I am in favor of this bill which reforms the taxation of cigars in Virginia. Here's why: Tax Fairness: By capping the cigar tax at the lower of 20% of the manufacturer's sales price or $0.30 per cigar, this bill introduces a fairer taxation system, preventing disproportionately high taxes on premium or more expensive cigars, which supports equity in taxation. Support for Local Businesses: This tax cap could benefit local tobacconists and distributors by making premium cigars more competitively priced, potentially increasing sales and supporting small businesses within the state. Data-Driven Policy Making: Requiring the Department of Taxation to collect specific data on premium cigar sales allows for more informed policy decisions. This data will help understand market dynamics, aiding in crafting future tax policies that are both effective and fair. Economic Analysis: The directive for the Department to report on the fiscal impacts of the proposed tax cap or alternative rates by December 1, 2025, ensures that any changes to the tax structure are based on solid economic analysis, promoting fiscal responsibility. Consumer Choice: Lowering the potential tax burden on premium cigars could enhance consumer choice, making a broader range of products accessible to enthusiasts and collectors, boosting consumer satisfaction and market diversity. Simplification of Tax Compliance: By setting a clear cap, this legislation simplifies tax compliance for distributors and sellers, reducing the complexity of calculating taxes on varying cigar prices. Encourages Legal Sales: A reasonable tax structure might discourage the black market for cigars by making legal purchases more attractive, thereby supporting legal trade and tax collection. I support this legislation for its approach to equitable taxation, support for local businesses, data-driven policy making, fiscal analysis, enhancement of consumer choice, simplification of tax compliance, and its potential to encourage legal sales, all contributing to a more balanced and informed market for tobacco products in Virginia. No file chosen

Comments Document

The American Lung Association strongly opposes this bill. As drafted, House Bill 1572 would impose a cap in the tax rate of cigars of 20% of the manufacturer’s sale price or $0.30 per cigar, whichever is less. The American Lung Association is concerned as the proposed language is capping and decreasing the current tax rate, making premium cigars more accessible and decreasing revenue that is invested in healthcare, and tobacco cessation and prevention efforts in our state. This bill undermines the current tax structure in place and could also set a precedent which would allow other tobacco products to request similar exemptions or “carve outs” from policies and ultimately increase access and use of these dangerous products.

Anything to curb my tobacco allergies!

I am against this bill which extends and expands the housing opportunity tax credit in Virginia. Here's why: Fiscal Responsibility: Increasing the aggregate credit cap from $255 million to $1.505 billion and setting an annual cap of $250 million significantly raises the financial commitment of the state. This could lead to reduced funding for other critical state programs or services, compromising fiscal responsibility as discussed in budget constraint cases like City of Richmond v. Virginia (1976). Market Distortion: Such a substantial increase in tax credits might distort the housing market by incentivizing development in areas that might not naturally see such investment, potentially leading to overdevelopment or misallocation of resources, echoing concerns from Kelo v. City of New London (2005) about government influence on property markets. Geographic Allocation: Reserving 33% of the credits for projects in the Balance of State Pool might not align with actual housing needs or demand, potentially leading to inefficient use of tax incentives. This could be akin to the issues of equitable distribution seen in San Antonio Independent School District v. Rodriguez (1973), where equal protection was a concern. Sunset Extension: Extending the sunset date to 2030 delays the reevaluation of the program's effectiveness, which might prevent timely adjustments or termination if the program proves less beneficial or if economic conditions change, similar to the critique of long-term policy commitments in South Carolina v. Baker (1988). Subsidy Dependency: The significant expansion of this tax credit could foster dependency on government subsidies for housing development, potentially stifling private sector innovation and investment in housing solutions, raising concerns similar to those in Nollan v. California Coastal Commission (1987) regarding government overreach in private development. Administrative Burden: The increased scope and duration of the tax credit program would likely increase the administrative burden on the state, requiring more oversight, compliance checks, and potentially leading to bureaucratic inefficiencies, a concern reflected in administrative law cases like Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Corp. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. (1978). Equity and Fairness: While aimed at providing housing opportunities, the bill might inadvertently favor certain developers or areas over others, potentially leading to inequity in how tax benefits are distributed, which could conflict with principles of fairness in taxation as discussed in Welch v. Henry (1938). I oppose this legislation due to concerns over fiscal responsibility, potential market distortion, geographic allocation inefficiencies, the delay in program evaluation, the risk of subsidy dependency, increased administrative burdens, and issues of equity and fairness, advocating for a more targeted, fiscally prudent approach to housing incentives.

