|
Help save yourself
— join CLT
today! |
CLT introduction and membership application |
What CLT saves you from the auto excise tax alone |
Ask your friends to join too |
Visit CLT on Facebook |
CLT UPDATE
Wednesday, June 17, 2015
The Senate vs. Taxpayers
|
The legal battle between the Massachusetts House
and Senate over the constitutional authority to raise taxes in this
year's budget hinges on interpretations of a 137-year-old Supreme
Judicial Court advisory opinion.
CommonWealth Magazine
Thursday, June 11, 2015
What's a money bill?
By Bruce Mohl
The state's top court ruled in favor of the
Senate on Monday, finding that proposed House policies had in fact
made the fiscal 2016 budget bill a "money bill" and allowed the
Senate to attach major tax reforms, including a suspension of the
income tax rollback and an increase in tax credits for low-income
families.
The advisory opinion, which was unsealed and read
aloud by the clerk during Monday's House session, clears the way for
the Senate's tax reform plan to become a part of ongoing budget
negotiations between a six-member House and Senate conference
committee.
The Supreme Judicial Court, in its opinion signed
by all seven justices, found that the House's decision in its
version of the budget to delay the implementation of a business tax
break and expand a tax credit for land conservation opened the door
for the Senate to propose additional tax policy changes.
"We are of the view that the House bill was a
money bill, and that the Senate did not improperly originate a money
bill," the justice's wrote in a 28-page advisory opinion....
While it's a significant opinion, the court's
verdict does not guarantee that any of the Senate's tax policy
changes will make it into the final budget that a conference
committee hopes to send to Gov. Charlie Baker's desk by the end of
June.
State House News Service
Monday, June 15, 2015
SJC opinion: For tax purposes state budget is "money bill"
The Supreme Judicial Court on Monday answered
the "money bill" question hanging over state budget
deliberations in favor of the Senate, but that chamber's major
tax reform proposals still face significant hurdles if they're
to reach the governor's desk.
The court's advisory opinion, while a
short-term political victory for Senate President Stanley
Rosenberg, immediately shifts the focus to private conference
committee negotiations between the House and Senate over a
roughly $38.1 billion state budget for fiscal 2016....
The court, in its opinion signed by all seven
justices, found that the House's decision in its version of the
budget to delay the implementation of a business tax deduction,
known as FAS 109, opened the door for the Senate to propose
additional tax policy changes. The delay, the justices wrote,
increases the amount of revenue the state can expect to collect
in fiscal 2016.
Because the business tax deduction delay made
the House budget bill a "money bill," the justices said they did
not "express a view" on whether the expansion of a land
conservation tax credit would have also made the House budget a
"money bill."
The idea of expanding the earned income tax
credit to benefit families at the lower end of the income ladder
remains popular among Democrats and Republicans on Beacon Hill,
though there is widespread disagreement over how to pay for such
a program....
Asked if he was open to another way to pay
for his tax cuts apart from freezing the income tax, Rosenberg
said, "I want to see an EITC and an increase in tax cuts for the
average working people by the time we finish this."
Baker said he supported "all the way" the
Senate's push to expand the EITC, but favors his recommendation
to repeal the film tax credit to help pay for the cuts.
"I think the people of Massachusetts voted to
lower the income tax to 5 percent and it's about time we lowered
the income tax to 5 percent," Baker said, later dodging an
attempt by a reporter to get him to take the next rhetorical
step of declaring his opposition to the Senate plan.
State House News Service
Monday, June 15, 2015
Court's tax opinion adds clarity, complexity to budget talks
The state’s highest court sided with the
state Senate in its inter-chamber tax dispute with the House,
declaring it had the legal authority to pass tax-changing
measures in its budget, including freezing the state’s income
tax.
The Senate, in a move to help pay for a $140
million program to expand the state’s earned income tax and
other personal tax exemptions, earlier this year approved a
measure freezing the income tax at 5.15 percent. That runs
counter to a current law, approved by voters in 2000, that would
eventually bump the tax down to 5 percent.
