22

Page 22 THE REVERE ADVOCATE – FRIDAY, SEPTEMBER 15, 2023 By Bob Katzen If you have any questions about this week’s report, e-mail us at bob@beaconhillrollcall.com or call us at (617) 720-1562 GET A FREE SUBSCRIPTION TO MASSTERLIST – Join more than 22,000 people, from movers and shakers to political junkies and interested citizens, who start their weekday morning with MASSterList—the popular newsletter that chronicles news and informed analysis about what’s going on up on Beacon Hill, in Massachusetts politics, policy, media and infl uence. The stories are drawn from major news organizations as well as specialized publications selected by widely acclaimed and highly experienced writers Keith Regan and Matt Murphy who introduce each article in their own clever and inimitable way. MASSterlist will be e-mailed to you FREE every Monday through Friday morning and will give you a leg up on what’s happening in the blood sport of Bay State politics. For more information and to get your free subscription, go to: https:// lp.constantcontactpages.com/su/ aPTLucK THE HOUSE AND SENATE: There were no roll calls in the House or Senate last week. TAX REDUCTION PACKAGES STILL LINGERING IN COMMITTEE - It’s been almost three months since the House and Senate created a conference committee to hammer out a compromise version of diff erent tax relief packages approved by each branch. The Senate’s package would cost the state about $590 million annually, while the House’s would cost close to $1.1 billion. There is no immediate solution in sight at the moment. This week, Beacon Hill Roll Call reviews how local senators’ votes on DEFAMATION | FROM Page 5 ed to the Leader Herald by opponents of Mr. DeMaria, correct?” asked the attorney. “Opponents and others,” replied Resnek. “Will you agree with me – if not, no problem – that you have received thousands of dollars of cash payments for the Leader Herald from individuals that you knew were opponents of Mr. DeMaria?” asked Robbins. “Yes,” replied Resnek. Atty. Robbins then asked Resnek if the information of cash payments made to the newspaper over the past several years would be on record; that Mrs. Schovanec would have that information, Resnek replied it would be. The attorney then asked Sparrow if any of records that were provided by Dorchester Publications refl ect its receipt of cash several roll calls on tax reductions. $590 MILLION TAX REDUCTION PACKAGE (S 2397) Senate 39-0, approved a package that provides $590 million in tax relief. Key provisions of the Senate package include raising the Earned Income Tax Credit from 30 percent of the federal credit to 40 percent of the federal credit; raising the cap on the rental deduction from $3,000 to $4,000; increasing from $1 million to $2 million the value of a person’s estate that is exempt from the the state’s estate/death tax that a person is required to pay following their death before distribution to any benefi ciary; increasing from $1,200 to $2,400 the maximum senior circuit breaker credit; increasing the statewide cap for the Dairy Tax credit from $6 million to $8 million; and doubling the credit for lead paint abatement to $3,000 for full abatement and $1,000 for partial abatement. The package also provides that student loan payment assistance offered by employers will not be treated as a taxable salary and gives cities and towns the option to adopt a local property tax exemption for real estate that is rented to a person below a certain area-dependent income level. (A “Yes” vote is for the $590 million tax reduction package.) Sen. Lydia Edwards Yes FILE TAXES JOINTLY (S 2387) Senate 33-5, approved an amendment that would require Massachusetts couples who fi le income tax returns jointly at the federal level do the same at the state level. payments; Sparrow replied, “no.” The CPA is then shown an exhibit of a document provided by Dorchester Publications which lists balance sheets from the years 2019, 2020 and 2022, which also lists a separate page called “cash fl ows, profi t and loss statements” and another page titled “Received Payments for All Customers” – all of which pertain to the years 2019, 2020 and 2022. Sparrow stated that he has never seen the document “Received Payments for All Customers” before or was aware that the company kept it in their ordinary course of business. The attorney points out that in the document “Received Payments for All Customers” from January through December 2020, the only cash payment was for $20 dated Jan. 21, 2020, from “Over The Counter.” In 2021, the only cash payment made was on September 23 from the “ComSupporters said this amendment will close a loophole that allows some married couples to fi le individually – an action that could be used to minimize or avoid the person’s state tax obligations under the newly approved 4 percent surtax which is in addition to the current fl at 5 percent one, on taxpayers’ earnings of more than $1 million annually. Opponents said if fi lers are forced to fi le jointly at the state level, the 4 percent surtax will apply to many more fi lers which is not what the voters approved on the November 2022 ballot question imposing the 4 percent surtax. (A “Yes” vote is for the amendment requiring joint fi ling. A “No” vote is against the amendment.) Sen. Lydia Edwards REDUCE SHORT TERM CAPITAL GAINS TAX (S 2397) Senate 5-32, rejected an amendment that would reduce the shortterm capital gains tax from 12 percent to 5 percent. Amendment supporters said that there are 26 states that currently tax short-term capital gains at a rate of 5 percent or lower, including all of our surrounding states. They noted that both the House and the governor favor the reduction. They asked why the capital gains tax or any tax imposed should be charged at a higher rate than earned income. Amendment opponents said the state cannot aff ord the $117 million loss in revenue that this tax cut would cost this year. They argued the cut would do nothing to help the costs of housing and living. (A “Yes” vote is for the reduction to 5 percent. A “No” vote is against the reduction.) Sen. Lydia Edwards No INCREASE ESTATE/DEATH TAX EXEMPTION (S 2397) Senate 5-33, rejected an amendment that would increase from $1 million to $5 million the amount mittee to Elect Stephanie Smith” for $500. and another cash payment made on September 13 for $20 from “Over The Counter.” Sparrow stated that by looking at the documents he could only identify $520 logged into the Dorchester Publications QuickBooks ledger. Asked if there was cash received by Dorchester Publications but not logged into QuickBooks, if he would not know about it, Sparrow agreed he wouldn’t. And if they took cash and paid vendors, he wouldn’t know about it. “As a tax preparer, you know that Dorchester Publications is required to list all their income, correct?” “Correct,” replied the CPA. “And if they didn’t pay taxes on that income, that would be a problem, correct?” asked Atty. Robbins. “Correct,” replied Sparrow. Yes of money that is exempt from the value of a person’s estate from the state’s estate/death tax that a person is required to pay following their death before distribution to any benefi ciary. The increase to $5 million would be implemented over ten years. Most Republicans are against any such tax and coined the name “death tax” to imply that the government taxes you even after you die. Most Democrats support the tax and call it an “estate tax” to imply that this tax is only paid by the wealthy. Amendment supporters said that Massachusetts is one of only 12 states that have an estate/death tax and that the Bay State’s is the most aggressive of the 12. They said that in light of the high value of houses, with the average home price more than $500,000, the $1 million threshold of this “unfair and regressive” tax is too low and noted the federal tax exempts the fi rst $12 million. They noted that Massachusetts is losing many residents, who move to Florida and other states where this tax does not even exist. Amendment opponents said the proposed bill already raises the exemption from $1 million to $2 million and noted that will cost $185 million. They said a hike to $5 million is excessive and unaff ordable and will cost hundreds of millions of dollars more. They noted that lowering the estate tax is not the only way to help seniors and their families and noted there are many other initiatives that help seniors. (A “Yes” vote is for increasing the exemption to $5 million. A “No” vote is against raising it.) Sen. Lydia Edwards No TAX REVENUE FROM MILLIONAIRE’S TAX (S 3) Senate 5-34, rejected an amendment that would remove a section in the budget that exempts tax revenue generated from the recently voter-approved Millionaire Tax from counting toward the allowable state tax revenue limitations, under Chapter 62F, which provides that whenever revenue collections in a fi scal year exceed an annual cap tied to wage and salary growth, the excess is returned to taxpayers. Last year, $3 billion in refunds were returned to taxpayers when the law was triggered for just the second time since its passage in 1986. The revenue from the Millionaire Tax is deposited into the new Education and Transportation Stabilization Fund. Amendment supporters said the section should be repealed because it goes against the will of the voters by excluding the new millionaire’s tax revenue from the total calculation for rebates back to the taxpayers and reducing the amount of tax relief resulting from Section 62F. Amendment opponents said the amendment will put the new revenue in jeopardy and argued this new revenue is earmarked for education and transportation and must be protected and treated diff erently than other tax revenue. (Please note what a “Yes” and “No” vote mean. The amendment was on striking the section that exempts tax revenue generated from the recently voter-approved Millionaire Tax from counting toward the allowable state tax revenue limitations. A “Yes” vote is for the amendment that favors tax revenue generated from the recently voter-approved Millionaire Tax counting toward the allowable state tax revenue limitations. A “No” vote is against the amendment and supports exempting the revenue from the allowable state tax revenue limitations.) Sen. Lydia Edwards No SEND 90 PERCENT OF CAPITAL GAINS TAX REVENUE ABOVE $1 BILLION TO THE RAINY DAY FUND (S 3) Senate 3-36, rejected an amendment that would maintain the current 90/5/5 law under which 90 percent of the capital gains tax collections exceeding $1 billion goes to the Rainy Day Fund, 5 percent to the State Retiree Benefi ts Trust Fund and 5 percent to the State Retiree Benefi ts Trust Fund. The amendment would replace a pending 60/20/20 proposal that would send, in fi scal 2024 only, 60 percent of the $1 billion excess to the Rainy Day Fund while sending 20 percent to the State Retiree Benefi ts Trust Fund and 20 percent to the State Pension Liability Fund. Amendment supporters said it is essential to provide 90 percent to the Rainy Day Fund which helps bail out the state during slow economic times when tax revenues shrink. Amendment opponents said the Rainy Day Fund is fl ush with $7 billion and argued these retiree and pension funds are currently underfunded and need some additional money for just one year. (A “Yes” vote is for maintaining the current 90/5/5 formula. A “No” vote is for the 60/20/20 formula.) Sen. Lydia Edwards No ALSO UP ON BEACON HILL ATTORNEY GENERAL CERTIFIES POSSIBLE BALLOT QUESTIONS ELIGIBLE FOR THE 2024 BALLOT – Attorney General Andrea Campbell has determined that 34 out of the 38 possible 2024 ballot question that propose new laws have met the requirements outlined in the Massachusetts constitution and are authorized to proceed to the next step in the process to get their proposed law on the ballot in November 2024. Petitioners often fi le multiple versions of a question for review in hopes of getting at least one certifi ed by the attorney general’s offi ce. The actual number of subjects addressed is only 25. Proposals include ones to change the rights and benefi ts for on-demand drivers like Uber and Lyft; require voters to show an ID in order to vote; allow cities and towns the right to impose rent control, a practice which voters banned nearly 30 years ago on a 1994 ballot question; BEACON | SEE Page 23

23 Publizr Home