Oklahoma court narrowly upholds auto tax exemption removal

Oklahoma court narrowly upholds auto tax exemption removal


Hide Transcript
Show Transcript

WEBVTT THE REAL ANIMAL CONTROL OFFICERSWILL ALWAYS BE IN CITY-MARKEDCARS.ONE MORE FIGHT IS HEADED TO THESUPREME COURT.THE OKLAHOMA AUTOMOBILEDEALERS ASSOCIATION SAY A BILLIS UNCONSTITUTIONAL, AND SOMELAWMAKERS THINK A SPECIALSESSION COULD BE COMING.>> WE HAVE HAD FOR MONTHS TO DOALL OF THIS, AND YOU WAITEDUNTIL 11:00 TO RUN THIS BILL.BRET: LAWMAKERS COULDN’T AGREEWHETHER A ILL WAS A TAX OR AFEE.THEYPASSED HOUSE BILL 2433 WHICHADDS ANOTHER 1.25 PERCENT SALESTAX ON ALL NEW AND USED CARS,EXPECTED TO GENERATE MORE THAN$123 MILLION.>> WE TRIED TO REACH ABIPARTISAN AGREEMENT.THE AGREEMENT COULD NOT BEREACHED, SO WE HAD TO COMPLYWITH OUR CONSTITUTIONAL DUTY.BRET: THE OKLAHOMA AUTOMOBILEDEALERS ASSOCIATION IS SUING THESTATE, SAYING THE BILL ISUNCONSTITUTIONAL, ARGUING THATIT WAS PASSED IN THE LAST FIVEDAYS OF SESSION, AND IT DID NOTHAVE SUPER MAJORITY SUPPORT.IN A STATEMENT TO KOCO, SOMETOBACCO COMPANIES CALLED IT”VERBAL HOCUS-POCUS,” SAYING ITWAS A REVENUE-GENERATING TAXBILL.THE SUPREME COURT WILL HEARVERBAL ARGUMENTS FOR THAT INAUGUST.BRET: THE OKLAHOMA ATTORNEYGENERAL WILL FIGHT THIS LAWSUIT,

Oklahoma court narrowly upholds auto tax exemption removal


The Oklahoma Supreme Court has narrowly upheld the removal of a 1.25 percent sales tax exemption on vehicles sold in Oklahoma.

In a 5-4 decision Thursday, justices ruled that a bill adopted by the Legislature earlier this year is constitutional because it did not levy a new tax, but removed an exemption from an existing tax. The measure is expected to raise about $124 million a year.

The court’s majority opinion rejects allegations by the Oklahoma Automobile Dealers Association, an auto dealership and an individual that the legislation violated constitutional guidelines for a “revenue bill” because it was adopted during the final week of the 2017 legislative session and didn’t receive 75 percent of the votes in both houses.

Dissenting justices say the measure violates those constitutional guidelines.

Read the full article from the Source…

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *