total state and local business taxes for fy2012 -...

28
Total state and local business taxes State-by-state estimates for

Upload: lekhuong

Post on 25-May-2018

215 views

Category:

Documents


2 download

TRANSCRIPT

Total state and local business taxesState-by-state estimates for ����������� �

The authorsAndrew Phillips is a principal in the Quantitative Economics and Statistics group of Ernst & Young LLP and directs EY’s Regional Economics practice. He has an MA in Economics from Johns Hopkins University and a BA in Economics from Emory University.

Robert Cline is the National Director of State and Local Tax Policy Economics of Ernst & Young LLP. Robert is the former director of tax research for the States of Michigan and Minnesota. He has a PhD in Economics from the University of Michigan.

Caroline Sallee is a manager in the Quantitative Economics and Statistics group. She has a Master’s degree in Public Policy from the University of Michigan.

Michelle Klassen is an analyst in the Quantitative Economics and Statistics group. She has a BS in Economics from Virginia Tech.

Daniel Sufranski is an analyst in the Quantitative Economics and Statistics group. He has a BA in Economics and Political Science from Washington University.

This study was prepared by the Quantitative Economics and Statistics (QUEST) practice of Ernst & Young LLP in conjunction with the Council On State Taxation (COST).

QUEST is a group of economists, statisticians, survey professionals and tax policy researchers within EY’s National Tax Practice, located in Washington, DC. QUEST provides quantitative advisory services and products to private and public sector clients that enhance business processes, support regulatory compliance, analyze proposed policy issues and provide litigation support.

����������� ����� ������������������������������������������ ���������������!��� "�committee to the Council of State Chambers of Commerce and today has an independent membership ���� #"��$$��%� ��� �� ���������������� ���������� ���#��'�����������*����%����!��������preserve and promote the equitable and nondiscriminatory state and local taxation of multijurisdictional business entities.

������������������������������������������

This study presents detailed state-by-state estimates of the state and local taxes paid by businesses for +/0$�0��1��������������'#� ��� ��� �� ����"�2/���conjunction with the Council On State Taxation (COST).

3'������������4�5����##������������#��#��6�����+/0$�0����� �������7��8�� ���+/0$�������#�������'�������6���� ����"�9�:8�� ���+/0$�������#��#��#��'�������6���� ����"���;8��1�+/0$�0���'�������6������'������ �59�08����##��������#��#��6��������#�!�#�����6���##���������+/0$�0� �<���������� �'#�impact of recovery from the recession on business productivity and property values, economic growth related to the natural resource boom and lingering effects of depleted unemployment insurance resources.

The state and local business tax estimates presented ���������'�"� �<�����6���##�������� ���='#"�0$����� �'���='��0$�0��������������� These include business property taxes; sales and excise taxes paid by businesses on their input purchases; gross receipts taxes; corporate income and franchise taxes; business and corporate license taxes; unemployment insurance taxes; individual income taxes paid by owners of non-corporate (pass-through) businesses; and other state and local taxes that are the statutory liability of business taxpayers.

Executive summary

?�"����������������'�"���#'��@

�� F��� ��##����"�7�58���+/0$$�������8���+/0$�$���������#��#��'�������6���� ����"�9�;8���+/0$�����7��8���+/0$�0�����#�������'�������6����� �����9�:8������#�#��#��'�������6����� �������;8��

�� Property tax collections on business � ��� �"� ������<����+/0$�0���� ������"�����������$��8��Property taxes paid by business totaled 400:�;���##�����+/0$�0�����'������ �79�78�������#��������#��#��'������taxes.

�� Sales tax on business inputs and capital �G'���������'������ �0��08���������and local taxes paid by businesses in +/0$�0������#���4�7;�5���##���I���� �������7��8�� ���+/0$����

�� 1�+/0$�0���� �� ����������6���##��������� ��45��0���##����;��8�of total state and local business taxes. Corporate income tax collections grew �"�$��8���+/0$�0�������������������#����#��!����������������+/0$�0���##��������� �������� ����������1##�����corporate income tax rate and Michigan’s switch from a combination income and gross receipts tax on business to a new corporate income tax.

�� 1��!��'#��������6��������K�� �'����'���������������'���� �9�78����total state and local business taxes, ���#���475�����##�����+/0$�0������� �� ������� ���������7�;8�� ���+/0$���

�� On average, business taxes make up 5�:8����� �!��K����� �� ���������product (GSP) in a state. Private-sector GSP measures the total value of a state’s annual production of goods and services by the private sector. The ratio of business taxes to private-sector GSP ����� ���7�78���Z� ���� �#������;��8���F#�[��

�� When comparing the taxes businesses pay to the estimated value of the ����������"� ����!��� �����!� �������'�������� ���6����!� ������47��0�for each dollar of estimated government services they receive, if educational spending is assumed to not directly ������#��#��'�������1����KG' �� �of educational spending is assumed to �������'����������� ����� �������4��;$�����6��� ���## ������!� �����������received by business. When half of ��'�����������������'�������������#��#��'����������� �����##�����4��0$�����6��� �������## ����������� ����!���

Total state and local business taxes | 3

3'������������4�5����##��������#��������#��#��6�����+/0$�0����� �����������#����2 This section describes the business taxes in more detail and highlights the key results.

�� F�����������#������+��' ������ ��� �"��6���on real, personal and utility property owned by businesses account for the largest share of total state ��#��#��'�������6����79�78�� �400:�;���##�����+/0$�0��] ��� �"��6����� �����$��8���+/0$�0����� ����#�����"�$��8���+/0$����

�� Sales and use taxes paid by businesses on purchases �����'������#'��������#��G'����������#���4�7;�5���##����� �0��08����##��������#��#��'�������6�����#�����'����6�����##���������#�������#�consumers are excluded; only the taxes paid on businesses’ operating inputs and capital equipment purchases are included in the total business tax estimates.7

�� State and local corporate income tax collections �� ��45��0���##�����+/0$�0����� �������$��8�� ���+/0$����������� �������� �� ����������6� ����������+/0$�0���##������� ��������0��8���+/0$��������� �������:�58���0$�$���� �� ����������6������'������ �;��8�������#��������#��#��'�������6�����+/0$�0������ ��'#��� �<���������������������#����#��!��������������������

+/0$�0@�1##������� ����������� �� ����������6� ���� ���;�78������98����������'���6�������temporary corporate income surcharge and doubled �����' �6� ���� ����$8����0$8��� �0$�0�

�� Employer contributions to unemployment insurance ^'���#�"�����6��_��� ��45:�5���##�����+/0$�0����� ��������;�98�^4;�0���##��_�� ���+/0$����������� �������'����� �7$8���������!� ##�increase in total state and local business taxes in +/0$�0�����##�����0;8��� ������+/0$����States have increased unemployment insurance taxes to restore unemployment trust fund balances depleted during the recession and repay federal ��!� ����#���'��������'���������"������F�����='��0$�7��������'�������#���� �������Federal Unemployment Account totaled more than 40����##�����4:���##������ ���������='��0$�0��These large debts are due to the combination of underfunding during the last economic expansion and the severity of unemployment during the latest recession.

Total state and local business ������������ �

����� ����������������������������������������� ����� �������������!

Business tax ���� " ���� ��� �

% total taxesOne-year change

Property taxes on business property 400:�5 400:�; 79�78 $��8

General sales taxes on business inputs �77�0 �7;�5 0��08 7��8

Corporate income tax 5��0 5��0 ;��8 $��8

Unemployment insurance 5��0 5:�5 ;�98 �;�98

Business and corporate license 7��0 7��� ��$8 :�$8

Excise taxes 75�: 79�� 9�58 $��8

1��!��'#��������6����'����������� 7$�$ 75�� 9�78 �7�;8

Public utility taxes 0;�5 0;�$ 5�08 K��78

Severance taxes �5�� �:�� 0��8 0:��8

1�' ���� ���'���6�� �;�0 �;�� 0�;8 0�$8

Other business taxes �0�$ �7�7 0�$8 �$�;8

Total state and local business taxes 4�05�5 4�5:�: �$$�$8 7��8

Z���@�F��'���may not sum due to rounding.

{+/0$����6�estimates are revised from the COST +/0$�����'�"��'�����newly released data from the U.S. Census Bureau. See Appendix for more information.

��' ��@�2/����������based on data from the U.S. Census Bureau, State and Local Government Finances.

4

�� Excise taxes paid by business were an estimated 479�����##�����+/0$�0��26������6����� ��'�������business include a portion of motor fuel taxes and other excise taxes, such as taxes on hotel and rental car expenditures by business, as well as health care provider taxes on the revenue of hospitals and other providers of health services.

�� Taxes on insurance premiums paid by business totaled 4�;�����##�����+/0$�0����� �������0�$8��]'�#���'��#��"��6������ ������"���78����40;�$���##�����+/0$�0���������6��� ����� ##"���������'������gross receipts, and because they are often levied in lieu of property or corporate income taxes, they are allocated solely to business.

�� 3'���������� �� ���#�������6������#���47������##������#'����40$�9���##��������� #��'�����������'�����#�������6�����4:�����##���������� �vehicle license taxes.

