Tax clarity needed
Pennsylvania businesses have been facing a troublesome tax situation. A state Supreme Court decision dismantled the traditional framework for determining the business privilege tax (BPT) and established the potential for double taxation of receipts for companies conducting business in multiple jurisdictions.
The Pennsylvania Institute of Certified Public Accountants (PICPA) applauds the state House for overwhelmingly approving a measure that would clarify when a political subdivision may levy a BPT and eliminate the potential for double taxation.
House Bill 1513 passed the House on Oct. 16 and will likely be referred to the Senate Finance Committee. The bill defines “base of operations” and clarifies the scope of transactions that may be subject to the local BPT. It also provides that any gross receipts subject to tax through a base of operations shall not include any receipts subject to tax measured by conducting transactions for all or part of 15 or more calendar days within the calendar year.
This legislation is critical to the business community because it restores clarity and predictability to assessment of the BPT. PICPA strongly supports HB 1513 because it is consistent with our guiding principle of good tax policy. If enacted, it would apply to taxable years beginning on or after Jan. 1, 2014.
Rep. George Dunbar, R-Penn Township, is the bill's prime sponsor. We encourage the Senate to act quickly on this bill to ensure that the Pennsylvania business climate remains fair, reasonable and favorable.
Robert F. Firely
The writer, a CPA, is president of the Pennsylvania Institute of Certified Public Accountants (picpa.org).
Show commenting policy
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.
We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.
While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.
We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers.
We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.
We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.
We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.
We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.
- What happened to manners?
- ‘And another thing...’
- Already lying
- Appreciating the Trib I
- Appreciating the Trib II
- Shame on Leechburg Area
- Foley & Obama II
- Foley & Obama I
- God smiled on get-together
- Drinking & children
- New policy falls short