Exactly how do you close tax exemptions in Washington State?

There has been increased discussion in the halls of our capitol about the impact tax exemptions have on our state.  Previously, I talked in detail about just how much exemptions are costing our state and how many we have on the books.  Many have argued that it’s time to close some of those exemptions, or at least bring them under review.  Unfortunately, closing an exemption is more complicated that you might think.

The authority to levy a tax is clearly given in Article VII of Washington’s Constitution, which is aptly named Revenue and Taxation.  The complexities of this article and the authority given have been the subject of numerous debates and countless courts cases.  The debates have played out in the legislature, the Supreme Court, and the ballot.  To say that it is complicated is, well, an understatement.  However, its relevance is paramount in trying to understand just how to address the issue of exemptions.

To put it plainly, the Federal Government and the Washington State Legislature have the authority to manage our tax system, including modifying any existing exemptions.

However, a recent ballot initiative has impacted the legislature’s ability to manage Washington’s revenue system.  Initiative 1053 (led by initiative activist Tim Eyman) passed in November 2010 with over 63% voter approval.  This initiative re-instated a 2/3rds vote requirement in both houses of the Washington State Legislature to make any changes to our tax code.  This requirement was first introduced by I-601 in 1993 and was later reinstated by I-695 in 1999 and again by I-960 in 2007.  The 2/3rds requirement INCLUDES the closure of tax exemptions because it would require legislative action that would amend our tax code resulting in a net increase in revenue. 

The super-majority requirement has plagued reform advocates since it was first introduced.  There have been a number of attempts to mitigate the impact of these initiatives, including the introduction of a temporary increase in sales tax on certain retail items to a full legal challenge of I-1053 which is currently being reviewed by King County Superior Court.  The outcome of the legal challenge will have a big impact on the legislature’s ability to address or modify existing exemptions.  Until then, it’s going to take a supermajority in the legislature to close any of the 452 revenue generating tax exemptions.

BUT, there is another way.  The ballot.  Both I-960 and its predecessor I-1053 reinforce the power of the ballot by reinforcing the people’s right to petition their government.  An existing exemption could be closed by a simple majority vote of the people.  However, it’s important to realize just how difficult it can be to pass an initiative in Washington State.  To date, nearly 1,200 initiatives have been introduced and only 69 have successfully passed into law.

Bearing in mind the complications associated with the closure of tax exemptions, reform advocates should remain diligent in their efforts to bolster fairness in our tax code through the elimination of some outmoded exemptions.  However, the road to closure for tax exemptions is wrought with pitfalls and speed bumps.  When trying to address the fiscal crisis other more short term measures should be explored as well.  Those might include the introduction of mandatory reviews and sunsets of existing exemptions or greater scrutiny of any newly proposed or existing exemptions.  These are two options that are being explored which I will discuss in another post.

The Great East vs. West Debate

If you are familiar with politics in Washington State, there’s no doubt you’ve heard of the rift between Western and Eastern Washington.  According to UW professor, John Findlay, this rift has been around since the 1880’s.  In a nutshell, Eastern Washington residents have been unhappy with the way politics in the state are seemingly dominated by the more liberal, Puget Sound legislators.  In particular, the tax and economic policy are thought to be “socialist” and bringing Washington deeper into a “welfare state.”  “Eastern Washington lawmakers are tired of getting stuck with legislation catering to the interests of the coast” Senator Frank Hansen from Moses Lake stated in the Ellensburg Daily Record.  In 1985, 1991, and again in 2001, Eastern Washington Republicans have introduced legislation proposing the secession of Eastern Washington.

These Eastern Washington legislators should be careful what they wish for, warns David Nice, a political science professor at Washington State University.  “It wouldn’t be a terribly strong state financially,” he said.  This seems a bit ironic, considering the state’s heavily republican east side is supportive of scaling back state government, reducing benefits to the most needy, and cutting taxes. 

Seattle’s alternative newspaper, The Stranger, published a compelling article on the exact nature of Washington’s “welfare state.”  It turns out, Eastern Washington residents are those that are subsidized the most by tax dollars.  With the latest 2001 proposal to split the state, Senator Bob Morton (R-Orient) stated, “We’re saying ‘Whoa, we don’t want to create a revolution, but we certainly do want our rights.  We want our culture, customs and lifestyle preserved.”  There seem to be some conflicting messages being sent by lawmakers in Eastern Washington.  Much like with many voters, there is a disconnect between perceptions and fact – about who pays for the majority of services and who is benefitting from them.

King County contains roughly 29% of the state population, produces 42% of state tax revenues, and receives back less than 26% of state benefits – a return of only 62 cents on the dollar.  Compare that to the $3.16 return on the dollar in Ferry County and you’d think that Eastern Washington should look at the facts before complaining that Western Washington receives a disproportionate share of state resources.  The chart on the total money each county receives from the state for each dollar is pays in taxes is a particularly good visual on the divide. 

This type of disparity spans all types of government – school districts and social services being the most prominent.  The following charts show you how certain counties (Yakima, Okanagon, Adams, and Stevens) are subsidized by the rest of the state.

