.jpg){kind=logo}
Exerpts from 2/19/2010 Denver Business Journal - by Neil Westergaard
I don’t know whether it’s just the yin and yang of politics or what, but Statehouse Democrats are jumping off a political cliff. They’re squandering their advantage, just like the Republicans did by carrying out radical agendas.
They’re handing the majority back to the Republicans in a stunning case of political hari-kari, alienating the very constituency that put them in control for the first time in four decades: political moderates and independents, many of them in business.
What else explains going after business with such a vengeance this session? Why else would you go out of your way to prop up organized labor even as its membership dwindles nationwide?
What’s the rationale for engaging in this victim-led, symbolic populist revolt against anybody who’s ever been successful in business?
This past week, Rep. Jack Pommer, D-Boulder, who gets my vote as the most clueless lawmaker up there today, introduced legislation barring businesses from deducting more than $250,000 in individual salaries as a business expense. Pommer has been the Democrats’ torchbearer in a series of attacks on business this year and last.
Pommer’s salary bill is aimed at executives, of course, a flash point for ignorant people who rationalize their lack of success on assorted “fat cats” and “bigwigs.” This is class warfare, folks.
Not to be outdone, even by himself, Pommer declared on the House floor that “businesses don’t care about Colorado.” A few members of his own party winced.
If Pommer’s salary bill passes, there won’t be another economic development deal in Colorado — ever. No company of any size will want to do business in this state. The eco-devo agencies might as well pack up and go home. File for unemployment. Game over.
Saturday, February 27, 2010
HB1049 Protecting the Rights of Car Dealerships
HB1049 by Rep. Joe Rice (D) and Rep. Marsha Looper (R) and Sen. Chris Romer (D) Sen. Shawn Mitchell (R)
Status: The Bill has already quickly made its way through the House on a 60-5 vote. Senate Business, Labor & Technology Committee hearing Monday March 1.
CRBC position: monitor
The origin of the bill comes from the frustration of 39 car dealerships that were terminated in Colorado as a result of the bankruptcy restructuring plans of Chrysler, LLC and GM. Lawmakers and the dealers say now that the two auto manufacturers have partially emerged from bankruptcy, GM is attempting to reopen dealerships in Colorado with new owners, some with out-of-state investors.
Lawmakers have responded with legislation that would require manufacturers to provide dealers with a first right of refusal should the manufacturer decide to reopen a terminated dealership in the same market area. The legislation would also require carmakers to reimburse dealers for facility upgrades that were made in the past five years.
Proponents of the bill point out that taxpayers funded an $82-billion bailout of Chrysler and GM, of which taxpayers are expected to lose $30 billion. GM has launched an estimated $60,000 advertising campaign against the bill.
From a prepared statement from GM: “HB 1049 is a bad bill that will threaten our progress. This legislation will create special rights for underperforming dealerships and micromanage our dealership network to the detriment of taxpayers, our customers and the thousands of well-run dealerships that remain a part of the GM family.”
GM argues that the dealerships that were terminated in Colorado were not profitable and therefore a detriment to the corporation. The company worries that Colorado could set a “dangerous precedent” for the rest of the nation with HB 1049 that could “reverse the progress we’re making inside the company,” said Martin.
But as Melissa Kuipers, vice president of government relations for the Colorado Automobile Dealers Association, points out, it was Chrysler and GM that fell into bankruptcy, not the dealers themselves. “It is just plain wrong that these out-of-state manufacturers cut 39 hometown dealers during their bankruptcy proceedings, only to then turn around and reallocate those very franchises to new dealers,” said Kuipers. “The local dealers weren’t the ones who were in bankruptcy.”
Peter Marcus, DDN Staff Writer
Monday, February 22, 2010
denverdailynews.com
Status: The Bill has already quickly made its way through the House on a 60-5 vote. Senate Business, Labor & Technology Committee hearing Monday March 1.
CRBC position: monitor
The origin of the bill comes from the frustration of 39 car dealerships that were terminated in Colorado as a result of the bankruptcy restructuring plans of Chrysler, LLC and GM. Lawmakers and the dealers say now that the two auto manufacturers have partially emerged from bankruptcy, GM is attempting to reopen dealerships in Colorado with new owners, some with out-of-state investors.
Lawmakers have responded with legislation that would require manufacturers to provide dealers with a first right of refusal should the manufacturer decide to reopen a terminated dealership in the same market area. The legislation would also require carmakers to reimburse dealers for facility upgrades that were made in the past five years.
Proponents of the bill point out that taxpayers funded an $82-billion bailout of Chrysler and GM, of which taxpayers are expected to lose $30 billion. GM has launched an estimated $60,000 advertising campaign against the bill.
From a prepared statement from GM: “HB 1049 is a bad bill that will threaten our progress. This legislation will create special rights for underperforming dealerships and micromanage our dealership network to the detriment of taxpayers, our customers and the thousands of well-run dealerships that remain a part of the GM family.”
GM argues that the dealerships that were terminated in Colorado were not profitable and therefore a detriment to the corporation. The company worries that Colorado could set a “dangerous precedent” for the rest of the nation with HB 1049 that could “reverse the progress we’re making inside the company,” said Martin.
But as Melissa Kuipers, vice president of government relations for the Colorado Automobile Dealers Association, points out, it was Chrysler and GM that fell into bankruptcy, not the dealers themselves. “It is just plain wrong that these out-of-state manufacturers cut 39 hometown dealers during their bankruptcy proceedings, only to then turn around and reallocate those very franchises to new dealers,” said Kuipers. “The local dealers weren’t the ones who were in bankruptcy.”
Peter Marcus, DDN Staff Writer
Monday, February 22, 2010
denverdailynews.com
SB133 Tax Credit for Hiring Employees You Can't Afford
SB133 by Sen. Rollie Heath (D)
INCOME TAX CREDIT TO INCENTIVIZE COLORADO BUSINESSES TO REHIRE LAID-OFF WORKERS SOONER
Status: 02/16/2010 Senate Committee on Business, Labor and Technology Refer Amended to Appropriations
CRBC position: oppose
SB 133 is arbitrary in choosing beneficiaries of the incentive without regard to economic benefits to the state. A useful change would be different qualification dates and the directive nature of the re-hiring concept.
First, the bill should apply to any employer hiring back any laid-off worker. Limiting the rehire to a company's own previously laid-off workers has no greater benefit to the state or the UI fund over any employer hiring any Colorado resident.
Secondly, the time frames in the bill are unworkable. Many employees suffered their layoffs prior to 2009 and therefore would be disadvantaged compared to other workers laid off more recently. And employers that tried to carry employees through the holidays would be penalized for their good actions. Also, if the tax credit applies only to the tax year 2011, companies with various fiscal years cannot meet the hiring windows AND show that that employee has remained employed for a full year before they file their taxes.
Also, while many incentives use a simple verification, it would be impossible for an employer to say that they hired back an employee solely for this tax credit. For example, a company can easily say they located or relocated jobs in an enterprise zone due to the incentives offered, but they do not verify that the jobs were created due to the incentive. A company hires employees when there is demand -- not solely based on a tax credit (that at a maximum would be about $4000).
Perry Pearce
Chairman
Colorado Compeitive Council
INCOME TAX CREDIT TO INCENTIVIZE COLORADO BUSINESSES TO REHIRE LAID-OFF WORKERS SOONER
Status: 02/16/2010 Senate Committee on Business, Labor and Technology Refer Amended to Appropriations
CRBC position: oppose
SB 133 is arbitrary in choosing beneficiaries of the incentive without regard to economic benefits to the state. A useful change would be different qualification dates and the directive nature of the re-hiring concept.
First, the bill should apply to any employer hiring back any laid-off worker. Limiting the rehire to a company's own previously laid-off workers has no greater benefit to the state or the UI fund over any employer hiring any Colorado resident.
Secondly, the time frames in the bill are unworkable. Many employees suffered their layoffs prior to 2009 and therefore would be disadvantaged compared to other workers laid off more recently. And employers that tried to carry employees through the holidays would be penalized for their good actions. Also, if the tax credit applies only to the tax year 2011, companies with various fiscal years cannot meet the hiring windows AND show that that employee has remained employed for a full year before they file their taxes.
Also, while many incentives use a simple verification, it would be impossible for an employer to say that they hired back an employee solely for this tax credit. For example, a company can easily say they located or relocated jobs in an enterprise zone due to the incentives offered, but they do not verify that the jobs were created due to the incentive. A company hires employees when there is demand -- not solely based on a tax credit (that at a maximum would be about $4000).
Perry Pearce
Chairman
Colorado Compeitive Council
HB1248 Nanny State restricts cosmetics, deodorant
HB1248 by Sen. Betty Boyd (D) and Rep. Dianne Primavera (D)
THE "COLORADO SAFE PERSONAL CARE PRODUCTS ACT" AND PROHIBITING THE SALE OF PERSONAL CARE PRODUCTS THAT CONTAIN CHEMICALS IDENTIFIED AS CAUSING CANCER OR REPRODUCTIVE TOXICITY
Status: 02/03/2010 Introduced In House - Assigned to Judiciary
CRBC: Oppose
The bill proposes to ban products that are legally marketed under FDA regulations. It is grossly overreaching and lacks scientific basis. Shampoo, deodorant, cosmetics, sunscreen are just some of the products that may be banned.
The bill prohibits a manufacturer from knowingly selling, offering for sale, or distributing for sale or use in Colorado on and after September 1, 2011, any personal care product that contains a chemical identified as causing cancer or reproductive toxicity, regardless of trace amounts. At least 700 substances are included in the list of known or suspected carcinogens.
The bill establishes a process for identifying those chemicals that cannot be contained in personal care products sold or distributed in Colorado by recognizing existing lists of harmful chemicals established by authoritative bodies such as the United States environmental protection agency, the international agency for research on cancer, the national toxicology program, and the national institute for occupational safety and health.
"Personal care products", consistent with the definition of "cosmetics" in the federal "Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act", is defined to include any article intended to be rubbed, poured, sprinkled, or sprayed on, introduced into, or otherwise applied to the human body for cleansing,
beautifying, promoting attractiveness, or altering a person's appearance. Private citizens may file suit to enforce the act, and penalties to manufacturers and distributors are severe.
Rep. Primavera is a cancer survivor.
ACTION: Contact the members of the House Finance Committee about your experiences with various personal products. If you manufacture or sell such products, explain the process you use to determine their safety.
THE "COLORADO SAFE PERSONAL CARE PRODUCTS ACT" AND PROHIBITING THE SALE OF PERSONAL CARE PRODUCTS THAT CONTAIN CHEMICALS IDENTIFIED AS CAUSING CANCER OR REPRODUCTIVE TOXICITY
Status: 02/03/2010 Introduced In House - Assigned to Judiciary
CRBC: Oppose
The bill proposes to ban products that are legally marketed under FDA regulations. It is grossly overreaching and lacks scientific basis. Shampoo, deodorant, cosmetics, sunscreen are just some of the products that may be banned.
The bill prohibits a manufacturer from knowingly selling, offering for sale, or distributing for sale or use in Colorado on and after September 1, 2011, any personal care product that contains a chemical identified as causing cancer or reproductive toxicity, regardless of trace amounts. At least 700 substances are included in the list of known or suspected carcinogens.
The bill establishes a process for identifying those chemicals that cannot be contained in personal care products sold or distributed in Colorado by recognizing existing lists of harmful chemicals established by authoritative bodies such as the United States environmental protection agency, the international agency for research on cancer, the national toxicology program, and the national institute for occupational safety and health.
