DOCSLIB.ORG

Floor Debate March 08, 2018

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Floor Debate March 08, 2018 Transcript Prepared By the Clerk of the Legislature Transcriber's Office Floor Debate March 08, 2018 [LB42 LB44 LB379 LB439A LB439 LB697 LB808 LB811 LB826 LB874 LB944 LB977 LB982 LB990 LB993 LB1008 LB1047 LB1048 LB1081A LB1082 LB1090 LB1112 LB1132 LR296 LR340 LR341 LR342] PRESIDENT FOLEY PRESIDING PRESIDENT FOLEY: Good morning, ladies and gentlemen. Welcome to the George W. Norris Legislative Chamber for the thirty-ninth day of the One Hundred Fifth Legislature, Second Session. Our chaplain for today is Senator Williams. Please rise. SENATOR WILLIAMS: (Prayer offered.) PRESIDENT FOLEY: Thank you, Senator Williams. I call to order the thirty-ninth day of the One Hundred Fifth Legislature, Second Session. Senators, please record your presence. Roll call. Mr. Clerk, please record. CLERK: I have a quorum present, Mr. President. PRESIDENT FOLEY: Thank you, Mr. Clerk. Are there any corrections for the Journal? CLERK: I have no corrections. PRESIDENT FOLEY: Thank you, sir. Any messages, reports, or announcements? CLERK: Mr. President, at this time I have neither messages, reports, nor announcements. PRESIDENT FOLEY: Thank you, sir. (Doctor of the day introduced.) Let us proceed to the agenda, General File 2018 senator priority bills. Mr. Clerk. CLERK: LB42 is a bill by Senator Hilkemann. (Read title.) Introduced on January 5 of last year, at that time referred to the Transportation Committee. The bill was reported to General File. There are Transportation Committee amendments, Mr. President. (AM1965, Legislative Journal page 700.) [LB42] PRESIDENT FOLEY: Thank you, Mr. Clerk. Senator Hilkemann, you're recognized to open on LB42. [LB42] 1 Transcript Prepared By the Clerk of the Legislature Transcriber's Office Floor Debate March 08, 2018 SENATOR HILKEMANN: Thank you, Mr. Lieutenant Governor. I bring to your attention LB42, an important piece of legislation regarding child passenger safety. I would like to thank the members of the Transportation and Telecommunications Committee for advancing this bill to General File and a special thanks to Senator Hilgers for working with me to improve the language of this bill, which is reflected in AM1965. LB42 with the amendment attached would make three changes. Currently when children reach their sixth birthday, state law allows them to ride with only a seat belt in a motor vehicle. This bill would change that to their eighth birthday, so until that time we would ask that these young people remain in an approved booster seat. Secondly, the bill states that infants shall ride in a rear-facing car seat until the age of two unless the child outgrows the manufacturer's maximum allowable weight or height requirements. Thirdly, the bill would require children under the age of eight to be seated in a seat other than a front seat if such seat or seats are so equipped with such a passenger restraint system and such seat or seats are not already occupied by a child or children under the age of eight. Now I'm going take each of these points one at a time; but before I do that, I want you each to ponder this question: How do parents determine that a child could ride without a booster seat at the age of six? Now do you think the majority of parents researched the height and weight requirements established by the National Highway Transportation Safety Administration or the American Academy of Pediatrics? I'm sure there are some that do, but some simply put their trust in the laws of the state of Nebraska. They accept and comply by...based on what this body determines is safe. We are to set the standards. And, friends, with today's laws we are doing them a disservice. We can do better. Let's talk about the history of how the Legislature's taken action to protect child passengers. It was in 1982 that the first car seat law was put into Nebraska statute. We required persons licensed to provide foster care to transport children either in an approved child passenger restraint system for each child or for children older than age one to be secured by a seat safety belt. In 1983, we required all children under age four to be secured in a child passenger restraint system or use a seat safety belt for children over age one. Did you hear that? If you're hearing this right, then you realize that a child was one year and one day old could legally ride in only a seat belt in the state of Nebraska. Doesn't that seem overwhelming when we think about...knowing what we do today about keeping our infants and toddler passengers safe? In 1990, we added to the definition of children required to be transported in child passenger restraint systems as a child weighing 40 pounds or less, so under four years old or 40 pounds had to ride in a child seat. We also added that children younger than five years of age should use a seat belt. Now in 2000, the new requirement was that all children the age of 5 use a child passenger restraint system, and all children under the age of 16 use a seat belt. In 2002, we set the laws that currently reads that all children up to six years of age be in a child passenger restraint system. Children age 6-18 must wear a seat belt. Over the course of 20 years, improvements in child passenger safety went from having a newborn in a car seat to having a 6- year-old in a car seat, and from having a 1-year-old in a seat belt to having a 17-year-old in a seat belt. Now this brings me to the reasons why in 2018 it is time to once again improve the way child passengers are safely transported. On a child's sixth birthday, we say that the child no 2 Transcript Prepared By the Clerk of the Legislature Transcriber's Office Floor Debate March 08, 2018 longer is required to ride in a car seat. That child was most likely riding in a booster safety seat and according to the law could move from being transported with only a seat belt, but seat belts in cars are designed for the safety of a 165-pound male adult. Now that's much bigger than the average six-year-old. Changing the law to have children through age seven safely transported in an approved booster safety seat will keep those children safer. From the materials that I've provided for you on the floor today, I want to quote: When children are moved into a seat belt before it fits properly--here's the real reason why we need to do this and why we need to use these booster seats--is that the lap belt can ride up