Now, don’t get me wrong.  I do not think this disparity is bad or even ironic.  Those who need the most help should receive it from those who have surplus.  Anybody who lives in Eastern Washington will tell you that, of course, it costs more per capita to maintain core functions like roads and schools because the population is smaller.  The irony comes about when those who live in these less populated counties vote against measures that will directly impact the services they depend on.  It is this exact type of disconnect that needs to be discussed on a much larger scale.  Voters largely don’t think past how much it costs them as individuals to pay taxes.  They don’t make the connection between the services and subsidies they receive and their tax dollars.  It is this disconnect that must be discussed on a broader scale so that we can create a tax structure in our state that suits everyone’s needs – in good times and in bad. 

---

Property Tax 101: Exemptions, Credits, & Deductions

Part 2

In Part 1 of our discussion on property tax exemptions, credits, and deductions we touched on a higher-lever overview.  Today, we dive into a few of the more popular programs in the state.

A majority of the exemptions mentioned in Part 1 are targeted at organizations or entities that serve the public and add to the public good.  There are also a few exemption and deferral programs aimed at relieving the tax burden on certain groups of people.

Senior citizens/disabled persons can apply for an exemption if they are 61 years old or retired due to a disability and whose household income is $35,000 or less.  This exemption program, which was passed as a constitutional amendment in 1966, is a large one in the state.  According to the Department of Revenue, in 2009 (the most recent data available) $176.1 million in property tax relief was given to homeowners, which equates to an average savings of $1,555 per household – that’s no nominal figure! 

A related program for senior citizens/disabled persons is not an exemption program but a deferral program.  Under this program, seniors 60 years or older in a household that has less than $40,000 of disposable income can defer property tax collections until the property ceases to be the permanent residence  of the homeowner or surviving spouse.  The deferral then becomes a lien on the residence and is repaid from the proceeds of the estate.  In the meantime, the state reimburses local jurisdictions for lost revenue.  This deferral program isn’t as widely utilized as the exemption program.  In 2007, only 950 households took part in the program, compared to the just under 114,000 households that took part in the exemption program.
In 2005, a similar program was established for widows/widowers of veterans who died in the line of active duty.  In 2007, the legislature created a new deferral program for low-income households.  Those households with a combined income of $57,000 or less can qualify for the deferral program which allows taxpayers to defer half of their yearly property taxes; payment on the second half is then postponed until the residence is sold.

It is clear to see what the legislature’s priorities have been by looking at the history of property tax exemptions and deferral programs.  Those most vulnerable to losing their homes – seniors, low-income, and widows/widowers – are considered entitled to state assistance.  Do you agree with the legislature’s view?  Should we be subsidizing those in need?  Around the same time these popular programs were put into place, a Tim Eyman initiative (I-747) was voted into law, which restricted property tax valuations to 1% per year.  Clearly, Washington State residents were struggling with the cost of their property taxes and the legislature made an effort to help those most in need.

Property Tax 101: Exemptions, Credits, & Deductions

Part 1

Washington State’s Constitution allows for the legislature to declare certain exemptions for property taxes.  And declare they have!  Over the years, the number of exemptions, credits, and deductions has grown.   There are a number of classifications, too.  For example, there are various entities and types of property that are exempt from property taxes.  It’s probably no surprise that federal, state and local government owned properties are among those exempt.  But did you know that most non-profit organizations and many privately owned properties are exempt, as well?  For a complete list, read the Tax Reference Manual produced by the State Department of Revenue.  In the meantime, here are some examples:

Non-Profit Organizations:

·         Churches, parsonages, convents, and administrative offices of religious organizations

·         Humane societies

·         Assembly halls and meeting places

·         Thrift stores that sell only donated merchandise

Privately Owned Property:

·         Cemeteries

·         Widows/widowers of veterans

·         Property used to produce biodiesel, wood biomass, or alcohol fuel or as an anaerobic digester

·         Senior citizen and disabled homeowners (see below for a more detailed discussion)

As discussed in previous posts, some personal property is also exempt from taxation.  Certain intangible assets such as cash, stocks, and bonds are not included in property taxation.  Also, motor vehicles, farm equipment, commercial vessels, and recreational boats are exempt. 

In the 2012 legislative session multiple bills were introduced to expand exemptions or credits.  Here is a roundup:

·         SHB 1042/SB 5017 – Providing a property tax exemption for property held under lease, sublease, or lease-purchase by a nonprofit organization that provides job training, placement, or pre-employment services.  Did not pass.

·         HB 1385/SB 5628 - Concerning a limited property tax exemption from the emergency medical services levy.  Did not pass.

·         HB 1457 – Encouraging businesses to locate in vacant buidlings through a business and occupation tax credit for property taxes paid. Did not pass.

·         HB 2772/SB 6583 – Creating a property tax exemption for the value of new construction of industrial/manufacturing facilities in target urban areas.  Did not pass.

·         SB 6600 – Extending property tax exemptions to property used exclusively by certain nonprofit organizations that is leased from an entity that acquired the property from a previously exempt nonprofit organization.  Passed – effective 6/7/2012.

