February 22, 2016
February 22, 2016
Contact: Wendy Patton, 614.221.4505
Lack of oversight is a problem. The 2016-17 tax expenditure report listed 128 items that will cost the state almost $9 billion in the 2017 fiscal year. Many date back decades to when the economy and technology were far different. One dates back to 1896.
There is important momentum in the General Assembly to provide better oversight to tax expenditures. House Bill 9, which passed the House in June 2015, would create a legislative committee to review tax expenditures at least once every eight years. The committee would make a recommendation for continuation, modification or repeal of each tax break. House Bill 9 passed unanimously and has had two hearings in the Senate. Separately, House Bill 64, the budget bill for 2016 and 2017, created a committee to study and make recommendations on Ohio’s tax system. Under the bill, the new “2020 Tax Policy Study Commission” is to review and evaluate all state tax credits, among other things. There is a lot to review. This issue brief presents highlights of the 2016-17 tax expenditure report and new additions or deletions since it was published in February 2015. Tax credits are separated out for analysis.
Key findings
The tax expenditure report, published along with the governor’s executive budget proposal, lists 128 tax expenditures in 2016-17. The Ohio Department of Taxation forecasts that the value of revenues foregone will be $8.5 billion in 2016 and $8.9 billion in 2017.
Other important findings include:
Governors – including Gov. Kasich – have proposed eliminating or limiting many tax expenditures. The legislature has ignored many of his proposals. At the same time, at any given time, many new tax breaks are under consideration in the general assembly, which takes more readily to spending through the tax code than on the budget side of the ledger.
House Bill 9 and the review of tax credits by the 2020 Tax Policy Study Commission create the potential to improve, update and make our tax system more efficient and equitable.
These “tax expenditures” will total almost $9 billion in the 2017 fiscal year. The tax breaks apply to certain goods and services, industries, activities, individuals and companies. They make up a significant share of overall state spending, but they are not regularly reviewed.
Unlike budget spending on public services such as parks, schools and universities – which are reviewed regularly – tax expenditures remain in law indefinitely unless there is a pre-existing termination date.
Legislators pass a new budget every two years in Ohio and they review expenditures and make corrections in between. Although the state is required to report on tax breaks, legislators are not required to review and adjust them. The 2016-17 tax expenditure report listed 128 items that account for the aforementioned $9 billion. Many date back decades to when the economy and technology were far different. One dates back to 1896.
While the Ohio General Assembly has ignored proposals from Gov. John Kasich to eliminate some tax breaks, there is momentum among lawmakers to provide better oversight. House Bill 9, which passed the House in June 2015, would create a legislative committee to review tax expenditures at least once every eight years. The committee would make a recommendation for continuation, modification or repeal of each tax break. House Bill 9 passed unanimously and has had two hearings in the Senate. Separately, House Bill 64, the budget bill for 2016 and 2017,[1] created a committee to study and make recommendations on Ohio’s tax system. Under the bill, the new “2020 Tax Policy Study Commission” is to review and evaluate all state tax credits, among other things. There is a lot to review. This issue brief presents highlights of the 2016-17 tax expenditure report, as well as changes since it was published in February 2015. Tax credits are separated out for analysis.
Key findings include:
The Tax Expenditure report highlights how spending through the tax code is similar to budgetary spending: “Both tax expenditures and direct budgetary expenditures result in a cost to the state,” the report points out, but goes on to say, “Unlike direct budgetary expenditures, unless there is a pre-existing termination date, tax expenditures may remain in law indefinitely.”[4]
Tax expenditures have a high cost in foregone revenue and many offer questionable benefits. Gov. Kasich has recommended repealing a number of tax exemptions in his executive budget proposals and has vetoed numerous tax breaks tucked into budget bills. In the executive budget last year, Gov. Kasich proposed limiting or repealing a variety of tax breaks that were not accepted by the General Assembly. For instance, he proposed:
Those are hardly the only tax expenditures in need of limitation or repeal. The state offers a write-off against the commercial activity tax, the state’s main business tax, for losses that big companies experienced before the tax was enacted, even though they no longer pay taxes on their income; a sales-tax exemption worth more than $27 million a year for pollution-control equipment purchased by utilities, even though most of it is mandated; and a cap on sales tax for wealthy buyers of shares in jet aircraft, who pay only a fraction of the tax they would otherwise.
Spending through the tax code
Tax exemptions, deductions, and credits all can reduce the amount of taxes that a taxpayer – be it a company or a person – owes.
The Ohio Department of Taxation forecasts tax expenditures of $8.5 billion in 2016 and $8.9 billion in 2017, $1.3 billion (8.3 percent) higher than in the prior two-year budget period for 2014-15. The annual amount is about one-third as large as all of the state dollars in the state’s operating budget (the General Revenue Fund).[7] Ohio spends as much on tax breaks as we do on primary and secondary education. According to the Legislative Service Commission, Ohio will spend $8.6 billion state source dollars for K-12 education in 2016 and $9 billion in 2017, closely mirroring value of revenues foregone to tax expenditures over the same period.
Tax expenditures taken against the state’s sales and use tax made up two-thirds of the total cost of all tax breaks, at more than $5.5 billion a year (Table 2). Sales tax breaks alone are greater than state share of Medicaid spending, which provides health care to a quarter of all people in the state.
The next largest category of tax expenditure includes those applied against the individual income tax. At about $2 billion annually, this category accounts for a quarter of revenues foregone to tax expenditure. This is more than state dollars spent on all human services other than Medicaid, including (but not limited to) community services for the addicted and mentally ill, protective services for children and seniors, cash assistance safety net programs and funding for food banks.
The third largest category consists of tax expenditures taken against the commercial activity tax, the broad tax on business activities. The tax will forgo about $600 million in each year of Ohio’s new two-year budget because of tax breaks. Just half of this amount would restore need-based financial aid for college students to pre-recession levels on an inflation-adjusted basis.[8]
Overall, the share of the value of tax exemptions by type of tax was virtually unchanged between 2014 and 2017.
In its 2009 report, the Taxation Department broke out tax expenditures by broad purpose. It discontinued doing so, but Policy Matters Ohio used the same categories earlier employed by the department to provide such a breakdown. Tax expenditures for business and economic development make up 56 percent of total cost (Table 3). The next largest category, fiscal assistance for individuals (like the joint filer credit taken against the personal income tax) is less than half of that. About 13 percent of total tax expenditures benefit state and local governments, churches and non-profit organizations. About 7 percent provide benefits related to health and/or education (exemptions of Pell grants or dislocated worker training benefits from income taxes or deductions for certain medical benefit situations).
Largest and fastest-growing
Table 4 lists the 20 largest tax expenditures in the tax expenditure report for 2016-17. These tax breaks, the smallest of which is just under $100 million a year, account for 83 percent of total tax expenditures in the state. Overall, this list is very similar to the list from the previous biennium. All but one of the tax expenditures were among the top 20 in the 2014-15 tax expenditure report.
The number of tax expenditures has been essentially stable over three two-year budget periods. In the current budget period, 128 tax exemptions are listed in the tax expenditure report.[13]
Most of the items in Table 6 – “new tax expenditures” – were created during the spring of 2013 in the course of budget deliberations for House Bill 59, the budget bill for 2014-15.[14] The last tax expenditure report was issued in January 2013, before those deliberations began. At that time, these tax expenditures had been neither introduced nor passed. While they were in place in 2014 and 2015, they are reported on for the first time in the most recent tax expenditure report, for 2016-17.
The executive budget proposal starts the budget deliberations off, but what comes out and is signed by July 1 often looks different from the initial proposal. A process, including numerous public hearings and testimony by administration officials, allows for a discussion of state spending. By contrast, though state law requires the governor to include a tax expenditure report with the executive budget proposal, there is no further requirement that the report be used in any way, or that any regular review of such expenditures take place. Even tiny line items are at least open to scrutiny and debate; tax expenditures come up only if the governor or legislators specifically seek new ones or change in existing ones. Most of the tax breaks that have been eliminated have vanished because an entire tax has gone away, not through review or reconsideration.[30]
Additional tax breaks were added or increased during last year’s budget proceedings. One significantly expanded one of the largest tax expenditures in the tax code. Others were much smaller, totaling less than $15 million. Tax breaks added in this budget process, after the tax expenditure report was published, included the following:[31]
Beyond the budget itself – new tax breaks enacted over the fall
Few entirely new tax expenditures have been enacted since the last budget bill. One was a provision reducing the commercial activity tax for railways’ purchases of dyed diesel fuel. This compensates railway companies for the additional tax that arises because of the newly created petroleum activity tax, so they effectively pay the lower CAT rate on purchases of such fuel. The taxation department did a fiscal analysis of House Bill 340, which included this change, and estimated the revenue loss as minimal in 2016 and $1.5 million in all state funds in 2017.[36]
The General Assembly also has made changes to existing tax expenditures since the publication of the biennial report. For example, Senate Bill 208 approved last fall removes limitations on the personal exemption and a number of income-tax credits so they can be applied whether taxpayers’ income is from business or non-business sources. The Legislative Service Commission estimated the cost of these changes at between $2 million and $8 million a year. This review does not attempt to cover all such changes made since the tax expenditure report was published.
