MINUTES OF MEETING
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON TAXATION
Sixty-seventh Session
April 20, 1993
The Assembly Committee on Taxation was called to order by Chairman Robert E. Price at 1:47 p.m., April 20, 1993, in Room 332 of the Legislative Building, Carson City, Nevada. Exhibit A is the Meeting Agenda, Exhibit B is the Attendance Roster.
COMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT:
Mr. Robert E. Price, Chairman
Mrs. Myrna T. Williams, Vice Chairman
Mr. Rick C. Bennett
Mr. Peter G. Ernaut
Mr. Ken L. Haller
Mrs. Joan A. Lambert
Mr. John W. Marvel
Mr. Roy Neighbors
Mr. John B. Regan
Mr. Michael A. Schneider
Mr. Larry L. Spitler
COMMITTEE MEMBERS ABSENT:
None
GUEST LEGISLATORS PRESENT:
Assemblyman Chris Giunchigliani
Assemblyman Scott Scherer
Assemblyman Vivian Freeman
STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:
Ted Zuend, Deputy Fiscal Analyst, Legislative Counsel Bureau
OTHERS PRESENT:
Brian Harris, legal counsel for the Governor's office
Perry Comeaux, Executive Director, Nevada Department of Taxation
Dennis Schreiner, owner of Adventureland Christian Preschool, Carson City
Lynn Atcheson, Vice President of Communications and Public Affairs for Washoe Health System and Washoe Medical Center
Jim Pilsner, Chairman of the Reno Planning Commission and owner of Nevada Office Machines-Reno
Mary Leonard Conklin, R.N., President of the Junior League of Reno
Bobbie Gang, Nevada Women's Lobby and its affiliates Diane Williams, Executive Committee member of the Northern Division of the Nevada Women's Lobby
Pam Alvey, Advocacy/Public Affairs Chairperson for the Junior League of Reno
Carole Vilardo, Executive Director, Nevada Taxpayers Assoc.
Louise Helton, Senior Legislative Representative, Junior League of Las Vegas
Steve Stucker, general counsel, Laughlin Associates, Inc.
Harvey Whittemore, Nevada Resort Association
Richard Bunker, Nevada Resort Association
James Thorpe, owner Hillside Mobile Home Park, Carson City
Lucille Lusk, Nevada Coalition of Conservative Citizens
Bonnie James, Las Vegas Chamber of Commerce
Chairman Price stated a quorum was present but various members would be required to attend other meetings to testify during the meeting and would, therefore, not be in the meeting from time to time. He announced the committee would hear the series of bills which dealt with business tax issues.
Chairman Price then presented a comparative chart, profiling bills on the agenda, which had been prepared by Mr. Zuend, attached as EXHIBIT C. He concluded by saying initial testimony would be taken on the bills and then continued at the regularly scheduled committee meetings on April 22 and April 29. Additional testimony would be taken at a meeting in Las Vegas scheduled for the evening of April 30, 1993 at the Clark County School District Office. No action would be taken on any of the bills until after those meetings were completed.
Bill explanations for Assembly Bills 394, 405, 418, 421, 448, and 456 are attached as EXHIBITS D-H, respectively.
ASSEMBLY BILL 394 - Makes changes in computation of business tax. (BDR 32-1104)
ASSEMBLY BILL 405 - Makes various changes to provisions governing business tax. (BDR 32-180)
ASSEMBLY BILL 418 - Makes various changes to provisions governing business tax. (BDR 32-1719)
ASSEMBLY BILL 421 - Extends date for payment of business tax. (BDR 32-311)
ASSEMBLY BILL 448 - Revises exemption from business tax for proposed businesses. (BDR 32-954)
ASSEMBLY BILL 456 - Makes various changes to provisions governing business tax. (BDR 32-93)
Chairman Price called on Assemblyman Chris Giunchigliani to open testimony on AB 421. Ms. Giunchigliani, Assembly District 9, stated the purpose of AB 421 was to clarify language from last session. It would correct and change the due date for the business tax to the last day of the first month following the end of the payroll quarter. She appealed to the members since this type of change was in three of the six bills being considered, regardless of any other changes which might be adopted in the business tax, this change be effected as it directly benefited Nevada's employers.
In response to a question from Mr. Haller, Ms. Giunchigliani stated the active language change was located in Section 1, lines 3, 4 and 5.
Chairman Price questioned the audience to see if there were any objections to this change in the business tax law. No one indicated opposition to such a change.
Ms. Giunchigliani also asked for the committee's support of AB 405, a bill she cosponsored.
Chairman Price asked Brian Harris, legal counsel for the Governor's Office, and Perry Comeaux, Executive Director of the Department of Taxation to present testimony on AB 418 and to make comment on any other issues they wished to address.
Mr. Harris read from his prepared remarks attached as Exhibit I.
In response to a question from Mrs. Williams, Mr. Harris stated the definition of small business could vary, but he felt companies with two or three employees generally had smaller revenues.
Responding to a question from Mr. Marvel, Mr. Harris yielded to Mr. Comeaux to explain how the four-employee criteria had been established within AB 418. Mr. Comeaux, Executive Director of the Department of Taxation, stated the four-employee level had tentatively been established to make the bill potentially revenue neutral. Therefore, they had calculated how much tax revenue would be generated by removing the cap and assessing a flat $25 per employee fee. Then they projected those figures based on how employment figures had been reported to the department, broken down by number of employees per business. As a result the four-employee level had best suited the revenue-neutral formula.
Mr. Comeaux estimated exempting businesses with four or fewer employees would decrease revenue by $3.6 million in the first year versus the total revenue increase, estimated at $3.3 million, generated by elimination of the cap and going to a flat fee. The projected net difference was a $300,000 revenue loss in the first year. However, the adjusted numbers which came from revised ESD figures increased the net revenues expected by approximately $244,000 which effectively made the bill revenue neutral. In light of estimated growth in employment, the second year potentially could have a revenue increase estimated at $300,000.
Mr. Marvel asked why the 1991 estimates for this tax had fallen so short of projections. Mr. Comeaux stated he felt the primary reason for the shortfall was the poor economy and the related lag in employment, added to several other factors which did not develop as planned. He also responded to Mr. Marvel's question regarding computer capability by explaining the current computer system in the department was not helpful in anything other than compilation of basic statistical information, as it did not have an automatic tax return processor. He added it was his hope to have a data processing project in place by the end of July which would provide the department with expanded capability. He said currently the department relied most heavily on information generated by ESD for reasonableness checks on its manually generated figures.
Responding to Mr. Neighbor's question as to tax return due dates, Mr. Comeaux stated the bill had established the fifteenth day of the month following the end of the fiscal quarter because that was the date by which employers had been paying their tax. He felt there was no need to extend the due date because it could potentially slow collection of taxes due. However, he had not estimated how much interest might be lost by changing the due date to the thirtieth day of the next month following the end of the fiscal quarter as proposed in other bills under discussion. He also stated, for the convenience of the taxpayers, it was worth considering changing the due date to the last day so it corresponded to the due dates for sales tax, ESD and SIIS.
Mr. Marvel asked Mr. Comeaux how many companies and how many employees would be affected by lifting the cap. Mr.Comeaux indicated seven companies would be affected, six from gaming and one non-mining, non-gaming company. He did not have the exact number of employees.
Assemblyman Scott Scherer, District 2, testified as sponsor of AB 456. He explained the bill addressed four issues. It eliminated the cap, replaced the sliding scale with a $25 full-time equivalent employee per quarter tax rate, changed the due date to the last day of the month following the fiscal quarter, and changed the formula used to calculate full-time equivalent employees (using 36 hours as the standard for an equivalent employee) to one which was more easily calculated. In closing, he stated he would not object to the amendments to be proposed by Carole Vilardo which would address timekeeping requirements for part-time employees.
Dennis Schreiner, owner of Adventureland Christian Preschool, told the committee members it was important they realized how day-care companies differed from other businesses. They were labor intensive, not by choice but by mandate of statute. He was, therefore, before the committee to speak in support of AB 405 and any other measure which would help curb the ever increasing burden of taxation on his business. He explained he paid for approximately 4.9 employees per quarter at a rate of $175, together with Employment Security and other payroll taxes which had doubled over the past year or two. He stated he had been in business for thirteen years, and he did not oppose paying taxes on his business so long as those taxes were reasonable. He felt there were many people within the state who were running illegal, unreported businesses in order to avoid responsibility for the paperwork required and payment of the ever-increasing taxes. He was, therefore, not supporting the idea of exempting businesses with two or four employees because everyone should pay their fair share. Exempting a set number of employees would, again, encourage illegal business practices.
