Assembly Bill 754 as messaged from the Assembly makes various changes in Chapter 33 of the Wisconsin statutes (Public Inland Lake Protection and Rehabilitation). None of the changes relate to a tax exemption.
However, senate amendment 1 to Assembly Bill 754 would exempt property owned by any public inland lake protection and rehabilitation district from the general property tax.
Section 13.52 (6) of the Wisconsin statutes requires that "upon the introduction in either house of the legislature of any proposal which affects any existing statute or creates any new statute relating to the exemption of any property or person from any state or local taxes or special assessments, such proposal shall at once be referred to the Joint Survey Committee on Tax Exemptions by the presiding officer ...."
Section 13.52 (5) requires that the Joint Survey Committee on Tax Exemptions report on the desirability of "each legislative proposal which would modify existing laws or create new laws relating to the exemption of property or persons from any state or local taxes or special assessments."
The question is whether this statutory language requires a bill to be referred (or rereferred) to the tax exemption committee each time an amendment (or substitute amendment) proposing to create (or change) a tax exemption is introduced (or adopted).
The statutory language is particulary unenlightening in this case because there is no indication whether the word "proposal" is meant to include amendments and substitute amendments as well as original bills.
Existing legislative records on s. 13.52, which was originally passed and signed into law as Chapter 153, Laws of 1963, yield no clues.
Therefore, the chair must look for other indications of legislative intent.
The phrase "upon the introduction in either house" in s. 13.52 is significant, for original measures are "introduced", while amendments and substitute amendments are "offered".
The phrase "shall at once be referred to the Joint Survey Committee on Tax Exemptions by the presiding officer" is also helpful because only original measures, not amendments, are referred to committee by the presiding officer.
Halfway through s 13.52 (6) the word "proposal" is dropped and the word "bill" substituted, thus lending further credence to the supposition that the section applies only to original bills and not to amendments or substitute amendments.
Neither Senate nor joint rules contain a definition of "proposal", but the Assembly has seen fit to define the word in Assembly rule 97 (61). The Assembly definition includes motions, resolutions, joint resolutions and bills but does not include amendments or substitute amendments.
639 Even though this issue has been before the legislature previously, the chair was able to find only one Senate ruling which clearly states that only original bills are to be referred to the tax exemptions committee.
In 1971 Senator Hollander raised the point of order that Senate amendment 8 (to Assembly substitute amendment 1 to Senate Bill 805) must first be referred to the Joint Survey Committee on Tax Exemptions "because of the type of legislation it proposes".
The chair ruled that "senate amendment 8 .... need not be referred to committee, unless it was introduced as a bill". (1971 Senate Journal, page 2052).
If the chair were to reverse this precedent and interpret the statutes as requiring tax exemption amendments to be referred to committee then delay of legislation, not more thorough study of it, would be the result as often as not.
If a majority of Senators feel that senate amendment 1 to Assembly Bill 754, or any other amendment, does indeed merit study by the tax exemptions committee, a simple majority vote can accomplish the task.
For all these reasons the chair must rule that only original bills are required to be referred to the tax exemption committee and that amendments or substitute amendments are not required or intended to be so referred.
FRED A. RISSER
President pro tempore
Senate Journal of June 29, 1977 .......... Page: 933
[Point of order:]
Senator Goyke raised the point of order that Senate Bill 1 [relating to free small game licenses for residents over 65 years of age] was required to be referred to the Joint Survey Committee on Tax Exemptions. The chair took the point of order under advisement.
Senate Journal of June 29, 1977 .......... Page: 944
Earlier today Senator Goyke raised the point of order that Senate Bill 1 constituted a tax exemption and therefore was required to be referred to the Joint Survey Committee on Tax Exemptions pursuant to sec. 13.52 of the Wisconsin Statutes. The chair took the point of order under advisement.
Senate Bill 1 would grant free small game licenses to Wisconsin residents who are 65 years of age or over. The point of order raised by Senator Goyke goes to the very heart of the difference between a "license fee" and a "tax".
A license is defined as "a formal permission to do something; especially, authorization by law to do some specified thing." Similarly, a "fee" is defined as "a charge fixed by law .... for use of a privilege."
A tax, on the other hand, is defined as the "requirement to pay a percentage of income, property value, etc. for the support of government." These definitions make clear the distinction between the two.
Historically, the primary purpose of licensing and license fees is to regulate activity. It is true that license fees raise revenue, but that is simply an ancillary effect. In fact, many license fees are set only at a level sufficient to pay the cost of regulation.
Taxes, on the other hand, are enacted primarily to raise revenue. Taxes can regulate activity, but that is usually a secondary effect.