"Personal care products", consistent with the definition of "cosmetics" in the federal "Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act", is defined to include any article intended to be rubbed, poured, sprinkled, or sprayed on, introduced into, or otherwise applied to the human body for cleansing,
beautifying, promoting attractiveness, or altering a person's appearance. Private citizens may file suit to enforce the act, and penalties to manufacturers and distributors are severe.
Rep. Primavera is a cancer survivor.
ACTION: Contact the members of the House Finance Committee about your experiences with various personal products. If you manufacture or sell such products, explain the process you use to determine their safety.
SB085 & SB086 Republican Solutions: eliminate double taxation
SB 10-085 & SB10-086 by Sen. Mark Scheffel (R) and Rep. Kevin Priola (R)
Status: Sent to the graveyard of the Com on State, Veterans & Military Affairs to be postponed indefinitely
CRBC position: support for both bills
SB085 would have created a pilot program in five counties to reimburse participating counties for lost revenue from private property tax exemptions.
SB086 would have allowed a percentage of fully depreciated personal property to be deducted each year until the property is entirely exempt beginning with the 2023 property tax year.
To never have to stop paying tax on business equipment is just wrong.
Status: Sent to the graveyard of the Com on State, Veterans & Military Affairs to be postponed indefinitely
CRBC position: support for both bills
SB085 would have created a pilot program in five counties to reimburse participating counties for lost revenue from private property tax exemptions.
SB086 would have allowed a percentage of fully depreciated personal property to be deducted each year until the property is entirely exempt beginning with the 2023 property tax year.
To never have to stop paying tax on business equipment is just wrong.
HB1163 - Republican Hlthcare Solution - Sell Ins Across State Lines
HB1163 by Rep. Cindy Acree (R) and Sen. Mark Scheffel (R)
CONCERNING THE ABILITY OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INSURANCE TO ENTER INTO MULTISTATE AGREEMENTS WITH OTHER STATES FOR THE PURPOSE OF ALLOWING COLORADO CONSUMERS TO PURCHASE OUT-OF-STATE HEALTH INSURANCE PRODUCTS
A great idea, CRBC supported. Killed in Committee. We thought lowering health care costs through competition was central to Obamacare. Guess that only applies if the "competition" is government-run and taxpayer funded.
CONCERNING THE ABILITY OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INSURANCE TO ENTER INTO MULTISTATE AGREEMENTS WITH OTHER STATES FOR THE PURPOSE OF ALLOWING COLORADO CONSUMERS TO PURCHASE OUT-OF-STATE HEALTH INSURANCE PRODUCTS
A great idea, CRBC supported. Killed in Committee. We thought lowering health care costs through competition was central to Obamacare. Guess that only applies if the "competition" is government-run and taxpayer funded.
SB28 UI Fund is Broke but Dems Want More Benefits
SB28 by Sen. Rollie Heath (D)
ESTABLISHMENT OF THE COLORADO "WORK SHARE PROGRAM" TO ALLOW PAYMENT OF UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION BENEFITS TO ELIGIBLE EMPLOYEES WHO HAVE RECEIVED A REDUCTION IN WORK HOURS.
Status: 02/26/2010 Senate Committee on Appropriations Refer Unamended to Senate Committee of the Whole
CRBC Position: Oppose
The bill proposes to set up a new program under the unemployment system in the Colorado Department of Labor and Employment to allow employers, in lieu of laying off a percentage of their workers in a unit, to cut back on all workers’ hours by that percentage (between 10% and 40%) and then apply to have those employees file for a proportional amount of unemployment insurance benefits.
This is a new expansion of benefits – currently employers can cut back to 32 hours per week with no benefits allowed.
This proposal goes against a basic premise of the UI system – that workers receiving benefits must be actively looking for work or additional work.
SB 28 sets up a complicated and difficult program that is unmanageable and unverifiable – employers cannot prove that they would have laid off a certain number of workers and cannot give assurances that employees will be returned to full hours in the future, but especially not in the short time-frame given in the bill.
UI Fund Costs – SB 28 will be a further cash flow drain on the Unemployment Insurance Fund which is currently insolvent. Even though employers who choose to utilize the fund will pay a higher experience premium in following years, the fund will bear an immediate cash flow outlay. Also, in order for an employer to realize the equivalent costs savings of layoffs, he/she would have to reduce hours by a greater percentage – thereby impacting the UI fund to a greater degree.
Administrative Costs – administrative cost estimates have varied from an initial $60,000 per year to $486,000 for the initial year to $231,000 for the initial year – but we still do not have a formal fiscal note. We know costs will be high as each plan for each employer must be reviewed and accepted by the Director of CDLE. CDLE says these costs will be covered by the federal government…but that money still is paid employers through our federal unemployment tax (FUTA).
SB10-28 creates an expensive program that few employers could utilize and that will put further drain on the UI fund if they do.
Virginia Morrison Love
Colorado Competitive Council
ACTION: Contact your Senator and explain how adding more cost to a program that is already borrowing between $80M -$100M a month makes no sense.
ESTABLISHMENT OF THE COLORADO "WORK SHARE PROGRAM" TO ALLOW PAYMENT OF UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION BENEFITS TO ELIGIBLE EMPLOYEES WHO HAVE RECEIVED A REDUCTION IN WORK HOURS.
Status: 02/26/2010 Senate Committee on Appropriations Refer Unamended to Senate Committee of the Whole
CRBC Position: Oppose
The bill proposes to set up a new program under the unemployment system in the Colorado Department of Labor and Employment to allow employers, in lieu of laying off a percentage of their workers in a unit, to cut back on all workers’ hours by that percentage (between 10% and 40%) and then apply to have those employees file for a proportional amount of unemployment insurance benefits.
