Committee Summary for House Ways and Means (01/28/2025)

Bill/Time	Type	Title	Sponsor
HB135 00:08:33.039 - 9:07:39 AM	Public Hearing	relative to the collection of sales taxes of foreign jurisdictions by New Hampshire businesses.	Harrington, Michael(R)[A]2024
HB155 00:48:36.240 - 9:47:42 AM	Public Hearing	reducing the rate of the business enterprise tax.	Sweeney, Joe(R)[A-]2024
HB155 00:57:17.920 - 9:56:23 AM	Public Hearing	reducing the rate of the business enterprise tax.	Sweeney, Joe(R)[A-]2024
HB502 01:21:37.199 - 10:20:43 AM	Public Hearing	relative to complete corporate reporting for unitary businesses under the business profits tax and revenues from the state education property tax.	Schamberg, Thomas(D)[CT]2024
HB417 03:05:22.239 - 12:04:28 PM	Public Hearing	relative to repealing the communications services tax.	McFarlane, Donald(R)
HB596 03:48:00.040 - 12:47:06 PM	Public Hearing	relative to reporting requirements for entities that collect meals and rooms taxes.	Paige, David(D)[CT]2024
HB540 04:54:19.680 - 1:53:25 PM	Public Hearing	relative to historic horse racing licenses for large facilities.	Ohm, Bill(R)[B]2018

HB135: Representative Michael Harrington, Strafford District 18 Support00:08:33.039 - 9:07:39 AM; Representative Harrington introduced HB 135, which aims to codify Article 1, Section 12 of the New Hampshire State Constitution. He explained that the bill addresses the Wayfair decision concerning sales tax collection from businesses in non-sales tax states to sales tax states. Harrington highlighted the complexity of managing over 13,000 different sales tax rates across the U.S., and the burdens placed on businesses, such as having to track sales to different states to comply with varying tax laws. He argued that the Wayfair decision, which overturned the Quill decision, infringes on the New Hampshire Constitution's stipulation that no part of a person's property can be taken without consent. Harrington suggested that by passing this bill, New Hampshire could challenge the Wayfair decision in court, similar to how other states challenged the Quill decision. He emphasized that the U.S. Constitution grants Congress, not the Supreme Court, the authority to regulate interstate commerce.
HB135: Representative Elberger Information Only00:17:05.799 - 9:16:11 AM; Representative Elberger sought clarification on the implications of the bill concerning the Supreme Court's authority and decisions. He questioned whether New Hampshire could disregard Supreme Court rulings it disagrees with, referencing the U.S. Constitution's Supremacy Clause. Harrington responded by asserting that the New Hampshire Constitution specifically prohibits control by laws not consented to by its citizens or their representatives. He argued that the Wayfair decision represents judicial overreach into areas meant for Congressional legislation.
HB135: Unnamed Representative Information Only00:21:55.159 - 9:21:01 AM; The unnamed representative asked about the process of contesting a Supreme Court decision, specifically the elements required to trigger such contestation. Harrington, admitting he is not a lawyer, suggested that passing a state law disagreeing with a Supreme Court decision, as done by South Dakota in the Quill case, could lead to a legal challenge. He emphasized the existing harm to businesses due to compliance with the Wayfair decision and believed New Hampshire could follow a similar legal path.
HB135: Another Unnamed Representative Information Only00:24:21.200 - 9:23:27 AM; The representative discussed the concept of state rights versus federal authority, suggesting that HB 135 represents New Hampshire's assertion of its rights against other states. They mentioned the unfunded mandate on businesses to collect sales taxes and inquired if any state had ever refused to follow a Supreme Court ruling. Harrington responded that he was unaware of specific instances but noted that some businesses were avoiding the thresholds that would require them to collect taxes. He reiterated that the New Hampshire Constitution's explicit language supports the bill's stance against external control.