640 The Wisconsin Supreme Court in State ex rel. Atty. Gen. v. Wisconsin Constructors, 222 Wis. 279 said: "The distinction between taxes and fees is quite clear. 'Taxes', it was said in
Fitch v. Wisconsin Tax comm. 201 Wis. 383, 'are the enforced proportional contributions from persons and property, levied by the state by virtue of its sovereignty for the support of government and for all public needs' ...Taxes are imposed for the purpose of general revenue. License and other fees are ordinarily imposed to cover the cost and expense of supervision or regulation."
The distinction between taxing and licensing is admittedly blurred on many occasions but, in the opinion of the chair, the distinction in this case is sufficiently clear. The fee required to obtain a small game license is not a tax in the generally understood meaning of the word and therefore does not come within the purview of sec. 13.52 and the Joint Survey Committee on Tax Exemptions.
License fee exemptions similar to Senate Bill 1 have been acted on and passed by earlier legislatures without being referred to the Joint Survey Committee on Tax Exemptions.
Chapter 628, Laws of 1965, which provides that members of the armed forces be issued free fishing licenses and small game hunting licenses without charge is a good example.
Therefore, it is the chair's opinion that the point of order is not well taken.
Sincerely
Senator FRED A. RISSER
President pro tempore
Senate Journal of January 13, 1977 .......... Page: 34
[Background:]
Senate Joint Resolution 7, [to amend section 1 of article VIII of the constitution, relating to allowing the legislature to provide relief to persons for the tax imposed relating to improvements made on homes (1st consideration)]. Read first time and referred to Joint Survey Committee on Tax Exemptions.
Senate Joint Resolution 8, [to amend section 1 of article VIII of the constitution, relating to property tax exemption for the homestead property of residents aged 65 or older (1st consideration)]. Read first time and referred to Joint Survey Committee on Tax Exemptions.
Senator Theno asked unanimous consent that Senate Joint Resolutions 7 and 8 be considered for action at this time. Senator Berger objected.
Senate Journal of January 13, 1977 .......... Page: 43
[Point of order:]
Senator Theno raised the point of order that Senate Joint Resolutions 7 and 8 were constitutional amendments and therefore were not required to be referred to the Joint Survey Committee on Tax Exemptions pursuant to 13.52 Wis. Stats. The chair took the point of order under advisement.
Senate Journal of January 20, 1977 .......... Page: 73
On Thursday, January 13, 1977, Senator Theno raised the point of order that Senate Joint Resolutions 7 and 8 were constitutional amendments and therefore were not required to be referred to the Joint Survey Committee on Tax Exemptions pursuant to sec. 13.52 Wis. Stats. The chair took the point of order under advisement.
641 Section 13.52 (5) sets forth the powers and duties of the committee. "It is the purpose of this committee to provide the legislature with a considered opinion of the legality of the proposal, of the fiscal effect upon the state and its subdivisions and of the desirability as a
matter of public policy of each legislative proposal which would modify existing laws or create new laws relating to the exemption of property or persons from any state or local taxes or special assessments."
The powers and duties section, 13.52 (5), and the report section, 13.52 (6), mention in specific: (5) "each legislative proposal which would modify existing laws or create new laws" and (6) "proposal which affects any existing statute or creates any new statute".
It is the chair's opinion that Senate Joint Resolutions 7 and 8, which are constitutional amendments, do not "affect any existing statute or create any new statute", nor do they "modify existing laws or create new laws". Therefore, the joint resolutions would not be required by law to be referred to the Joint Survey Committee on Tax Exemptions.
A similar point of order was raised in June of 1975, journal page 954 and in February of 1973, journal page 427. It is the opinion of the chair that these earlier rulings were based on sound reasoning and the chair upholds its earlier position.
Therefore, the point of order is well taken.
FRED A. RISSER
President pro tempore
Senate Journal of January 20, 1977 .......... Page: 74
[Point of order:]
Senator Sensenbrenner raised the point of order that, pursuant to senate rule 20, Senate Joint Resolutions 7 and 8 were required to be referred to a senate standing committee not a joint statutory committee. The chair took the point of order under advisement.
Senate Journal of February 1, 1977 .......... Page: 124
As it relates to the point of order raised by Senator Sensenbrenner that Senate Joint Resolutions 7 and 8 are required by senate rule 20 to be referred to a senate standing committee, the chair rules the point of order is not well taken.
Senate rule 20 does not require that measures be referred to standing committees as opposed to statutory committees. There is nothing in any of the senate rules that does not allow referral to a statutory committee. The joint resolutions are properly in the Joint Survey Committee on Tax Exemptions.
FRED A. RISSER
President pro tempore
Senate Journal of March 28, 1978 .......... Page: 2158
[Point of order:]
Senator Theno moved that Senate Joint Resolution 8 be withdrawn from Joint Committee on Tax Exemptions and referred to committee on Senate Organization.