�� �������#��#���!� ����6���� ����"�0:��8���+/0$�0������45�0���##����� ��������!� ����6�������;8���������!� ##��� �������������#��#�business taxes. Four states (Alaska, Texas, North �[������"����_����'���� �:�8���������� ����in severance taxes.

�� 1��!��'#��������6��������"���� �����pass-through entities (e.g., partnerships, sole proprietorships, limited liability companies and �K�� �� ����_����#�������������475�����##�����+/0$�0��1��!��'#��������6��������K�� �'����'������������ �� �����9�78�������#��������#��#��'�������6�������#���;$8����������'������� �� ����6���##���������+/0$�0���������#��#�collections of individual income taxes on pass-through �'������������� ����"��7�;8���+/0$�0�

�� ���� ��'�������6������#���4�7�7���##�����+/0$�0����$�;8��� ����� �������� �!��'��"� �

��#�� ��$�&'���������(���������������������������������������� �

Z���@�+��' ����"�����'���'����� �'����

��' ��@�2/��������������������� �������|�������'��3' �'���������}��#�~�!� ����+�����

Taxes on business property

Sales tax on business inputs

Excise, utility and insurance taxes

Corporate income tax

Unemployment insurance tax

Individual income tax on business income

Business license, severance and other business taxes

35.3%

21.2%

12.3%

7.6%

7.5%

5.3%

11.0%

��������)������'�������*���������������������� ������������������ ������������!

Business tax+�,��$��������������������������� ���� ���� �

One-year change

�������I��������Business Tax

Corporate income tax/general sales and gross receipts tax*

40�� 4��7 K7:�78

Z��������� ��I�Business Enterprise Tax

Corporate income tax $�0 $�0 ��$8

�����I������ ��#�Activity Tax

Corporate license tax ��5 ��� �0�78

��6��I���6��� ���Tax

Corporate license tax 7�� 5�� ����8

��������I�3'������and Operation Tax

Sales tax 7�$ 7�� 7��8

������#������'���taxes

� ��. � ��/ ��0

Z���@�+��' ����"�����'���'����� �'����

{��������#������������������3'�������6���=' "����0$�0�

��' ��@�1��!��'#�������6���##������ ��� ���

Total state and local business taxes | 5

$�����(���#��������������������'�"���� ##"��������'������taxes as those that are the legal liability of businesses. Certain taxes collected by business, such as excise taxes on tobacco and alcohol and sales taxes on household �' ������� �������#'�����1���������individual income tax on pass through business income is included as a legal tax liability of business owners. The business �6�����#'�����������#"���� �@

�� Property taxes paid by business on real and personal property. Taxes on income-generating, residential rental property are treated as business taxes.

�� General sales taxes paid by businesses on purchases of goods and services used ��� ��'�������#����6������#�������paid by consumers are not included.

�� A portion of excise taxes, such as business’ share of motor fuel taxes.

�� Corporate income taxes.

�� Taxes on insurance premiums and utility gross receipts, which are in some cases levied in lieu of other business entity taxes.

�� 1��!��'#��������6��������K�� �'���business income. Taxes withheld on employee earnings are not considered business taxes.

�� Unemployment insurance tax paid by employers.

�� Business licenses, including general �'������#������������������'�� "���occupational licenses and commercial motor vehicle licenses.

�� Severance taxes on mining, natural gas, oil and other natural resources.

While corporate income taxes remain the most common business entity tax levied by states, within the last decade two states, Ohio and Texas, have adopted non-income business entity taxes based on a “pure” or ��������� ���� ���������6�������������� �states, Washington and New Hampshire, have levied a gross receipts and value-added tax, respectively, for many years, and an increasing number of states levy minimum taxes based on gross receipts. Michigan’s short-lived Michigan Business Tax had a gross receipts component, but this tax was eliminated in favor of a corporate income tax that went into �����������"��� �'���+/0$�0���������lowered business taxes on non-C-corporate businesses with business tax collections ���#�����"�#�����4����##���

As shown in Table 2, taxes levied on a � ���� ������������ ���#�������������� �corporate income, corporate license or sales tax in this study consistent with the |�������'��3' �'��#����������1������of these taxes were combined into a single gross-receipts-based business tax category, ������##���������'#�����#�4�$�:���##�����G'#����008���� ��� ������ �� ����������6��� ��� ��������#�����Z��������������table are minimum taxes based on gross receipts levied as part of state corporate income tax systems. For example, Oregon �������������'���6� ����� ���4�9$����4�$$�$$$����������������6�"� *��gross receipts. For taxpayers subject to these taxes, the minimum taxes function as gross receipts taxes but are generally included in the corporate income tax statistics.

6

State versus local business ������������ �3������+/0$�����+/0$�0��������������#��#�tax revenues grew with state revenue outpacing local �!�'������ ������� ��������#���7KF���7K3�� �!����dollar amounts, percentage distributions and growth ������+/0$�0��� ����#��'�������6����������������local levels of government.

���#��������#��#��'�������6����� ������"�405�5���##�����+/0$�0����� �� ������"�477�����##�����+/0$������##�����+/0$$����+/0$�$������!� ��moderate growth in corporate income, general sales taxes on business inputs and business license taxes coupled with strong growth in other taxes such as severance, unemployment insurance and pass-through business income taxes generated strong revenue gains at the state level. Local business tax collections grew �� ���#��#"��'������$�58��� ����������# �����#��#�revenue category, property taxes on business property. The modest gain in local taxes was due to strong growth ����� #��#����6������'������^��� �������7�$8_������ #��6������6���^5�$8_���'�������'�� ����"�������;8���� �������'�#���'��#��"��6� �!�'����������� #��#������ ��� �"��6������� �����:5��8����#��#��6� �!�'�������# ���<'��'����������� ��'�������6���^��7��8��� ���_��!��#���#����������the overall growth of local business taxes.

At the state level, all types of business taxes increased ��+/0$�0�����������6������������'�#���'��#��"��6���and business property taxes, resulting in overall state �'�������6�� ��������9�:8�������!� ##�� ������������business taxes was driven by strong growth in three tax ����� ���@�'���#�"������' ����6���������� �����"��;�98���������!� ����6������' #� ���' �����'�� ���������� ������"�0��$8�������!��'#��������6������'�������������������� ����"�����8��To put this increase in revenue in perspective, state business taxes grew by an average annual compounded � ����� ������:�78��� �"� ��' ����������������6������ ���+/0$$0����+/0$$;�

��#��7KF���7K3��##'�� �������������������� ����in the composition of state and local business taxes. ��#��7KF������������� ���������� ��'�������������6����"��6��"������#��7K3��������������� ��'����for local business taxes. While sales taxes on business inputs account for a large share of total business taxes �����������#�!�#�^0���8_�����"����'���� �� �#��!�#"���##��� �����#��#��6���^�$��8_��] ��� �"��6��� ������# �����#��#��'�������6�^;5�$8�����������#_���'������ ��� �����������6���^0�98_�

������������������������������������������.

�����1�2��,���������������������� ������������!�

Business taxState business ���������

State business ��������� �

% total state business taxes

7�����#�8�9��state business

taxesGeneral sales and use tax on inputs 4�$��� 4�$9�$ 0���8 7��8

Unemployment insurance 5��0 5:�5 �7�:8 �;�98

Corporate net income 5��: 50�0 �0�$8 $�:8

1��!��'#��������6 0;�� 7$�: :�:8 ����8

Excise taxes on business inputs 0��� 0��� :�58 $�$8

Business license tax 09�� 0��: ;��8 5��8

Severance taxes �5�9 �:�: 9�78 0��$8

1�' ���� ���'���6 ���9 ���; 5�:8 ��58

Public utility tax �5�� �5�: 5�08 K��$8

Property tax on business property ��0 :�; 0�98 K9�;8

Other business taxes ��7 ��; 0�:8 5�78

Total state business taxes �11�� �1: �; ����0 :�/0

Z���@�+��' ����"�����'���'����� �'����

��' ��@�2/��������������������� �������|�������'��3' �'���������}��#�~�!� ����+�����

�����1�<��=����������������������� ������������!�

Business tax=����������������������

=���������������������� �

% total local business taxes

7�����#�8�9��local business

taxesProperty taxes on business property 40���0 400$�� ;5�$8 $�58

General sales taxes on business inputs 7��5 70�7 �$��8 7�$8

Public utility taxes �0�9 �0�7 5��8 K��;8

Excise taxes on business inputs 5.2 9�5 ��:8 5�$8

Other business taxes 05�$ 0;�7 ��08 �7��8

Total local business taxes 40�0�7 40�;�7 �$$�$8 ��;8

Z���@�+��' ����"�����'���'����� �'����

��' ��@�2/��������������������� �������|�������'��3' �'���������}��#�~�!� ����+�����

/

�� Several states reported severance taxes as the main source of growth in business tax revenue. North Dakota’s revenue from ��!� ����6����� �����#�����;$8��������+/0$�����+/0$�0��� ���4������##������47�0���##����F#�[*����##�������� �����!� ����6����� �����7;8�� ���45�0���##�����+/0$$�����49�:���##�����+/0$�0�

�� Corporate income tax collections ������<���������+/0$�����+/0$�0��������������'�����1##�����and Connecticut increased tax rates and �6������6�������1##������� �����its individual income tax rate from 78����98����������#��� �� ����6� ���� ���;�78������98���������'��extended a temporary corporate income tax surcharge on larger businesses ^'#�� �����������!� �4�$$���##��_�'��#�0$�7�����'�#��������' �� ���� ����$8����0$8��� �0$�0���0$�7��Connecticut also increased marginal individual income tax rates and the number of brackets. The top marginal corporate tax rate in Connecticut �� ������ �����98������;8������ �states reduced taxes on business income ��+/0$�0����������#�����������Michigan Business Tax and replaced it �������8��6����K�� �� �����������reducing business tax collections by 4����##������#� �� ��'�����6� ����on gross receipts across all industries �"�7��� ��������������0$�0��Z���Jersey adopted single sales factor apportionment, which reduced its corporate income tax collections in +/0$�0��"�����������4�����##���

�� 1��"��������'���#�"������' ����6������ ��������������� �����the overall growth in state and local �'�������6����!� ������������#�"� ��Unemployment insurance tax collections � ����:8��������+/0$�����+/0$�0��Unemployment taxes in Hawaii grew by 5�8����#�����[#�������"��� �����doubled.