2020 Tax Policy Commission to look at tax credits
As noted, House Bill 64, the budget bill for fiscal years 2016-17, created the 2020 Tax Policy Study Commission, which has started its review of Ohio’s tax structure. Among other things, the commission was charged with scrutiny of all tax credits.
Out of the 128 expenditures in the last tax expenditure report, 34 are tax credits worth $928 million in fiscal year 2016 and $961 million in fiscal year 2017. About a third benefit individuals like the retirement income exemption,[37] the earned income tax credit, the $20 personal exemption and the credit for income taxes by another state. Twenty-one of 34 are credits for business (job creation tax credit; enterprise zone day care credit) or real estate development (historic preservation tax credit).
Table 8 shows the Ohio tax credits with more than minimal value in 2017 ranked by size. The three largest include the joint filer credit, the retirement income credit[38] and the credit for income taxed by another state. Just these three account for more than half the total value of tax credits.
Table 8 also shows that six of the tax credits are refundable: in other words, when the value of the tax credit is greater than the tax liability, the state refunds the difference. These tax credits are for businesses and include the motion picture tax credit, the tax credit for pass-through entities paying the financial institution tax; the job creation tax credit and the tax credit against the public utility tax listed below. Two more are refundable in part (historic preservation tax credit) or under certain circumstances (job retention tax credit).
Table 8 also gives the rate of growth between 2014 and 2017 for tax credits. Small tax expenditures show the fastest growth, a function of size. For instance; the new markets tax credit was created in 2009 and FY 2015 was the first year in which could be claimed, so it’s not surprising that it leads the list in growth. However, seven of the fastest growth tax credits, with a growth rate of greater than 10 percent between 2014 and 2017, are also among the 10 largest.
In June 2015, the 131st General Assembly passed House Bill 9 to create a process to review tax expenditures. The bill had 60 sponsors from both sides of the aisle, passed unanimously, and has since has received two hearings in the Senate Ways and Means Committee.
The bill would create a permanent, bi-partisan joint committee of six legislators and the tax commissioner (or designee) to periodically review all existing tax expenditures and make recommendations to the General Assembly about continuation, modification, or repeal of existing ones. It would require any bill proposing a new or modified tax expenditure to include a statement of the objectives and intent of the tax expenditure for use in the review process.
It also puts into statute the basic criteria used in the state tax expenditure report to determine whether a tax provision constitutes an Ohio tax expenditure.
The bill specifies that the committee will meet in the first year of the fiscal biennium (once every two years during the year the budget is passed) and must provide for hearings. Each tax expenditure must be reviewed at least once every eight years. Each item reviewed must be recommended for continuation, repeal or modification, and the committee may impose accountability standards on an item to be considered in future reviews.
The legislation outlines factors the committee may consider in its review. They include the number and classes of those who benefit, the fiscal impact on the state and localities, and public policy objectives that might support the tax expenditure, such as whether it supports business growth, high-wage jobs and community stabilization. Among the other factors are whether it creates an unfair business advantage or unintended benefits, what the effects would be of terminating it, or if its objectives could be accomplished without it or through legislative appropriations.
This bill provides a badly needed oversight structure to a growing body of un-scrutinized public expenditures. The bill would have a more significant impact if it included automatic sunsets for tax expenditures, so they expired unless the General Assembly reauthorized them. The worth of each expenditure should be proven. In addition, the Legislative Service Commission should be given the resources to do a thorough study of each tax expenditure prior to its examination by the review committee. The governor, who under the bill must include the review committee’s most recent report in the budget proposal, should also recommend whether any recently evaluated tax expenditures should be continued, modified, or terminated. And Ohio should expand its tax expenditure report to improve disclosure.[40]
Summary and conclusion
Tax expenditures make up a significant share of overall state spending, but they are not regularly reviewed. Many date back decades. Are they still economically useful?
Governors – including Gov. Kasich – have proposed eliminating many tax expenditures. The legislature has ignored most of his proposals. At the same time, at any given time, many new tax breaks are under consideration in the general assembly, which takes more readily to spending through the tax code than on the budget side of the ledger.
House Bill 9 and the review of tax credits by the 2020 Tax Policy Study Commission create the potential to improve, update and make our tax system more efficient and equitable.
[1] All years referenced in this report refer to a state fiscal year, July 1 to June 30, unless otherwise noted.