Senator Berger raised the point of order that a written report on Senate Joint Resolution 8 was necessary to withdraw it from the Joint Survey Committee on Tax Exemptions. The chair took the point of order under advisement.
Senate Journal of March 30, 1978 .......... Page: 2235
On Tuesday, March 28, 1978, Senator Theno moved to withdraw Senate Joint Resolution 8 from the Joint Survey Committee on Tax Exemptions.
Senator Berger raised the point of order that the committee had not yet submitted a written report as required by s. 13.52 of the Wisconsin statutes.
642 On January 20, 1977 the chair ruled that s. 13.52 of the Wisconsin statutes did not require that Senate Joint Resolution 8 be referred to the Joint Survey Committee on Tax Exemptions. Implicit in that ruling is the absence of a requirement that a written report be submitted on the resolution.
Therefore the point of order raised by Senator Berger is not well taken. The motion made by Senator Theno is proper and the question is shall Senate Joint Resolution 8 be withdrawn from the Joint Survey committee on Tax Exemptions.
1 9 7 5 A S S E M B L Y
Assembly Journal of March 9, 1976 .......... Page: 3217
Point of order:
Representative Shabaz rose to the point of order that Assembly Bill 604 was not properly before the assembly because the language on page 12, line 11 of the substitute amendment required the bill to be referred to the Joint Survey Committee on Tax Exemptions pursuant to Wisconsin Statutes 13.52 (6). Representative Shabaz cited the definition of "proposal" in Assembly Rule 97 (61). Representative Opitz cited the ruling of the speaker on 1973 Assembly Bill 626 on February 19, 1974 (1973 Assembly Journal page 3542).
The speaker [Anderson] ruled as follows:
"First of all, with respect to the precedent of last session, the chair recalls Assembly Bill 626 of last session as a totally different proposal than than the proposal before us. The only two things that were the same were the fact that it dealt with wetlands, but the treatment and specifically the tax treatment was totally different between the two bills. Accordingly, the question that has now been raised is not decided by the precedent of what was ruled on Assembly Bill 626 because the character of the measures was totally different. We have to look at what the requirements of the Joint Survey Committee on Tax Exemptions statute provides and its intent.
The intent of sec. 13.52 is to make sure that no new tax exemptions are created without some analysis being made of the impact of those proposals. The chair will assume for purposes of argument that there is no difference between an amendment and the original proposal. Substitute amendment 2 on page 12 in the section in question, talks about the deed of easement, where a deed of easement has been granted; thereafter the property to be assessed for its value as open space and so on. The provisions of section 8 that deal with taxation, the chair is reliably informed, simply restate what is the present law: namely, that where as is provided specifically in sec 70.32 which is cited in that amendment where there has been a deed of easement the property is valued omitting the value of that easement or deducting the value of that easement. A
contribution of that kind, a dedication for public purposes, is presently deductible from the income tax under our existing law. In other words, the language contained in the section complained of by the gentleman from the 83rd is simply a restatement of what the law would be without the language there if this bill is adopted.
Accordingly, since the intent of section 13.52 is to filter out what amounts to changes in our tax law and this does not change existing tax law, the point of order is not well taken."
Senate Journal of March 4, 1976 .......... Page: 1920
[Point of order:]
Senator Sensenbrenner raised the point of order that pursuant to 13.52 (6) of the statutes, Senate Bill 755 [relating to state finances and appropriations, constituting the budget review bill and making appropriations] was required to go to the Joint Survey committee on Tax Exemptions.
The chair [Lt.Gov. Schreiber] ruled the point of order not well taken.
Senate Journal of June 18, 1975 .......... Page: 920
[Constitutional amendment:]
Senator Bablitch moved that Senate Joint Resolution 36 be referred to the Joint Survey Committee on Tax Exemptions.
[Point of order:]
Senator Berger raised the point of order that Senate Joint Resolution 36 must be referred to the Joint Survey Committee on Tax Exemptions pursuant to 13.52 of the state statutes. The chair took the point of order under advisement.
Senate Journal of June 24, 1975 .......... Page: 954
On Wednesday, June 18, 1975, Senator Berger raised the point of order that Senate Joint Resolution 36 must be referred to the Joint Survey Committee on Tax Exemptions pursuant to 13.52 of the state statutes. The chair took the point of order under advisement.
A similar point of order was raised in 1973 on whether or not a proposed constitutional amendment relating to taxation of agricultural land should be required to be referred to the Joint Survey Committee on Tax Exemptions. At that time, the presiding officer ruled, on page 427 of the Journal of 1973, that the resolution need not be so referred. It is the opinion of this chair that this earlier ruling was based on sound reasoning and this chair reiterates the