This is a new expansion of benefits – currently employers can cut back to 32 hours per week with no benefits allowed.
This proposal goes against a basic premise of the UI system – that workers receiving benefits must be actively looking for work or additional work.
SB 28 sets up a complicated and difficult program that is unmanageable and unverifiable – employers cannot prove that they would have laid off a certain number of workers and cannot give assurances that employees will be returned to full hours in the future, but especially not in the short time-frame given in the bill.
UI Fund Costs – SB 28 will be a further cash flow drain on the Unemployment Insurance Fund which is currently insolvent. Even though employers who choose to utilize the fund will pay a higher experience premium in following years, the fund will bear an immediate cash flow outlay. Also, in order for an employer to realize the equivalent costs savings of layoffs, he/she would have to reduce hours by a greater percentage – thereby impacting the UI fund to a greater degree.
Administrative Costs – administrative cost estimates have varied from an initial $60,000 per year to $486,000 for the initial year to $231,000 for the initial year – but we still do not have a formal fiscal note. We know costs will be high as each plan for each employer must be reviewed and accepted by the Director of CDLE. CDLE says these costs will be covered by the federal government…but that money still is paid employers through our federal unemployment tax (FUTA).
SB10-28 creates an expensive program that few employers could utilize and that will put further drain on the UI fund if they do.
Virginia Morrison Love
Colorado Competitive Council
ACTION: Contact your Senator and explain how adding more cost to a program that is already borrowing between $80M -$100M a month makes no sense.
HB1263 Compensation Caps: Tell Business to Leave CO
HB1263 by Rep. Jack Pommer (D) and Sen. Betty Boyd (D)
A LIMIT ON THE STATE INCOME TAX BENEFIT FOR COMPENSATION PAID BY A BUSINESS FOR PERSONAL SERVICES RENDERED
Status: 2/4/2010 Introduced in House; assigned to Finance Committee
CRBC Position: oppose
House Bill 10-1263 would not allow a business to deduct the total amount of salary and other compensation (ie - benefits of any kind such as health care, retirement plan contributions, and all others) paid to any individual in excess of $250,000. It would apply to the tax returns of all businesses which file in Colorado, whether located in Colorado or outside the state, including “C” corporations, “Sub-S’ corporations, Schedule C sole proprietors, partnerships, LLC’s, and all other business entities.
This bill, if passed, would actively discourage most businesses from relocating their corporate headquarters to Colorado, and would discourage other high-tech and high paying industries from locating facilities in Colorado. After the Democrat-party-controlled legislature recently passed hundreds of millions of dollars of sales tax increases on Colorado businesses, this bill would further seriously damage Colorado’s reputation as one of the most business friendly states in the country.
Now with HB-1263 the CRBC seriously questions why some members of the Democrat party deem such measures appropriate when the State is now starting to work its way out of a serious economic downturn.
This bill is sponsored by Rep. Jack Pommer, D-Boulder and 12 other members of the House, and Sen. Betty Boyd, D-Jefferson County plus 4 other senators. Representative Pommer is infamous for his recent comment on the House floor saying that “businesses don’t care about Colorado”. This Bill would seem to strongly indidcate that Rep. Pommer feels likewise about businesses.
HB1263 complicates CO income tax law by creating a significant difference between CO and Federal income tax law (with a limit of $1 million deductibility on compensation). It imposes an unusual and unnecessary cost on businesses in Colorado.
ACTION: Contact your representative and explain to them how socialist mandates discourage business, which decreases revenue and taxes available to pay for public sector programs.
A LIMIT ON THE STATE INCOME TAX BENEFIT FOR COMPENSATION PAID BY A BUSINESS FOR PERSONAL SERVICES RENDERED
Status: 2/4/2010 Introduced in House; assigned to Finance Committee
CRBC Position: oppose
House Bill 10-1263 would not allow a business to deduct the total amount of salary and other compensation (ie - benefits of any kind such as health care, retirement plan contributions, and all others) paid to any individual in excess of $250,000. It would apply to the tax returns of all businesses which file in Colorado, whether located in Colorado or outside the state, including “C” corporations, “Sub-S’ corporations, Schedule C sole proprietors, partnerships, LLC’s, and all other business entities.
This bill, if passed, would actively discourage most businesses from relocating their corporate headquarters to Colorado, and would discourage other high-tech and high paying industries from locating facilities in Colorado. After the Democrat-party-controlled legislature recently passed hundreds of millions of dollars of sales tax increases on Colorado businesses, this bill would further seriously damage Colorado’s reputation as one of the most business friendly states in the country.
Now with HB-1263 the CRBC seriously questions why some members of the Democrat party deem such measures appropriate when the State is now starting to work its way out of a serious economic downturn.
This bill is sponsored by Rep. Jack Pommer, D-Boulder and 12 other members of the House, and Sen. Betty Boyd, D-Jefferson County plus 4 other senators. Representative Pommer is infamous for his recent comment on the House floor saying that “businesses don’t care about Colorado”. This Bill would seem to strongly indidcate that Rep. Pommer feels likewise about businesses.
HB1263 complicates CO income tax law by creating a significant difference between CO and Federal income tax law (with a limit of $1 million deductibility on compensation). It imposes an unusual and unnecessary cost on businesses in Colorado.
ACTION: Contact your representative and explain to them how socialist mandates discourage business, which decreases revenue and taxes available to pay for public sector programs.
HB1193 How to Pay Your Use Tax for Internet Purchases
Most of us are accustomed to receiving a Form 1099 every January from our bank or brokerage firm which reports the amount of interest, dividends, etc. which you were paid during the previous calendar year. You also get similar Forms 1099 or 1098 for multiple other purposes, which you may or may not understand.