In an advisory opinion released today, the
Supreme Judicial Court concluded that changes the House made in
its own budget bill effectively opened the door for the Senate
to make its tax reforms....
While a victory for the Senate, it remains to
be seen if the tax changes — which also included a
Senate-proposed tax on flavored cigars and smoking tobacco —
will actually survive. House and Senate leaders are currently
hashing out differences in their budgets behind closed doors,
and both DeLeo and Gov. Charlie Baker have indicated they don’t
support the tax freeze.
The Boston Herald
Monday, June 15, 2015
SJC backs Senate in skirmish over income tax bill
The opinion marks a win for the Senate and
could give the chamber added leverage as it wrangles with the
House over taxes and more than $38 billion in spending for the
fiscal year that begins next month.
The Senate’s budget, approved in May, would
stop an automatic decrease in the state income tax and add a new
tax on some flavored tobacco products....
Baker, a Republican, opposes raising taxes
and on Monday strongly hinted he is opposed to the idea of
freezing the diminution of the income tax rate.
It remains uncertain whether the Senate’s tax
changes will make it out of the budget negotiations between the
two chambers — and if so, whether they would be subject to the
governor’s veto.
The Boston Globe
Monday, June 15, 2015
State’s highest court sides with Senate in tax fight
|
|
Chip Ford's CLT
Commentary
On Monday the state Supreme Judicial Court issued
its opinion requested by the House that the state Senate's tax hike
within its budget was legal within the state constitution.
What was apparently an inadvertent mistake by the House in its
budget bill — an attempt to put aside a
tax — opened the budget sent to the
Senate to allow changes to any and all tax policies. We hope
the House is more cautious in the future.
Regardless, state senators now must confront up
close what they are proposing. A majority of them wish to
defy their constituents again, their voters and
constituents. They hope to "freeze" the voters' income tax
rollback, for whatever is the latest rationale. We've run into
and battled these "rationales" for a quarter-century, for 25 years.
It's become too obvious over this period that we
— their constituents and voters
— have been lied to and our vote itself
does not matter to far too many of them —
unless it's to return them to their sinecures.
The fight now focuses on
the joint conference committee — and then to the Legislature in its
entirety. Will our alleged representatives in the House and
Senate respect us — or not.
Are you tired of being lied
to by those who allege they represent you? How much longer
will voters roll over and accept this disrepect?
We — sponsors of the ballot
question, signers of the petition, citizens, and a majority of the
voters — do not appreciated being disrespected.
Can you fit it into your
paradigm? Do you appreciate disrespect?
Treacherous actions should
have consequences. We will do our utmost to insure that they
do.
The State Supreme Judicial Court Opinion
|
 |
 |
|
Chip Ford |
|
|
|
|
|
CommonWealth Magazine
Thursday, June 11, 2015
What's a money bill?
By Bruce Mohl
The legal battle between the Massachusetts House and Senate over the
constitutional authority to raise taxes in this year's budget hinges
on interpretations of a 137-year-old Supreme Judicial Court advisory
opinion.
In briefs filed with the current members of the SJC, the House and
Senate agree on the basic facts of their dispute but differ on how
to interpret those facts and on the legal precedents that apply. At
stake is the legality of Senate budget amendments freezing the
state's income tax at 5.15 percent, increasing personal tax
exemptions, expanding the earned income tax credit, and taxing
flavored cigars and chewing tobacco. The Senate says its
initiatives, which together redistribute hundreds of millions of
dollars in taxes, are an attempt to address income inequality.
The dispute between the House and Senate centers on constitutional
prerogatives that trace back to the Massachusetts Constitution and
before that to English parliamentary rules. The Massachusetts
Constitution says "all money bills shall originate in the House of
Representatives; but the Senate may propose or concur with
amendments, as on other bills."
