Newspaper Ads from the 7 Rivers Region Classifieds from the 7 Rivers Region Jobs in the 7 Rivers Region Cars in the 7 Rivers Region Homes for Sale in the 7 Rivers Region Rental PRoperties in the 7 Rivers Region & Rivers Region Website Directory Shopping in the 7 Rivers Region
 SPONSOR LINKS
spacer

PRINT ADS

spacer
 Home > Opinion > Story

Published - Thursday, July 17, 2008

POST COMMENT | READ COMMENTS (3 comment(s))

Column: Wisconsin must examine tax fairness

   Advertisement   
Advertise Info. Website Directory
.
While taxpayers struggle to come up with the second property tax payment, a company with over $900 million in annual sales will make a windfall at taxpayers' expense.

The company, Menasha, alleged the state had unfairly charged sales tax on a software product purchased a decade ago. The state argued the sales tax was due. The Supreme Court, in a 4-3 decision, agreed with Menasha.

The state money, an estimated $265 million, could be refunded to companies, like Menasha, impacted by the court ruling that sales tax is not owed on customized computer software.

Department of Revenue Secretary Roger Ervin in a statement suggested the Legislature consider “changes to bring more clarity to our sales tax statutes” and “modernize Wisconsin’s tax code through initiatives such as the Streamlined Sales Tax Agreement.”

How does a Supreme Court decision related to sales taxes owed affect those of us writing checks for property taxes?

Our state depends on property taxes for nearly 40% of state and local revenue. Wisconsin ranks as the 9th highest in property tax. By comparison, Wisconsin ranks 33rd in sales tax. To reduce property taxes, we must consider other ways to cover the cost of services government provides or figure out how to provide less.

Part of the problem is that who pays what is not always clear. For example, at issue in the Menasha case was whether the software was customized to fit the needs of one company. For the “off the shelf” package, sales tax was due; for a custom job, sales tax was not due. This job fell somewhere in between.

The problem may be solved by changing the way our laws are written.

In January, at the Senate Tax Fairness Committee hearing, Secretary Ervin testified about who is paying taxes and who is avoiding taxes.

“States are having difficulty collecting taxes from multi-state, multi-national corporations,” the secretary said. He explained companies are structuring themselves to be competitive by finding ways to avoid paying taxes.

“There are hundreds of credits, deductions and exemptions,” Ervin said. “These practices are legal, but are they economically beneficial?”

The Secretary explained some tax credits or deductions are worth more than the benefits going to the people of the state. In some cases, the effect makes similar businesses without the tax deductions uncompetitive.

“Many states have a review process to reauthorize these credits.” he said.

Senators asked about auditing or conducting a cost-benefit study of all the credits, deductions and exemptions. The secretary encouraged such review but was realistic about staff time needed to do the work.

“We have almost no money. We have great auditors and we’d be happy to retrain them,” the Secretary shared. To conduct this type of review, Secretary Ervin said the Legislature would need to change the laws and provide funding to the Department.

The Secretary noted tools other states use may help Wisconsin. He offered suggestions that are worth pondering:

* Mandate routine studies to assess the benefits of credits, exemptions and deductions.

* Adopt the streamlined sales tax provision. Currently 11,000 major retailers volunteered to pay sales tax in Wisconsin, but our outdated laws make it difficult for these companies to pay taxes owed on internet sales.

* Set a limit on exemptions, credits and deductions. After a few years the Legislature must review and reauthorize the loopholes. How much is not being paid? How much benefit do the people gain from the company not paying taxes?

* Simplify our state taxes. Get rid most of the loopholes.

During the last budget process (including the “budget repair” bill) the state Senate passed the streamlined sales tax rules. But the provision didn’t make it through the Assembly. Had this law been in place, we may have prevented the $265 million sales tax repayment resulting from the Menasha case decision.

Budgets are tight: for citizens and for the state. We need a tax system that ensures everyone pays their fair share and no one pays too much. Getting there will take work and we can begin by giving serious consideration to Secretary Ervin’s suggestions.

Democrat Kathleen Vinehout, Alma, represents the 31st state Senate District.
.
   Advertisement   
 Tell us what you think...

 Comments »

stacked court wrote on Jul 20, 2008 10:02 PM:

" As long as you let coporations and right wing organizations pick our supreme court judges, do not be suprised when every decision goes in favor of coporate greed. "

Elk Chess wrote on Jul 19, 2008 6:03 AM:

" Senator Vinehout taxes are not "the state's money". Tax revenue is our money, the people's money that the state has taken. In the case of Menasha and many other companies money taken illegally. Basically in this case the state was attempting to apply the sales tax to labor not a product. Had the court's decision gone the other way this would have set a dangerous precedent by giving the state the ability to collect sales tax from labor and all without any legistlation to record who voted for it. How convienent this would have been for a senator. "

gpgp wrote on Jul 18, 2008 7:58 AM:

" I wonder why Vinehout doesn't mention the UNFAIR way Wisconsin taxes property. In 1995 and ever since the state has given rich farmers hugh tax breaks in every category of taxation and passed the burden on to seniors and working families. Now she wants to punish businesses. It was announced by Doyle the state is an agriculture economy and I believe those that are rich should pay their fare share. The farm community in Wisconsin receives in addition to hugh tax breaks, grants, low interest loans, subsidies and other benefits we don't hear about through the liberal media. There are other benefits the farmers receive other than money that the average person wouldn't believe. If a farmer needs help from tax payers then they should be required to ask for it just like others must do. "


The comments above are from readers. In no way do they represent the views of the Tomah Journal.

 Post a comment »

(optional)
   
Thank you for your comments! Once your comments are approved, they will appear on the site.
About Us | Advertise Online | Contact Us | Disclaimer | F.A.Q. | Privacy Policy | Requests | RSS | Webmaster | Website Directory
Copyright © 2006 The Tomah Journal. All rights reserved.
Material from this site may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or distributed. A Lee Enterprises subsidiary.