HB135: Elberger Information Only00:27:10.760 - 9:26:16 AM; Elberger clarified the nature of the tax collection process in relation to the bill, emphasizing that there is no state action involved from New Hampshire in collecting taxes from other states. They specifically discussed the example of Massachusetts, where a company would collect sales tax and remit it directly to Massachusetts, not involving New Hampshire. Elberger argued that the proposed bill does not constitute an unfunded mandate as no government funding or state action from New Hampshire is involved.
HB135: Unnamed Representative Information Only00:28:39.440 - 9:27:45 AM; This representative questioned the potential costs associated with the bill, such as recordkeeping and sending taxes to different states, even if it's not officially an unfunded mandate. They pointed out the complexity of tracking thousands of different sales tax rates across the country, suggesting that businesses might need to hire external firms to manage this. They also highlighted the variability in tax laws between states, using Massachusetts as an example, and the potential need for a database to manage these complexities.
HB135: Sam Garland, Department of Justice Information Only00:33:41.279 - 9:32:47 AM; Sam Garland, Senior Assistant Attorney General from the Department of Justice, provided technical insight on the bill without taking a formal position. He discussed the implications of the Wayfair decision, which shifted from a physical presence to an economic nexus for taxation, creating compliance burdens for businesses. Garland noted that while states are attempting to standardize their tax structures, challenges remain. He raised concerns about the constitutionality of the bill, highlighting potential conflicts with federal and other state laws, and the practical implications for New Hampshire businesses, including increased compliance costs and uncertainty. He mentioned the existing RSA chapter 78e and the relatively low number of complaints received regarding out-of-state tax collection efforts.
HB155: Representative Joe Sweeney, Rockingham District 25 (Salem) Support00:48:36.240 - 9:47:42 AM; Representative Joe Sweeney introduced House Bill 155, advocating for a reduction of the Business Enterprise Tax (BET) rate from 0.55% to 0.50% for taxable periods ending on or after December 31, 2026, with an effective date of July 1, 2025. Sweeney argued that lowering the BET rate would allow businesses to retain more earnings, fostering investment, job creation, and innovation. He emphasized that this policy would benefit businesses of all sizes, enhancing economic activity and indirectly increasing state revenues. Sweeney addressed concerns about revenue impact, suggesting that lower taxes historically lead to stronger economic growth in New Hampshire. He also highlighted the state's ability to absorb the tax cut and mentioned potential areas for state government efficiency to offset the revenue reduction.
HB155: Unidentified Speaker Information Only00:57:17.920 - 9:56:23 AM; The speaker references a presentation by AFP and a gentleman from Josiah Bartlett, mentioning data from New Hampshire that shows increased revenue to the general fund and education trust fund following tax rate cuts. The speaker questions Representative Joe Sweeney about this phenomenon, indicating an interest in understanding the correlation between tax cuts and revenue growth.
HB155: Representative Joe Sweeney, Rockingham District 25 (Salem) Support00:58:03.480 - 9:57:09 AM; Representative Sweeney responds by highlighting New Hampshire's unique position in promoting economic freedom and lowering taxes, contrasting this with neighboring states that are increasing taxes. He suggests that this economic strategy has driven private sector growth, leading to increased tax revenues despite reduced tax rates.
HB155: Representative Elberger, Nashua Oppose00:58:40.480 - 9:57:46 AM; Representative Elberger challenges the notion of tax reduction by pointing out the rise in property taxes in Nashua. He argues that the state's reduction in revenue has forced localities to increase property taxes to maintain services, questioning the consistency of the statement that taxes are lowering. He emphasizes the financial burden on local governments due to state policies.
HB155: Representative Joe Sweeney, Rockingham District 25 (Salem) Support00:59:26.240 - 9:58:32 AM; In response to Representative Elberger, Representative Sweeney maintains that low taxes are a result of low spending at the local level. He stresses the importance of local governance in managing budgets and keeping property taxes reasonable, using his experience on the Salem Town Council as an example.
HB155: Representative Elberger, Nashua Oppose01:01:11.760 - 10:00:17 AM; Representative Elberger continues his argument by pointing out New Hampshire's low state support for public education and the financial burden on Nashua due to unfunded retirement benefits for first responders. He challenges the idea that these issues are solely the result of local mismanagement.