The framers of the Massachusetts Constitution gave the House
authority to initiate money bills, or taxes, because that was the
procedure followed in England, where the House of Commons was given
initial taxing authority because it was considered more
representative of the general population than the House of Lords.
House Speaker Robert DeLeo says the budget his chamber approved for
fiscal 2016 doesn't contain any tax measures, so the Senate cannot
include taxes in its proposal. But the Senate says it could include
its tax measures because the House budget contains two tax
initiatives, one that delays the effective date of a corporate tax
deduction and another that expands a tax credit given to people who
donate land to the state.
The question before the SJC is: What constitutes a tax?
The SJC addressed the question indirectly in 1878 when it was asked
by the Legislature whether a budget appropriation bill was a money
bill under the Constitution. The court determined that legislation
appropriating state funds for various purposes would not constitute
a money bill, so either branch could initiate that type of
legislation. But in making its ruling, the court spelled out what a
money bill is.
http://masscases.com/cases/sjc/126/126mass557.html
"We are of opinion that the exclusive constitutional privilege of
the House of Representatives to originate money bills is limited to
bills that transfer money or property from the people to the state,
and does not include bills that appropriate money from the Treasury
of the Commonwealth to particular uses of the government, or bestow
it upon individuals or corporations," the court wrote in its
opinion.
The opinion cited an earlier 1781 opinion of the SJC in which the
chief justice at the time defined a money bill as "a bill imposing a
direct tax on the people." That definition was given deference by
the 1878 court because all of the judges on the 1781 court had been
members of the convention that wrote the Massachusetts Constitution
in 1780.
The House, in the legal brief it filed with the current SJC, said
the 1878 SJC opinion is clear that money bills are bills that raise
revenue. Bills affecting, directly or indirectly, state expenditures
or that create or amend existing tax measures would not qualify, the
House brief said. The brief noted that deferral of a corporate tax
deduction does not raise money and the expansion of a tax credit
would actually result in the state receiving less tax money.
http://massinc.wpengine.netdna-cdn.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/2015/06/House-of-Representatives-Amicus-Brief-SJC-11883-21.pdf
The Senate in its brief said the House's interpretation of the 1878
opinion is too literal, "limiting money bills to legislation with
the actual effect of increasing taxes. But there is no reason to
read the justices' advice in that crabbed fashion, especially when
it could lead to further disputes."
http://massinc.wpengine.netdna-cdn.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/2015/06/Senate-Money-Bill-Amicus-Brief-FINAL-2.pdf
The Senate brief notes the Legislative Drafting Manual, agreed to by
both branches as recently as 2010, states that a money bill may
either "reduce general state tax revenue or increase state tax
revenue." The deferral of the corporate tax deduction contained in
the House budget effectively prevents the loss of nearly $46 million
in state revenue and the expansion of the tax credit for donating
land to the state has the potential to reduce state revenue by up to
$3 million.
The Senate brief noted the definition of a money bill contained in
the Legislative Drafting Manual is supported by federal appeals
court decisions from 1985 dealing with the US Constitution, which
has a similar clause giving the House authority to initiate money
bills. The federal decisions point out, perhaps with a nod to
supply-side economics, that it is not always clear whether a tax
measure will result in increased revenues.
"The simplest solution to this potential morass is the same one the
federal courts have adopted: interpret the money bill clause to
include all legislation intended to affect state revenue," the
Senate brief concludes.
But the House, in its brief, said the federal appeals court
decisions should be ignored because they conflict with the previous
opinions of the SJC and holdings of the US Supreme Court and the
First Circuit Court of Appeals.
The SJC justices, in making their ruling, will have to decide
whether their predecessors from a different era or more modern-day
federal justices should be given deference.
State House News Service
Monday, June 15, 2015
SJC opinion: For tax purposes state budget is "money bill"
By Matt Murphy
The state's top court ruled in favor of the Senate on Monday,
finding that proposed House policies had in fact made the fiscal
2016 budget bill a "money bill" and allowed the Senate to attach
major tax reforms, including a suspension of the income tax rollback
and an increase in tax credits for low-income families.