�� Growth in business sales tax collections was tempered by the expiration of temporary tax increases enacted during the recession. California allowed its temporary sales tax rate increase to �6�� ��������������+/0$����#��� ������� ���� ���:�098����;�098��1�Z� ���� �#��������� "����� ������point increase in the sales tax rate and a temporary income tax surcharge expired.

��#��5�� �������'�������6���##�������by tax type and state. The results show that states vary widely in the composition of their business tax structures, producing implications for revenue growth and ����#��"�������������F�����6���#��FK7�presents the percentage composition by �6��"����� ������������9$�������������District of Columbia.

State-by-state business tax collectionsFigure 2 shows the state-by-state change in total state and local business taxes between +/0$�����+/0$�0����!� #�����������%� ��6� ��� ���� ���������� ����' #� ���' ���������������������+/0$�0��6���##����������������������������6���������+/0$�0� ������ �������#�����'��� �������� ���������������� ���������#�changes.

Total state and local business taxes | 9

��#�����$9��#��������������������������������������������� ����� �(Percentage change in total state and local business taxes)

-10% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50%

California, -4.3% New Hampshire, -1.7%

Rhode Island, 0.1% New Jersey, 0.2%

Delaware, 0.3% North Carolina, 0.8%

Wisconsin, 0.9% West Virginia, 1.8%

Washington, 2.0% Michigan, 2.1%

Maine, 2.2% Florida, 2.2%

Virginia, 2.4% New York, 2.5%

Georgia, 2.7% Missouri, 2.9%

Massachusetts, 3.0% Pennsylvania, 3.2%

Vermont, 3.2% Louisiana, 3.2% Wyoming, 3.4% Nebraska, 3.4% Kentucky, 3.7%

Arizona, 3.8% Idaho, 4.3%

Arkansas, 4.8% Kansas, 4.8%

New Mexico, 4.9% Ohio, 4.9%

Alabama, 4.9% South Carolina, 5.9%

Nevada, 6.1% Montana, 6.2%

Tennessee, 6.4% Indiana, 6.7%

Mississippi, 6.9% Illinois, 7.1%

Utah, 7.5% Maryland, 7.5%

South Dakota, 7.6% Dist. Columbia, 7.9%

Oregon, 8.1% Iowa, 8.2%

Minnesota, 8.8% Colorado, 9.0%

Texas, 9.2% Connecticut, 10.3%

Hawaii, 11.5% Oklahoma, 14.0%

Alaska, 25.8% North Dakota, 48.7%

US state and local business tax growth: 3.9%

��' ��@�2/��������������������� �������|�������'��3' �'���������}��#�~�!� ����+�����

�����;��,�������������������������������&�?��������'��������������� ������������!�

@�'������ Sales tax

Excise tax including

'������utilities and insurance

$�'����income

+�&'���&���insurance tax

Individual income tax on business

income

=�����and other

����"

Total business

taxesAlabama 4��; 4��5 4��� 4$�5 4$�9 4$�7 4��� 4;�$Alaska $�� – $�� $�; $�0 – 9�� ;�:Arizona 5�; 5�0 ��� $�� $�5 $�7 $�9 �0�$Arkansas ��� ��0 $�9 $�5 $�5 $�7 $�7 5�0California 09�; ���5 ��0 ;�� ��0 ��5 :�� :$�9Colorado 9�� 2.8 $�� $�9 $�� $�; $�: ���;Connecticut 0�� ��: ��0 $�� $�: $�: $�7 ;�;Delaware $�7 – $�0 $�7 $�� $�� ��� 2.2Florida ���$ ;�� ;�� 0�$ ��� – 2.5 7;�0Georgia 9�; 5�$ ��5 $�� $�: $�� $�� �7��Hawaii $�� $�� $�� $�� $�7 $�� $�0 7�01��� $�: $�7 $�0 $�0 $�7 $�0 $�0 0�71##���� �0�� 5�0 5�� 7�9 0�� ��9 ��; 7$�:1�� 9�� 0�� $�: ��$ $�: $�; $�7 �$�;1�� 2.8 ��0 $�7 $�5 $�; $�� $�5 ��7Kansas 0�5 ��; $�9 $�7 $�5 $�5 $�7 ���Kentucky ��� ��5 ��5 $�; $�9 $�9 $�; ;�$Louisiana 0�; 5�9 ��$ $�7 $�0 $�7 ��5 �$�9Maine ��9 $�5 $�7 $�0 $�0 $�0 $�0 7�$Maryland 0�5 ��; 0�$ $�� ��$ ��$ $�� ��:Massachusetts 9�� 0�$ ��$ 0�$ ��� ��� $�: �5��Michigan 9�� 7�� ��0 $�� ��: $�� $�: �5��Minnesota 7�; 2.2 0�$ ��� ��7 $�: $�: ����Mississippi ��� ��� $�� $�5 $�7 $�0 $�9 9�$Missouri 7�$ 0�5 $�; $�5 $�; $�� $�� :��Montana $�: – $�0 $�� $�0 $�� $�9 ���Nebraska ��� $�� $�5 $�0 $�0 $�7 $�7 5�$Nevada ��: ��� $�� – $�5 – ��5 ���New Hampshire ��� – $�5 $�9 $�0 $�$ $�0 0�5New Jersey 8.5 7�0 0�� ��� 2.8 ��� ��� 0$�:New Mexico $�; ��� $�5 $�7 $�0 $�� $�� 5�7New York 0��; �7�7 ��; �$�� 7�0 ��7 7�0 �9�0North Carolina 7�� 0�� ��� ��0 ��$ ��$ ��� �0�;North Dakota $�9 $�� $�0 $�0 $�� $�� 7�7 9�$Ohio 5.8 5�7 0�� $�7 ��9 ��5 7�7 ���0Oklahoma ��9 0�7 $�; $�5 $�9 $�9 ��5 ;�5Oregon 0�5 – $�� $�9 ��$ $�� $�� ��7Pennsylvania ;�: 7�: 7�9 2.2 7�$ ��� 7�$ 05��������1�#� ��$ $�5 $�7 $�� $�0 $�� $�� 0�7South Carolina 7�0 ��� $�; $�7 $�9 $�7 $�� ���South Dakota $�� $�� $�0 $�� $�$ – $�0 ��;Tennessee 2.8 7�$ ��5 ��0 $�: $�$ ��5 �$��Texas 0��� ���5 ;�� – 0�� – �$�0 �7��Utah ��5 $�: $�� $�7 $�7 $�7 $�7 7��Vermont $�� $�� $�7 $�� $�� $�� $�� ���Virginia 5.5 ��� 0�� $�: $�; $�; ��; �7�0Washington 5�$ ;�5 2.5 – ��9 – ��$ ���5West Virginia ��� $�5 $�; $�0 $�0 $�0 $�� 7�;Wisconsin 5�0 ��; ��� $�� ��0 $�� $�; �$�5Wyoming ��� $�; $�� – $�� – ��� 7�$District of Columbia

��; $�7 $�9 $�5 $�0 $�7 $�0 7��

United States 400:�; 4�7;�5 4;��; 45��0 45:�5 475�� 4;��7 4�5:�:

Z���@��������������� ����##���������$�$������������##����������#�������49$���##���

*License taxes include gross receipts taxes levied in Ohio and Texas plus general business licenses. “Other taxes” include death and gift taxes, documentary and stock transfer taxes, severance taxes and local gross receipts taxes.

��' ��@�2/��������������������� �������|�������'��3' �'���������}��#�~�!� ����+����

������������������������������������������

A state’s business tax burden can be measured in many ways, including the level of business taxes compared to the level of economic activity that is being taxed �������#�������������'�������6������� ����"�have been shifted to consumers or owners of factors of production, including workers.5 Because state and local business tax bases include a diverse mixture of receipts I�������������'���' ��������" �##��� ��� �"������� ��6������I��� ������' ����������*���!� ##�economic activity should be used to determine the measure of aggregate business tax burden that can be compared across states.

