Connecticut House Bill HJ00011

Connecticut 2019 Regular Session

• Introduced: 1/11/19
• Refer: 1/11/19

Caption

Resolution Proposing A Constitutional Amendment Prohibiting The Imposition Of Retroactive Taxes.

Impact

The proposed amendment is expected to provide enhanced protection for taxpayers, fostering a more stable and predictable tax environment. By prohibiting retroactive taxation, the resolution aims to shield individuals and businesses from sudden and unexpected tax burdens that could arise from legislative changes made after a tax return has been filed. This would potentially encourage compliance and support economic confidence, as taxpayers would have the assurance that their past financial decisions would not be subject to new tax liabilities.

Summary

House Joint Resolution No. 11 (HJ00011) proposes a significant constitutional amendment aimed at prohibiting the imposition of retroactive taxes in the state. This bill intends to amend Article III of the state constitution to ensure that the General Assembly cannot authorize any new taxes or increases in existing taxes that would have a retroactive effect. Additionally, it seeks to prevent the enactment of any law that would compel a taxpayer to amend a tax return that was filed correctly and timely according to the regulations in force at the time of filing.

Conclusion

Ultimately, HJ00011 seeks to create a clearer and fairer tax framework within the state, addressing the potential negative impacts of retroactive tax increases. As the bill progresses, lawmakers and stakeholders will continue to deliberate its implications on fiscal governance and taxpayer relations, balancing the necessity of state revenues with the rights and protections of citizens.

Contention

Discussions around HJ00011 highlight notable points of contention among legislators. Supporters argue that prohibiting retroactive taxes is essential for maintaining fairness in the tax system and safeguarding taxpayers’ rights. They contend that retroactive taxation can lead to financial hardship and undermine public trust in governmental fiscal policies. Conversely, opponents may raise concerns about the potential limitations this amendment could impose on the state’s ability to address revenue needs adequately, especially in times of fiscal crisis or budget deficits. The debate is indicative of broader discussions regarding fiscal responsibility and taxpayer rights.