Laserfiche WebLink
C. Nishihara & G. Wakai <br /> SB 198 — TAT <br /> February 6, 2019 <br /> Page 2 <br /> This seems to be boilerplate language (and appears in HB631 and SB 1376 as <br /> well) but it would seem to allow each taxpayer to choose that jurisdiction which imposes <br /> the lowest surcharge. That surely is not what is intended, and we ask that it be clarified. <br /> Elsewhere in the bills it states that "the director of taxation shall have the exclusive <br /> rights and power to determine the county or counties in which a person is engaged in <br /> the business of furnishing transient accommodations and, in the case of a person <br /> engaged in the business of furnishing transient accommodations in more than one <br /> county, the director shall determine, through apportionment or other means, that portion <br /> of the surcharge on transient accommodations tax attributable to business conducted in <br /> each county." If this supersedes the taxpayer choice, perhaps that could be spelled out <br /> in a more definitive way. <br /> Second, and from an admittedly selfish point of view, we have to recognize that <br /> under the present TAT formula, Hawaii County gets an enhanced share of the TAT <br /> revenue that flows to the counties. Given our land mass and more difficult economic <br /> condition, the existing formula for dividing TAT among the counties has been seen as <br /> fair and just, and has stood the test of time. <br /> We have not been able to calculate how much revenue could be generated if a <br /> new County TAT surcharge were limited to 2%, as SB 198 provides, but it follows that <br /> the value of the 2% option would be more of a concern in Hawaii County than in others. <br /> Therefore we would ask that a higher cap be considered as this bill makes its way <br /> through the legislative process. <br /> Sincerely, <br /> / 1 <br /> Harry Ki <br /> Mayor <br /> County of Hawaii is an Equal Opportunity Provider and Employer <br />