The last column in Table 5 presents state-by-state estimates of the total effective business tax rate (TEBTR) imposed on business activity by state and local ��!� �����������������������+��' ��7�������23���is measured as the ratio of state and local business taxes to private-sector gross state product (GSP), the total value of a state’s annual production of goods and services by the private sector. The average TEBTR � ����##����������5�:8���23���� ���� ���7�78���Z� ���� �#������;��8���F#�[��

While the business TEBTRs provide a starting point for comparing burdens across states, they do not � �!�����'���������� ���������!#'��������*�����������!������+� ��6��#���1��������23�����#����������#�!� �����'���� �!���� #"�;98�of its business tax revenue from sales and property taxes, which are origin-based taxes on business capital that may negatively impact competitiveness. States with the highest TEBTRs tend to be the states with ����������!� ����6������' #� ���' �����������is included in the “other taxes” category in this analysis. To the extent that severance taxes are shifted forward in higher prices to consumers, they would not be a “burden” on domestic production and in-state residents but would instead fall on consumers of the natural resource who are typically located outside the state.5

More generally, a state with an average overall TEBTR may impose relatively high taxes on capital-intensive manufacturers, while imposing relatively low taxes on labor-intensive service industries. As a result, a state with such a tax structure and composition may create disincentives for locating new plant and equipment in the state.

1�����#������� �������������������23����������' ��of the average tax burden on existing businesses in a state rather than a measure of the marginal tax that would be borne by a company investing in a new facility. For this reason, the TEBTR provides one metric that can be used to evaluate a state’s business tax structure, but is not a clear indicator of the competitiveness of a state’s business tax system in terms of attracting new investment.

For an analysis of the competitiveness of state and local �6���������'�������!����������������0$��� Ernst & Young LLP/COST study, Competitiveness of State and Local Business Taxes on New Investment. That study presents a measure of business tax competitiveness in each state by examining the incremental state and local tax burden on a representative investment in selected industries. North Carolina, for example, has the lowest TEBTR but in a recent analysis of marginal effective tax rates on new mobile capital investments by selected industries, the state’s ETR on new investment is higher than the US average.

$�&'���#�������������������*��

�����:��,����*����������������������������������������������9���(�'�*��������#���������'�������������������� ������������!

State =���� State and local Business taxes as a %

�(�),@"StateBusiness

taxesTotal taxes

Business taxes

Total taxes

Business taxes

Total taxes

Alabama 45�0 4��� 40�� 49�5 4;�$ 4�9�$ 5��8Alaska ��� ;�0 $�� ��5 ;�: :�; �;��8Arizona 9�� �7�5 ��� �$�� �0�$ 07�9 9�08Arkansas 7�5 :�; $�: ��� 5�0 �$�� 5�98California 59�5 ��:�� 79�� �:�: :$�9 �:;�5 5�98Colorado 5�7 ���0 ;�5 �0�� ���; 07�: 9�$8Connecticut 5.5 ���0 2.2 ��� ;�; 09�7 7��8Delaware ��: 7�9 $�5 $�: 2.2 5�7 7��8Florida ���� 75�� 0$�� 77�� 7;�0 �:�: 9��8Georgia 9�; �;�5 :�7 �9�9 �7�� 70�� 7�:8Hawaii 0�$ 5.8 ��0 ��� 7�0 ;�; ��781��� ��5 7�; $�� ��5 0�7 9�� 5�981##���� �9�� 7��7 �5�: 0:�� 7$�: �;�� 9�$81�� 5.2 ���9 9�� �$�7 �$�; 0��: 5�081�� 7�0 8.5 7�0 9�7 ��7 �7�: 5�;8Kansas 7�$ ;�: 7�$ 9�� ��� �7�$ 9�78Kentucky 5�9 ���$ 2.5 5�; ;�$ �9�; 9�$8Louisiana 5�; ��0 5.8 :�� �$�9 �;�7 5��8Maine ��5 5�$ ��9 0�7 7�$ ��0 ���8Maryland ��9 �:�� 7�7 �5�� ��: 70�0 5�$8Massachusetts 8.5 05�; ��� �7�0 �5�� 7:�$ 5��8Michigan :�� 25.8 9�5 �7�9 �5�� 7��7 5�$8Minnesota :�7 0��: 7�� ;�0 ���� 0��� 5��8Mississippi 7�$ ;�0 0�$ 0�; 9�$ ��� ��08Missouri 7�� ���9 5�; ��$ :�� 0$�9 7��8Montana ��0 0�� $�; ��� ��� 7�; 9��8Nebraska ��� 5�� 0�� 7�: 5�$ :�5 5�:8Nevada 7�� ;�0 2.5 5�9 ��� ���; 9��8New Hampshire ��5 0�5 ��$ 2.8 0�5 9�7 5�08New Jersey �0�$ 7$�7 8.8 07�: 0$�: 95�� 5�:8New Mexico 0�� 9�7 ��5 0�5 5�7 ;�; ��98New York 0��� ;5�: 7:�7 ;;�9 �9�0 �90�7 ��08North Carolina :�� 07�; 5�� ���� �0�; 75�: 7�78North Dakota 5�5 9�; $�; ��� 9�$ ��: �7�78Ohio ���5 0;�9 ;�: 00�$ ���0 5��9 5�58Oklahoma 5�9 ��7 0�� 5�: ;�5 �5�� 9��8Oregon 7�� ��; 7�0 ��0 ��7 �9�� 7��8Pennsylvania �5�� 79�� �$�0 05�9 05�� �$�5 5�;8������1�#� ��0 7�� ��$ 2.2 0�7 5.2 9�08South Carolina 2.8 :�� 5�� ��� ��� �5�� 9�$8South Dakota $�� ��� $�: ��7 ��; 0�� 5��8Tennessee ��� �0�; 5�$ :�� �$�� 0$�� 5�58Texas 7$�: 9��0 70�7 9��5 �7�� �$0�� 9�08Utah 0�$ ��� ��� 7�7 7�� ��9 7��8Vermont ��5 0�� $�7 $�5 ��� 7�7 ;�78Virginia 5.2 �:�� :�$ �5�: �7�0 77�� 7�:8Washington �$�� ���� 5.8 ���7 ���5 7$�5 9�78West Virginia 2.2 9�� ��9 ��� 7�; ;�9 ��58Wisconsin 9�� �9�� 5�5 �$�$ �$�5 09�� 5�98Wyoming 0�$ 0�; ��$ ��9 7�$ 5�� ���8District of Columbia 7�� ��5 $�$ $�$ 7�� ��5 9�$8United States 479��5 4:5��0 40�;�7 49:9�$ 4�5:�: 4��575�0 5�:8

Z���@�F��'����"�����'���'����� �'����

{F!� ������+/0$�����+/0$�0�� �!��K��'�� "�~�]�����������������#��������!���'�������6� ���^�23��_��������������!��"����' �������������������

��' ��@�2/��������������������� �������|�������'��3' �'���������}��#�~�!� ����+�����

������������������������������������������ 1

Lower TEBTR Higher TEBTR

Hawaii Alaska

Table 5 summarizes the share of taxes paid by business ������������3'�������6������'������ �59�08�������#��������#��#��6�����+/0$�0��3'�������6������'������ ����##� ��� �����������6���^5��58_����#��#��6���^9$�:8_�������� �����#��#��6�������by business is higher than the state share because the � ��� �"��6�����������'����� ��� �����;$8�������#�#��#��6���##���������������908��"��'����������#�������governments rely heavily on the individual income tax, which is allocated primarily to households.

The business share of total state and local taxes has remained relatively stable over the past decade, as �������F�����6���#��FK��������0$$;�������'�������� �������� ������ ���59�;8����59�08�

A high share of total state and local taxes paid by business does not necessarily translate into a high effective business tax rate on economic activity. States without individual income taxes generally derive a larger share of their total tax revenue from business

taxes, even though business taxes in these states may �������������#"������ ����!� ����+� �����������98������6���6��� �������"��'���������� ������59�08���������^7�8������ ����!� ��_���'�������23�������6�����9�08����� ����������|��!� ������5�:8�^�#"�:8������ ����!� ��_��������'�����������while Texas collects a larger-than-average share of its taxes from business, its overall level of taxes may be �#��!�#"�#����1��������6����##�������8�#���������#�taxes per employee than the US average.

F�����# ����'�������' ������#� ������ ��9�8�����6��� �������"��'������^�78���!��!� ��_��'�������23������7��8��^098���#���!� ��_��1�����case of Delaware, the high business share is due to ���������������������� �� ����#�������6����������� ��������������� ��������#��������#��#��6� �!�'���'�����������������'��� �����'��������incorporated in Delaware.

��#��1��������((���*������������������A<�C!�������������� �(State and local business taxes divided by private sector gross state product in each state)

��' ��@�2/����������based on data from the U.S. Census Bureau, State and Local Government Finances.

