Connecticut Senate Bill SB01213

Connecticut 2011 Regular Session

• Introduced: 3/22/11
• Refer: 3/22/11
• Report Pass: 4/7/11
• Refer: 4/13/11
• Report Pass: 4/19/11
• Refer: 4/25/11

Caption

An Act Concerning The Burden Of Proof In Tax Appeals.

Impact

The proposed legislation would amend existing statutes related to tax appeals, specifically by repealing a previous provision that may have caused confusion regarding the burden of proof required from taxpayers. By adopting a 'preponderance of the evidence' standard, the bill aims to facilitate a more equitable tax appeal process. This shift could impact how tax disputes are resolved within the judicial system, as it indicates a lighter burden for taxpayers to fulfill compared to more stringent standards. Overall, the bill seeks to simplify and clarify the legal requirements for tax appeals, which could affect both state revenue and taxpayer rights.

Summary

SB01213, titled 'An Act Concerning the Burden of Proof in Tax Appeals,' aims to clarify and modify the legal framework governing tax appeals within the state. The bill proposes that the burden of proof for taxpayers in these appeals should be established by a 'preponderance of the evidence.' This change is intended to streamline the process and provide clearer guidelines for taxpayers and the Revenue Services Department. By clearly defining the burden of proof, the bill seeks to enhance fairness in tax proceedings and potentially reduce the number of appeals that hinge on ambiguous standards.

Sentiment

The general sentiment surrounding SB01213 appears to be supportive among legislators who advocate for fairness and clarity in tax proceedings. Proponents believe that the bill will alleviate some of the burdens faced by taxpayers in navigating the complexities of tax appeals. However, there may be concerns about how this shift affects the revenue collection efforts of the state and whether it could lead to increased claim volumes from taxpayers who may feel empowered by the more lenient proof standard. The discourse around the bill suggests a balanced approach to ensuring taxpayer rights while considering the state's revenue needs.

Contention

Notable points of contention may arise concerning the implications of the new burden of proof standard on revenue enforcement and tax compliance. Critics could argue that allowing for a lower burden of evidence may encourage frivolous appeals, complicating the tax collection process and potentially affecting state finances. The effects of this change are likely to be closely scrutinized, especially in terms of its repercussions on both taxpayer advocacy and the state's ability to enforce tax laws effectively.