Texas House Bill HB1900

Texas 2013 - 83rd Regular

Caption

Relating to exempting certain amounts charged for certain cable television services from the sales and use tax.

Impact

If enacted, HB1900 would create a tax exemption specifically aimed at enhancing the affordability of cable television services for consumers. The exemption would have implications on the state's revenue structure by reducing the taxable base for cable services, potentially impacting funding for state programs that rely on sales tax revenues. However, the bill ensures that tax liabilities that accrued prior to its enactment remain in effect, which means there is a consideration for past liabilities amidst the proposed changes.

Summary

House Bill 1900 proposes an exemption from sales and use tax for the first $75 charged for certain cable television services. This exemption applies to services subject to a franchise fee authorized under relevant Texas statutes and aims to alleviate some of the tax burdens on consumers for cable TV services. The nuanced approach of the bill allows for bundling with other services while ensuring that the exemption remains applicable to the total price charged, regardless of billing methods used by service providers.

Sentiment

The sentiment around HB1900 appears to be predominantly positive among supporters who advocate for reducing costs associated with essential services like cable TV. Proponents view the bill as a means to support lower-income households and enhance accessibility to cable services in a competitive media landscape. Nonetheless, there may be concerns relating to the broader implications of sales tax revenue losses, which could spark discussions about funding needs in public services dependent on these revenues.

Contention

Notably, while HB1900 proposes a beneficial exemption for consumers, it also raises potential contentions surrounding the equitable distribution of tax benefits. Opponents may argue about the fairness of such tax exemptions, especially when considering other sectors that do not enjoy similar relief. The underlying debate may revolve around the balance between encouraging access to certain services while ensuring that the state's financial obligations and funding for essential public services are not undermined.