Starting in January, 2011 you will begin getting a new one. That “Form XYZ” will be coming from many of the Internet retailers such as Amazon, Overstock.com, etc., and catalog companies such as LandsEnd, Orvis and others.
That Form XYZ will report to you the total dollar amount of items purchased from that retailer during the previous calendar year. It will also remind you that you are required to file a Sales and Use Tax Return with the Colorado Department of Revenue. The same Form XYZ will also be sent to the Colorado Department of Revenue. (Yes, most people don’t have any idea what a Sales and Use Tax Return is – that does not matter. It is your responsibility to find out.) It is safe to assume that eventually the Department of Revenue will start to compare the Forms XYZ received against the Sales and Use Tax Returns filed and start sending out bills to those who did not voluntarily pay. Please contact your tax advisor regarding the filing of that return.
In addition to this new Form XYZ, the retailers will be required to send you a separate letter which will remind you that you are required to file a Colorado Sales and Use Tax Return. (Yes, they are required to nag you twice.)
Finally, the Colorado Department of Revenue is granted the authority to establish rules regarding the specifics relating to the Form XYZ. It is possible that they would require the retailer to provide details for every purchase made, such as the date, amount, “category” (whatever that would mean), and whether or not the purchase is exempt from sales tax (which is impossible for the retailer to determine in the case of many consumer sales).
One best believe that Big Brother IS watching, more closely every day!
Keith Crichton MBA, MT, CPA
Crichton Consulting Services, LLC
Centennial
Starting in January, 2011 you will begin getting a new one. That “Form XYZ” will be coming from many of the Internet retailers such as Amazon, Overstock.com, etc., and catalog companies such as LandsEnd, Orvis and others.
That Form XYZ will report to you the total dollar amount of items purchased from that retailer during the previous calendar year. It will also remind you that you are required to file a Sales and Use Tax Return with the Colorado Department of Revenue. The same Form XYZ will also be sent to the Colorado Department of Revenue. (Yes, most people don’t have any idea what a Sales and Use Tax Return is – that does not matter. It is your responsibility to find out.) It is safe to assume that eventually the Department of Revenue will start to compare the Forms XYZ received against the Sales and Use Tax Returns filed and start sending out bills to those who did not voluntarily pay. Please contact your tax advisor regarding the filing of that return.
In addition to this new Form XYZ, the retailers will be required to send you a separate letter which will remind you that you are required to file a Colorado Sales and Use Tax Return. (Yes, they are required to nag you twice.)
Finally, the Colorado Department of Revenue is granted the authority to establish rules regarding the specifics relating to the Form XYZ. It is possible that they would require the retailer to provide details for every purchase made, such as the date, amount, “category” (whatever that would mean), and whether or not the purchase is exempt from sales tax (which is impossible for the retailer to determine in the case of many consumer sales).
One best believe that Big Brother IS watching, more closely every day!
Keith Crichton MBA, MT, CPA
Crichton Consulting Services, LLC
Centennial
HB1154 Republican Hlthcare solution: moratorium on mandates
HB1154 by Rep. Kathleen Curry (I) and Sen. Shawn Mitchell (R)
IMPOSE A ONE-YEAR MORATORIUM ON HEALTH INSURANCE MANDATES
Status: assigned to Com on State, Veterans & Military Affairs; postponed indefinitely
CRBC Position: Support
HB1154 would have created a mandate review process to give legislators unbiased information about the potential cost increases that result from health insurance coverage mandates. There are 51 mandates in Colorado, 1,961 nationwide. Why should a man pay for maternity benefits and a woman pay for PSA exams? Why should a healthy person have to pay for diabetes supplies, substance abuse therapy or psychiatric nursing? Why should a childless person have to pay for well-child care? Why should anyone have to buy more health care insurance than they want or need?
HB1154 would have paved the way for choice and competition, ironically the mantra of the Left.
IMPOSE A ONE-YEAR MORATORIUM ON HEALTH INSURANCE MANDATES
Status: assigned to Com on State, Veterans & Military Affairs; postponed indefinitely
CRBC Position: Support
HB1154 would have created a mandate review process to give legislators unbiased information about the potential cost increases that result from health insurance coverage mandates. There are 51 mandates in Colorado, 1,961 nationwide. Why should a man pay for maternity benefits and a woman pay for PSA exams? Why should a healthy person have to pay for diabetes supplies, substance abuse therapy or psychiatric nursing? Why should a childless person have to pay for well-child care? Why should anyone have to buy more health care insurance than they want or need?
HB1154 would have paved the way for choice and competition, ironically the mantra of the Left.
HB1009 More government interference in Pinnacol
HB1009 by Rep. Joe Miklosa (D) and Sen. Mary Hodge (D)
CONCERNING THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF PINNACOL ASSURANCE
Status: 02/26/2010 House Second Reading Laid Over to 03/02/2010
Sets up (another) Interim Committee to study PinnacolAssurance, the quasi-public workers comp insurance program, funded by private-sector businesses.
Enlarges the Pinnacol Board of directors by adding an injured worker and the executive directorof the State Dept. of Labor and Employment.
HB1009 would:
CONCERNING THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF PINNACOL ASSURANCE
Status: 02/26/2010 House Second Reading Laid Over to 03/02/2010
Sets up (another) Interim Committee to study PinnacolAssurance, the quasi-public workers comp insurance program, funded by private-sector businesses.
Enlarges the Pinnacol Board of directors by adding an injured worker and the executive directorof the State Dept. of Labor and Employment.
HB1009 would:
- Inject government interference into a Board that has been highly successful, overseeing rate reductions and policyholder dividends for the last five years;
- Create conflict for certain Board members between their fiduciary responsibility to policyholders and allegiance to their own stakeholders;
- Divide the Board between members who represent all policyholders and those who represent a specific special interest;
- Allow the Legislature to dictate specific Board member requirements for some members, but not others; and
- Add non-management employees to the Board, lowering the level of expertise.