As an aside, Mr. Schreiner expressed his frustration with state officials saying they did not have proper programs for their computers to properly track and analyze taxes owed or collected from employers and the tax impact of specific taxes on small businesses. His primary dissatisfaction with the present trend in state government was he saw it as an inverted ice cream cone where nothing was coming down through the system for the small business owner. He felt the imposition of the business tax was a prime example.
In conclusion Mr. Schreiner reiterated child care centers were in a unique position because they could be closed if they did not meticulously adhere to the employees/per child ratios mandated by existing law, whereas other businesses could, theoretically, leave one person in charge of an entire business without recourse.
Assemblyman Vivian Freeman, District 24, spoke as sponsor of AB 405. She reviewed the proposal in Section 1 which would provide credit toward taxes paid by employers who either provided in-house child care or who subsidized outside care for children of employees. In Section 2, she explained child care providers would be exempted from the business tax. She said provisions in this section would level the playing field for small employers, especially child care providers. In Section 3, she noted the bill eliminated the cap and the bracketing. She concluded by saying if the bill was passed and ended up being revenue generative, perhaps those increased funds could be used to leverage federal funding for the purpose of child care.
Chairman Price asked Mrs. Freeman if it was her intention, by the language on page 2, lines 1-3, to restrict the credit only to people who "work outside the home." Mrs. Freeman said she believed that language was included by the bill drafters office. It was not her intent to restrict its application.
Mrs. Freeman introduced Ms. Lynn Atcheson, Vice President of Communications and Public Affairs for Washoe Health System and Washoe Medical Center. Ms. Atcheson testified as to the positive effects of this type of legislation and the substantial benefits to companies which provided child care assistance to their employees. Her written testimony is attached and marked as EXHIBIT J. There were no questions from the committee on conclusion of her testimony.
Next to speak was Jim Pilsner, Chairman of the Reno Planning Commission, and owner of Nevada Office Machines, Reno. He spoke in favor of AB 405. He stated the choices faced by single parents today were not good choices. He said he had come to grips with the fact small businesses had to pay the business tax although he did not favor it. He continued to say the aspect of current law which most penalized small business and children was the inordinate tax burden it put upon day-care providers. Most people had difficulty paying for day care at previous rates, and together with the increase related to this business tax, day care services had become even less affordable to those who needed them most. Being able to provide a tax credit to employers who participated and exempting day-care providers would encourage better, more affordable child care.
Mr. Pilsner concluded by saying Nevada was a mining state and he felt the state should do a better job mining the potential which could be provided by Nevada's most precious natural resource, its children.
Next to speak in support of AB 405 was Mary Leonard Conklin, R.N., President of the Junior League of Reno, whose written testimony is attached as EXHIBIT K. She said, in part, this bill was the first effort she had seen on the part of government to support businesses who wanted to support their employees' families. She added she realized legislation which was preventive in nature was not easily enacted. She concluded her remarks by saying this bill provided Nevada's parents and children with an opportunity to succeed.
Ms. Bobbie Gang testified on behalf of the Nevada Women's Lobby and its affiliated organizations in support of AB 405's provisions which allowed businesses to offer child care as a benefit of employment. She submitted to the committee a position card provided by the Nevada Business and Professional Women's association which highlighted child-related issues which is attached as EXHIBIT L. She stated the card illustrated how many organizations within the community were acutely interested in affordable child care for Nevadans. She added, in states where employer sponsored child care had been implemented, it had benefitted both employers and employees.
Ms. Gang introduced Ms. Diane Williams, a member of the Executive Committee of the Northern Division of the Nevada Women's Lobby.
Ms. Williams' written testimony is attached as EXHIBIT M. She read from her prepared text.
Next to address the committee in support of AB 405 was Ms. Pam Alvey, Advocacy/Public Affairs Chairperson for the Junior League of Reno. Her written remarks are attached as EXHIBIT N. She commented by giving business the opportunity to help employees with child care, many doors were opened for improvement in absenteeism, interpersonal relationships and increasing morale for employers and employees, thereby creating a more productive work force and better child care opportunities.