HB155: Representative Joe Sweeney, Rockingham District 25 (Salem) Support01:01:58.039 - 10:01:04 AM; Representative Sweeney reiterates his stance that local spending decisions drive local tax rates, suggesting that local governments could reduce spending to achieve tax relief.
HB155: Unidentified Speaker Information Only01:02:04.720 - 10:01:10 AM; The speaker references a presentation by the Josiah Bartlett Center about economic freedom and GDP growth in New Hampshire compared to Massachusetts. The speaker notes New Hampshire's high rating in economic freedom and its GDP growth rate, questioning Representative Sweeney about these statistics and the policy implications.
HB155: Representative Joe Sweeney, Rockingham District 25 (Salem) Support01:03:39.119 - 10:02:45 AM; Representative Sweeney acknowledges New Hampshire's economic growth over the past eight years, but he does not directly address the comparison with Massachusetts. He emphasizes the state's continued growth and economic policy.
HB155: Janine Under, Hillsborough 12 (Marlow) Support01:04:52.039 - 10:03:58 AM; Representative Under expresses support for HB155, mentioning her previous sponsorship of a bill to cut the BPT and BET. She commends the current bill's sponsor for their work and simply wants to be on record supporting the bill.
HB155: Greg Moore, Americans for Prosperity Support01:05:48.839 - 10:04:54 AM; Greg Moore, representing Americans for Prosperity, expressed support for House Bill 155, highlighting the organization's long-standing efforts since 2014 to address New Hampshire's high business tax rates. He noted that at the time, New Hampshire ranked 48th nationally in business tax rates and had a corporate tax rate higher than Massachusetts. Moore discussed the previous five rounds of relief for the business profits tax (BPT) and four for the business enterprise tax (BET), emphasizing that the BET has a more direct impact on small businesses. He encouraged the committee to focus on reducing the BET, acknowledging the state's record contributions to local governments and education funding, but also pointed out the impact of disappearing federal funds on local budgets.
HB155: John Reynolds, National Federation of Independent Business in New Hampshire Support01:10:49.719 - 10:09:55 AM; John Reynolds, state director for the National Federation of Independent Business in New Hampshire, testified in support of House Bill 155. He emphasized that the organization represents over 1700 small businesses across the state and that business taxes are the top concern among members. Reynolds discussed the ongoing challenges faced by small businesses, including the lingering effects of the COVID-19 pandemic on sales, and supported the reduction of the BET as a means to help businesses recover and invest in growth. He also highlighted the upcoming expiration of the federal small business deduction and its potential detrimental impact on local businesses.
HB155: Unknown Information Only01:19:23.080 - 10:18:29 AM; The speaker followed up on a previous question about a survey stopped in 2023, asking if it could be conducted again to see if responses might differ significantly post the worst of the pandemic. They acknowledged the organization's limited resources and small data research team but committed to looking into the feasibility of conducting the survey again to assess sales and overall business health.
HB502: Representative Opal, Co-sponsor with Representative Shamberg Support01:21:37.199 - 10:20:43 AM; Representative Opal introduced House Bill 502, emphasizing its goal to address New Hampshire's fiscal crisis, particularly the impact on property taxpayers. They highlighted the need for a Level Playing Field in corporate taxation, criticizing multinational corporations for profit shifting to lower tax jurisdictions. The bill proposes complete corporate reporting to ensure all businesses pay taxes based on their activity in New Hampshire, similar to practices in some other states and historically in New Hampshire itself. Opal referenced a study indicating potential revenue gains for the state and mentioned plans to amend the bill to remove unrelated provisions regarding the Statewide property tax, which would be addressed in another bill.
HB502: Unknown Information Only01:27:14.119 - 10:26:20 AM; The speaker questioned Representative Opal about federal efforts to address profit shifting by multinational corporations. Opal explained that federal attempts, like the Tax Cut and Jobs Act and the GILTI provision, have not fully resolved the issue, and several states have considered similar legislation without success due to lobbying.
