Cities: income tax; administration, enforcement, and collection procedures; modify. Amends secs. 6 & 9, ch. 1, secs. 3, 73, 84, 85, 86a, 86b, 86c, 91, 92 & 93, ch. 2 of 1964 PA 284 (MCL 141.506 et seq.) & adds sec. 92a to ch. 2.
The bill affects cities across Michigan, allowing them to enter into agreements with the state to facilitate tax collection and enforcement. It mandates that collected taxes, penalties, and fees are deposited into a dedicated city income tax trust fund and clarifies that a portion of these funds may be retained by the Department of Treasury for administrative costs. This move is anticipated to streamline and standardize the tax collection process, potentially enhancing revenue for local governments and ensuring compliance with taxation laws.
Senate Bill 507, also known as the Michigan City Income Tax Administration Act, amends the existing laws governing the administration, enforcement, and collection of city income taxes. This legislation allows cities to impose income taxes with uniformity and provides a framework for their administration by the state's Department of Treasury. The bill outlines the procedures necessary for the implementation of these taxes, including how they are collected and the roles of various municipal and state agencies involved in tax administration.
The sentiment surrounding SB 507 appears to be mixed, with some legislators and local government officials supporting it as a means to improve tax collection efficiency and ensure compliance across cities. However, concerns were raised about the increased authority of the state over local tax matters, which some fear could undermine local autonomy. The debate around the bill reflects broader tensions between state and local governance in fiscal matters.
Notable points of contention include the balance of power regarding tax collection and administration between state and local authorities. Opponents argue that the bill centralizes authority in a way that could restrict the ability of local governments to tailor tax regulations to their specific needs. Some critics also express concerns about potential complications arising from the appeals process laid out in the bill, suggesting it could introduce additional bureaucratic obstacles for taxpayers.