2007 House Bill 5253: Limit income tax deduction for depreciation

Legislation watch

Comments on this legislation Post new comment Text and Analysis Add to Watch List
Previous Next

Introduced by Rep. Andy Meisner (D) on September 19, 2007, to “decouple” the state income tax from the federal accelerated depreciation schedule adopted in 2003, meaning that taxpayers would have to calculate depreciation deductions on the basis of the previous federal schedule.
- Referred to the House Tax Policy Committee on September 19, 2007.
- Substitute offered by Rep. Andy Meisner (D) on September 24, 2007, to replace the previous version of the bill with one that revises details but does not change the substance of the bill as previously described. The substitute passed by voice vote in the House on September 24, 2007.
Passed 58 to 49 in the House on September 24, 2007, to “decouple” the state income tax from the federal accelerated depreciation schedule adopted in 2003, meaning that taxpayers would have to calculate depreciation deductions on the basis of the previous federal schedule. This would reportedly add $185 million to the amount of taxes paid by income tax filers.
Who Voted "Yes" and Who Voted "No"
Received in the Senate on September 25, 2007.
- Referred to the Senate on September 25, 2007.
- Referred to the Senate Government Operations and Reform Committee on September 27, 2007.

Most Recent Comments

Add Comment

1) you forgot to finish your by Anonymous Citizen on December 28, 2007
sentence...

it's

PLEASE VOTE REPUBLICAN.

local, state, and national.
Reply

Line

2) Jump for dimes? by Anonymous Citizen on December 28, 2007
It is obvious our Michigan government is convinced there are too many people in this state. How better to get rid of some than what they are doing, or not doing as the case may be? And it is working nicely.

Note how everyone in the legislature follows the federal lead and gets out their "rainy day" list of unimportant to idiotic things to address...between various tax hikes that are sure to invigorate our economy. Nevermind administrative costs and healthcare costs, lets outlaw those 8 or so people that we might catch jumping off a pier into Lake Michigan every summer. Lets complicate accounting for millions of dollars more to waste while the state goes deeper into the dumpster...

We see what is important to them. Please vote is all I can say.
Reply

Line

3) Useless Stupidity by Mike Hignite on September 24, 2007
This is becoming ridiculous. You are entitled to a deduction for the annual amount of wear & tear on a machine. This is a SUBJECTIVE valuation. To make it more concrete, the feds came up with a formula. As moronic legislators do, they play with this constantly with the false assumption that it might have some desireable effect on the economy.

This bill requires a separate subjective valuation for Michigan purposes. As if the value of an asset changed because it was in Michigan vs. Ohio! At best, it merely changes the speed of receiving this deduction. The total will be the same. What it does require is yet another separate calculation to keep track of, merely for Michigan purposes.

This requires separate tracking for book purposes, for federal tax, for alternative minimum federal tax, for earnings & profits related to federal tax, for MI tax purposes, not to mention a different valuation scheme altogether for personal property taxes.

Because of different values of assets, special rules are needed to calculate the effect of income taxes on income based on different valuations of an asset.

Do you citizens see any value to this silly dance at all? THERE IS NONE.

If the tax bill writers had any sense at all, they would simply require that depreciation for financial book reporting be the same as that used for federal & state tax reporting, however determined. The simplicity and time saved dancing around valuations would be incredible:

No cost of maintaining multiple asset values
No cost auditing those schemes.
No cost writing laws to temporarily encourage asset buying.
No cost writing laws to remove that encouragement
Better financial reporting (smoother income flows)
No cost to synchronize multiple jurisdictions valuations
No cost to develope 52 valuation schemes.
No boom/bust economies related to asset purchases
More useful allocation of accounting time.

Reply

Line

View Full Conversation