Las Vegas Sun

March 5, 2015

Currently: 64° — Complete forecast | Log in | Create an account

Business group challenges Nevada tax initiative

Lynn Warne

Lynn Warne

A coalition of business groups petitioned a Carson City judge Tuesday to throw out labor unions’ initiative to impose a business tax, arguing that it would not necessarily increase funding to education as proponents claim.

The Committee to Protect Nevada Jobs also said that a provision that would force businesses to publicly disclose how much of the "margin tax" they paid set a new precedent in Nevada that usually keeps tax payments confidential.

District Court Judge James Wilson made no decision on Tuesday on "The Education Initiative" but said he'd have one "as soon as possible." Wilson and attorneys for both sides expect the any decision to be appealed to the Nevada Supreme Court.

"The Education Initiative" is a petition filed by the Nevada State Education Association, with the backing of the AFL-CIO, to impose a "margin tax" on 2 percent of business' gross earnings over $1 million. The tax, based on a failed Democratic proposal during the 2011 legislative session, will raise an estimated $850 million a year, according to teachers union President Lynn Warne.

Business groups and conservatives have rallied against the initiative. The Committee to Protect Nevada Jobs, which is suing to have the statutory initiative dismissed, is made up of the Las Vegas and Reno/Sparks chambers of commerce, retailers, trucking, and Nevada Taxpayers Association. Las Vegas Sands has also joined the coalition, but other gaming companies have been neutral, as have mining companies.

Warne, the president of the Nevada State Education Association, was confident that despite the legal delays there was enough time to collect 72,000 signatures. People, she said, "want stable funding for education."

She declined to disclose how much money the group planned to spend on gathering signatures, which have to be submitted by Nov. 13.

The Committee to Protect Nevada Jobs argued the description of effect on the "Education Initiative" is deceptive and violates the rule that initiatives have to adhere to a single subject.

In particular, money raised from the tax could be used for other things, said attorney Josh Hicks.

In press releases, the description of effect and even the title of the initiative, voters are led to believe the tax will be a direct boon to education, Hicks said.

"You’re certainly led to the impression that this initiative will somehow be supportive of education, and K-12 education in particular," Hicks said. But, he said, "The Legislature could spend the additional money in any area. It completely runs counter to the bold-faced title."

Attorney Jim Penrose, representing the Nevada State Education Association, said the money would be deposited in the distributive school account.

But the NSEA's Warne conceded that the additional money could be shifted around and spent on other things. "It could be back-doored out," she said.

If supporters collect enough signatures, it will go to the 2013 Legislature, where it will need a two-thirds majority to pass. If it fails there, it will go to the voters in 2014.

Warne said the group will not start collecting signatures until after Wilson's ruling, but might before a final determination by the Nevada Supreme Court.

Wilson peppered Penrose, the teachers' lawyer, with questions. He asked if it was true that businesses that were not making money would still have to pay the tax. "That could be the effect, yes," Penrose said.

Wilson also questioned why the taxes were being made public.

"What’s the purpose of making available the names of the entities and the amount they pay?" Wilson asked.

Penrose said it would provide public oversight and "those who evade taxes can be brought to account."

The coalition also argued that the amount of money that would be generated for administrative costs, $5 million in the first biennium, fell short of legislative estimates. The administrative costs would be paid for by increasing the payroll tax on banks.

Join the Discussion:

Check this out for a full explanation of our conversion to the LiveFyre commenting system and instructions on how to sign up for an account.

Full comments policy

Previous Discussion: 2 comments so far…

Comments are moderated by Las Vegas Sun editors. Our goal is not to limit the discussion, but rather to elevate it. Comments should be relevant and contain no abusive language. Comments that are off-topic, vulgar, profane or include personal attacks will be removed. Full comments policy. Additionally, we now display comments from trusted commenters by default. Those wishing to become a trusted commenter need to verify their identity or sign in with Facebook Connect to tie their Facebook account to their Las Vegas Sun account. For more on this change, read our story about how it works and why we did it.

Only trusted comments are displayed on this page. Untrusted comments have expired from this story.

  1. Sadly, there is money in this state. There are millionaires and billionaires making money in this state. If you notice - these are the people screaming loudest about having to pay.

    If you come to Nevada to run a business, you use our roads, our schools, our post offices, our police, our firemen. We keep your business safe and secure. We provide your employees with the basics every community should offer to attract good employees . . . but you don't want to pay. Businesses that make millions of dollars in money should pay their fair share.

    I'm tired of some people taking advantage of all that Nevada has to offer - and not paying their fair share.

  2. taxing gross earnings makes no sense whatsoever, regardless of which party you affiliate yourself with