This bill relates to the recurring issue of collecting sales tax on internet sales and other sales by out of state retailers. This bill creates a new vendor classification, 'delivery retailer', defined as a retailer that either collects more than $250,000.00 from retail sales to be delivered in Georgia or that conducts more than 200 such sales. A delivery retailer must 1) either collect and remit sales tax to the state or 2) notify the purchaser that the purchaser is required to file a sales and use tax return. In the second situation, the delivery retailer is also required to send to each purchaser (and copy the Department of Revenue) a tax statement listing purchase price, date of purchase, and other information. These changes would become effective in January of 2019.

This bill would authorize and regulate fantasy sports leagues, including the payment of registration fees by fantasy contest operators to the Department of Revenue. Entry fees for participation in fantasy leagues would be exempt from sales taxes.

This legislation adds flexibility, clarifications and enhancements to the existing Single County T-SPLOST law. This bill allows Single County T-SPLOST to fund state transportation projects and removes dates that are no longer relevant so now all counties, with the exception of Fulton County who has their own code section, would follow the same Single County T-SPLOST law. It also permits more than one Single County T-SPLOST to be levied at the same time as long as the amount does not exceed 1 percent and allows cities to bond their T-SPLOST projects. Lastly, the bill clarifies that after January 1, 2018, Regional T-SPLOST and a Single County T-SPLOST cannot be on the ballot at the same time.

A more detailed description of HB 134 can be found here.

This bill provides a mechanism by which the governing authority of a county or municipality can access sales and use tax information from the Department of Revenue (DOR). Present law prohibits DOR from disclosing tax information even to other governments. Under the substitute version of this bill, the governing authority appoints a designated officer or official  who can request a report from DOR regarding identifying information on those vendors within that local jurisdiction who are currently remitting sales tax reports (actual sales tax numbers would not be obtainable). The designated officer could additionally request DOR to verify that sales tax receipts from particular vendors are accurately being remitted to the appropriate jurisdiction. The information retains its confidential status and is not subject to the Open Records Act. The information may be discussed by the governing authority in executive session. Disclosure of such confidential information by a local official is punishable as a misdemeanor.

The text of this bill was also added to SB 216. 

This bill would expand the property tax exemption for property owned by charitable organizations. Presently, buildings on such property must be "exclusively" used for charitable purposes. This bill would remove that exclusivity requirement, meaning that such buildings could be used for other purposes, including income-generating activities. As originally introduced, this bill would expand the property tax exemption only for homes for the mentally disabled. 

As amended by the author before the Senate Finance Committee, this bill would prohibit the placement on property tax bills of nontax-related fees and assessments, unless that fee or assessment is established via the creation of a special tax district. Regardless of method of establishment of such fees, however, this bill would prohibit the filing of liens against property for nonpayment of fees or assessments -- only unpaid property taxes could result in a lien. As a result, this bill would indirectly repeal existing law authorizing the filing of liens for unpaid sanitation and water fees/bills.

While the bill’s author maintains that placing such fees on property tax bills exposes the property owner to potential liens and losing of their homes due to unpaid fees, examples of that happening have not been provided. 

In contrast, placing fees on property tax bills provides convenience to citizens, lowers counties’ administrative costs, and results in higher collection rates. Because experience has shown that billing fees separately can significantly impact collections, counties could be faced with either raising fees for those who do pay in order to continue providing vital services, or shift those fees to property taxes. In addition, for those counties that currently do include fees on property tax bills, separating those billings will likely result in substantial administrative costs. More importantly, the loss of the ability to file liens would mean that counties would have to sue citizens for unpaid fees or raise fees on those citizens who do pay their bills.

ACCG believes that the decision on whether to bill separately or collectively for taxes and fees is best left to local officials, who are better positioned to respond to the specific desires of their citizens.

 As amended in the Senate Finance Committee, the above subject was removed and replaced with unrelated language exempting non-profit organizations from the $5 transporation surcharge for hotel/motel stays.

This bill entitles a veteran who gets a final determination of disability letter containing a retroactive period of eligibility to get a refund of those ad valorem taxes paid that would otherwise have been exempt had the disabled status been in effect during the retroactive period, up to a maximum of three years under OCGA 48-5-380.

The text of this bill was added to HB 196.