HB502: Unknown Information Only01:29:34.280 - 10:28:40 AM; The speaker asked Representative Opal about the rationale behind New Hampshire's interest in a multinational corporation's global operations. Opal argued that fairness and equal application of the law justify the state's interest, ensuring that all businesses, including multinationals, pay their fair share of taxes in New Hampshire.
HB502: Unknown Oppose01:33:37.719 - 10:32:43 AM; The speaker, with a background in finance and taxation, expressed difficulty understanding the proposed complete corporate reporting and questioned its necessity and potential impact on businesses. They were concerned that it might complicate the tax code further and drive businesses out of New Hampshire. Opal clarified that the bill's goal is to ensure multinational corporations report all their activities to pay taxes fairly, without affecting non-multinational businesses.
HB502: Representative Opal Support01:39:20.040 - 10:38:26 AM; Representative Opal clarified that the bill seeks to amend provisions related to the Statewide property tax, which are now being addressed in a separate bill. They emphasized the focus on complete reporting to ensure fairness in taxation among multinational corporations.
HB502: Representative Spillsbury Oppose01:41:02.320 - 10:40:08 AM; Representative Spillsbury strongly opposed House Bill 502, recommending it be deemed inexpedient to legislate (ITL). He referenced a commission report he chaired, which thoroughly examined worldwide combined reporting and concluded against its adoption due to its complexity and lack of implementation by other states or the federal government. He argued that the existing federal arms-length adjustment process and international efforts sufficiently address the issue, and the proposed bill would require significant resources without a proportional benefit to New Hampshire.
HB502: Representative Elberger Information Only01:49:16.840 - 10:48:22 AM; Representative Elberger seeks clarification from Representative Elber regarding a previous discussion on the effective tax rates between local and international businesses. He inquires whether it was determined that local businesses pay more taxes than international corporations. Elber responds that he does not recall such a discussion and explains that tax rates are applied uniformly to net taxable income regardless of the business's scale or type. Elberger further questions if the major objection to the bill is due to its complexity, to which Elber agrees, emphasizing the complexity and uncertainty involved in implementing the bill across different countries, currencies, languages, and tax regimes.
HB502: Jennifer Ramsey, Tax Policy Council for Dr Information Only01:52:26.000 - 10:51:32 AM; Jennifer Ramsey from the Tax Policy Council for Dr speaks to the committee about the administrative costs associated with implementing HB502. She mentions that Dr is not taking a position on the bill but highlights the logistical challenges and costs involved. Ramsey discusses the need for new forms, an expansion of the audit division, and the hiring of additional auditors with foreign language and tax expertise. She provides estimated costs for fiscal years 2026, 2027, and 2028. Ramsey also addresses a question about the feasibility of implementing the bill only in regions with robust audit systems, suggesting it would be logistically challenging but possible.
HB502: Representative Elberger Information Only01:56:23.679 - 10:55:29 AM; Representative Elberger follows up on the cost estimates provided by Jennifer Ramsey, seeking clarification on the total costs beyond personnel. Ramsey confirms the figures mentioned in the fiscal note and discusses the potential revenue gain, admitting that Dr has not attempted to estimate the gain. Elberger questions the apportionment rules, to which Ramsey explains the current system and the implications of expanding it to include worldwide revenues, acknowledging the risk of New Hampshire's share being smaller when considering global revenues.
HB417: Representative McFarlin, representing Alexandria, Bridgewater, Bristol, Campton, Danbury, Dorchester, Grafton, Groton, Hebron, and Orange Support03:05:22.239 - 12:04:28 PM; Representative McFarlin introduces HB417, which aims to lower the communication services tax in its first year and repeal it entirely in the second. He argues that the tax lacks a clear purpose, is regressive, and adds administrative complexity for businesses. McFarlin emphasizes the necessity of communication services in modern life and highlights how the tax disproportionately affects low-income residents. He advocates for a phased approach to manage the budgetary implications and enhance New Hampshire's appeal for residents and businesses by reducing the cost of these services.
