SB1020: Bill Text

LRB-6142/1

JK&SWB:all

2021 - 2022 LEGISLATURE

2021 Senate BILL 1020

February 23, 2022 - Introduced by Law Revision Committee. Referred to Committee on Senate Organization.

SB1020,1,13 An Act to repeal 60.85 (2) (b) 7., 60.85 (5) (e), 66.1105 (2) (f) 1. m., 66.1105 (6) (am) 2. e., 66.1105 (6) (am) 2. f., 71.07 (5e), 71.10 (4) (gy), 71.28 (5e), 71.30 (3) (es), 71.47 (5e), 71.49 (1) (es), 77.51 (5m), 77.585 (9), 120.135 and 121.91 (4) (h); to renumber and amend 77.54 (14m); and to amend 60.85 (2) (c), 60.85 (3) (h) 4., 60.85 (3) (h) 5. a., 60.85 (3) (h) 5. c., 66.1105 (2) (f) 1. (intro.), 66.1105 (2) (f) 1. n., 66.1105 (18) (c) 2., 70.47 (8) (d), 70.48, 71.05 (6) (a) 15., 71.08 (1) (intro.), 71.21 (4) (a), 71.26 (2) (a) 4., 71.34 (1k) (g), 71.45 (2) (a) 10., 77.52 (13), 77.53 (10) and 121.07 (6) (a) (intro.) of the statutes; relating to: obsolete statutory references; electronic assessment rolls; obsolete tax benefits for the purchase of Internet equipment used in the broadband market; board of review provision related to an objector; the sales tax exemption for insulin; and sales tax exemption certificates for farm-raised fish and patient health care records (suggested as remedial legislation by the Department of Revenue).

Analysis by the Legislative Reference Bureau

This bill does all of the following, as suggested by the Department of Revenue:

Obsolete statutory references

The bill repeals obsolete statutory references relating to tax incremental financing districts and obsolete references relating to a capital improvement fund for schools.

Electronic assessment rolls

Under current law, when a board of review changes an assessor's valuation of property, the clerk is required to revise the assessment roll by using red ink to cross out the assessor's valuation and enter the board's valuation. The bill modifies the requirement to reflect the use of electronic assessment rolls. Under the bill, the clerk is required to enter the board's valuation and a note about the change to the assessor's valuation into the assessment roll, but there is no requirement to use red ink or to cross out the assessor's valuation.

Internet equipment in the broadband market

The bill eliminates obsolete tax deductions, credits, and exemptions for certain Internet equipment used in the broadband market and purchased before July 1, 2009.

Objecting to property tax assessments

Under current law, when the local board of review conducts a hearing to consider an objection to a person's property tax assessment, the board must, at the request of the assessor or the person making an objection, compel the attendance of witnesses. The bill eliminates the option for the person making the objection to request the attendance of witnesses.

Sales tax exemption certificates

Under current law, drugs prescribed for the treatment of a human being by a person authorized to prescribe the drugs, and dispensed on prescription filled by a pharmacist, are exempt from the sales tax. Generally, a person does not need to present to the seller a sales tax exemption certificate issued by DOR to claim the exemption.

Under current law, insulin furnished by a pharmacist to a person for treatment of diabetes as directed by a physician is considered to be dispensed on prescription and, therefore, exempt from the sales tax. However, a person must present a tax exemption certificate to claim the exemption. The bill modifies the exemption for insulin so that insulin furnished by a pharmacist to a person for treatment of diabetes of a human being is exempt from the sales tax and the purchaser is not required to present an exemption certificate.

Current law also provides sales tax exemptions for patient health care records that are sold to the patient and for farm-raised fish sold to a fish farm. In order to claim either exemption, the purchaser must present to the seller an exemption certificate issued by DOR. The bill eliminates the requirement that a purchaser present an exemption certificate to claim the exemption for patient health care records or for farm-raised fish.

For further information, see the Notes provided by the Law Revision Committee of the Joint Legislative Council.

The people of the state of Wisconsin, represented in senate and assembly, do enact as follows:

Law Revision Committee prefatory note: This bill is a remedial legislation proposal, requested by the Department of Revenue and introduced by the Law Revision Committee under s. 13.83 (1) (c) 4. and 5., stats. After careful consideration of the various provisions of the bill, the Law Revision Committee has determined that this bill makes minor substantive changes in the statutes, and that these changes are desirable as a matter of public policy.

SB1020,1 Section 1 . 60.85 (2) (b) 7. of the statutes is repealed.

Note: This Section repeals an exception to the town tax increment law for the town of Brookfield in Waukesha County. Sections 2 to 5 delete cross-references to this exception.