Carole Vilardo, Executive Director, Nevada Taxpayers Association, spoke in opposition to AB 405. She stated although no one denied the validity of the remarks made by previous speakers, she had to point out some matters of policy. Her first point was a general comment: exemptions erode any tax base because a smaller number of taxpayers means, necessarily, a larger tax obligation for those who must pay the tax. The legislature had never addressed what the criteria for exemption from tax should be. She stated she had previously testified in opposition to a bill in the Senate which also exempted child care facilities, for the same reasons, although the Senate bill was not as extensive as AB 405.
Elaborating, she said the legislature enacted taxes to finance government and provide necessary services. When exemptions were made to a tax, the base was eroded and remaining taxpayers paid a greater share of the tax due to generate the expected revenue. She explained the bill also assumed if child care facilities were exempted, those facilities would pass such savings on to their clients by reducing rates. There was no guarantee such a reduction would occur. It might very well be an erroneous and fallacious assumption. If the idea was to make child care affordable, as a policy decision of the legislature, then there should be a mechanism put into place whereby the criteria were set and a means test established, so the state would accept responsibility for such services. Subsequently, there could be exemptions, credit or rebates written into such law.
Secondly, she stated the bill provided if an employer furnished child care facilities on premises, the employer would be eligible for the credit. However, since more than 70 percent of the businesses within the state employed fewer than nineteen people, it would be very doubtful small employers could provide child care for their employees. As a result, it would be setting up an exemption for only a few large employers and would be discriminatory to other taxpayers.
She concluded, while the intent was meritorious, she felt the vehicle and the mechanism chosen within the bill to provide child care were erroneous. She would therefore ask the committee not to consider it.
Chairman Price explained one of the largest concerns of the committee this session was going to, hopefully, result in a resolution being adopted which would call for a study on tax policy. The study would address the difficulties which had arisen over the years relative to the lack of consistent policy positions, exemptions, taxing and special assessment districts and other tax matters. Such a study would potentially result in a better, more consistent taxation system through revisions enacted during next session.
Mrs. Freeman rebutted Ms. Vilardo's comments by adding the intent of the bill was not that the employers had to provide in-house child care. She explained the employer could provide child care assistance in many forms, in-house, a voucher system, or direct assistance whichever was agreeable to both employer and employee.
Mrs. Lambert stated she felt this bill might provide more of an incentive than expected since the potential credit was either one-half the net expense or business tax liability, whichever was less. Mrs. Freeman affirmed it encouraged employers to participate in sustaining child care programs for their employees.
Perry Comeaux testified additionally, there had been no request for preparation of a fiscal note on AB 405. However, the department estimated removal of the cap on the business tax would increase revenues by approximately $4.5 million per year from the seven capped companies. Exempting child care providers from liability for the tax would result in a revenue decrease of about $240,000 per year, based on 166 child care provider companies with some 2,400 employees. In concert, those two changes would result in a net increase of $4.260 million. He added they could not accurately estimate the impact of the proposed credit, however, because it directly depended on the extent to which companies participated. Such a credit could wipe out part or all of the potential net increase. He said the department would provide written comments on the fiscal impact as soon as possible. Chairman Price stated he would appreciate receiving those comments.
Louise Helton, Senior Legislative Representative for the Junior League of Las Vegas, voiced support for AB 405 and those who had previously testified in support of the bill. She explained child care in Nevada was in crisis, whether trying to find it or pay for it. She felt infant care was most critical. This bill, she said, was most exciting in that it provided opportunities for subsidized day care. But, she hoped it would not eliminate the choice of a family-based day-care setting from qualifying for assistance as they were one of the best choices for infant care. She felt the voucher system would be a most effective system.
There was no further testimony on AB 405. Chairman Price called for testimony on AB 418.
Steve Stucker, General Counsel for Laughlin Associates and representative for Nevada Association of Independent Business (a group of approximately 800 independent businesses statewide), was first to speak on behalf of AB 418. He stated the business tax was not their favorite tax, it stifled growth and creation of new jobs and removed expansion capital. However, this bill would make the best of a bad situation, excluding businesses with four or fewer employees, using an even tax for all employers, and removal of the caps, thereby equalizing the burden. They also supported the extension of the due date, as proposed in AB 421.
Mr. Stucker added, on behalf of Laughlin Associates, he proposed an amendment to rectify an inequity which they thought existed in AB 418, page 2, lines 37 and 38 which would remove the word "unincorporated". He said there were some 12,000 corporations filed in Nevada each year and many of those corporations were small corporations. He felt without such an amendment those small corporations were unduly penalized.