For more information on property tax exemptions, read part 2, coming soon.

Washington State Property Tax 101 – Overview

State property taxes account for approximately 13% of all state general fund revenue, making it the third largest revenue stream in the state.  Think of Washington’s tax structure as a three-legged stool (a reference made by former State Forecaster, Arun Raha, during a revenue forecast in 2011); the three legs (taxes) hold up the entire stool (Washington’s revenue sources).  To put things in perspective, the following chart shows you what our property tax collections look like relative to all other sources of revenue.  No surprise that the “three legs” account for nearly 80% of state general fund revenues.

In 2011, $8.9 billion in property taxes was paid by Washingtonians to state and local governments and school districts.  Of that, just under 55% (approximately $5 billion) was collected to support K-12 education.  Local governments rely heavily on property tax collections as well.  In fact, property taxes make up the largest revenue stream in tax collections for the locals, generating approximately $4 billion in 2011.  Clearly in times of economic downturn (especially The Great Recession with the huge hit to home ownership levels), K-12 education funding is directly at risk.  For further discussion on this, see this article.

As I briefly mentioned in the property tax history  post, the definition of taxable property has changed over the years and will undoubtedly continue to change as our technology evolves.  At its most basic level, it is defined in Article 7, Section 1 of our state constitution as tangible and intangible goods that can be owned.  Real property – land, structures, etc - and tangible property – generally everything else - are the two major classifications the state uses to define property.  The legislature has granted some exemptions; for instance, motor vehicles and household goods are not included in property tax assessments.

The same uniformity clause in the state constitution that prevents Washington from implementing a state income tax applies to property tax too.  According to the Legislative Guide to Washington State Property Taxes, “many other states have differential tax rates or different value standards that depend upon the separate classification of property.”  This type of system would be deemed unconstitutional in Washington and has been multiple times throughout state history.

Stay tuned for more posts about property taxes including a discussion on exemptions and how your property is assessed.

---

Washington State Property Tax 101:

The relationship between property taxes and public school funding

In Washington State, property taxes are the primary revenue source for public schools.  Of the state general fund, almost half goes to K-12 education – as shown in A Guide to K-12 Funding, $13.2 billion was dedicated to public schools in the 2009-11 biennium. The state property tax levy is commonly called the state school levy because the funds are dedicated to public schools.  The paid property tax, as well as all other tax revenue, is deposited into the general fund.  In 2000, voters approved Initiative 728, which transfers a portion of the state property tax from the general fund to the Student Achievement Fund (SAF).  This transfer of funds goes directly to school districts across the state to be used for class size reduction, extended learning opportunities for students, professional training for educators, and early childhood programs. 

In addition to the school levy, there are special levies.  Whereas the school levy is paid by all Washington property owners through the property tax, special levies are approved by voters for a specific school district.  Special levies are often called excess levies because the levy is in excess of the 1% limit on property taxes.  To read more about the 1% limit visit this post. 

Over the years, reliance on special levies to fund school operations has decreased, largely in part to the Seattle v. State of Washington State Supreme Court decision in which Judge Doran directed the legislature to define and fully fund basic education for all students in Washington State.  After that, in 1977, the legislature enacted the Basic Education Act, increasing state funding support to public schools and limiting the special levy limits.  Still, special levies remain an important part of funding for public schools.  In 2010, 281 of the state’s 295 school districts passed a special levy aimed at maintenance and operations for school districts.

Property Tax 101: The Limit Factor

In recent years, residents of Washington State would think little of Governor Gregoire calling a special session of the legislature simply because it has become a very common occurrence as of late.  However, in November of 2007, when the Governor called her first special session, it was unexpected. The special session was called for the purpose of reinstating a 1% limit, or cap, on property taxes. 

The first limit on property taxes was passed by the legislature in 1971 and only affected regular property taxes at the local level.  This limit required that any property tax levy not exceed 106% of the highest amount of revenue received from any levy in the preceding three years.  Eight years later, the legislature extended this same provision to state property taxes, as well.

 A couple decades later, Washington State voters passed Referendum 47, which required additional limits on top of the 106% limit.  Beginning in 1997, taxing districts with a population over 10,000 could only increase regular levies by the inflation rate or 6%, whichever was smaller.

Not long after, in 2000, Initiative 722 (I-722) was passed.  I-722 limited future property tax increases to 2% and rolled back certain property tax increases levied in the year 2000.  The State Supreme Court ruled I-722 unconstitutional because it was not limited to a single subject.

With the help of Tim Eyman, voters were back at it in 2001 with I-747, which restricted property tax increases to the lesser of inflation or 1%, sending legislators a clear message that property taxes were growing too quickly and they wanted that growth curbed.  Six years later, the State Supreme Court overturned I-747 stating that it didn't include proper disclosure to voters.  In other words, the court believed voters didn't fully know what they were voting on.

The legislature and Governor Gregoire disagreed and quickly called a special session in late 2007.  House Bill 2416 reinstated the 1% levy limit established by I-747 and remains intact today.