Pinnacol's track record of success, including lowering rates by 42 percent in four years while receiving high marks from customers and covered workers, shows that the Board is effectively managing the company and should not be changed.
ACTION: Before March 2, Contact your Representative and tell them how government interference in the private sector is unnecessary and inefficient. If you are a Pinnacol customer, explain how government interference tends to increase rates.
HB1189-HB1199 Ritter's Dirty Dozen tax bills
Governor Ritter signed nine of the “Dirty Dozen” tax bills. One HB1198 was killed in committee when it was discovered it would eliminate Colorado’s Alternative Minimum Tax. The other two HB1197 and HB1200 are still in the works.
These bills are job-killers and show a basic ignorance of Economics 101. If you want less of something, tax it. Raise taxes=increased cost of goods and services, passed onto consumers, who will purchase less in a recession. Kennedy, Reagan and Bush all proved it: the economy grows when tax rates are low.
STATUS: The House and Senate both voted on the same day, and Ritter signed them without the usual public ceremony the next day. All are effective March 1, 2010 Passed into law:
HB 1189 “Advertising Tax” Makes direct mail advertising materials subject to state sales tax.
HB 1190 “Energy Tax” Makes all energy that used for processing, manufacturing, mining, refining, irrigation, building construction, telegraph, telephone, and radio communication, street and railroad transportation services, and all industrial uses subject to state sales tax.
HB 1191 “Sugar Tax” Makes candy and soft drinks purchased from retailers and vending machines subject to state sales tax. In some cases, the additional tax is more than the profit a vendor earns, as contracts are typically written for several years.
HB 1192 “Software Tax” Classifies software that you download from the Internet and software manually installed on a computer as tangible property so that it can be subject to state sales tax.
HB 1193 “Internet Tax” Makes items from out-of-state retailers purchased online subject to state sales tax.
HB 1194 “Carry-out Tax” Makes "nonessential" articles, containers, plastic spoons, napkins or bags subject to state sales tax. Do you want a bag with those fries?
HB 1195 “Farm Tax”Makes agricultural compounds (insecticides, fungicides, vaccines, hormones, and other animal drugs), bull semen, and pesticides used for agricultural production and caring for livestock subject to state sales tax, driving up food costs. Colorado is now one of only six states to charge farmers and ranchers sales tax for the inputs they use to produce food. The law creates an incentive to purchase pesticides and medicine online or from an out of state retailer. Ag is an industry that can’t pass costs on; we compete in a world market and are price takers. We accept the price offered by the buyer, and when competing farms located in Kansas and Nebraska don’t have the same costs it makes Colorado farmers less competitive and gives them an incentive to not pay these taxes.So what does this new tax mean in human terms? Well, if you are a full time farmer this bill will likely take $2000 to $6000 out of your pocket. That’s a lot of money. Jen Raiffie
HB 1196 “Green Tax” Repeals the tax credit for certain qualifying high mileage vehicles.
HB 1199, "Limit Loss Carry Forward" Temporarily limit the amount of net operating losses companies can carry forward on their taxes.
HB 1197 “Conservation Easement Tax” Reduces deductions for conservation easement donations. STATUS: 02/19/2010 Introduced In Senate - Assigned to Finance
HB 1200 the “Enterprise Zone Tax” Limits the amount of the credit that a taxpayer may claim for enterprise zone investments. STATUS: 01/22/2010 Introduced In House - Assigned to Appropriations
These bills are job-killers and show a basic ignorance of Economics 101. If you want less of something, tax it. Raise taxes=increased cost of goods and services, passed onto consumers, who will purchase less in a recession. Kennedy, Reagan and Bush all proved it: the economy grows when tax rates are low.
STATUS: The House and Senate both voted on the same day, and Ritter signed them without the usual public ceremony the next day. All are effective March 1, 2010 Passed into law:
HB 1189 “Advertising Tax” Makes direct mail advertising materials subject to state sales tax.
HB 1190 “Energy Tax” Makes all energy that used for processing, manufacturing, mining, refining, irrigation, building construction, telegraph, telephone, and radio communication, street and railroad transportation services, and all industrial uses subject to state sales tax.
HB 1191 “Sugar Tax” Makes candy and soft drinks purchased from retailers and vending machines subject to state sales tax. In some cases, the additional tax is more than the profit a vendor earns, as contracts are typically written for several years.
HB 1192 “Software Tax” Classifies software that you download from the Internet and software manually installed on a computer as tangible property so that it can be subject to state sales tax.
HB 1193 “Internet Tax” Makes items from out-of-state retailers purchased online subject to state sales tax.
HB 1194 “Carry-out Tax” Makes "nonessential" articles, containers, plastic spoons, napkins or bags subject to state sales tax. Do you want a bag with those fries?
HB 1195 “Farm Tax”Makes agricultural compounds (insecticides, fungicides, vaccines, hormones, and other animal drugs), bull semen, and pesticides used for agricultural production and caring for livestock subject to state sales tax, driving up food costs. Colorado is now one of only six states to charge farmers and ranchers sales tax for the inputs they use to produce food. The law creates an incentive to purchase pesticides and medicine online or from an out of state retailer. Ag is an industry that can’t pass costs on; we compete in a world market and are price takers. We accept the price offered by the buyer, and when competing farms located in Kansas and Nebraska don’t have the same costs it makes Colorado farmers less competitive and gives them an incentive to not pay these taxes.So what does this new tax mean in human terms? Well, if you are a full time farmer this bill will likely take $2000 to $6000 out of your pocket. That’s a lot of money. Jen Raiffie
HB 1196 “Green Tax” Repeals the tax credit for certain qualifying high mileage vehicles.
HB 1199, "Limit Loss Carry Forward" Temporarily limit the amount of net operating losses companies can carry forward on their taxes.
