ADMINISTRATIVE RULES
FISCAL ESTIMATE
AND ECONOMIC IMPACT ANALYSIS
| |||
Type of Estimate and Analysis
| |||
X Original Updated Corrected
| |||
Administrative Rule Chapter, Title and Number
| |||
Chapters Tax 4, 8, and 9 – Motor vehicle and general aviation fuel taxation; intoxicating liquors; and cigarette tax.
| |||
Subject
| |||
General provisions of excise taxation and enforcement.
| |||
Fund Sources Affected
|
Chapter 20 , Stats. Appropriations Affected
| ||
⍽ GPR ⍽ FED ⍽ PRO ⍽ PRS ⍽ SEG ⍽ SEG-S
| |||
Fiscal Effect of Implementing the Rule
| |||
X No Fiscal Effect
⍽ Indeterminate
|
⍽ Increase Existing Revenues
⍽ Decrease Existing Revenues
|
⍽ Increase Costs
⍽ Could Absorb Within Agency's Budget
⍽ Decrease Costs
| |
The Rule Will Impact the Following (Check All That Apply)
| |||
⍽ State's Economy
⍽ Local Government Units
|
⍽ Specific Businesses/Sectors
⍽ Public Utility Rate Payers
| ||
Would Implementation and Compliance Costs Be Greater Than $20 million?
⍽ Yes X No
| |||
Policy Problem Addressed by the Rule
| |||
The rule does not create or revise policy, other than to reflect current law and department policy.
| |||
Summary of Rule's Economic and Fiscal Impact on Specific Businesses, Business Sectors, Public Utility Rate Payers, Local Governmental Units and the State's Economy as a Whole (Include Implementation and Compliance Costs Expected to be Incurred)
| |||
As indicated in the attached fiscal estimate, the revisions in the proposed rule will have no impact on either state tax revenues or the department's administrative costs.
No comments concerning the economic effect of the rule were submitted in response to the department's solicitation.
| |||
Benefits of Implementing the Rule and Alternative(s) to Implementing the Rule
| |||
Clarifications and guidance provided by administrative rules may lower the compliance costs for businesses, local governmental units, and individuals.
If the rule is not implemented, Chapters Tax 4, 8, and 9 will be incomplete in that they will not reflect current law or department policy.
| |||
Long Range Implications of Implementing the Rule
| |||
No long-range implications are anticipated.
| |||
Compare With Approaches Being Used by Federal Government
| |||
N/A
| |||
Compare With Approaches Being Used by Neighboring States (Illinois, Iowa, Michigan and Minnesota)
| |||
N/A
|
FISCAL ESTIMATE FORM
|
2012 Session
| |||
X ORIGINAL
⍽ UPDATED
|
LRB #
| |||
INTRODUCTION #
| ||||
⍽ CORRECTED
⍽ SUPPLEMENTAL
|
Admin rule #
|
Chapter Tax 4, Chapter Tax 8, and Chapter Tax 9
| ||
Subject
Proposed order of the Department of Revenue relating to general provisions of excise taxation and enforcement.
| ||||
Fiscal Effect
|
State: X No State Fiscal Effect
Check columns below only if bill makes a direct appropriation or affects a sum sufficient appropriation
⍽ Increase Existing Appropriation ⍽ Increase Existing Revenues
⍽ Decrease Existing Appropriation ⍽ Decrease Existing Revenues
⍽ Create New Appropriation
|
Increase Costs - May be Possible to Absorb Within Agency's Budget ⍽ Yes ⍽ No
⍽ Decrease Costs
| |||
Local: X No Local Government Costs
| ||||
1. ⍽ Increase Costs
|
3 ⍽ Increase Revenues
|
5. Types of Local Governmental Units Affected:
| ||
⍽ Permissive
⍽ Mandatory
|
⍽ Permissive ⍽ Mandatory
|
⍽ Towns ⍽ Villages
⍽ Cities
| ||
2. ⍽ Decrease Costs
|
4. Decrease Revenues
|
⍽ Counties ⍽ Others
| ||
⍽ Permissive
⍽ Mandatory
|
⍽ Permissive ⍽ Mandatory
|
⍽ School Districts ⍽ WTCS Districts
| ||
Fund Sources Affected
⍽ GPR
⍽ FED ⍽ PRO ⍽ PRS ⍽ SEG ⍽ SEG-S
|
Affected Ch. 20 Appropriations
| |||
Assumptions Used in Arriving at Fiscal Estimate:
The proposed rule order modifies several sections in Chapter Tax 4 (Motor vehicle and general aviation fuel taxation), Chapter Tax 8 (Intoxicating Liquors), and Chapter Tax 9 (Cigarette tax). It makes several changes to reflect current law and the technology now available to administer current law. The proposed rule updates department contact information and updates examples to utilize current tax rates.