HB417: Berie Dees, New Hampshire Municipal Association Oppose03:15:23.120 - 12:14:29 PM; Berie Dees from the New Hampshire Municipal Association opposes HB417 as currently written, not because of the repeal of the communication services tax itself, but due to the lack of an update to RSA 72:8-a. He explains that telecommunications companies currently exempt from property tax due to the communication services tax would need to be assessed under property tax statutes if the tax is repealed. Dees suggests amending the bill to include such an update to prevent unequal tax treatment and potential constitutional issues. He also mentions the need to assess the value of telecommunications lines to estimate potential revenue.
HB417: Berie Dees, New Hampshire Municipal Association Information Only03:15:23.120 - 12:14:29 PM; Berie Dees from the New Hampshire Municipal Association was discussing the implications of amending the bill to include communications companies under property tax. They noted that federal law bars taxation of internet access, which complicates the situation. Dees mentioned that they would need to further investigate how to potentially draft exemption language to comply with federal law. They also highlighted the potential loss of assessed value in communities if the communications services tax is removed, expressing a preference for the tax to be included under assessed value for property tax purposes.
HB417: Unnamed Speaker Information Only03:19:26.080 - 12:18:32 PM; The speaker raised concerns about federal law prohibiting the taxation of internet access and queried how this would interact with the proposed amendment to tax communications companies under property tax. They were particularly worried about the practical application of taxing lines that provide both phone and internet services, using their personal situation with Xfinity as an example. They sought clarity on whether this would conflict with federal law.
HB417: Unnamed Speaker Information Only03:22:53.239 - 12:21:59 PM; The speaker followed up on the previous discussion about the potential increase in property tax levy on utilities. They questioned whether the New Hampshire Municipal Association would support such a change if the bill were amended. The discussion clarified that communications currently exempt from property tax due to the communication services tax should be subjected to it if the tax is removed, aligning with the Municipal Association's position.
HB417: Steve Pearson, Rockingham District 13 Oppose03:25:17.640 - 12:24:23 PM; Representative Steve Pearson from Rockingham District 13 spoke in opposition to the repeal of the communications tax. He mentioned concerns raised in a meeting with the Governor's transition team and the Legislative Budget Assistant's office about the loss of revenue impacting the state budget. Pearson argued that repealing a tax that generates nearly $30 million during a time of revenue shortfalls is not advisable, emphasizing the need to maintain a consistent revenue source for the state budget.
HB596: Representative TIY Support03:48:00.040 - 12:47:06 PM; Representative TIY introduced House Bill 596, aiming to improve transparency and accountability in meals and rooms tax revenue reporting. They highlighted the current lack of data on where revenues are collected, which makes it difficult for towns, tourism organizations, and the state to plan effectively. The bill proposes changes to require operators to report the municipality where receipts were collected and to address privacy concerns in smaller communities by only disclosing data from communities with 10 or more operators. TIY emphasized the importance of this data for informed decision-making and economic planning, aiming to empower local entities and build public trust.
HB596: Unnamed Speaker Information Only03:53:56.880 - 12:53:02 PM; The speaker asked Representative TIY if the bill addresses the issue of businesses collecting taxes but not reporting them. TIY clarified that the bill's focus is strictly on ensuring that reported revenues are accurately attributed to the correct municipalities, not on addressing tax collection or retention issues.
HB596: Unnamed Speaker Information Only03:55:31.159 - 12:54:37 PM; The speaker expressed concern that the bill might lead smaller communities to demand a larger share of tax revenues based on their contributions, potentially causing tension between communities. Representative TIY responded that while the bill does not directly address how revenues should be distributed, it is crucial for the public to have access to this data. They suggested that discussions about revenue distribution should be separate from the bill's primary goal of transparency.
HB596: Representative Tierney on behalf of the Coos County delegation Support03:57:25.359 - 12:56:31 PM; Representative Tierney, not a co-sponsor of HB596, read a letter from the Coos County delegation unanimously supporting the bill. The letter emphasized the significant impact of tourism on their region and the necessity of quantifying meals and room taxes at the municipal level for more accurate data on tourism revenue generation. The delegation highlighted several benefits including precise revenue attribution, improved tax forecasting and budgeting, identifying trends and growth areas, enhancing local tourism strategies, and fostering accountability and transparency. They contested the fiscal impact stated in the fiscal note, suggesting that the cost of implementation would be outweighed by the benefits to the municipalities. The letter was signed by multiple representatives from various districts within Coos County.
HB596: Representative Information Only04:02:54.520 - 1:02:00 PM; The representative raised concerns about the necessity of the bill, questioning if municipalities already possess the data needed to understand their local economies. They argued that planning boards and local governments have a good understanding of their community's establishments and economic activities, and questioned the need for additional data collection at the municipal level.
HB596: Representative Information Only04:04:28.680 - 1:03:34 PM; The representative further discussed the issue of municipalities potentially being 'donor towns' and how this bill aims to help economic development advisors better allocate resources within the county based on where the revenue is generated. They mentioned the challenge of not knowing the specific contributions from different establishments in their town, like hotels and restaurants, which is crucial for economic planning.
HB596: Representative Information Only04:07:34.560 - 1:06:40 PM; The representative highlighted the current system where municipalities receive a lump sum of meals and rooms taxes annually, without breakdown by individual establishments. They expressed the need for more detailed data to understand the performance of specific businesses, which could inform better economic development strategies.
HB596: Representative Information Only04:09:52.760 - 1:08:58 PM; The representative discussed the aggregation of revenues by businesses with multiple facilities across different towns, suggesting that more granular reporting could be beneficial for economic planning, though they were unsure if such detailed reporting was feasible or currently available.
HB596: Representative Southworth Support04:12:14.119 - 1:11:20 PM; Representative Southworth supported the bill, emphasizing its importance in providing useful data for economic planning. They noted that the current distribution of meals and rooms taxes is per capita and unrelated to the number of businesses in a town, which makes the proposed data collection crucial for understanding local economic activities.
HB596: Representative Information Only04:13:14.119 - 1:12:20 PM; The representative raised concerns about the confidentiality of business data, mentioning previous discussions with the Department of Revenue Administration about the potential for competitive disadvantage if detailed sales data were made public. They suggested that such data should remain confidential to protect businesses.
HB596: Representative Information Only04:15:28.239 - 1:14:34 PM; The representative clarified that the bill focuses on reporting at the municipal level rather than individual businesses, questioning the validity of concerns about competitive disadvantage from detailed reporting.
HB596: Representative Amy Support04:16:21.640 - 1:15:27 PM; Representative Amy supported the bill, emphasizing its role in economic development and addressing the disproportionate costs faced by urban hubs due to their role in serving larger regions. They highlighted the need for more detailed data to help these hubs manage increased service demands and to better plan economic development, noting the lack of specific provisions for confidentiality and the potential burden on businesses to comply with new reporting requirements.
HB596: Representative Opal Oppose04:25:55.720 - 1:25:01 PM; Representative Opal expressed concerns about the potential inequity the bill might create, fearing that it could disproportionately benefit communities with strong tourism sectors at the expense of others. They questioned the necessity of the data collection, citing their own experience on the planning and economic development boards, where they felt they already had a good understanding of local business performance.
HB596: Unidentified Speaker Information Only04:31:19.119 - 1:30:25 PM; The speaker discusses their interpretation of the bill, suggesting that it focuses on transparency in reporting how revenues are distributed by town or city, without specifics on how revenues are redistributed. They emphasize that the bill's purpose seems to be about providing a deeper level of transparency in the reporting of taxes collected, specifically mentioning towns A and B as examples.
HB596: Representative Alme Information Only04:32:53.359 - 1:31:59 PM; Representative Alme clarifies that the bill should be viewed as a data bill, focusing on whether the committee and other communities would find the data useful. They suggest that discussions on how the data might be used in the future are not relevant to supporting the bill.
HB596: Carl Tibido, Conway, New Hampshire Support04:34:25.160 - 1:33:31 PM; Carl Tibido, representing Conway, supports the bill, emphasizing the need for transparency in the collection process of meals and rooms taxes. He highlights the challenges Conway faces due to its large tourist population, which strains local infrastructure and services. Tibido argues that knowing the revenue stream in detail would help in planning and managing town resources better, and mentions a previous communication with the state about the importance of detailed revenue tracking for effective auditing.