Harvey Whittemore, Esq., partner in Lionel, Sawyer and Collins, representing Nevada Resort Association, appeared to testify on various business tax bills, together with Richard Bunker. Mr. Whittemore said he felt it was important to keep in mind where the legislature had started three to four years ago when it tried to establish a broad-base business tax. He said prior to the 1991 session, concerned business leaders from private industry and gaming had met with the governor and members of the legislature to devise a plan to broaden the tax base in Nevada.
That process resulted in the implementation and adoption of Chapter 364A, which was not exactly what the governor had originally proposed. The governor had originally proposed imposition of a business tax based upon payroll with gaming entities receiving a major credit for the taxes they already paid under NRS 463. He said it was important to understand why the caps had been placed in 364A and why the exemptions were created. In effect, he said, gaming had stepped to the plate and accepted, once again, a disproportionate burden compared to other employers in the state as a result of its willingness to go along with NRS 364A. He added, gaming was assured the larger gaming institutions which funded a large portion of the budget through gaming taxes would be given some credit.
While they understood the governor's position on AB 418, i.e. small businesses should be entitled to some tax relief in tough times, he felt such a position ran contrary to the original idea of broadening the tax base in Nevada. Granting those exemptions would put an even heavier tax burden and reliance on the largest (primarily gaming) institutions in the state. If the committee chose to process legislation which removed the "inequities" in the tax brackets, he said he hoped it would recognize the following factors: 1) with the removal of the caps it would place an additional tax burden of approximately $4.5 million on the largest employers in the state, seven of which were gaming; and, 2) it would give a tax break to those companies which have traditionally not paid their fair share.
Mr. Whittemore pointed out the Nevada Resort Association was not opposed to the removal of the caps, so long as it was in concert with the development of a tax policy which was equitable and fair. He added the comments of Mr. Stucker were exemplary of the battle which had been waged last session to not include those who chose to be incorporated from the exemption from the tax, thereby reducing again the base of the tax.
Regarding the due date for the payment of the tax, he read from NRS 364A.140, as follows: "A tax is hereby imposed upon the privilege of conducting business in this state. The tax must be paid on or before the last day of each calendar quarter on the basis of the average number of employees in the previous calendar quarter." The tax had not been intended to be paid on the last day of the quarter for which the quarterly report was made. How the situation had been altered was unknown to him. He said the Resort Association had no problem with cleaning the language up to reflect its original intent, as suggested in AB 418 or 421.
Concluding his remarks, Mr. Whittemore indicated their belief that in the event the caps were removed there should be some consideration of increasing the rate per employee on other than gaming businesses in order to somewhat offset or balance the disproportionate tax burden on gaming due to the industry gaming taxes.
Mr. Schneider posed the question, "Mr. Whittemore, what you are telling me is that the Resort Association isn't opposed to removing the caps at the ends ... the sliding scale for employees, but for small business the first four employees of a small business you think they should be paying the same rate as your employees?"
Mr. Whittemore replied, "I think the Resort Association's position is clear. And that is, that with respect to the bracketing which took place ... the reason why the brackets were imposed was to generate specific dollar amounts in each of the brackets. The need for doing that goes away, I believe, clearly this year, because of - number one - concerns about inequity. And so the Resort Association would be in favor of all employers from employee one all the way to the end being charged the same rate ... all the way through so that there is no bracketing and no caps. If ... if (emphasized) the caps are removed in concert with the development of an equitable tax policy, i.e. maintaining no exemptions or only those exemptions which you would deem appropriate. Okay? So there's an equity issue there. And, more importantly it has to be done in concert with the fact that there aren't additional taxes which are being imposed upon gaming.
Mr. Schneider: "Thank you."
Mr. Price then followed by saying, "Let me ask a question right there. When you say gaming, you mean gaming as a specific industry, as opposed to a tax which might apply to everyone?"
Mr. Whittemore said, "Yes, sir. Again, what we are hopeful for is an expression of legislative policy in recognition that gaming is, in fact, and has paid more than its fair share. And that it is important to continue the policy of at least hoping to broaden the tax base."
