplace) has struck a deal to get "financing" through utility ratepayers via IPL. Competitors to BlueIndy are at disadvantage now. The story isn't "how green can we be" but how creative "financing" through captive ratepayers benefits a company whose proposal should sink or float in the competitive marketplace without customer funding. If it was a great idea there would be financing available. IBJ needs to be doing a story on the utility ratemaking piece of this (which is pretty complicated) but instead it suggests that folks are whining about paying for being green.

  4. The facts contained in your post make your position so much more credible than those based on sheer emotion. Thanks for enlightening us.

  5. Please consider a couple of economic realities: First, retail is more consolidated now than it was when malls like this were built. There used to be many department stores. Now, in essence, there is one--Macy's. Right off, you've eliminated the need for multiple anchor stores in malls. And in-line retailers have consolidated or folded or have stopped building new stores because so much of their business is now online. The Limited, for example, Next, malls are closing all over the country, even some of the former gems are now derelict.Times change. And finally, as the income level of any particular area declines, so do the retail offerings. Sad, but true.

ADVERTISEMENT