HB596: Unidentified Speaker Information Only04:41:42.920 - 1:40:48 PM; The speaker expresses concern about the potential for the bill to cause competition between towns over tax revenue distribution. They suggest that while transparency is important, the state should consider the broader benefits of tourism to the entire state rather than pitting towns against each other.
HB596: Jennifer Ramsey, Tax Policy Council, Department of Revenue Administration Information Only04:42:29.760 - 1:41:35 PM; Jennifer Ramsey explains the current process of the meals and rooms tax, emphasizing that it is collected by operators who are licensed by the Department of Revenue Administration. She clarifies that operators file monthly returns and may report consolidated data from multiple locations under a master license. Ramsey addresses confidentiality issues, noting that the department does not report data that could identify individual taxpayers and currently does not collect data at the town level as proposed by the bill. She outlines the additional costs and complexities that would be involved in implementing the bill's requirements.
HB596: Unidentified Speaker Information Only04:47:43.520 - 1:46:49 PM; The speaker confirms with Jennifer Ramsey that the bill would not require the department to disclose specific taxpayer information but would allow for aggregated data by town, provided there are enough data points to maintain confidentiality.
HB596: Representative Southworth Information Only04:48:45.040 - 1:47:51 PM; Representative Southworth seeks clarification on the confidentiality thresholds for data aggregation, which Jennifer Ramsey confirms as 10 taxpayers at the state level and 20 at the local level. Southworth suggests that the bill might need an amendment to align with existing confidentiality policies.
HB540: Representative Bill M, City of Nashua, Hillsborough 10 Support04:54:19.680 - 1:53:25 PM; Representative Bill M from Nashua supports HB540, which addresses the licensing fees for large gambling facilities. He discusses the transformation of small gambling operations into large casinos with historic horse racing machines and proposes increasing the license fees to reflect the profitability of these large operations. He suggests a potential sliding scale for license fees based on the number of machines, mentioning the current and future large casinos in Nashua as examples.
HB540: Unknown Speaker Information Only05:03:17.200 - 2:02:23 PM; The speaker inquired about how other states handle gambling fees, specifically whether they are based on the type of game or a percentage of gross revenue. The response indicated that typically, states impose a fee per machine, with an example of a licensing fee being around $600 per machine. The revenue from these machines is consolidated, with variations in daily luck but an overall important number being the operator's total intake.
HB540: Representative D Oppose05:04:23.320 - 2:03:29 PM; Representative D expressed concern about imposing a $10 million tax on existing operators who have complied with all rules and invested heavily in the industry. They questioned the enforcement and potential lawsuits that could arise from such a tax. The bill's sponsor explained that the tax would be effective from January 1 of the following year and could be implemented at the end of a three-year gaming license cycle, suggesting that tax laws change and are not made retroactively.
HB540: Representative Brier Information Only05:06:35.760 - 2:05:41 PM; Representative Brier, new to the committee and gaming industry, expressed confusion about the classification of gaming facilities in New Hampshire as charitable gaming when they seem to be expanding like casinos. They mentioned facilities in Dover (corrected from 'dolba'), Rochester, and questioned if the state was missing out on revenue opportunities. The response noted ongoing studies and the recent passage of a bill related to a gaming commission, suggesting a broader review of gaming policies.
HB540: Alicia Preston, New Hampshire Charitable Gaming Operators Association Oppose05:09:11.958 - 2:08:17 PM; Alicia Preston opposed the bill, explaining that there are currently about 2,000 historic horse racing machines in New Hampshire, spread across 10 facilities. She argued that the proposed $10 million tax on facilities exceeding 999 machines would hinder industry growth and consequently reduce revenue for the state and charities. She referenced a study by Spectrum Gaming Group, suggesting a maximum saturation of 6,300 machines in the state. She also noted that the Gaming Study Commission found current gaming revenues sufficient to cover regulatory costs and that high licensing fees could impede growth.