I am the owner of Aviation Adventures, the largest Flight School in the Commonwealth with locations at Manassas, Stafford, Winchester, Leesburg and Winchester. I also own Manassas Aviation Maintenance that provides aircraft maintenance services to aircraft throughout the Northern Virginia area. First of all, a huge Thank You to our elected representatives for making Virginia the aviation-friendly Commonwealth that it is. Our airports and aviation infrastructure far exceed that found in all neighboring states, and is a principal reason behind the economic prosperity Virginians enjoy. I am asking you to perpetuate Virginia's place at the forefront of aviation by voting in favor of HB 1729 to continue the tax exemption on aircraft parts and supplies. To help meet the demand for the global Pilot shortage, we trained and certified over 200 pilots in 2023 and again in 2024. To do that we depend on well maintained aircraft that mostly come from aircraft owners who lease their planes to us. This model only works if the revenue received exceeds the cost of operating their planes. The cost of operating aircraft has steadily risen each year. No facet of operating cost has risen more drastically than maintenance. As the availability of certified mechanics has diminished, the wages needed to recruit and retain has risen. Aircraft parts suppliers and consolidating which reduces industry inventory and competition driving up the cost of parts and supplies by as much as threefold. We have gone from raising our aircraft rental rates about once every year, to now every year, and sometimes that does not keep pace with rising costs. With the rising prices flight schools are charging for their services, it would appear that the flight school business is very lucrative. It is not. It is a very thin margin business run mostly on the passion of those involved. Rising costs continue to drive area flight schools into bankruptcy. The current tax exemption on aircraft parts has made it possible for us, other flight schools as well as individual aircraft owners to stay afloat financially. This exemption is needed to continue in order to maintain our thin margins of profitability. If flight schools are pushed over the edge, thousands of aviation jobs will be lost. Together with that, Virginia will lose the associated revenue from income tax, aircraft sales tax and fuel tax. The airports will lose fees from hangars, tie-downs and facility rental. As you consider the positive impacts of the exemption, I would ask you to eliminate the 2,400 pound floor on parts . About half of our fleet is above and half below 2,400#. Thank you for your service to this great Commonwealth and for your consideration in this job-preserving Bill.

I am submitting comments in Support of HB 1729 - Post-Covid, Dominion Aviation, located at the Richmond Executive/Chesterfield County Airport, has seen dramatic growth in the company’s Aircraft Maintenance and Repair division. In May of 2022, the company employed 6 A&P mechanics; as of January 2025, the company employs 19 aviation mechanics and as well as a support staff of 6, all based in Virginia. Total company employment is currently at 94 employees. Ninety percent of the additional 13 mechanics relocated to Virginia from outside the Commonwealth. This growth almost quadrupled our maintenance revenue as well as our divisional payroll. The main reason behind this expansion is due to our renewed focus and expansion towards turbine aircraft maintenance. The company made the decision based on what we are seeing industrywide that maintenance facilities based in states without taxes on aircraft parts were growing and those with a tax on parts were declining in revenue and personnel, and many firms were relocating to non-taxable states. By keeping the aircraft parts tax exemption, you are directly receiving additional taxes on company revenues and payroll revenues. Not to mention non-direct benefit to the local communities such as travel, hotel and other revenue related to our transient customers. Without this exemption, you would not only lose the taxes and revenue mentioned above, but you would lose much of the upside of receiving the tax since turbine aircraft operators will over-fly taxable states to have their aircraft work on by maintenance companies located in non-taxable states. I recommend keeping the exemption of on aircraft parts taxes and keep Virginia a leader in aviation maintenance and repair. Thomas T. “Mike” Mickel Founder Dominion Aviation Services

Thank you for the opportunity to comment regarding HB 1729. Signature Aviation currently operates at five airports in the state of Virginia and has maintenance capabilities at three of them: Charlottesville, Roanoke, and Norfolk. We maintain aircraft models ranging from small single-engine piston aircraft up to midsize corporate jet aircraft. General aviation is thriving in Virginia, and I believe taxing aircraft parts would have a negative impact, potentially pushing our maintenance customers to adjoining states.

I am in favor of this bill which adjusts the thresholds for the nonjudicial sale of tax-delinquent properties in Virginia. Here's why: Increased Revenue Recovery: By raising the threshold for nonjudicial sales from $10,000 to $15,000 and adjusting other ranges, this bill allows local governments to recover delinquent taxes more efficiently from properties within these new limits, enhancing local revenue streams. Streamlined Process: This change streamlines the process of dealing with tax-delinquent properties, reducing the administrative burden on local treasurers by allowing them to address a broader range of properties without the need for judicial proceedings, which can be time-consuming and costly. Encourages Property Maintenance: Higher thresholds might encourage property owners to maintain their tax payments or address delinquency sooner, knowing that the risk of losing their property through nonjudicial sale has been expanded to include more valuable properties. Urban Revitalization: Specifically increasing the threshold for properties in urban redevelopment or revitalization zones from $25,000-$40,000 to $30,000-$40,000 supports urban renewal efforts by allowing for quicker action on tax-delinquent, unimproved parcels, which can hinder community development. Fairness in Tax Collection: Adjusting these thresholds creates a more equitable system where properties of similar value are treated consistently, ensuring fairness in how tax delinquency is managed across different property values. Economic Efficiency: By facilitating the sale of more properties through nonjudicial means, this legislation could lead to quicker property turnover, potentially bringing underutilized or abandoned properties back into productive use, which benefits local economies. I support this legislation for its potential to improve local tax collection efficiency, support urban redevelopment, ensure fairness in tax enforcement, and contribute to economic revitalization by addressing property delinquency more effectively.

We are proud to submit the local tax option for electric and battery lawn equipment. This has not state revenue impact. But allows localities to incentivize environmentally friendly equipment.

I am in favor of this bill which revises the local real property tax exemption and deferral program for elderly and disabled individuals in Virginia. Here's why: Flexibility in Payment: By allowing localities to set terms for elderly and disabled individuals to pay off delinquent taxes through options like full payment, installment agreements, or settlements, this bill provides much-needed financial flexibility, reducing the immediate burden on those with fixed or limited incomes. Long-Term Payment Plans: The provision to extend payment plans up to 72 months ensures that individuals who are eligible for exemptions or deferrals can manage their tax debts over a reasonable period, preventing financial hardship and potential loss of property. Settlement Options: Offering the possibility to settle for less than the full amount of delinquent taxes acknowledges the financial constraints of elderly and disabled taxpayers, providing a compassionate approach to tax collection. Enhanced Communication: Including information about the exemption and deferral program in assessment change notices and posting it on the locality's website increases awareness and accessibility of these benefits, ensuring more eligible individuals can take advantage of the program. Prorated Benefits: Allowing for prorated exemptions or deferrals for the part of the year before an application is filed ensures fairness, as individuals who qualify mid-year are not penalized for the delay in applying, which might be due to unawareness or administrative delays. Support for Vulnerable Populations: This bill directly supports elderly and disabled residents by making tax relief more accessible and manageable, promoting stability and dignity in their living situations. Local Control: By giving localities the authority to implement these provisions, the legislation respects local governance, allowing tailored solutions that fit the economic and social context of each community. I support this legislation for its compassionate approach to tax relief, enhancing accessibility, providing payment flexibility, and ensuring that local governments can support their elderly and disabled populations in a manner that is both fair and considerate of their financial situations.

I am against this bill which proposes to terminate the Virginia Free File program and replace it with a state-developed free tax filing program. Here are my reasons: Disruption of Existing Services: Terminating the Virginia Free File program, which has been in place and utilized by taxpayers, could disrupt services for those who rely on it, potentially causing confusion and inconvenience, similar to concerns about service continuity in Goldberg v. Kelly (1970). Cost and Development: Developing a new state-specific tax filing program involves significant costs, both in terms of initial development and ongoing maintenance. This could be seen as an inefficient use of state resources, echoing fiscal concerns from City of Richmond v. Virginia (1976) regarding government spending. Compatibility Issues: Ensuring the new program is compatible with the IRS Direct File program might be challenging, leading to potential technical issues or delays in implementation, akin to the integration problems discussed in American Electric Power Co., Inc. v. Connecticut (2011) regarding federal-state coordination. Privacy and Security: A state-run program might not have the same level of security infrastructure as established federal or private sector programs, raising privacy concerns similar to those in Carpenter v. United States (2018) about data protection. Efficiency and User Experience: The transition period until 2028 might leave taxpayers without a seamless filing experience, potentially degrading service quality during the interim, which could impact taxpayer satisfaction and compliance, reflecting service delivery critiques in Massachusetts v. EPA (2007). Federal Dependency: Relying on a memorandum of understanding with the IRS for program development could make the state program overly dependent on federal cooperation, potentially affecting Virginia's autonomy in tax administration, a concern similar to federalism issues in New York v. United States (1992). Loss of Private Sector Innovation: Ending the partnership with the Consortium for Virginia might reduce the innovation and competition that private sector involvement brings to tax filing services, potentially leading to a less dynamic and user-friendly state solution, paralleling the market impact concerns in Lochner v. New York (1905). I oppose this legislation due to the potential disruption of existing services, high development costs, compatibility challenges, privacy and security risks, impact on user experience, increased dependency on federal cooperation, and the loss of private sector innovation, advocating for maintaining or enhancing current partnerships rather than creating a new state-run system.

Madame Chair and members of the committee, Thank you for the opportunity to speak to this bill. Commissioner Todd Divers of the City of Charlottesville and I have worked with representatives of Airbnb for several years on the issues surrounding transient occupancy tax and the provision of information needed by Commissioners of Revenue to accurately perform our duties under Virginia Code section 58.1-3826. We appreciate the opportunity to provide our input throughout this process. We support HB2383 as presented. Respectfully submitted, Maggie Ragon, Commissioner of Revenue, City of Staunton.

I am against this bill which proposes the creation of a 'currently not collectible' status for individual income taxes in Virginia. Here's why: Risk of Abuse: The provision allowing taxpayers to file for this status could be exploited, leading to a situation where individuals might avoid paying taxes by claiming hardship, potentially undermining the tax system's integrity, similar to concerns over program misuse in Bowen v. Roy (1986). Revenue Impact: This policy could significantly reduce state revenue if many taxpayers qualify for this status, affecting public funding for services, which parallels fiscal responsibility concerns highlighted in City of Richmond v. Virginia (1976). Administrative Burden: The requirement for annual reapplications and the five-year limit per assessment places an additional administrative load on the Department of Taxation, potentially diverting resources from other critical functions, akin to the administrative efficiency issues in Massachusetts v. EPA (2007). Inequity in Taxation: By allowing some taxpayers to defer or avoid tax payments, this bill might create an uneven tax burden, where those unable to claim this status bear a disproportionate share of the tax load, reflecting equity concerns similar to those in San Antonio Independent School District v. Rodriguez (1973). Moral Hazard: There's a risk that this status might encourage taxpayers to manage their finances in a way that qualifies them for hardship status, creating a moral hazard, much like the incentive issues discussed in United States v. Butler (1936) regarding government subsidies. Lack of Permanent Solution: Offering temporary relief without addressing the underlying financial issues might not provide a long-term solution to taxpayers' financial difficulties, potentially leading to ongoing dependency on government leniency, a critique similar to those in welfare reform discussions post-Goldberg v. Kelly (1970). Precedent for Other Debts: This could set a precedent for similar relief measures for other types of debts, potentially destabilizing financial systems by normalizing non-payment, echoing concerns about broader economic impacts from Home Building & Loan Association v. Blaisdell (1934). I oppose this legislation due to the potential for abuse, significant impact on state revenue, increased administrative burden, creation of tax inequity, moral hazard, lack of a permanent solution to financial distress, and the risk of setting a problematic precedent for debt management, advocating instead for more comprehensive financial support systems or targeted tax relief measures.

Making firearm storage more affordable is a win for responsible gun owners and those who sell safes and storage devices. It makes sense and supports our right to live safely in our communities by encouraging the purchase and use in our homes and cars.

I support this bill. It is important to incentivize gun owners to secure their firearms safely. Including more locations where people can purchase safe storage devices for tax credit is inherently a good thing.

I am totally against this bill which redefines what constitutes an "eligible transaction" for the firearm safety device tax credit by expanding it from purchases made only at federally licensed dealers to include those from any commercial retailer as defined in the bill. Undermines Safety Standards: By broadening the definition to include any commercial retailer, this bill potentially undermines the safety and regulatory standards associated with firearm safety devices. Federally licensed dealers are subject to strict regulations ensuring the quality and safety of products, which might not be the case with all commercial retailers. Risk of Misuse: This change could lead to the sale of substandard or counterfeit safety devices by retailers not specialized in firearms, increasing the risk of these devices failing when needed, potentially leading to accidents or misuse. Regulatory Oversight: The current law's focus on federally licensed dealers ensures a level of regulatory oversight that this bill would dilute. Licensed dealers are monitored for compliance with federal laws regarding firearms, providing a safeguard that this legislation removes. Economic Incentive Misdirection: The tax credit's original intent was to incentivize the purchase of safety devices from reputable sources, ensuring quality and encouraging responsible gun ownership. By expanding eligibility, the bill might divert this economic incentive towards less regulated sales, potentially misaligning with public safety goals. Legal and Compliance Issues: This bill could complicate compliance for taxpayers and retailers alike, as the definition of a "commercial retailer" might be broad and vague, leading to confusion over eligibility and potential legal disputes. Public Safety Concern: Allowing purchases from any commercial retailer could dilute the focus on promoting firearm safety. Ensuring that safety devices come from knowledgeable and regulated sources is crucial for public safety, a principle this bill overlooks by broadening the purchasing scope. Fiscal Responsibility: From a fiscal perspective, the tax credit might be less effective if it's applied to purchases from retailers who might not specialize in firearm safety, potentially leading to less efficient use of state tax incentives. I strongly oppose this bill for its potential to compromise firearm safety, regulatory oversight, and the effective use of tax incentives, urging its rejection to maintain the integrity and purpose of the firearm safety device tax credit.