;

�����D��<��������9���(�������������������������������� �

StateBusiness share of

state taxesBusiness share of

local taxesBusiness share of total state and local taxes

Alabama 57�58 97��8 5;��8Alaska �9�;8 9���8 :��;8Arizona 57��8 �$�;8 9���8Arkansas 7��08 5$�;8 7��98California 7:�78 9��$8 57�$8Colorado 7:�;8 9:�08 5���8Connecticut 77�:8 05�08 7$�58Delaware 97��8 50�78 9��$8Florida 5;��8 �$��8 95�$8Georgia 70��8 97�78 50�58Hawaii 75�78 �5�78 5���81��� 7:��8 ���58 55��81##���� 5$�98 9���8 59�781�� 7��58 97��8 5$��81�� 7;�78 �$��8 5���8Kansas 7:�;8 9:�;8 5��;8Kentucky 5���8 9���8 55�58Louisiana 9$�;8 ;0�58 �$�:8Maine 79�:8 �:�08 5;��8Maryland 79�:8 07��8 7$�98Massachusetts 75�98 5���8 7:��8Michigan 77�98 5$��8 79�:8Minnesota 7:��8 5��78 5$��8Mississippi 5��78 ;���8 9$��8Missouri 75�78 9��:8 50�$8Montana 5;��8 �$��8 9��98Nebraska 5��58 99�98 5;�:8Nevada 5��98 99�;8 9���8New Hampshire 9��58 79�98 5��98New Jersey 7��;8 7���8 7:�98New Mexico 95�98 9;�08 99�78New York 7��$8 5��98 50�:8North Carolina 75��8 5��98 7��98North Dakota ;��:8 �$�78 ;5��8Ohio 5��;8 79�58 7:��8Oklahoma 5:�:8 9��:8 90��8Oregon 70�08 9���8 7��98Pennsylvania 5$�;8 5��:8 5��08������1�#� 5$�98 5;�$8 57�08South Carolina 77�08 �;�78 5;�78South Dakota 9��$8 9;��8 9���8Tennessee 9���8 5��58 9$�:8Texas �$�08 �0��8 ���98Utah 77�78 9��;8 5���8Vermont 5;�08 �7��8 5��78Virginia 0;��8 95�98 7��58Washington 99�98 9��98 95�$8West Virginia 5$��8 ;9�;8 5��08Wisconsin 7;�08 55�78 7���8Wyoming ;5��8 ;$�;8 ;0��8District of Columbia 99�:8 $�$8 99�:8United States 5��58 9$�:8 59�08

Z���@����� ���������#'�����6��� ��� �������������6����������#"����

��' ��@�2/��������������������� �������|�������'��3' �'���������}��#�~�!� ����+�����

������������������������������������������ :

)�*�&�������������*��������������*���������'���This study provides estimates of business taxes in each state and expresses business taxes as an effective tax rate on private sector economic activity (TEBTR). Another way to evaluate the level of business �6������� ����������������!#'����������������businesses receive from government services to the ��'������'�������6��������1�����������������#���true, businesses are “getting what they pay for” from government services funded by business taxes. This section presents a comparison of business taxes to the �����������������'�������� ����!��� ����������local government services.

+��' ��5����������#�����������������#��#��������by category net of user charges and other non-tax �!�'���� �+/�0$�0��|������������#��"���!�#�����by economists at the Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago, expenditures in the major categories shown in Figure 5��� ��##���������������'����#������'��������� Certain expenditures, such as health and human services, were assigned entirely to households while ���� ������ ������'�������#������ ���������"�infrastructure costs, were split evenly between �'������������'����#���������6K������ �������calculated by dividing business taxes in each state �"������������!� �����6�����' �����������business.

F����� ������� ������������6K������ ������ �businesses is the allocation of educational expenditures between households and businesses since educational ����������5�8�������#��������#��#��6�����' ����2����������� "��'�������������'����#��������accrue principally to individuals since improved productivity of an educated workforce results in higher wages paid to workers. However, business owners can ������� ������'������� [�� ���������� ��' �����"�receive as owners of capital increase with additional education. This could occur because workers do not completely capture productivity gains in higher wages or an educated workforce improves the productivity of capital (e.g., an educated or trained worker may know �������'������������� ��'������� ���������#"��resulting in fewer breakdowns or work stoppages). F� �!�����������#��� �' ������������8��� ������the share of workers with a college education in a city �� ������'��'���"�$�9����$����� ������������; 1���'�������� ���#��������' �������� �##��������additional productivity from increased education, they ���� �!����������� ���������"��������!� ����spending.

��#��;��F������������������'����#�������#�������� ������������!

Z���@�+��' ����"�����'���'����� �'����

��' ��@�2/��������������������� �������|�������'��3' �'���������}��#�~�!� ����+�����

Education

Public safety

Social and veterans’ services

Transportation

Health

Natural resources

Administrative and insurance

49%

18%

11%

8%

7%

4%4%

D

F���'������� [�� ���#���� ���������#�������������� �����'������� ������+� ��6��#����� �����education may reduce property crime, which in turn lowers business costs and increases the return to capital. One estimate of the social returns of an ��'������� [�� ��������������#����������������� ��of lower government spending for police services, incarceration costs and welfare payments, are equal to �58����0�8��������� �!��� ��' ������'�����^����� �wages) that accrues to individuals.8

��������������������'����������'����#������'�����������'[�����������6K������ �������sensitive to this assumption, this analysis presents a range of estimates for the share of educational �6�����' �������������#��#��'�����@�$8��098���9$8��

��#��;���+��' ��9��'�� �������� ��'#���'���������� �����'����#��� ����'��������� �+/0$�0��������#����������' �� ��� ������������ ������which is calculated as the taxes paid by businesses �� ���## �������������������� ����!����"��'�������Assuming that education spending does not directly ������#��#��'����������� ��������'�������6�����������'�������� !����� ����!����"��'���������7�����������������'�������� ���6���47��0��� �����dollar of government services they receive. The ratio of �6�������6�����' ������������'������� ���������;�when one-quarter of education spending is assumed ����������'����������0������#�������'�����������������'�������������#��#��'�������|�� �these three educational assumptions, the business share of total state and local government expenditures �����8�������� ����'����#��������0�8��������KG' �� ������'����#�����������������'����������508�����#�������'����#��6�����' ��� ����'��������������'������

Wyoming, Alaska and North Dakota have the highest �6K������ ������'��������������*���!� ����6����1�these states, the ratio of business taxes to expenditures ��������#��#��'��������!� ����:�����'������'��������������'����#����#"�����������#��������!���6K������ �������!��5�$����'������'����#��6�����' ����������������'����������#������ �������������!���6K������ ������������0�$���5�$�������������'������

1����'����#��6�����' ��� ����#������������'����#������'��������������6K������ �����are fairly similar across states, with all states except �"������F#�[���Z� ����[����!����6K������ ������������$�;�����;��2�'����#��6�����' ������� ��������#��6�����' ��! ����� �����������1������states, educational expenditures make up one-third to one-half of total expenditures, but state educational �6�����' ���� ��� ���� ����#������0;8�������#��6�����' ������������� ���������#'����������������:58�in Wyoming.

������������������������������������������ .

�����.��<������������'��������(�#�*�&����'�������������#����������� ���� ������������!