The advisory opinion, which was unsealed and read aloud by the clerk
during Monday's House session, clears the way for the Senate's tax
reform plan to become a part of ongoing budget negotiations between
a six-member House and Senate conference committee.
The Supreme Judicial Court, in its opinion signed by all seven
justices, found that the House's decision in its version of the
budget to delay the implementation of a business tax break and
expand a tax credit for land conservation opened the door for the
Senate to propose additional tax policy changes.
"We are of the view that the House bill was a money bill, and that
the Senate did not improperly originate a money bill," the justice's
wrote in a 28-page advisory opinion.
The House during its budget debate did not consider any of the major
tax law changes adopted by the Senate, and the branches over the
years have been reluctant to embrace major policies adopted in one
branch but not considered in the other.
The Senate's budget proposes to expand the earned income tax credit
for low-income families to 22.5 percent of the federal credit, up
from 15 percent, over three years. Senators also approved increases
in personal tax exemptions that Democratic leaders said would result
in a tax cut for all filers in Massachusetts.
To pay for the $140 million tax plan, the Senate voted to halt the
gradual rollback to 5 percent of the state's income tax. The income
tax is currently 5.15 percent, but is currently expected to decrease
to 5.1 percent in January if certain economic triggers are hit.
"The SJC made some clarity and now it's into conference," Rep. Paul
Donato, a Medford Democrat who presided over the House session, told
the News Service.
While it's a significant opinion, the court's verdict does not
guarantee that any of the Senate's tax policy changes will make it
into the final budget that a conference committee hopes to send to
Gov. Charlie Baker's desk by the end of June.
House Speaker Robert DeLeo has said he considers the Senate's freeze
in the income tax rollback a new tax after earlier this year
swearing off new taxes in the state budget.
"I thank the Supreme Judicial Court for delivering the prompt
advisory opinion to the questions raised by the House. I appreciate
the time and consideration the Court gave to this important matter.
Work between members of the Conference Committee will proceed as we
reconcile the House and Senate budgets," DeLeo said in a statement
Monday after the opinion was released.
Rep. Keiko Orrall, a Lakeville Republican, said that even if the
Senate's tax plan doesn't survive conference talks the court's
opinion could shape the budget compromise in other ways between the
House and Senate.
"The discussion has changed with the SJC decision," Orrall said.
Andy Metzger contributed reporting
State House News Service
Monday, June 15, 2015
Court's tax opinion adds clarity, complexity to budget talks
By Matt Murphy
The Supreme Judicial Court on Monday answered the "money bill"
question hanging over state budget deliberations in favor of the
Senate, but that chamber's major tax reform proposals still face
significant hurdles if they're to reach the governor's desk.
The court's advisory opinion, while a short-term political victory
for Senate President Stanley Rosenberg, immediately shifts the focus
to private conference committee negotiations between the House and
Senate over a roughly $38.1 billion state budget for fiscal 2016.
The so-called green ribbon request by the House for an advisory
opinion from the Supreme Judicial Court and the court's response
arrived in the House on Monday.
House Speaker Robert DeLeo as recently as last week said that
regardless of the court's opinion, he considers a repeal of the
income tax rollback schedule to be a tax increase, something he
swore off when budget planning began earlier this year.
But on Monday, after the opinion was announced, the speaker stopped
short of drawing a line in the sand.
"Obviously I support the position of the House. Beyond that, a whole
host of other things are part of the budget and therefore part of
conference and I'd have to leave it at that," he told reporters
after meeting with Rosenberg and Gov. Charlie Baker.
The House requested an advisory opinion from the SJC in late May
after the Senate attached a series of tax reforms to its version of
the budget, including a new excise tax on flavored cigars and a plan
to increase the earned income tax credit and personal tax
exemptions.
To pay for the $140 million tax plan, the Senate voted to halt the
gradual rollback of the state's income tax to 5 percent. The income
tax is currently 5.15 percent, but is expected to decrease to 5.1
percent in January if certain economic triggers are hit. It could
fall further in 2017 and potentially hit the 5 percent mark in 2018.
The House expressed its "grave doubts" as to whether the Senate had
the authority to attach tax law changes to the budget, citing the
origination clause in the Constitution that requires "money bills"
to originate in the House.
The court, in its opinion signed by all seven justices, found that
the House's decision in its version of the budget to delay the
implementation of a business tax deduction, known as FAS 109, opened
the door for the Senate to propose additional tax policy changes.
The delay, the justices wrote, increases the amount of revenue the
state can expect to collect in fiscal 2016.
Because the business tax deduction delay made the House budget bill
a "money bill," the justices said they did not "express a view" on
whether the expansion of a land conservation tax credit would have
also made the House budget a "money bill."
The idea of expanding the earned income tax credit to benefit
families at the lower end of the income ladder remains popular among
Democrats and Republicans on Beacon Hill, though there is widespread
disagreement over how to pay for such a program.
Both DeLeo and Baker opposed the Senate's proposal to freeze the
income tax rate, but DeLeo also disagrees with Baker's proposal to
pay for an EITC expansion by phasing out the state's film tax credit
to encourage movie productions in Massachusetts.
Rosenberg said that under the Senate's proposal residents would get
the same $140 million tax cut that an income tax rollback would
provide in fiscal 2016, only the benefits would be shifted from
wealthier citizens to middle and low-income families.
"Everybody cares about the working people of Massachusetts. I know
they do. The governor campaigned on an increase in the EITC. The
question of how you fund it is the question on the table," he said.
Asked if he was open to another way to pay for his tax cuts apart
from freezing the income tax, Rosenberg said, "I want to see an EITC
and an increase in tax cuts for the average working people by the
time we finish this."
Baker said he supported "all the way" the Senate's push to expand
the EITC, but favors his recommendation to repeal the film tax
credit to help pay for the cuts.
"I think the people of Massachusetts voted to lower the income tax
to 5 percent and it's about time we lowered the income tax to 5
percent," Baker said, later dodging an attempt by a reporter to get
him to take the next rhetorical step of declaring his opposition to
the Senate plan.
The timing of the justices issuing their opinion pleased budget
negotiators, who now have clarity on what's in play more than two
weeks before the start of the fiscal year.
House Ways and Means Chairman Brian Dempsey said the conference
committee has been active in budget talks, including multiple
meetings and staff conversations, leading up to the opinion and had
"contemplated the decision going either way."
Though the opinion now gives Senate negotiators a few extra
bargaining chips, Dempsey said it "remains to be seen" whether the
deal can be reached before July 1, but said he's "always
optimistic."
Senate Minority Leader Bruce Tarr opposed the Senate's tax plan, but
backed the body's interpretation that it had a right to consider tax
policy.
Tarr said he was disappointed that the court decided against "fully"
exploring whether a section in the constitution, Article 63,
"exclusively governs" the budget, as well as whether tax decreases
make legislation a "money bill." He noted Senate GOP efforts in the
past to debate tax decreases have been ruled out of order.
House Minority Leader Brad Jones, who supported the House's effort
to challenge the Senate's actions on the budget, said the ruling
gives clarity for moving forward. Mentioning the justices' opinion
on the FAS 109 deduction delay, he noted that the Senate under
previous leadership might have missed opportunities in recent years
to take up tax policy in the budget.
"Obviously it creates a whole set of issues that need to be resolved
by the conference committee," Jones told the News Service. "I think
it gives more weight to the viewpoint around here that the budget
process could take longer than it has in recent years. Not ever, but
at least in recent years."