As a volunteer with Moms Demand Action, I have had the opportunity to speak with many community members over the years about the importance of secure storage as well as the availability of the secure storage device tax credit. This information is overwhelmingly met with an enthusiastic response and many leave with the information eager to follow up. Securely storing firearms is critical to reduce unintentional shootings, youth suicide and the ability to harm others. If a firearm owner is responsibly securing their firearms, it should be easy for them to purchase storage that allows them to benefit from the tax credit. Please support this bill so Virginians can be furthered encouraged to safely store firearms out of the hands of those who shouldn't have them. Thank you so much.

I'm a volunteer with Moms Demand Action for Gun Sense in America, and I support this bill. Research shows secure storage practices play a vital role in reducing the risk of gun violence. Storing firearms securely protects children and adults by preventing unintentional shootings, gun suicides, and gun theft.

I am totally against this bill which proposes to sunset the qualified equity and subordinated debt investments tax credit after the taxable year 2025. Stifles Economic Growth: By ending this tax credit, the bill would remove a significant incentive for investment in small businesses and startups, which are vital for job creation and economic innovation in Virginia. Discourages Investment: Investors rely on such tax incentives to mitigate risks associated with funding new or growing businesses. Removing this credit could lead to a decrease in investment, particularly in sectors where initial capital is hard to secure. Impacts on Startups: Startups and small businesses often depend on these tax credits to attract necessary capital. The sunset of this credit could severely limit their access to funding, potentially slowing down entrepreneurial activities. Reduces Competitiveness: Virginia's competitiveness in attracting business investments could be compromised. Other states offering similar or better incentives might become more attractive, leading to a potential exodus of investment. Job Losses: The reduction in investment due to the removal of this tax credit could result in fewer job opportunities, as businesses might scale back expansion or even close without the financial support this credit provides. Innovation Hampered: Innovation, particularly in technology and other high-growth sectors, thrives on investment. This bill could hinder Virginia's progress in becoming a hub for innovation by cutting off a crucial funding mechanism. Long-term Economic Impact: The long-term economic impact could be significant, as the growth of small businesses often leads to broader economic benefits over time, which this bill would undermine by ending the tax credit prematurely. I strongly oppose this legislation for its potential to negatively affect Virginia's economic landscape, urging its rejection to continue supporting investment, job creation, and innovation within the state.

I am definitely in favor of this bill which directs the Department of Taxation to establish a form for taxpayers to apply for currently not collectible (CNC) status. This initiative is compassionate and practical, addressing real-world financial difficulties. Relieves Undue Hardship: By allowing the Department to place taxpayers into CNC status when collecting taxes would cause or worsen financial hardship, this bill provides crucial relief to individuals facing economic distress, aligning with principles of fairness and empathy in tax administration. Facilitates Recovery: This status gives taxpayers a breather, allowing them time to recover financially without the immediate pressure of tax debts, which could be pivotal in preventing bankruptcy or further financial ruin. Annual Reapplication: Requiring annual reapplication ensures that this relief is not indefinite but rather a temporary measure, encouraging taxpayers to work towards financial stability while still offering them support. Time-Limited Relief: Limiting eligibility to five years per tax assessment strikes a balance between providing necessary relief and ensuring that tax obligations are eventually met, promoting fiscal responsibility. Streamlines Process: Creating a specific form for CNC status applications streamlines the process, making it more accessible for those in need, reducing bureaucratic hurdles during times of personal crisis. Promotes Compliance: This approach can actually enhance long-term tax compliance by reducing the desperation that might lead to evasion or non-compliance, fostering a more cooperative relationship between taxpayers and the state. Reflects Economic Realities: Recognizing that economic conditions can lead to temporary inability to pay taxes without causing undue hardship reflects a nuanced understanding of economic realities, showing that the tax system can adapt to support its citizens in times of need. I wholeheartedly support this bill for its humane approach to tax collection, ensuring that the system works with taxpayers during their times of financial difficulty, ultimately benefiting both the individual and the state's fiscal health.