�0��(�����������'����#�������#��������

�:0��(�����������'����#�������#��������

:�0��(�����������'����#�������#��������

StateState and local business taxes

Total state and �������'����#�

������#�business

Business taxes '��������(�government

�'����#�������#�business

Total state and �������'����#�

������#�business

Business taxes '��������(�government

�'����#�������#�business

Total state and �������'����#�

������#�business

Business taxes '��������(�government

�'����#�������#�business

Alabama 4;�$ 40�$ 47�� 45�� 4��; 4��0 4���Alaska ;�: $�� 8.2 ��� 5�; 0�7 7�7Arizona �0�$ 5�$ 7�$ ��7 ��� :�� ��5Arkansas 5�0 $�� 5�; 0�5 ��; 5�$ ��$California :$�9 79�; 0�7 9��5 ��5 :7�0 ��$Colorado ���; 5�$ 0�� ��7 ��� 8.5 ��5Connecticut ;�; 2.8 2.8 5.8 ��7 :�� $��Delaware 2.2 $�5 9�7 $�� 0�� ��7 ��;Florida 7;�0 �9�; 0�5 07�0 ��� 7$�� ��0Georgia �7�� 5�0 7�5 :�; ��� �7�0 ���Hawaii 7�0 $�� 7�� ��; ��� 2.5 ��71��� 0�7 $�� 0�; ��9 ��� 0�� ���1##���� 7$�: ��� 7�� �;�� ��; 09�5 ��01�� �$�; 0�� 7�; 5.8 ��: 8.8 ��01�� ��7 ��� 7�7 7�� ��: 9�7 ��0Kansas ��� ��� 7�; 7�7 ��: 9�$ ��0Kentucky ;�$ 0�$ 7�� 5�$ ��; ��$ ��0Louisiana �$�9 7�5 7�� ��� ��; :�; ��0Maine 7�$ $�; 5�7 ��5 0�� 0�� ��5Maryland ��: 9�$ 0�$ ��� ��� �7�0 $�;Massachusetts �5�� 7�: 7�: ;�� ��� ���� ��0Michigan �5�� 5�5 7�0 ��5 ��9 �5�7 ��$Minnesota ���� 7�� 7�7 ��� ��: ��9 ��0Mississippi 9�$ $�: ��; 0�7 2.2 7�: ��7Missouri :�� 7�7 0�� 9�� ��9 8.5 ��$Montana ��� $�9 7�� $�� 2.2 ��7 ��9Nebraska 5�$ ��7 7�0 0�5 ��; 7�� ���Nevada ��� ��: 7�5 0�� 0�� 5�$ ��9New Hampshire 0�5 $�9 9�$ ��� 0�� ��: ��5New Jersey 0$�: ��$ 7�9 �7�7 ��� 0$�� ��$New Mexico 5�7 ��0 7�5 0�5 ��: 7�9 ��0New York �9�0 0$�; 7�� 5$�$ ��� 9��7 ���North Carolina �0�; 9�$ 0�� ��; ��7 �5�5 $��North Dakota 9�$ $�� :�$ ��$ 5�� ��5 7�9Ohio ���0 ��5 7�$ �0�5 ��� �:�5 ��$Oklahoma ;�5 ��5 5.2 7�� 0�5 5�; ���Oregon ��7 0�7 0�; 5�$ ��� 9�� ���Pennsylvania 05�� :�$ 7�� �5�� ��; 0��; ���������1�#� 0�7 $�5 9�7 ��$ 2.2 ��; ��5South Carolina ��� ��� 7�� 5�7 ��� ��; ��$South Dakota ��; $�5 5�$ $�; 0�7 ��$ ���Tennessee �$�� 7�$ 7�9 9�5 0�$ ;�: ��5Texas �7�� �0�9 9�$ 0;�0 0�7 5��� ��9Utah 7�� ��� 2.5 7�$ ��7 5�7 $��Vermont ��� $�5 5�5 $�: 0�� ��0 ��5Virginia �7�0 5�; 2.8 ��0 ��5 �7�� ��$Washington ���5 5�: 7�5 8.2 0�$ ���9 ��5West Virginia 7�; $�; 9�7 ��; 2.2 0�; ��5Wisconsin �$�5 7�: 0�; ;�$ ��9 �$�0 ��$Wyoming 7�$ $�7 �$�9 $�� 5�� $�� 7�0District of Columbia 7�� ��; 2.2 ��; 0�� 0�7 ��9United States �5:�: 0$;�; 7�� 7:7�� ��; 9�$�$ ��0 Z���@�+��' ����"�����'���'����� �'����

��' ��@�2/��������������������� �������|�������'��3' �'���������}��#�~�!� ����+�����

/

0.7 1.5

1.0 1.2

0.9 0.9 1.0 1.1 1.1

1.0 0.9 1.0

1.4 1.4

1.0 1.2 1.1 1.2

1.1 1.1

1.0 1.2 1.2

1.1 1.5

1.4 1.2

1.0 1.4

1.2 1.0 1.1

1.3 1.2 1.2 1.2

1.5 1.6

1.4 1.4

1.0 1.4

1.5 1.6

1.4 1.4

1.7 1.3

3.5 3.3

3.2

1.2

2.0 2.2 2.3 2.4 2.5 2.6 2.6 2.7 2.7 2.7 2.8 2.8 2.9 3.0 3.0 3.1 3.1 3.1 3.1 3.2 3.2 3.3 3.3 3.4 3.4 3.4 3.4 3.5 3.5 3.6 3.6 3.6 3.6 3.7 3.7 3.8 3.9 4.0

4.3 4.4

4.7 5.0 5.0 5.2 5.3 5.3 5.3

6.7 8.0

8.2 10.5

3.1

0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0 7.0 8.0 9.0 10.0 11.0

Maryland District of Columbia

California Florida

Utah North Carolina

Missouri Idaho

Oregon Wisconsin

Connecticut Virginia

Colorado Arizona

Ohio Louisiana

Pennsylvania Illinois

New York Nebraska Michigan

Minnesota Iowa

Georgia Nevada

Washington New Mexico New Jersey Tennessee

Kentucky South Carolina

Alabama Hawaii Kansas Indiana

Massachusetts Montana

South Dakota Maine

Vermont Arkansas

New Hampshire Texas

Oklahoma Rhode Island West Virginia

Delaware Mississippi

North Dakota Alaska

Wyoming

United States

Business taxes per dollar of government expenditures benefiting business

Tax-benefit ratio with 50% of educational expenses allocated to business Tax-benefit ratio with 0% of educational expenses allocated to business

��#��:��<������������'��������(�#�*�&����'�������������#��������������� �

��' ��@�2/��������������������� �������|�������'��3' �'���������}��#�~�!� ���������

������������������������������������������ G

The state and local business tax estimates in this report provide information that should be of direct interest to state legislators as they consider major changes in business tax policy. For example, one of the most unexpected state tax policy developments ��0$�7������������'��� ����� ����#���introduced primarily by governors, to extend state sales and use taxes to a broad range of services and other items purchased primarily by businesses. These sales tax base-broadening proposals are key components of tax reform proposals that ��'#���������#"� ��'����� ��#�������income taxes on individuals and businesses. Legislative bills to expand the sales tax base to include services or reduce exemptions have been debated in Louisiana, Minnesota, Nebraska and Ohio.�$

These bills would fundamentally alter the structure of the retail sales tax. Analyses of these proposals show that expanding the sales tax base to services is fundamentally a proposal to extend the sales tax to business-to-business sales. Revenue estimates for ����� ����#��������������'�������� ��of the additional tax collections from sales �6������ �������"�������������:$8����:98�����������#��#����6��� ����������additional sales taxes on business input �' ������ ���� ���4����##������40���##���a year in each of the four states.

This study estimates that business paid 598�^4�5����##��_����##��������#��#��#����6�����##��������+/0$�0��3��'���businesses would pay a large percentage of the sales tax increase, the business share of ���#��#����6�����'#���� �����������#"�'�� �������� ����#���1�����������'�����#�increase in the business share of the retail sales tax that has generated strong opposition to the reform proposals from the business community. The result so far ������0$�7�#����#��!���������������������proposals to extend the sales tax to services have not advanced in Nebraska, Louisiana and Minnesota, states where the governors have withdrawn support for the proposals. 1�����������#����#�' ����������#'��������proposal in their current tax bills.

����+/0$�0��'�������6����������#���provide information relevant for evaluating recent or proposed state tax changes related to the taxation of pass-through business income on individual income tax returns. Kansas completely eliminated the state’s individual income tax on business ���������������0$�7�����������' ��#����#�' �� ����#"���������9$8�deduction for business income reported on individual income tax returns, but the bill was vetoed by the governor. A similar proposal is in the tax bill passed by the Ohio Senate. This study’s estimates of individual income taxes on business income and corporate income taxes in Kansas indicate that the reduction in taxes from eliminating the tax on pass-through income exceeds total corporate income taxes collected. These changes will lower total business taxes and increase the share collected from C-corporations relative to pass-through entities.

Informing the state tax '����������

��

$���������As described in this analysis, state and local business taxes include a wide range of taxes that extend beyond the corporate income tax. State and local business taxes � ����"�7��8���+/0$�0��#����"��� �������unemployment insurance taxes, severance taxes and individual income taxes on pass-through business income, and now account �� �59�08����##��������#��#��6����

1� �����'���#�"������' ����6������'������ �7$8���������� ���������#�state and local business taxes. Continued demands on state unemployment insurance � '����'����!�� ��'#��������������increases in unemployment insurance taxes ��+/0$�0���� ���������##�#�[�#"�����'������+/0$�7�����"����������� ��"�debts to the federal government.

State legislative changes that occurred in +/0$�0�� ���������+/0$�0���##�������were a mixed bag of tax increases and decreases, with some legislated tax increases and extensions of surcharges but a number of rate decreases and expiring ����� "��6�� �!�������1���������������#����#���������� �<�������������analysis, there were a number of state tax � ����#��������'#���������#"�������the level of state and local business taxes through increased sales taxes on business-to-business services. Understanding the level of total business taxes, including sales taxes on business inputs, will help inform continuing discussions of extending the sales tax to business services and other state and local business tax policies.

�������������������������������������������

2''

���

�H�,

�''�

&�

�����

���

2''

���

����

���

2�

�����

����

���

����

�����

�����

���

����

���

���

����

���

�� �

�����

�����

�!

Stat

e an

d lo

cal t

axes

����

����

���

����

����

���1

����

�;��

���:

����

�D��

���.

����

�/��

���G

����

���

��

����

�To

tal b

usin

ess

taxe

s47

�;�0

47;�

��47

:;�$

45$�

�545

50�5

45:$

�949

5:�9

4�$7

�$4�

�:�0

49�;

�049

:��0

4�05

�54�

5:�:

1��

!��'

#��

���

���

6���

��

�K�

'��

����

���

��

��0�

�0$

9�;

�:5�

7�:

��:

��7�

:0�

9�$

07��

�0�

$��

0;7�

�05

5�9

077�

;09

5��

0;��

Oth

er ta

xes

770�

575

5��

795�

;7;

9�$

5$9�

$57

5�9

597�

�59

9�9

5;7�

:5;

5�7

5:$�

55�

9��

9$9�

Tota

l sta

te a

nd lo

cal t

axes

�/G�

�D�G

�G�;

�G�D

� �G

DD��

� ��

; ��

� �

1���

� ��

;��

� �1

G�

� �1

DD��

� �1

D�

� �1

�;�/

� �1

.:��

� �;

1;��

$�&

'���

�����

�(��

���

����

�����

�����

���

����

����

� ��

����

����

�1��

���;

����

�:��

���D

����

�.��

���/

����

�G��

�� �

����

��

�� �

Tota

l bus

ines

s ta

xes

5���

85$

�:8

5��:

850

�58

50�9

850

�98

55�0

859

�;8

59�7

859

�58

59�7

859

�58

59�0

8

1��

!��'

#��

���

���

6���

��

�K�

'��

����

���

��

0���

800

��8

����

8�:

�:8

�:��

8��

�$8

���7

8��

�:8

0$��

8�:

��8

�;��

8�:

�98

���9

8

Oth

er ta

xes

7;�0

87;

��8

7:�7

87:

�:8

7:��

87:

�98

7��9

875

�98

75�;

87�

�$8

7��:

87�

��8

79�7

8

Tota

l sta

te a

nd lo

cal t

axes

��0

��0

��0

��0

��0

��0

��0

��0

��0

��0

��0

��0

��0

Z��

�@�+

��'

����

"�

����

'���

'����

� �'

���

��'

��@�2

/���

����

����

���

���

��

�� ��

�����

|���

���

�'��

3' �

'���

���

��

�}��

#�~

�!�

��

��+�

��

��

2''

���

����

���

2��

��$�&

'���

�����

�(��

���

����

�����

�����

���

����

���

���

����

���

�� �

�����

�����

�!Bu

sine

ss ta

x��

����

����

� ��

����

����

�1��

���;

����

�:��

���D

����

�.��

���/

����

�G��

�� �

����

��

�� �

Prop

erty

tax

on b

usin

ess

prop

erty

4�7�

�:4�

50��

4�90

��4�

�$��

4���

�;4�

;���

4�:;

��40

�:�$

4000

�$40

0���

407$

�040

0:�5

400:

�;Ge

nera

l sal

es a

nd u

se ta

x on

inpu

ts�5

�5�;

���;

���$

$��

�$;�

7��

9�0

�07�

:�7

��;

�75�

��0

:��

�09�

7�7

0�5

�7;�

5Co

rpor

ate

net i

ncom

e7�

��79

�528

.27�

�977

�;57

��90

���$

��58

.85;

��50

��5�

�05�

�0U

nem

ploy

men

t ins

uran

ce0$

��0$

�:0�

�$07

��7�

��79

�97�

�579

�:70

�97�

�570

�55�

�05:

�5Bu

sine

ss li

cens

e ta

x�5

�:�9

�$�;

�$��

�:�:

��0�

�970

��75

�$7�

��79

�:75

�;7�

�07�

��Ex

cise

taxe

s0$

��0$

�00$

�:0�

��07

�507

��09

��28

.50�

�:0:

��7$

��75

�;79

��Pu

blic

util

ity ta

x�;

�;�;

��0$

�70�

�00�

�700

��07

��0;

��28

.20:

�;28

.50;

�50;

�$1

��!�

�'#

����

���

�6

�:�;

0$�7

�:�9

�:�9

0��5

09��

0:�;

0��7

7��5

0;��

0��;

7$�$

75��

Seve

ranc

e ta

xes

5�5

��5

5�0

9�7

��5

8.2

�$�;

����

�;��

�7�9

���7

�5�:

�:��

1�'

���

���'

���

6��

:�$

�7��

�0�0

���5

�$�5

���9

����

����

�9�9

�;��

�9�;

�0�;

��O

ther

bus

ines

s ta

xes

�0��

�0�9

�7�0

�5�0

�9�9

�$�;

�$��

�$�:

�$�$

��7

����

�0�$

�7�7

Tota

l bus

ines

s ta

xes

�1/:

�.�1

GG��

�;�:

���;

�.�D

�;D1

�:�:

�D�

�:;/

�:�D

�1��

�D /

���:

G.��

�:G�

�/�D

�;�;

�D;/

�/

Z��

�@�+

��'

����

"�

����

'���

'����

� �'

���

��'

��@�2

/���

����

����

���

���

��

�� ��

�����

|���

���

�'��

3' �

'���

���

��

�}��

#�~

�!�

��

��+�

��

��

��

2''����������2�1��J������������(�����������������������������������'��������������� �

State @�'������ Sales tax Excise tax$�'����income tax

+�&'���&���insurance tax

Individual income tax

���'����through income

=�����������9�����"

Total business

taxesAlabama 05��8 0$�58 00�58 9��8 ;�;8 5�98 �9�$8 �$$�$8Alaska �0��8 $�$8 ��98 :�98 0�08 $�$8 ;9�;8 �$$�$8Arizona 7���8 79�58 ��$8 9�58 7�58 0�:8 5�58 �$$�$8Arkansas 09�78 0��;8 �$�:8 ��;8 ���8 ��98 :�78 �$$�$8California 7���8 0$�58 ���58 ���8 ;�;8 :�$8 �$�;8 �$$�$8Colorado 57�:8 07�;8 :��8 5�08 :��8 9��8 ��;8 �$$�$8Connecticut 0;�;8 05�$8 �9�58 :��8 �$�;8 ���8 5�78 �$$�$8Delaware �5�$8 $�$8 ����8 �0�08 9�08 ��$8 9��98 �$$�$8Florida 57��8 ���$8 0$��8 9�58 9��8 $�$8 ��;8 �$$�$8Georgia 5$�;8 0:��8 ��:8 5�08 9�;8 ��78 5�58 �$$�$8Hawaii 0��$8 0;�98 ���;8 0�98 ��78 5�98 ;�58 �$$�$81��� 75��8 �9��8 ���8 :�78 �0��8 ���8 ��$8 �$$�$81##���� 7��08 �7�:8 �9�:8 ���58 ��58 5��8 9�98 �$$�$81�� 5;�:8 ����8 ;�98 :��8 ;�08 ���8 0��8 �$$�$81�� 55�58 ����8 5��8 ��;8 �$�78 :�;8 ��08 �$$�$8Kansas 7���8 0:�08 :�58 9�08 ��:8 ��08 9�08 �$$�$8Kentucky 0���8 0$�08 ���:8 �$�$8 ;�$8 ���8 ��;8 �$$�$8Louisiana 0��$8 57�$8 ��98 0�:8 0�58 7�78 �7��8 �$$�$8Maine 90�58 �7�78 ��;8 ;��8 9��8 9�08 9��8 �$$�$8Maryland 05�78 ����8 0$�$8 ��$8 �$�;8 �$�78 :�:8 �$$�$8Massachusetts 5$��8 �7��8 ��;8 �7�;8 �7�$8 ;�98 9�58 �$$�$8Michigan 5��;8 0���8 :��8 5�78 �0�:8 5�58 ��$8 �$$�$8Minnesota 7��98 �:�98 ���;8 ��$8 �$�;8 ���8 ��;8 �$$�$8Mississippi 7:�78 00�:8 ���:8 ;��8 9�78 7�;8 �$�08 �$$�$8Missouri 79��8 0;�78 ;�;8 5�58 ;��8 ;�98 �$��8 �$$�$8Montana 50�$8 $�$8 ���58 ���8 ;��8 ��58 09�58 �$$�$8Nebraska 5$��8 00��8 �$�98 9�:8 9�98 ;�:8 ;�78 �$$�$8Nevada 0:��8 0��$8 �5�08 $�$8 ;�08 $�$8 07�;8 �$$�$8New Hampshire 59�98 $�$8 �9��8 0��78 :��8 $�78 :�;8 �$$�$8New Jersey 5$��8 �9�08 �$�08 ��78 �7��8 9�58 9�98 �$$�$8New Mexico �;�78 7:�;8 :�78 ���8 9�98 0�:8 0$��8 �$$�$8New York 77�78 0$�58 �$�08 ���;8 5��8 ���8 5��8 �$$�$8North Carolina 0:�08 07��8 �9��8 ���8 ;�98 ;�;8 :�:8 �$$�$8North Dakota �$�;8 ���78 5�:8 5�78 ��:8 ��;8 �9�58 �$$�$8Ohio 7$�$8 00�58 �7�58 ��58 ;��8 ;�58 �;�58 �$$�$8Oklahoma 0$��8 7��98 ��;8 ��$8 ��78 ��78 ���78 �$$�$8Oregon 7;��8 $�$8 �5��8 ;�:8 �9��8 ��78 �5�58 �$$�$8Pennsylvania 7��58 �9�98 �5�$8 :�:8 ����8 ��78 �0�08 �$$�$8������1�#� 57�;8 �;�08 �5��8 9�58 ���$8 5��8 7��8 �$$�$8South Carolina 5��98 �9�98 �$�08 7��8 ;��8 7�;8 �0�:8 �$$�$8South Dakota 75�78 7��;8 �$�08 7��8 7�$8 $�$8 �0��8 �$$�$8Tennessee 0��58 0:�08 �7�08 ����8 ;��8 $�78 �7�78 �$$�$8Texas 50��8 09��8 ���08 $�$8 5�08 $�$8 ����8 �$$�$8Utah 79�:8 0��58 �5�78 ���8 :�$8 ;�$8 ���8 �$$�$8Vermont 97��8 :�98 �;��8 9��8 ;�98 5�$8 7�58 �$$�$8Virginia 5���8 �0�08 �9�98 ��78 9�58 9�98 �7��8 �$$�$8Washington 05�78 59�08 �9��8 $�$8 ��08 $�$8 ��78 �$$�$8West Virginia 7��$8 �$�$8 ���$8 9�08 ���8 5�78 05�58 �$$�$8Wisconsin 5$�;8 ���$8 �$�:8 :��8 ����8 9�98 ���8 �$$�$8Wyoming 7��98 0��98 0�:8 $�$8 5�08 $�$8 79��8 �$$�$8District of Columbia 5:��8 :�98 �5�78 ���98 5�98 :�;8 5�58 �$$�$8United States 79�78 0��08 �0�78 ;��8 ;�98 9�78 ���$8 �$$�$8

Z���@�+��' ����"�����'���'����� �'�����

*Taxes categorized under ”other” include death and gift taxes, documentary and stock transfer taxes, severance taxes and local gross receipts taxes.