Mr. Marvel asked what Mr. Whittemore meant by "balance." Mr. Whittemore elaborated by saying he felt it was too early to suggest amendment language because there were so many business tax bills being considered. However, he hoped the amendments would reflect no brackets, removal of the caps, and any decisions which were made with respect to funding would be looked at in an equitable fashion. A brief discussion followed.
Next to speak was James Thorpe, owner of Hillside Mobile Home Park in Carson City. He spoke in support of AB 418. He indicated he was against any more taxes. He told the committee he currently had one and one-half employees. He also occasionally hired high school kids for cleanup, and he hated to have to turn them away because of the tax burden they represented.
Lucille Lusk, Nevada Coalition of Conservative Citizens, next to speak, stated it was their position the business tax should be repealed. However, if there was no opportunity for repeal, then they would support a flat rate per employee with no brackets and no caps. They believed the brackets created a disincentive for growth, resulting in lost jobs, and loopholes. The existence of exemptions created an air of unfairness regardless of its application. Her association had also polled its members and found a general confusion relative to the process used in calculating the average wage for part-time employees. She pointed out for every exemption granted, someone else had to make up the difference in order to generate the desired revenue level.
Ms. Lusk stated they were in support of AB 421. They also supported AB 456 as the best bill of those proposed because it did eliminate the brackets, the cap, and it addressed the confusion with part-time employees by using full-time equivalents (a very important factor to her clients). She did not, however, know why 36 hours had been used as a standard and requested a full 40-hour week be used as the standard. She said AB 456 also addressed the extension of time to file.
Chairman Price asked Ms. Lusk if she would provide some written generalized language as to how the bills could be rolled together to address all the issues she had covered.
Chairman Price reminded everyone, again, of the meeting to be held in Las Vegas on April 30 at the Clark County School District Office.
Mr. Neighbors expressed his concern to Ms. Lusk by saying if small employers were not exempted, he felt many would be unduly burdened by having to pay these taxes. He thought in some instances many would be unable to continue business and there could be a loss of jobs and other tax revenues. It might also discourage new businesses from beginning in the state. Ms. Lusk responded by telling Mr. Neighbors she felt the problem of setting any arbitrary number, such as four employees, was that those companies which had five employees felt the tax was inherently unfair. Finally, she stated she agreed with his comments which were the same arguments her association used to support repeal of the business tax.
Bonnie James, Las Vegas Chamber of Commerce, reiterated any tax should be a broad-based tax without exemptions which was fair and equitable to all. She countered previous testimony by noting some small businesses with only a few employees were not "mom and pop" businesses, necessarily. Some companies with few employees could generate large gross revenues and probably would not be struggling for survival. After the bills have all been heard, she said the Chamber would review the resultant proposed legislation and would then take a firmer position on the issue.
Mr. Neighbors said he did not believe any tax was "fair," but he felt this tax created a real burden on some businesses and felt there should be some kind of an exemption to it. Mrs. Lusk referred to Mr. Dini's bill, AB 394, which exempted two employees across the board for everyone, making it more equitable.
Chairman Price asked Perry Comeaux if he would clarify why the due date, mentioned by Mr. Whittemore, had been changed. Perry Comeaux replied there had been confusion over the language in the original bill. Two things had convinced the department the intent was not to have payment due at the end of the quarter following the quarter in which a liability was developed. First point, there had been four quarters of revenue built into the budget projections and, most compelling, the fact the controller would not accrue a tax which was due beyond the fiscal year end. Additionally, there was some conflicting language within the statute regarding proration of tax for a business which came into existence within a quarter if it paid the tax within the quarter. It did not refer to the following quarter. The department changed the effect of the statutory language by regulation to coincide with the department's determination. It was interpreted the legislature must have meant the three months immediately preceding the due date.
Mr. Neighbors asked Mr. Comeaux if all the money generated by the business tax was set aside for the Distributive School Account within the General Fund. Mr. Comeaux replied negatively, stating proceeds went directly into the General Fund for the general support of government.
In answer to another question posed by Mr. Neighbors, Mr. Comeaux told Mr. Neighbors currently, on average, 500 businesses a month went out of business in Nevada, some of which were not small.
There being no further business to come before committee, the meeting was adjourned at 3:33 p.m.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:
LINDA CHANDLER LAW
Committee Secretary
??
Assembly Committee on Taxation
Tuesday
April 20, 1993
Page: 1