Sen. Michael Rodrigues, a Westport Democrat who sponsored one of the
Senate tax amendments, said the clarity provided by the justices of
the SJC will allow budget negotiators to engage in a back-and-forth
without "any shadow or cloud hanging over it."
"I am confident that both House and Senate conferees are going to
enter into adult negotiations and compromises, and we'll get some
victories on our side, and the House will get some victories on
their side," Rodrigues said.
DeLeo joked after the opinion came out that reporters would now be
watching closely each year to see if the House continues to delay
the start of the FAS 109 business deduction, which has never been
implemented, now that it's been made clear that it triggers money
bill status.
Rodrigues said the FAS-109 was a tax deduction the state included to
woo large multinational corporations, and he hopes the state will
finally be able to implement it at some point.
"I think it's something that eventually we would want to see
implemented. It was part of a very complicated corporate tax bill
that we passed, but right now we feel it's a very expensive tax
benefit that only applies to very few multinational corporations,"
Rodrigues said.
Gintautas Dumcius and Andy Metzger contributed reporting
The Boston Herald
Monday, June 15, 2015
SJC backs Senate in skirmish over income tax bill
By Matt Stout
The state’s highest court sided with the state Senate in its
inter-chamber tax dispute with the House, declaring it had the legal
authority to pass tax-changing measures in its budget, including
freezing the state’s income tax.
The Senate, in a move to help pay for a $140 million program to
expand the state’s earned income tax and other personal tax
exemptions, earlier this year approved a measure freezing the income
tax at 5.15 percent. That runs counter to a current law, approved by
voters in 2000, that would eventually bump the tax down to 5
percent.
In an advisory opinion released today, the Supreme Judicial Court
concluded that changes the House made in its own budget bill
effectively opened the door for the Senate to make its tax reforms.
“We appreciate the prompt and clear answers from the Justices of the
Supreme Judicial Court in their response to the request for an
advisory opinion,” a spokesman for Senate President Stanley
Rosenberg said in a statement. “This opinion allows the budget
conference committee to continue to work together and deliver an
on-time budget to the Governor.”
At issue in the case was whether the House’s version of the budget
was a so-called “money bill.” Despite hiking the tax credit
available for donations of conservation land and delaying another
tax deduction, DeLeo and the House argued that its budget didn’t
classify as one, meaning the Senate couldn’t make tax changes in its
own version of the spending plan.
The SJC disagreed, noting in its 27-page opinion that delaying the
tax deduction “effectively increases the amount of tax revenue” the
state will take in from certain corporations next fiscal year. That
measure, the SJC said, fits the necessary description of a money
bill as it “transfer(s) money or property from the people to the
State.”
“We are of the view that the House bill was a money bill, and that
the Senate did not improperly originate a money bill,” the SJC wrote
on its opinion.
Speaker of the House Robert A. DeLeo, moving just hours after the
Senate passed its version of the $38.1 billion budget, had requested
in late May for the Supreme Judicial Court to weigh whether the
upper chamber’s spending plan — and its decision to freeze the state
income tax — was constitutional.
While a victory for the Senate, it remains to be seen if the tax
changes — which also included a Senate-proposed tax on flavored
cigars and smoking tobacco — will actually survive. House and Senate
leaders are currently hashing out differences in their budgets
behind closed doors, and both DeLeo and Gov. Charlie Baker have
indicated they don’t support the tax freeze.
In a statement released this morning, DeLeo thanked the SJC for its
work, but he did not specifically address its decision.
“Work between members of the Conference Committee will proceed as we
reconcile the House and Senate budgets,” DeLeo said.
The Boston Globe
Monday, June 15, 2015
State’s highest court sides with Senate in tax fight
By Joshua Miller
The Supreme Judicial Court said Monday that the Senate was on solid
constitutional ground in pressing for changes to tax law in its
state budget proposal.
The opinion marks a win for the Senate and could give the chamber
added leverage as it wrangles with the House over taxes and more
than $38 billion in spending for the fiscal year that begins next
month.
