• About Us
  • Activity
  • Advertising
  • Books
  • Business
  • Contact
  • Dashboard
  • EB5
  • Entertainment
  • feedback
  • Forgot Your Password?
  • Government
  • Home
  • Interviews
  • Login
  • Members
  • Meme generator
  • National
  • Nevada
  • Nevada News and Views
  • Newsmax
  • NN&V Ads
  • Opinion
  • Pick a New Password
  • Politics
  • Polls
  • Privacy Policy
  • Profile
  • Recent comments by me
  • Recent comments on my posts
  • Register
  • Submit post
  • Subscribe
  • Subscription Confirmation
  • Survey
  • Survey
  • Terms of Service
  • Today’s Top 10
  • Travel
  • Travel
  • Travel
  • Welcome!
  • Yop Poll Archive
Nevada News and Views
  • About Us
  • Contact
  • More
    • Nevada
    • Opinion
    • Business
    • Travel
    • News
    • Sports
  • Facebook

  • Twitter

  • Pinterest

  • RSS

Government

Lack of transparency at Tax Department hinders commerce tax repeal debate

Lack of transparency at Tax Department hinders commerce tax repeal debate
Chuck Muth
October 10, 2017

images.slideplayer.com

When companies get too big to operate efficiently or competently, they go out of business — but in government, such failure actually protects the ever-growing bureaucracy.

The Nevada Tax Department’s accounting policy — or lack thereof — with regard to the commerce tax is a perfect example.

The commerce tax, for a wide range of reasons, is not popular. A similar tax was previously rejected by nearly 80 percent of voters in 2014, and there’s now an effort by former state Sen. Bob Beers and State Controller Ron Knecht to have voters reject this version as well on the 2018 ballot.

Unfortunately for citizens aspiring to understand the actual merits of the repeal debate — including the impact the tax has had on certain industries — bureaucracy is getting in the way.

The issue arises from the Tax Department’s lack of transparency regarding how it accounts for commerce tax revenues.

Sure, the department will readily provide documents detailing gross annual revenues — we know, for example, that the commerce tax collected about $143 million in fiscal year 2016.

Interestingly though, and without explanation, the department doesn’t account for revenues on a by-industry basis — which seems particularly odd, given that the tax was specifically designed to collect revenues from multiple industries at different rates.

The revelation came when the Nevada Policy Research Institute requested this important industry-specific breakdown.

“We don’t currently have a report or any agency record that breaks out collections by industry, but we are looking at developing a report (as time and resources allow),” is the response the institute received after requesting, pursuant to Nevada’s public-records law, a full accounting of commerce tax revenues by industry for fiscal years 2016-17.

This lack of information is troubling because it obscures one of the most controversial aspects of the commerce tax: that it was enacted to favor — or can be tweaked to favor — certain industries over others.

Such is evident by the plain text of the law, which calls for 24 unique tax rates to be assessed, depending on “the business category in which the business entity is primarily engaged.”

The mining industry, for example, is taxed at a rate of 0.051 percent, while “educational services” are taxed at 0.281 percent — more than five times the rate for mining!

The basis for levying 24 unique rates is, ostensibly, that each industry has different “expected” margins of profit. Given the debate about repeal, the question right now is what effect has this had on those 24 different industries?

Under current policies at the Tax Department, we have no way of knowing — a baffling circumstance, given that the Department itself is tasked with levying these various rates on businesses.

As it is right now, the department’s policy hides the full impact of this unpopular tax. It’s an oversight that must be corrected immediately by publishing a by-industry accounting.

Failure to do so would indicate the department is unwilling to have an honest and comprehensive debate over repeal as the 2018 cycle nears.

Prev postNext post

Related ItemsNevadaTax Department
Government
October 10, 2017
Chuck Muth

Related ItemsNevadaTax Department

More in Government

Amodei Statement on Debt Ceiling Bill

Chuck MuthJune 1, 2023
Read More

Stone: The Truth About AB 250: Will Patients Really Benefit?

NN&V StaffMay 26, 2023
Read More

Amodei vs. Biden: Debunking Misinformation on Debt and Border Policies

NN&V StaffMay 23, 2023
Read More

Quarter-Million Dollar Ad Campaign Targets Nevada Legislators for Trapping Hispanic Families in Unsafe Schools

NN&V StaffMay 22, 2023
Read More

Lombardo’s Veto Message on AB354 (Gun Control)

NN&V StaffMay 17, 2023
Read More

Lombardo’s Veto Message on AB355 (Gun Control)

NN&V StaffMay 17, 2023
Read More
Scroll for more
Tap

Subscribe Free By Email

Looking for the best in breaking news and conservative views? Let Chuck do all the work for you! Subscribe to his FREE "Muth's Truths" e-newsletter.

* indicates required
Nevada News and Views
Nevada News & Views is an educational project of Citizen Outreach Foundation, a non-partisan IRS-approved 501(c)(3) organization. It is not associated or affiliated with any political party or group. Nevada News & Views is accessible by the public at no cost. It funds its operations through tax-deductible contributions from donors and supporters and does not accept government money or grants.

TAGS

Featured Article Nevada Politics business Muth's Truths government Muth’s Truths Opinion Government Obama Ron Knecht News Donald Trump GOP Republicans

Copyright © 2023 Citizen Outreach | Maintained by VirtualAlly

Optometrist Ally Sings: Signs, Signs, Everywhere a Sign
Issues Statement Applauding Sage Grouse Decision