I am writing today to announce the closure of the New Mexico Independent. After three and a half years of operation in New Mexico, the board of the American Independent News Network, has decided to shift publication of its news…
While environmental activists played their part yesterday during demonstrations at the capitol building, going so far as to dress up as solar panels and to sing the tune of “You Are My Sunshine,” their counterparts, the anti-cap-and-trade contingency who has…
Roughly one quarter of University of New Mexico students are unimpressed with the state’s flagship public school, according to a survey that questioned college students about their higher education experiences.
By a 7 to 4 vote, a Senate panel killed legislation that would have altered the way the state collects its corporate income tax.
Called combined reporting, the bill (Senate Bill 8)sponsored by Santa Fe Democrat Peter Wirth would require multi-state companies with stores in New Mexico to pay taxes on income earned here.
As it is now, large, multi-state corporations often designate individual stores as subsidiaries that then make large payments to a home office in another state for use of, say, a logo. Those large payments funnel earned corporate income out of New Mexico that should be taxed here, the sponsor, Wirth has said. He says it’s a loophole that gives big corporations a leg up on local businesses.
Opponents, however, say that requiring combined reporting now would send an anti-business message to corporations and industries at a time when New Mexico should be doing everything to entice businesses to relocate here or expand their operations.
Lobbyist Dick Minzner, in a guest op-ed in the Albuquerque Journal today, said that combined reporting legislation isn’t the best way to get at corporate tax avoidance, which he acknowledges may occur.
Minzner wrote:
Most separate reporting states, but not New Mexico, have passed “add back” statutes to eliminate the tax effect of such transactions in certain cases. To prevent the shifting of income it regards as illegitimate, New Mexico could pass such “add back” legislation.
Sen. Majority Leader Michael Sanchez, D-Belen, said he had heartburn voting that Wirth’s legislation was not relevant to the special legislative session agenda.
“This is the hardest for me,” Sanchez said, referring to all the bills before the Committee on Committees on Sunday. “I’ve supported this. I think this bill is really important.”
Added Sen. Minority Leader Stuart Ingle, R-Portales: “I think it is something that we need to look at in the 30-day session.”
Sanchez said that while he was voting against the bill’s relevance Sunday, it did not mean that he would vote the same way if it came up on the Senate floor.
He said he might vote for it if that happened.
Sanchez on several occasions Sunday said that while the Committee on Committees ruled pieces of legislation not germane to the special session, they likely will come up for debate before the full Senate later.
The committee ruled several pieces of legislation not germane to the special session, including one that would increase the income tax rate on the state’s highest earners and one that would close an exemption that soft drinks currently enjoy to the state gross receipts tax.
The panel also ruled that the tax expenditure report legislation was not germane to the special session. I had incorrectly reported earlier that that piece of legislation had passed the panel.