The revisions in the proposed rule will have no impact on either state tax revenues or the department's administrative costs.
|
Long-Range Fiscal Implications:
| ||
Agency/Prepared by
Wisconsin Department of Revenue
|
Authorized Signature/Telephone No.
Wisconsin Department of Revenue
|
Date
|
Jacek Cianciara
|
Paul Ziegler
|
Nov. 12, 2012
|
608 266-8133
|
608 266-5773
|
STATE OF WISCONSIN
DEPARTMENT OF ADMINISTRATION
DOA-2049 (R03/2012)
|
Division of Executive Budget and Finance
101 East Wilson Street, 10th Floor
P.O. Box 7864
Madison, WI 53707-7864
FAX: (608) 267-0372
|
ADMINISTRATIVE RULES
Fiscal Estimate & Economic Impact Analysis
|
1. Type of Estimate and Analysis
| ||||
X Original ⍽ Updated ⍽ Corrected
| ||||
2. Administrative Rule Chapter, Title and Number
| ||||
Chapter Opt 5.02 (4).
| ||||
3. Subject
| ||||
Relating to lens prescription.
| ||||
4. Fund Sources Affected
|
5. Chapter 20, Stats. Appropriations Affected
| |||
⍽ GPR
⍽ FED ⍽ PRO ⍽ PRS
⍽ SEG ⍽ SEG-S
| ||||
6. Fiscal Effect of Implementing the Rule
| ||||
X No Fiscal Effect
⍽ Indeterminate
|
⍽ Increase Existing Revenues
⍽ Decrease Existing Revenues
|
⍽ Increase Costs
⍽ Could Absorb Within Agency's Budget
⍽ Decrease Cost
| ||
7. The Rule Will Impact the Following (Check All That Apply)
| ||||
⍽ State's Economy
⍽ Local Government Units
|
⍽ Specific Businesses/Sectors
⍽ Public Utility Rate Payers
⍽ Small Businesses (if checked, complete Attachment A)
| |||
8. Would Implementation and Compliance Costs Be Greater Than $20 million?
⍽ Yes X No
| ||||
9. Policy Problem Addressed by the Rule
| ||||
The current definition for lens prescription states a “written order" which could be interpreted to not allow for an electronic signature. A contact lens prescription does not have the requirement of “written order" and requires a signature. Modification of the current definition for lens prescription would provide clarity and create a consistency between lens prescriptions and contact lens prescriptions.
| ||||
10. Summary of the businesses, business sectors, associations representing business, local governmental units, and individuals that may be affected by the proposed rule that were contacted for comments.
| ||||
This rule was posted for 14 days for economic impact comments and none were received.
| ||||
11. Identify the local governmental units that participated in the development of this EIA.
| ||||
None. This rule does not affect local governmental units.
| ||||
12. Summary of Rule's Economic and Fiscal Impact on Specific Businesses, Business Sectors, Public Utility Rate Payers, Local Governmental Units and the State's Economy as a Whole (Include Implementation and Compliance Costs Expected to be Incurred)
| ||||
This rule will not have an economic or fiscal impact on specific businesses, business sectors, public utility rate payers, local governmental units or the state's economy as a whole.
| ||||
13. Benefits of Implementing the Rule and Alternative(s) to Implementing the Rule
| ||||
The benefit to the proposed rule is bring the rules for lens prescriptions in line with contact lens prescriptions. Health care entities are increasingly utilizing electronic prescriptions and signatures as a way to improve patient safety, inefficiencies and control costs. With this change, thousands of patients will be able to enjoy the increased speed and accuracy of electronic prescriptions for eyeglasses.
The alternative is to continue to have different requirements for a lens prescription and a contact lens prescription.
| ||||
14. Long Range Implications of Implementing the Rule
| ||||
The long range implication is increased patient safety and efficiencies.
| ||||
15. Compare With Approaches Being Used by Federal Government
| ||||
None.
| ||||
16. Compare With Approaches Being Used by Neighboring States (Illinois, Iowa, Michigan and Minnesota)
| ||||
Iowa allows electronic prescriptions. Illinois and Minnesota laws do not specify whether a prescription may be electronic. Michigan does not appear to have a definition of an optometrist prescription.
| ||||
17. Contact Name
|
18. Contact Phone Number
| |||
Sharon Henes
|
(608) 261-2377
|