Blog

Colorado Chamber Policy Councils Convene to Take Positions on Tax and Employment Legislation

As key business bills move through the legislature, the Colorado Chamber’s Labor & Employment Council and Tax Council convened to take positions on introduced bills and discuss policy updates.

On Friday, the Tax Council took positions on a set of bills making significant changes to Colorado’s tax code and heard updates on proposed tax credit extensions and workforce initiatives. The Labor & Employment Council met on Wednesday to take positions on introduced legislation affecting Colorado employers, including bills affecting the agricultural industry and large employers statewide.

Tax Council Positions:

HB 1119: Oppose

This proposal would allow local governments to tax buildings and land on the same property at different rates based on their difference in value. The Chamber’s Tax Council opposed the bill due to constitutional concerns and the likelihood of significant and unexpected tax increases for property owners.

HB 1221: Oppose

The bill would set limits on net operating loss tax claims and disallow certain tax deductions.  The Tax Council opposed the bill because of concerns with the Department of Revenue’s ability to manage the additional tax complications and its impact on Colorado’s competitiveness.

HB 1222: Oppose

This legislation would decouple Colorado from certain tax deductions available under federal law. The Chamber is opposed to the bill because it significantly complicates Colorado’s tax system while increasing the tax burden for Colorado companies and fails to address the state’s budget deficit.

HB 1223: Oppose

This bill would allow digital products to be taxed as tangible property regardless of how the software is accessed. The Colorado Chamber Tax Council opposed the bill due to its attempt to circumvent a longstanding exclusion of downloadable software and its inaccurate classification of software as tangible property.

HB 1289: Amend

The bill is intended as a cleanup of Colorado’s tax code and adjusts numerous state tax expenditures. The Chamber voted to amend the bill to preserve the space flight sales and use tax exemption and to ensure it doesn’t create additional burden for international companies.

SB 116: Oppose

This proposal would allow municipalities to create a lodging tax if approved by voters. It also sets requirements for the valuation of lodging property and makes changes to business personal property tax exemptions. The Chamber is opposed to the bill due to the potential for inaccurate property tax valuations and the likelihood of increased lodging costs for consumers.

Labor & Employment Council Positions:

HB 1272: Oppose as Introduced

The bill would require the Colorado Department of Labor and Employment to collect data on temperature related injuries in the workplace and to develop model temperature related injury and illness prevention plans (TRIIPs). It then requires employers to develop and submit their own TRIIP to the state. The Labor & Employment Council voted to oppose the bill as introduced due to the redundant mandates for employers already in compliance with existing requirements mitigating temperature risk.

HB 1210: Oppose

This proposal would prohibit the use of certain types of digital data to set prices or wages for consumers or workers. The Chamber opposed the legislation because it is overly broad and could prevent businesses from offering customers discounts or loyalty incentives, reducing available savings and potentially increasing costs for consumers.

SB 121: Support

This legislation would set the threshold for overtime in the agriculture industry at 60 hours per workweek. The Colorado Chamber’s Labor and Employment Council voted to support the bill because it sets the overtime threshold at a level that correctly reflects the seasonal nature of agricultural work.

HB 1327: Oppose

The bill would require large employers to pay a fee for each employee that receives benefits under the state medical assistance program. The Colorado Chamber is opposed to the bill because it creates a burdensome financial mandate for employers to cover the cost of a state-administered program.