��' ��@�2/��������������������� �������|�������'��3' �'���������}��#�~�!� ����+�����

�������������������������������������������1

2''����H�K�9�����#���9��#����������� �'��

�� ����0$$�K0$����6��������������#������0KF��0K3��FK����FK0��!������ �!�����due to new and revised releases of state and local U.S. Census Bureau data for those years.

�� �������!��'#���������' ����� �0$$$����0$����!������ �!���������#������7F��73��FK����FK0��F����� �!��'�� ��� ����the state and local personal income paid by businesses was calculated based on the total income taxes paid multiplied by the proportion of proprietorship, partnership, sole-proprietorship and S-corporation income to total gross �%'����������� ��� �����"�����1����������������1�����^��1_��� �����"� ��1�����"� ������� �� ���� ������partnership, sole-proprietorship and S-corporation income was calculated �����������1�����1����������for “business proprietorships” and “partnerships and S-corporations” less the net loss for the two categories. This "� ��������' ��� ������������������the sum of the net income for “business proprietorships” and “partnerships and S-corporations” without subtracting the losses. This results in a lower percentage of personal income paid by businesses.

�� ����0$���#��#������#��'�������6���' ����!������ �!���������#������7K3��FK����FK0��F��'#�#��#��6�������������� �'���0$�$�^��������� �����available from U.S. Census Bureau). For 0$�����0$�0��#��#��6���##�������were estimated using each state’s private gross state product growth rate between 0$�$���0$����� ����������� ������state growth rates for sales and public utility taxes. Tax collections by category (e.g., property, corporate income) were constrained to a national total derived using the U.S. Census Bureau quarterly tax growth rate estimates by category �� ����������1�� �!��'��"� ���� �����rates by category from the U.S. Census Bureau quarterly data were applied to ����� ��#�#��#�!#'���^������0$�$�'#�U.S. Census Bureau data) to calculate �' ���#��#��6���' ���^������0$�0�estimates).

����� ��� �������� �!������������#��#��6������������ �"� ��� �� ����+/0$�0�������is due to two reasons. First, recently released U.S. Census Bureau data was used to update �������#��#������������������2/��������������������#��"�'������������������!��'#�income taxes paid on pass-through business income and to estimate local tax collections for the most recent years since annual U.S. Census Bureau data on local taxes lags state data by two years.

�������##"��������##������������!���������@

�;

Endnotes���������������##��������� ������#�"� � ��F#���^������������ �7$_���������^������������ �7$_��Z���/� [�^����� ���7�_�����6��^����F'�'���7�_������ ����������������'�"� ���� ���������*�����#�"� �

2. The general methodology used to estimate state and local business taxes is described in detail in the Appendix to the Ernst & Young/COST FY2005 50-State Business Tax���'�"��'�#��������� ���0$$��^!�#�#�������������� �_��Z��������business tax estimates for prior years have been revised from those published in earlier editions of this study due to the use of ��#"� �#�����|�������'��3' �'����� ������������������������������!��'#��������6�������������������������������#��#��'�������6����� �0$�����0$�0��F##� ��� ���������'�������6������ �� ����#�"� �� ��� ��������'���������������included in this study, rather than the previously published estimates.

7��F��� ������#���#"��������������#��#��#����6��������'��������'������� �������������2/���'�"�� �� ����� �������"����� ���#����=�����[���##������Z�'������F� ���]��##�������#����6�������3'������1�'��@�26�������6������ ���������������G'��������26�����������#����6����3'�������� !�������=' "�09��0$$9��^F!�#�#�������������� ���#�����State Tax Notes,�=' "�0:��0$$9�_

5��+� ��#"�����������������������������#��#��6������'��������������� ���#����F� ���]��##�����=������?���������Z�'����������2�������1����������F������#������3'�������6�����State Tax Notes���6�F#"�����=' "�����0$�$�

9������ ���#����F� ���]��##�����=������?���������Z�'����������2�������1����������F������#������3'�������6����� State Tax Notes��=' "�����0$�$�

������� ���������������##���F��������������#���#"����3'�������6������� ���������3������] ����#����� ��������������+'�' �������3'�������6����� ��@�]� ������!���� �������3'�������~�!� ������F�����������'���������� �����+��� #����� !��3[�����������^�������� ��;��0$$;_������'��� ������ ��'�����������#��#���!� �����6�����' �����������'������������'����#������ !��������������'��������#'����� �������6�����' ����� �� ��� ��������� ������� ��� �� '��' �����#������� ��� ������������ #���!� ������!� �����^������#����#��!��������� ��!����%'����#�services), interest and regulatory activities. The methodology used is described in detail in William H. Oakland and William A. �����������K}��#�3'�������6����������3������] ����#����Economic Perspectives�^=' "�+�� ' "�����_������'��� ��also note that selective excise taxes, such as the severance tax, impact a small portion of businesses and could be removed � ��������'�������6�'�� �� ����� �!��������' ����������6���������� ������� ##"���#���#����������� ����2/���������6�����' ������� �����������#"���������#'����������0$$;����

;��2!��������� �!��������2 ������ ��������� [� �*�2�'���������##�!� �����] ��'���!��"@�2!������� ���]#�K}�!�#�] ��'�����Functions,” The American Economic Review��='��0$$5�

:��F��6��#������� [� �#���������������#�������������'��������}���}���� ���2 ������ �����������2���������2�'�������� ���@�2!������� ���] ����1������F ����������#�K���� �����NBER Working Paper 8605��Z�!���� �0$$��

��������6K������ �������������������'�"��� ������ '�������������##������"��2/���##������������ #��������#��"�'����by Richard H. Mattoon and William A. Testa that allocates expenditures net of user charges and federal transfers to businesses ����'����#����}�[����������������2/�����������%� ������ ��������������#��#���������|�������� �������|�������'��3' �'*��0$�$��������}��#�~�!� ����+�������6�����' ������ ��������� #�� ��� �������� ������ "K��������non-tax revenue were assigned to each category. These items were used to calculate the net expenditures for each category. The net expenditures were then allocated to businesses and households in an identical manner to the Mattoon and Testa allocation for all categories included in their analysis. For new categories, EY followed Mattoon and Testa’s general principles in allocating ����6�����' ����|�������� �������Z���#�F�����������������3'���������� �*�State Expenditure Report�^0$�0_������0$�$���'����� ���%'��������0$�0�'��������F##�+'���� ����� ����+� ��������� ���������#'�����2/�'�������� ���������������#�Section of the District of Columbia’s 2012 Comprehensive Annual Financial Report to grow state and local net expenditures.

�$������� ����#�������##��������6���#��"����'��� �#����������������#����6������'��������'���' ������� ������'�������detail in the EY study prepared for COST, What’s Wrong with Taxing Business Services? Adverse Effects from Existing and Proposed Sales Taxation of Business Investment and Services�^F� �#�0$�7_�

EY | Assurance | Tax | Transactions | Advisory

About EYEY is a global leader in assurance, tax, transaction and advisory services. The insights and quality services we deliver help build trust and confidence in the capital markets and in economies the world over. We develop outstanding leaders who team to deliver on our promises to all of our stakeholders. 1��������������#"��� ����#� �#�����'�#�����better working world for our people, for our clients and for our communities.

EY refers to the global organization, and may refer to one or more, of the member firms of Ernst & Young Global Limited, each of which is a separate legal entity. Ernst & Young Global Limited, a UK company limited by guarantee, does not provide services to clients. For more information about our organization, please visit ey.com.

Ernst & Young LLP is a client-serving member firm of Ernst & Young Global Limited operating in the US.

M���������*�A����&��������,�����������M+A,�!�M+A,�������#��'��(�����&�����������������������*���'�����������������'���������������8��9���A�N��F������������@�����������������P��9��#�����J$��M+A,��'�*����Q���������*���*������*�������'�*�������'��������������������������#�����'����������&�������������������������&'���#��������*��.

��0$�7�2 �����/�'��}}]� All Rights Reserved.

����2�Z���//0��� �7$;K��$$::5

ED None