Introduced by Rep. John Stakoe (R) on December 3, 2003, to exempt for five years a "qualified start-up business" from the "neighborhood enterprise zone specific tax" which is levied in lieu of property tax on firms located in a "neighborhood enterprise zone." A "qualified start-up business" is defined as a firm that has fewer than 25 full-time equivalent employees, has annual sales of less than $1 million, has research and development expenses that make up at least 15-percent of its annual expenses, and is not publicly traded. This does not necessarily apply only to new firms, and the five year exemption is not necessarily the firm's first five years of operation.
Referred to the House Tax Policy Committee on December 3, 2003.
Reported in the House on April 21, 2004, with the recommendation that the substitute (H-2) be adopted and that the bill then pass.
Substitute offered in the House on April 27, 2004, to replace the previous version of the bill with one that makes the tax break contingent on approval by the local government, and incorporates certain additional restrictions and requirements designed to more narrowly target the tax breaks at certain kinds of businesses, and make it harder for non-targeted firms to make themselves eligible by changing their business structure. The substitute passed by voice vote in the House on April 27, 2004.
Amendment offered by Rep. Lorence Wenke (R) on April 27, 2004, to tie-bar the bill to House Bill 5331, meaning this bill cannot become law unless that one does also. The amendment passed by voice vote in the House on April 27, 2004.
Referred to the Senate Economic Development, Small Business and Regulatory Reform Committee on April 28, 2004.
Reported in the Senate on May 11, 2004, with the recommendation that the bill pass.
Passed 37 to 0 in the Senate on May 13, 2004, to exempt for five years a "qualified start-up business" from the "neighborhood enterprise zone specific tax" which is levied in lieu of property tax on firms located in a "neighborhood enterprise zone." A "qualified start-up business" is defined as a firm that has fewer than 25 full-time equivalent employees, has annual sales of less than $1 million, has research and development expenses that make up at least 15-percent of its annual expenses, and is not publicly traded. This does not necessarily apply only to new firms, and the five year exemption is not necessarily the firm's first five years of operation. Who Voted "Yes" and Who Voted "No"
1) Rep. Accavitti's "no vote explanation" by Admin003 on April 29, 2004 Rep. Accavitti, having reserved the right to explain his protest against the passage of the bill, made the following statement:
"Mr. Speaker and members of the House:
I voted no on the companion package of bills to HB 5331 which were deemed to assist 'start-up' businesses (HB 5335, 5341-43, 5345; SB 863, 865, 867, 872, 875) because they will actually amount to very little in terms of tax relief to business but will cost the state treasury up to $15 million at a time when, if revenues are not increased, significant reductions will have to take place in programs to seniors, education and health care.
The bills also have the potential of undermining existing economic development programs and incentives and pitting local units against each other in the race to land businesses. Local units will again be forced to choose."
2) Rep. Jamnick's "no vote explanation" by Admin003 on April 29, 2004 Rep. Jamnick, having reserved the right to explain her protest against the passage of the bill, made the following statement:
"Mr. Speaker and members of the House:
I voted no on this package of bills (SB 863, 865, 867, 872, 875 and HB 5335, 5341, 5342, 5343, 5345) because they have the potential to continue to reduce revenues in the School Aid Fund as well as State and local governments. It also creates another opportunity where our communities will be competing against one another for business locations."
3) Rep. Meisner's "no vote explanation" by Admin003 on April 29, 2004 Rep. Meisner, having reserved the right to explain his protest against the passage of the bill, made the following statement:
"Mr. Speaker and members of the House:
Supporting small businesses in their infancy is an important goal. However, piling more and more tax exemptions onto the $27 billion in tax expenditures that the state of Michigan gave away last year is a mistake. Prior to adding new tax breaks to the tax code, which already has more holes than Swiss cheese, we should undertake a comprehensive review of the tax breaks we've already given to see if they've lived up to their billing. If they haven't, they should be repealed and replaced. This legislative package is putting the cart before the horse."