Louisiana House Bill HB47

Louisiana 2017 Regular Session

• Introduced: 3/9/17
• Refer: 3/9/17
• Refer: 4/10/17

Caption

Adds certain polyroll tubing to the definition of farm equipment for purposes of the state sales and use tax exemption for certain farm equipment (OR -$212,000 GF RV See Note)

Impact

By adding polyroll tubing to the existing exemptions related to farm equipment, HB 47 is expected to lower costs for farmers who utilize this essential equipment for irrigation purposes. This change in legislation is seen as a boon for the agricultural sector, allowing farmers to invest more in efficient irrigation practices. The bill is projected to have a positive financial impact on farms as it reduces their expenditure on necessary tools for agricultural production.

Summary

House Bill 47, introduced by Representative Anders, seeks to amend the state sales and use tax exemption by including polyroll tubing in the definition of farm equipment. This legislation aims to provide farmers with increased access to vital irrigation infrastructure by allowing them to benefit from sales tax exemptions on these materials. Currently, farm equipment is exempt from taxes up to a certain threshold, and this bill seeks to extend similar advantages to polyroll tubing used in commercial farming irrigation.

Sentiment

The sentiment surrounding HB 47 appears generally supportive among the agricultural community and those advocating for small farmers. Proponents argue that the inclusion of polyroll tubing in the sales tax exemption will encourage better irrigation practices, thus enhancing crop production and sustainability. However, as with any tax-related legislation, there may be concerns regarding the overall impact on state revenue, which could lead to debates among lawmakers who are more fiscally conservative.

Contention

Notable points of contention include potential criticisms surrounding the long-term financial implications of expanding tax exemptions for specific agricultural tools and the potential impact on state funding for public services. While supporters view the bill as a necessary step to support farmers, opponents may question the sustainability of such exemptions in light of the need for state revenue. This could lead to discussions about balancing agricultural support with broader fiscal responsibilities.