The Senate’s budget, approved in May, would stop an automatic
decrease in the state income tax and add a new tax on some flavored
tobacco products.
The House of Representatives, which had earlier passed its own
budget plan, asked the state’s highest court to opine on whether the
Senate’s plan ran afoul of the state constitutional requirement that
all “money bills” — essentially legislation that transfers property
or money from people to the state — originate in the House.
One of the Senate’s arguments was that since the House budget
included a provision delaying the implementation of a big corporate
tax deduction, it was a money bill.
On Monday, the SJC agreed.
“[W]e are of the view that the House bill was a money bill, and that
the Senate did not improperly originate a money bill,” the justices
said in a 27-page opinion.
Delaying the implementation of the corporate deduction “effectively
increases the amount of tax revenue that the Commonwealth will
realize” in the new fiscal year, they wrote. Therefore, the House
budget was a money bill.
The opinion, submitted by Chief Justice Ralph D. Gants and the six
associate justices, was advisory in nature and answered a legal
question. But it is certain to have political ramifications as it
ripples through the power struggle between the two
Democratic-controlled legislative chambers.
The Senate, seen as more liberal, and the House have battled in
recent weeks on matters ranging from how to fix the troubled
Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority to whether to change the
rules of the legislative committee process.
They are now reconciling their respective spending plans, before
forwarding a budget to Governor Charlie Baker who can, among other
actions, veto all or part of it.
Baker, a Republican, opposes raising taxes and on Monday strongly
hinted he is opposed to the idea of freezing the diminution of the
income tax rate.
It remains uncertain whether the Senate’s tax changes will make it
out of the budget negotiations between the two chambers — and if so,
whether they would be subject to the governor’s veto.
The new fiscal year begins on July 1.
In 2000, voters passed a ballot initiative knocking the income tax
rate down from 5.85 percent to 5 percent in steps. The first ticks
downward took place at the beginning of 2001 and 2002. But then the
Legislature, facing hard economic times, froze the final tax cut and
set up a much slower diminution.
Under current law, the tax rate is set to incrementally decline from
the current 5.15 percent to 5 percent if the state meets certain
economic growth thresholds.
Senators proposed freezing the rate at 5.15 percent in order to
finance an increase in the state’s earned income tax credit, which
benefits low-income workers, and to pay for an increase in the
personal exemption available to all taxpayers.
Speaking to reporters in the State House Monday, Senate President
Stanley C. Rosenberg and Speaker Robert A. DeLeo were restrained in
their responses to the SJC opinion.
Rosenberg said the opinion affirmed the Senate was within its rights
to propose changes to tax law in its 2016 budget.
He also argued that the Senate’s proposed tax changes addressed an
important matter.
“What the Senate’s action did was put on the agenda, and bring up
for discussion, this idea that we need to address income
inequality,” Rosenberg told reporters.
DeLeo said he “felt that the House’s position was the correct one,”
but was not disappointed by the justices’ take, and is thankful they
moved quickly on the matter.
The Massachusetts Constitution gives each branch of the Legislature
the power to ask the high court justices for their opinions on
“important questions of law, and upon solemn occasions.” The House
made use of that rarely invoked prerogative in the budget matter
this year.
In a nod to an old tradition, the advisory opinion was
hand-delivered by an SJC officer to the clerk of the House, who
carefully unsealed it, then read it during a House session Monday
morning.
The opinion notes the justices of the high court have discussed the
meaning of “money bill” on three previous occasions: 1781, about a
century later, then in 1958.
|
| |
NOTE: In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. section 107, this
material is distributed without profit or payment to those who have expressed a prior
interest in receiving this information for non-profit research and educational purposes
only. For more information go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml
Citizens for Limited Taxation ▪
PO Box 1147 ▪ Marblehead, MA 01945
▪ 508-915-3665
BACK TO CLT
HOMEPAGE
|