SB1020,2 Section 2 . 60.85 (2) (c) of the statutes is amended to read:

SB1020,3,7 60.85 (2) (c) Except as provided in par. (b) 7., no No town may exercise any power under this subsection within the extraterritorial zoning jurisdiction of a city or village, as that term is defined in s. 62.23 (7a) (a), unless the city's or village's governing body adopts a resolution which approves the town's exercise of power under this subsection within such an extraterritorial zoning jurisdiction.

SB1020,3 Section 3 . 60.85 (3) (h) 4. of the statutes is amended to read:

SB1020,3,13 60.85 (3) (h) 4. Declares the district to be either an agricultural project district, forestry project district, manufacturing project district, or tourism project district, and identifies the North American Industry Classification System industry number of each activity under each project for which project costs are to be expended; or declares the district to be a project described in sub. (2) (b) 7.

SB1020,4 Section 4 . 60.85 (3) (h) 5. a. of the statutes is amended to read:

SB1020,3,17 60.85 (3) (h) 5. a. That not less than 75 percent, by area, of the real property within the district is to be used for projects of a single one of the project types listed under sub. (2) (b) 1. to 4. or 7. and in accordance with the declaration under subd. 4.

SB1020,5 Section 5 . 60.85 (3) (h) 5. c. of the statutes is amended to read:

SB1020,4,4 60.85 (3) (h) 5. c. That the project costs of the district are limited to those specified under sub. (2) (b) and relate directly to a project described in sub. (2) (b) 7. or to promoting agriculture, forestry, manufacturing, or tourism development.

SB1020,6 Section 6 . 60.85 (5) (e) of the statutes is repealed.

Note: This Section repeals a requirement that a town clerk, no later than May 15 each year, file with the department of revenue a list of the expenditures made in the previous year for a town tax incremental district.

SB1020,7 Section 7 . 66.1105 (2) (f) 1. (intro.) of the statutes is amended to read:

SB1020,5,2 66.1105 (2) (f) 1. (intro.) “Project costs" mean any expenditures made or estimated to be made or monetary obligations incurred or estimated to be incurred by the city which are listed in a project plan as costs of public works or improvements within a tax incremental district or, to the extent provided in this subd. 1. (intro.) or subds. 1. k., 1. m., and 1. n., or sub. (20) (c), without the district, plus any incidental costs, diminished by any income, special assessments, or other revenues, including user fees or charges, other than tax increments, received or reasonably expected to be received by the city in connection with the implementation of the plan. For any tax incremental district for which a project plan is approved on or after July 31, 1981, only a proportionate share of the costs permitted under this subdivision may be included as project costs to the extent that they benefit the tax incremental district, except that expenditures made or estimated to be made or monetary obligations incurred or estimated to be incurred by a 1st class city, to fund parking facilities ancillary to and within one mile from public entertainment facilities, including a sports and entertainment arena, shall be considered to benefit any tax incremental district located in whole or in part within a one-mile radius of such parking facilities. To the extent the costs benefit the municipality outside the tax incremental district, a proportionate share of the cost is not a project cost. “Project costs" include:

SB1020,8 Section 8 . 66.1105 (2) (f) 1. m. of the statutes is repealed.

Note: This Section repeals a statute relating to project costs for a one-half mile radius of a tax incremental district in the city of Kenosha. Sections 7 and 12 delete a cross-reference to this statute. Section 9 deletes language that is obsolete after the repeal of the statute in this Section.

SB1020,9 Section 9 . 66.1105 (2) (f) 1. n. of the statutes is amended to read:

SB1020,5,8 66.1105 (2) (f) 1. n. With regard to a tax incremental district that is located anywhere other than a city to which sub. (6) (d) applies, and subject Subject to sub. (4m) (d), project costs incurred for territory that is located within a one-half mile radius of the district's boundaries and within the city that created the district.

SB1020,10 Section 10 . 66.1105 (6) (am) 2. e. of the statutes is repealed.

Note: This Section repeals an exception for a tax incremental district in the village of Denmark.

SB1020,11 Section 11 . 66.1105 (6) (am) 2. f. of the statutes is repealed.

Note: This Section repeals an exception for a tax incremental district in the city of Marinette.

SB1020,12 Section 12 . 66.1105 (18) (c) 2. of the statutes is amended to read:

SB1020,5,14 66.1105 (18) (c) 2. Notwithstanding the provisions under sub. (2) (f) 1. k., m., and n., a multijurisdictional tax incremental district may not incur project costs for any area that is outside of the district's boundaries.

SB1020,13 Section 13. 70.47 (8) (d) of the statutes is amended to read: