|Local Governments Have Different Opinions On House Bill 5|
|Written by Nancy Bowman|
|Wednesday, 13 March 2013 00:00|
Jon Crusey, Tipp City’s city manager, said the city has a lot of reasons to oppose House Bill 5.
Up to $100,000 a year worth.
The city isn’t alone in its opposition.
Mike Voelkl, tax administrator in New Carlisle, said that community wouldn’t lose tax income if the bill as proposed were implemented. However, it would “slap at home rule” with the state telling the locals how to administer its local income tax, he said. That helps bolster his opposition to the proposal.
Local government leaders across the state are again up in arms over a proposal to make local income tax procedures the same in each Ohio community.
Information provided during a recent Springfield Chamber of Commerce presentation on the House Bill 5 proposal emphasized municipal tax reform would mean less paperwork, better compliance and more jobs.
The impact of current rules and regulations in each community can be a nightmare for businesses that prepare and file taxes in multiple locations, proponents of this proposed change argue. They contend the complicated income tax system is a deterrent to businesses considering expansion and relocation to the state.
Governmwnt leaders argue the concept of uniform tax forms and regulations may not be a bad idea. It’s the projected loss of revenues they say would occur in many communities with the proposal that sparks opposition.
“The city is opposed to HB 5 because it is not revenue neutral and would result in a significant loss of revenue to Tipp City,” Crusey said late last week. “With the elimination of the estate tax and the reduction of Local Government Funds, we cannot afford any further forced reductions in revenue.”
Tipp City Council early this year approved a resolution saying it opposes any legislation that would enact uniformity measures to become more business friendly that is not revenue neutral.
The city, instead, supports a proposal by a number of Dayton area cities that would meet those goals of revenue neutral and uniformity, Crusey said. The Greater Dayton Area Mayors and Managers Associations have endorsed that alternative proposal.
Voelkl explained how New Carlisle differs from some other communities. “New Carlisle is a bedroom community and the majority of its tax comes from its residents. In my opinion, it (House Bill 5) wouldn’t affect bedroom communities like it would a city with a lot of industry,” he said.
He said he could understand where multiple sets of rules and regulations can be an issue for companies operating in various locations.
Voelkl said people/governments who fear revenue loss need to work with organizations such as the Ohio Society of CPAs and others opposed to the way things are today. Through that effort they could “come up with something revenue neutral, but also satisfying the desire to get more standardized rules throughout the state,” he said.
The New Carlisle council opposed a previous attempt last year at tax uniformity. Voelkl said he would expect similar action in response to the latest proposal.
“I am sure they will join other communities in opposing this. My major concern is the state telling cities, ‘You are going to do it our way,’” he said.