HB 1197 “Conservation Easement Tax” Reduces deductions for conservation easement donations. STATUS: 02/19/2010 Introduced In Senate - Assigned to Finance
HB 1200 the “Enterprise Zone Tax” Limits the amount of the credit that a taxpayer may claim for enterprise zone investments. STATUS: 01/22/2010 Introduced In House - Assigned to Appropriations
HB1012 Unintended consequence: more fraud in workers comp claims
HB1012 by Rep. Morgan Carroll (D) and Sen. Louis Pace (D)
CONCERNING LIMITATIONS ON THE USE OF SURVEILLANCE OFEMPLOYEES WHO HAVE SUBMITTED A WORKERS' COMPENSATION CLAIM.
STATUS: 02/26/2010 House Committee on Appropriations Refer Amended to House Committee of the Whole
CRBC Position: OPPOSE
This is another assault on PinnacleAssurance, the quasi-private company that is the "insurer of last resort" for Workers Compensation insurance in Colorado. It is funded by the private-sector companies that buy its insurance.
HB1012 Increases the penalty for violating the workers' compensation laws from up to $500 to up to $1,000. Changes the mental state from "willfully" to "knowingly" in the statute that penalizes denying workers' compensation medical benefits, delaying payment of medical benefits for more than 30 days, or stopping payments. Allows the director of the division of workers' compensation or an administrative law judge to apportion the penalties, in whole or part, among the aggrieved party, the medical services provider, and the workers' compensation cash fund.
A Catch-22 and extremely punitive bill for employers. The Bill forbids an employer from verifying if an employee is actually disabled from a work-related incident unless there is some evidence of fraud, which an employer can't find without "surveillance" of some type. The change from "willfully" to "knowingly" not paying or delaying payment to an employee lowers the threshold of when a penalty may be incurred by an employer.
HB1012 would:
CONCERNING LIMITATIONS ON THE USE OF SURVEILLANCE OFEMPLOYEES WHO HAVE SUBMITTED A WORKERS' COMPENSATION CLAIM.
STATUS: 02/26/2010 House Committee on Appropriations Refer Amended to House Committee of the Whole
CRBC Position: OPPOSE
This is another assault on PinnacleAssurance, the quasi-private company that is the "insurer of last resort" for Workers Compensation insurance in Colorado. It is funded by the private-sector companies that buy its insurance.
HB1012 Increases the penalty for violating the workers' compensation laws from up to $500 to up to $1,000. Changes the mental state from "willfully" to "knowingly" in the statute that penalizes denying workers' compensation medical benefits, delaying payment of medical benefits for more than 30 days, or stopping payments. Allows the director of the division of workers' compensation or an administrative law judge to apportion the penalties, in whole or part, among the aggrieved party, the medical services provider, and the workers' compensation cash fund.
A Catch-22 and extremely punitive bill for employers. The Bill forbids an employer from verifying if an employee is actually disabled from a work-related incident unless there is some evidence of fraud, which an employer can't find without "surveillance" of some type. The change from "willfully" to "knowingly" not paying or delaying payment to an employee lowers the threshold of when a penalty may be incurred by an employer.
HB1012 would:
- Drive up premiums for Colorado employers by allowing workers' compensation fraud to go undetected;
- Limit and slow down investigations of fraud, which require a quick response;
- Clog the legal system as other channels for fighting fraud are eliminated;
- Undermine the credibility of legitimate claims of injured workers by driving up costs and allowing fraudulent claimants to receive benefits;
- Negatively impact all workers' comp carriers in Colorado, affecting the state's businesses and workers alike.
ACTION: Contact your Representative about how HB1012 will affect your business.
HB1192 Ritter's Internet Tax hurts small biz
HB1192
CONCERNING THE STATE SALES AND USE TAX OF STANDARDIZED SOFTWARE
Status: Passed and signed by Governor Ritter
One of Ritter's Dirty Dozen, advocates sold this as "fairness" for taxing software that's downloaded on-line, rather than bought in a brick and morter storefront. But ignorance of how business works shows why this bill, like Ritter's other tax increases, is a bad idea.
At the margins – for really large and really small software packages – this bill is a disaster. On the low end, think of a download of small mini-apps: a $.95 ringtone, a $1 MP3 song, a $2 e-book, a $5 upgrade to your GPS. How can you tax those things, and would it even be worth it to try?
There are many other technical issues…SaaS (software-as-a-service). Cloud Computing. Virtualization. Managed Services/Hosting. Object-oriented development. Data center hosting. Disaster recovery and remote/hot site services. Software re-use. Service-oriented architecture. Software toolkits. Telecommuting and virtual workforce. Hosted telecom apps and VoIP services. These are just some delivery methods and technology concepts that are at the leading edge of the technology frontier, and Colorado is at the forefront of these and other innovations. Every one of them has special circumstances that will have to be investigated – and analyzed and unraveled – to comply with HB 1192.
So instead of spending time on productive efforts like innovation and implementation, companies will have to invest significant time in non-productive audits and compliance.uld technology jobs leave the state as a result of HB 1192? Not only is it a definite yes, but you must understand that it is relatively easy to do so. Moving a manufacturing facility is hard. Moving a technology platform is easy. Any sizable company would find it easy – as well as advantageous – to move their technology to Seattle or Omaha or Minneapolis to avoid the brain damage of auditing and accounting for and paying the taxes under HB 1192. Not only would that company’s technology jobs move along with the technology platforms, but the jobs of any outside consulting/ implementation partner would move out of the state as well. And no large or growing company – and definitely no high-tech company – would consider moving into or investing further in Colorado if faced with this imposing and formidable barrier to technology, automation and efficiency.