HB540: Duet Information Only05:11:18.920 - 2:10:24 PM; Duet provided clarification on the profit margins and operational costs of historic horse racing (HHR) machines. They explained that 90% of the wagers are returned to players, 10% is retained, with 25% of that going to the state and charities. However, they noted that the cost of the machines themselves, which ranges from 15 to 18%, significantly impacts the overall profitability for operators. Duet also discussed the leasing and purchasing options for the machines and their management.
HB540: Representative ORS Information Only05:12:24.160 - 2:11:30 PM; Representative ORS asked about the actual operator take from historic horse racing, to which Duet responded that the operator's take would be between 53% and 61%, considering both the retained percentage and the cost of the machines.
HB540: Charlie McIntyre, New Hampshire Lottery Commission Information Only05:13:10.000 - 2:12:16 PM; Charlie McIntyre from the New Hampshire Lottery Commission, along with compliance officer Kolia Royal, discussed the fiscal impact of the bill. They noted that the revenue was characterized as essentially zero due to the limited size of the gaming rooms, which would not exceed 1000 machines. McIntyre explained the logistical challenges of managing such a number of machines and compared the size of potential facilities to larger casinos in other states, suggesting that a thousand machines would not be considered a 'large' operation in their context.
HB540: Representative Southworth Information Only05:15:30.040 - 2:14:36 PM; Representative Southworth inquired about the possibility of a tiered system affecting the analysis of gaming facilities. They discussed the three economic levers available for regulating gaming facilities: the license fee, ongoing operational taxes, and construction requirements, using examples from Massachusetts to illustrate their points.
HB540: Unnamed Speaker Information Only05:16:36.638 - 2:15:42 PM; The speaker questioned the adequacy of the $250 New Hampshire HHR license fee, suggesting it seemed artificially low. They discussed the potential impact on state revenue and the dynamics of larger casino operators acquiring smaller operations, noting a shift in perspective on whether this was beneficial or detrimental to the state.
HB540: Ros Malloy Information Only05:18:16.798 - 2:17:22 PM; Ros Malloy asked if the machines used in New Hampshire are standard across the U.S. The response indicated that while the physical and operational aspects of the machines are similar, the content and the mathematical back-end differ due to the nature of historic horse racing compared to traditional slot machines.
HB540: Unknown Information Only05:19:45.798 - 2:18:51 PM; The speaker discussed the current legislative moratorium on gambling expansion, mentioning that it was established with bipartisan support to assess the impact of new gambling initiatives over time. They noted that the moratorium lasts seven years from last July 1st and emphasized the importance of a long-term evaluation through a commission established for ten years. They also mentioned the upcoming opening of a new gambling facility, referred to as 'Nash', and the uncertainty about its impact on the community, indicating that the situation would be monitored and revisited.
HB540: Unknown Information Only05:21:07.520 - 2:20:13 PM; The speaker responded to a question about the financial stability of casino operators in the state. They stated that, to their knowledge, no operators were struggling financially. They also mentioned that the Division of Gaming conducts audits and investigations, but the details are private. The speaker appreciated the question and noted the absence of further questions, indicating the end of the testimony session on HB540.

Janigian, John(Chairman)(R)[B+]2024	Ohm, Bill(Clerk)(R)[B]2018	Ulery, Jordan(V Chairman)(R)[A-]2024
Almy, Susan(D)[CT]2024	Oppel, Thomas(D)	Smith, Steven(R)[B+]2024
Malloy, Dennis(D)[CT]2024	Schamberg, Thomas(D)[CT]2024	Doucette, Fred(R)[A-]2024
Southworth, Thomas(D)[CT]2024	Tierney, James(R)[B-]2024	Aures, Cyril(R)[A]2024
Bolton, Bill(D)[CT]2024	Elberger, Susan(D)[D-]2024	Smith, Geoffrey(D)[D-]2024
Soti, Julius(R)[A+]2024	Spahr, Terry(D)	Bryer, Scott(R)
Murphy, Mary(R)	Ford, Mary(R)