[2] The report estimates foregone revenue, which is not necessarily what the state would take in if a tax expenditure were repealed. The revenue estimates in the report reflect “General Revenue Fund revenue foregone,” or benefits to recipients of credits and exemptions. The taxation department notes in bold-faced type that “the figures in this report do not represent the estimated revenue gain from the repeal of the tax expenditure.” (p.4) There may be a time lag before the full effect of repealing the tax expenditure shows up in revenues, not all taxpayers may immediately comply with the change, or taxpayers could behave differently because of the change. See Tax Expenditure Report, op. cit., pp. 3-4. In testimony to the Senate Ways & Means Committee, then Deputy Tax Commissioner Frederick Church said the report’s estimates are “close to, but not exactly equal to, expected revenue gains from repeal of expenditures.” Frederick Church, Presentation to Senate Ways and Means and Economic Development Committee, Nov. 17, 2011.
[3] Use tax is a complementary tax to the sales tax, covering purchases made outside the state for use in Ohio. We include it with the sales tax throughout this report.
[4] Ohio Department of Taxation, Tax Expenditure Report, State of Ohio Executive Budget for Fiscal Years 2016-17, Ohio Office of Budget and Management at http://obm.ohio.gov/budget/operating/doc/fy-16-17/State_of_Ohio_Budget_Tax_Expenditure_Report_FY-16-17.pdf
[5] Joe Testa, Tax Commissioner, Testimony to the Senate Ways & Means Committee, April 29, 2015, at http://ohiosenate.gov/committee/ways-and-means#
[6] These four items are taken from the Ohio Department of Taxation’s tax expenditure report for 2016-17.
[7] State-source spending in the General Revenue Fund (GRF) budget will be $22.6 billion in 2016 and $23.4 billion in 2017.State-source GRF funds do not include the federal dollars (primarily Medicaid dollars) that Ohio – unlike other states – also puts into its GRF.
[8] Ohio invests $309 million less in need-based financial aid now than in the budget for 2008-09. See Wendy Patton and Hannah Halbert, “State support for higher education is still behind the curve,” Policy Matters Ohio, December 23, 2015 at http://www.policymattersohio.org/highered-dec2015
[9] Policy Matters Ohio calculation from Ohio Virtual Tax Academy webinar presentation by Deborah Smith, Administrator, Personal & School District Income Tax Division, Ohio Department of Taxation, “Personal and School District Income Tax Business Income Deduction & Tax Calculation,” Dec. 16, 2015, at http://www.tax.ohio.gov/Researcher/VTA/Archive/December2015.aspx#Debbie
[10] House Bill 64 of Ohio’s 131st General Assembly, Section 757.50(A), p.2857 at https://www.legislature.ohio.gov/legislation/legislation-documents?id=GA131-HB-64
[11] Mark Engel, Bricker & Eckler, Ohio Manufacturers’ Association Tax Counsel, House Bill 59 Testimony before the Ways & Means Committee of the Ohio Senate, May 22, 2013, p.7., cited in Zach Schiller, Tax Breaks Grow in the New State Budget, Policy Matters Ohio, August 8, 2013 at http://www.policymattersohio.org/tax-breaks-aug2013#sthash.EfTqqXN6.dpuf
[12] Ohio Department of Taxation, memo from Doris Mahaffey to Ernest Massie, “Tax expenditure 2.03: Deduction for taxpayers ineligible for employee-sponsored medical plans,” 3/13/2015.
[13] The number reported changed from 128 in 2012-2013 to 129 in 2014-2015 to 128 in 2016-2017.
[14] Not all items in Table 6 are actually newly created. The tax break for venture capital loan losses is not new, but the Department of Taxation did not have a way to estimate the cost, and did not report it before 2016-17.
[15] State legislatures decide whether to adopt changes in federal tax law that affect state tax bases or structure. This is referred to as “coupling,” or integrating federal changes with state definitions. The extent to which state tax law is coupled to the federal varies widely.
[16] Ohio Department of Taxation, memo written by Ted Celmar, “Sales Tax expenditure estimate: Sales of electronically transferred digital products from certain providers,” December 10, 2014.
[17] Ohio Department of Taxation, memo from Doris Mahaffey to Ernest Massie, “Tax expenditure: Credit for venture capital loan loss,” March 13, 2015.
[18] Ohio Legislative Service Commission, House Bill 510 of the 129th General Assembly, final bill analysis at http://www.lsc.ohio.gov/analyses129/12-hb510-129.pdf
[19] Schiller, Zach, “Tax Breaks Grow in New Ohio Budget,” Policy Matters Ohio, Aug. 8, 2013, p. 4, at http://www.policymattersohio.org/tax-breaks-aug2013
[20] Ohio Department of Taxation, Tax expenditure report for 2016-17, Op.Cit.
[21] E-mailed communication from the Ohio Department of Taxation Office of Communications, February 8, 2016.