Additionally, in Colorado and elsewhere, there is a shortage of students entering STEM – Science, Technology, Engineering and Math. There are many formal and informal initiatives aimed at training and re-training both youth and adults to enter or shift to the technology workforce. Several Federal jobs training programs are focusing on these efforts. In addition, information technology is at the core of green/sustainable energy initiatives. HB 1192 runs counter to those efforts, and would undoubtedly stifle future growth of talent here in the state, and cause the loss of federal education and training funds.
And lastly, the ARRA/HITECH act earmarks $19.5 billion in Federal funds for the implementation of IT in healthcare, which has shown to help lower our outrageous healthcare costs, reduce costly medical errors and improve patient outcomes. Providers and other entities are reluctant to adopt automation and technology, primarily because of costs and other barriers. By taxing software, HB 1192 increases those barriers, and would definitely cause the State of Colorado to miss out on some of those federal funds…they would go to other healthcare entities in other states.
Marion Jenkins
QSE Technologies, Inc.
disclaimer: Mr. Jenkins' company will not be directly affected by HB1192. He opposes the Bill because it's generally bad for business.
CONCERNING THE STATE SALES AND USE TAX OF STANDARDIZED SOFTWARE
Status: Passed and signed by Governor Ritter
One of Ritter's Dirty Dozen, advocates sold this as "fairness" for taxing software that's downloaded on-line, rather than bought in a brick and morter storefront. But ignorance of how business works shows why this bill, like Ritter's other tax increases, is a bad idea.
At the margins – for really large and really small software packages – this bill is a disaster. On the low end, think of a download of small mini-apps: a $.95 ringtone, a $1 MP3 song, a $2 e-book, a $5 upgrade to your GPS. How can you tax those things, and would it even be worth it to try?
There are many other technical issues…SaaS (software-as-a-service). Cloud Computing. Virtualization. Managed Services/Hosting. Object-oriented development. Data center hosting. Disaster recovery and remote/hot site services. Software re-use. Service-oriented architecture. Software toolkits. Telecommuting and virtual workforce. Hosted telecom apps and VoIP services. These are just some delivery methods and technology concepts that are at the leading edge of the technology frontier, and Colorado is at the forefront of these and other innovations. Every one of them has special circumstances that will have to be investigated – and analyzed and unraveled – to comply with HB 1192.
So instead of spending time on productive efforts like innovation and implementation, companies will have to invest significant time in non-productive audits and compliance.uld technology jobs leave the state as a result of HB 1192? Not only is it a definite yes, but you must understand that it is relatively easy to do so. Moving a manufacturing facility is hard. Moving a technology platform is easy. Any sizable company would find it easy – as well as advantageous – to move their technology to Seattle or Omaha or Minneapolis to avoid the brain damage of auditing and accounting for and paying the taxes under HB 1192. Not only would that company’s technology jobs move along with the technology platforms, but the jobs of any outside consulting/ implementation partner would move out of the state as well. And no large or growing company – and definitely no high-tech company – would consider moving into or investing further in Colorado if faced with this imposing and formidable barrier to technology, automation and efficiency.
Additionally, in Colorado and elsewhere, there is a shortage of students entering STEM – Science, Technology, Engineering and Math. There are many formal and informal initiatives aimed at training and re-training both youth and adults to enter or shift to the technology workforce. Several Federal jobs training programs are focusing on these efforts. In addition, information technology is at the core of green/sustainable energy initiatives. HB 1192 runs counter to those efforts, and would undoubtedly stifle future growth of talent here in the state, and cause the loss of federal education and training funds.
And lastly, the ARRA/HITECH act earmarks $19.5 billion in Federal funds for the implementation of IT in healthcare, which has shown to help lower our outrageous healthcare costs, reduce costly medical errors and improve patient outcomes. Providers and other entities are reluctant to adopt automation and technology, primarily because of costs and other barriers. By taxing software, HB 1192 increases those barriers, and would definitely cause the State of Colorado to miss out on some of those federal funds…they would go to other healthcare entities in other states.
Marion Jenkins
QSE Technologies, Inc.
disclaimer: Mr. Jenkins' company will not be directly affected by HB1192. He opposes the Bill because it's generally bad for business.
HB1160 Republican HlthCare solution: incentives for wellness programs
HB1160 by Rep. Joe Rice (D) and Rep. Amy Stephens (R) and Sen. Shawn Mitchell (R)
CONCERNING THE ABILITY OF HEALTH INSURANCE CARRIERS TO OFFER
INCENTIVES FOR PARTICIPATION IN WELLNESS PROGRAMS
Status: 2/26/2010 House Second Reading Laid Over to 3/8/2010
CRBC Position: Support
The bill could help business owners by slowing the growth of their group medical premiums.
The vote in the House will cause Representatives to publically vote a popular effort to freeze expensive mandates and also to vote against the opportunity for greater choice and lower cost medical plan option for individuals and business.
Voting against HB1160 could provide an election sound bite about Democrat obstruction of popular cost saving measures.
Take Action before March 8: Talk with you Representative about how HB1160 could help your business.
Jim Sugden
Employee Benefit Solutions, Inc.
http://www.ebscolorado.com/
CONCERNING THE ABILITY OF HEALTH INSURANCE CARRIERS TO OFFER
INCENTIVES FOR PARTICIPATION IN WELLNESS PROGRAMS
Status: 2/26/2010 House Second Reading Laid Over to 3/8/2010
CRBC Position: Support
The bill could help business owners by slowing the growth of their group medical premiums.
The vote in the House will cause Representatives to publically vote a popular effort to freeze expensive mandates and also to vote against the opportunity for greater choice and lower cost medical plan option for individuals and business.
Voting against HB1160 could provide an election sound bite about Democrat obstruction of popular cost saving measures.
Take Action before March 8: Talk with you Representative about how HB1160 could help your business.
Jim Sugden
Employee Benefit Solutions, Inc.
http://www.ebscolorado.com/
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)