South Dakota Senate Bill SB147

South Dakota 2023 Regular Session

• Introduced: 1/26/23
• Refer: 1/26/23
• Report Pass: 2/3/23
• Engrossed: 2/6/23
• Refer: 2/7/23
• Report Pass: 2/22/23
• Enrolled: 2/23/23
• Passed: 3/7/23

Caption

Change provisions regarding the appointment of legislators to represent South Dakota in the Streamlined Sales and Use Tax Agreement.

Impact

The passage of SB147, which received significant support in the legislative process, will specifically allow the state’s Department of Revenue to adopt rules and engage in actions required to implement the agreement effectively. This will likely lead to a more coherent tax structure for businesses, reducing administrative burdens associated with different state tax policies. As a member of this multi-state collective, South Dakota aims to enhance its competitive edge, potentially leading to increased commerce and improved economic conditions.

Summary

Senate Bill 147 aims to amend the appointment provisions of legislators who represent South Dakota in the Streamlined Sales and Use Tax Agreement. This initiative is designed to enhance the state's participation in a multi-state agreement that seeks to simplify and modernize sales and use tax administration. By participating in this agreement, South Dakota will work collaboratively with other states to develop standardized practices that are expected to ease the burden of tax compliance for businesses operating across state lines.

Sentiment

The general sentiment around SB147 appears to be overwhelmingly positive, particularly among legislators invested in economic growth and streamlined regulations. The strong vote in favor of the bill (66 yeas to 2 nays) reflects a consensus on the need for easier tax processes that could benefit local businesses. However, discussions surrounding tax agreements often evoke concerns about tax fairness and the implications for state revenue.

Contention

While the primary focus of SB147 is to facilitate cooperation among states for more efficient tax administration, it may also spur dialogue concerning local governance and the implications of standardized tax rules. Critics may question whether centralized tax measures adequately address the unique economic conditions of South Dakota, though the bill has largely bypassed overt contention in the initial legislative phases.