[22] E-mailed communication from the Ohio Department of Taxation Office of Communications, February 17, 2016.
[23] Ohio Department of Taxation, Tax Expenditure Report for 2016-17, Op.Cit.
[24] Ohio Legislative Service Commission, Bill Analysis of HB 510 of the 129th Ohio General Assembly, Op.Cit.
[25] Id.
[26] E-mailed communication from the Ohio Department of Taxation, Op.Cit. (2/8/2015).
[27] Id.
[28] Id. The Streamlined Sales and Use Tax Agreement governing board provides the following definition of the Agreement: “This Agreement is the result of the cooperative effort of 44 states, the District of Columbia, local governments and the business community to simplify sales and use tax collection and administration by retailers and states. The Agreement minimizes costs and administrative burdens on retailers that collect sales tax, particularly retailers operating in multiple states. It encourages "remote sellers" selling over the Internet and by mail order to collect tax on sales to customers living in the Streamlined states. It levels the playing field so that local "brick-and-mortar" stores and remote sellers operate under the same rules. This Agreement ensures that all retailers can conduct their business in a fair, competitive environment.” http://www.streamlinedsalestax.org/index.php?page=gen_1
[29] E-mailed communication from the Ohio Department of Taxation Office of Communications, February 17, 2016.
[30] See Zach Schiller, “Breaking Bad: Ohio Tax Breaks Escape Scrutiny,” Policy Matters Ohio, June 17, 2013, at http://www.policymattersohio.org/tax-breaks-jun2013
[31] For a more detailed description of these changes, see Zach Schiller, “Tax Breaks Expand in Ohio Budget,” Policy Matters Ohio, Sept. 16, 2015, at http://www.policymattersohio.org/taxbreaks-sept2015
[32] See Ohio Office of Budget and Management, “Tax Reform Scoring Sheet; FY 2016-2017 Operating Budget-All State Funds,” 2015. Ironically, in approving this expanded tax break, legislators increased taxes for 2015 on some business owners. In that year only, the budget bill called for the 3 percent flat rate to apply to 25 percent of the first $250,000 in business income that can’t be deducted. That’s a higher rate than what many business owners had been paying under Ohio’s graduated income tax. The General Assembly inadvertently demonstrated how such a progressive tax is beneficial to lower-income Ohioans with this bill. It moved quickly to approve Senate Bill 208, which reduced taxes on those business owners who would have had to pay more. The Legislative Service Commission estimated the additional cost in FY2016 at $76 million. See Russ Keller, Legislative Service Commission, Fiscal Note & Local Impact Statement, S.B. 208 of the 131st G.A., As Passed by the House, Oct. 27, 2015, at https://www.legislature.ohio.gov/legislation/legislation-documents?id=GA131-SB-208
[33] Legislative Service Commission, Comparison Document, H.B. 64 of the 131st Session of the General Assembly, As Enacted, p. 896, at http://www.lsc.ohio.gov/fiscal/comparedoc131/en/comparedoc-hb64-en.pdf. The LSC assumed in making its estimate that taxpayers do not respond to the policy change by paying themselves less in salary and wages and taking more income in the form of business income. It also noted separately that losses may be somewhat less than $490 million to take into account the income-tax rate cut that was also included in the budget bill. See LSC Greenbooks, H.B. 64 of the 131st General Assembly, Department of Taxation, p. 24, at http://www.lsc.ohio.gov/fiscal/greenbooks131/tax.pdf
[34] State of Ohio, Executive Department, Office of the Governor, Veto Messages, Statement of the Reasons for the Veto of Items in Substitute House Bill 53, April 1, 2015, p. 2, at https://www.legislature.ohio.gov/Assets/AdditionalDocuments/HB-53-veto-message-2.pdf
[35] Ohio Office of Budget and Management, “Tax Reform Scoring Sheet; FY 2016-2017 Operating Budget-All State Funds,” 2015.
[36] E-mailed communication from the Ohio Department of Taxation, Op.Cit. (2/8/2015).
[37] As noted above, the means-testing of this exemption and the $20 credit will reduce the value of these tax expenditures.
[38] The retirement income credit will be means tested now and restricted for use by tax filers with income of less than $100,000; the size of this credit may be expected to decline with new estimates.
[39] Ohio Legislative Service Commission, House Bill 340 final bill analysis at https://www.legislature.ohio.gov/download?key=4157&format=pdf
[40] Policy Matters Ohio’s testimony on the bill before the Senate Ways & Means Committee includes more specific ways that disclosure could be strengthened. See http://www.policymattersohio.org/hb9testimony-oct2015.
1 of 22