against the abdomen. And during a crash, the soft tissue of the abdomen allows the lap belt to actually compress into the body, causing internal abdominal and spinal fracture injuries. The shoulder belt, if positioned improperly behind the back or on the neck, can cause head and neck injuries. If we don't do this, children, young children, will take that shoulder belt and they'll flip it behind because they don't like it right underneath their neck. So "According to the Children's Hospital of Philadelphia, among children 4-8 years of age, those who were in a seat belt at the time of a crash were more than three times as likely to sustain an abdominal injury compared with children in a belt-positioning booster." Colleagues, we are protecting our four- and five-year-olds, but our six- and seven-year-olds need and deserve the same protection. And we have the data, and the time to act is now. Number two of this bill is the second provision which contained in LB42 and AM1965 states that all children up to two years of age shall use a rear-facing child passenger restraint system until the child outgrows the child passenger restraint system manufacturer's maximum allowable height or weight. Again, from the information provided to you in the handouts, I quote: The American Academy of Pediatrics states that all infants and toddlers should ride in a rear-facing seat until they are at least two years of age or, preferably, until they reach the height and weight allowed by their car seat manufacturers. Research shows children up to two years of age are placed in forward-facing child safety seats are significantly more likely to be seriously injured in a crash than children of the same age in rear-facing child safety seats. Since the American Association of Pediatrics' two-year rear-facing requirement recommendation in 2011, nine states have updated their laws to meet today's standards. The goal of rear-facing child restraints is to protect the child's head, neck, and spinal cord. The bones in the neck of children under age two are not developed enough to protect the spinal cord in a crash. When a child is involved in a car crash in a forward-facing car seat, the weight of the head combined with the immature skeleton can cause the spinal cord to stretch up to two inches. If the spinal cord stretches just a half an inch, it will snap. This is known as an internal decapitation and causes paralysis or death. [LB42] PRESIDENT FOLEY: One minute. [LB42] SENATOR HILKEMANN: The third provision in LB42 states that all children up to eight years of age shall occupy a seat or seats other than a front seat if such seat or seats are so equipped with such passenger restraint system and such seat or seats are not already occupied by a child or children under eight years of age.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Key Elements of the U.S. Tax System
    TAX POLICY CENTER BRIEFING BOOK Key Elements of the U.S. Tax System TAXES AND THE FAMILY What are marriage penalties and bonuses? XXXX Q. What are marriage penalties and bonuses? A. A couple incurs a marriage penalty if the two pay more income tax filing as a married couple than they would pay if they were single and filed as individuals. Conversely, a couple receives a marriage bonus if they pay less tax filing as a couple than they would if they were single. CAUSES OF MARRIAGE BONUSES AND PENALTIES Marriage penalties and bonuses occur because income taxes apply to a couple, not to individual spouses. Under a progressive income tax, a couple’s income can be taxed more or less than that of two single individuals. A couple is not obliged to file a joint tax return, but their alternative—filing separate returns as a married couple—almost always results in higher tax liability. Married couples with children are more likely to incur marriage penalties than couples without children because one or both spouses could use the head of household filing status if they were able to file as singles. And tax provisions that phase in or out with income also produce marriage penalties or bonuses. Marriage penalties are more common when spouses have similar incomes. Marriage bonuses are more common when spouses have disparate incomes. Overall, couples receiving bonuses greatly outnumber those incurring penalties. MARRIAGE PENALTIES Couples in which spouses have similar incomes are more likely to incur marriage penalties than couples in which one spouse earns most of the income, because combining incomes in joint filing can push both spouses into higher tax brackets.
    [Show full text]
  • Form W-4, Employee's Withholding Certificate
    Employee’s Withholding Certificate OMB No. 1545-0074 Form W-4 ▶ (Rev. December 2020) Complete Form W-4 so that your employer can withhold the correct federal income tax from your pay. ▶ Department of the Treasury Give Form W-4 to your employer. 2021 Internal Revenue Service ▶ Your withholding is subject to review by the IRS. Step 1: (a) First name and middle initial Last name (b) Social security number Enter Address ▶ Does your name match the Personal name on your social security card? If not, to ensure you get Information City or town, state, and ZIP code credit for your earnings, contact SSA at 800-772-1213 or go to www.ssa.gov. (c) Single or Married filing separately Married filing jointly or Qualifying widow(er) Head of household (Check only if you’re unmarried and pay more than half the costs of keeping up a home for yourself and a qualifying individual.) Complete Steps 2–4 ONLY if they apply to you; otherwise, skip to Step 5. See page 2 for more information on each step, who can claim exemption from withholding, when to use the estimator at www.irs.gov/W4App, and privacy. Step 2: Complete this step if you (1) hold more than one job at a time, or (2) are married filing jointly and your spouse Multiple Jobs also works. The correct amount of withholding depends on income earned from all of these jobs. or Spouse Do only one of the following. Works (a) Use the estimator at www.irs.gov/W4App for most accurate withholding for this step (and Steps 3–4); or (b) Use the Multiple Jobs Worksheet on page 3 and enter the result in Step 4(c) below for roughly accurate withholding; or (c) If there are only two jobs total, you may check this box.
    [Show full text]
  • ITEMIZING on STATE and FEDERAL TAX INCOME RETURNS: IT’S (NOW MORE) COMPLICATED David Weiner December 2, 2020
    ITEMIZING ON STATE AND FEDERAL TAX INCOME RETURNS: IT’S (NOW MORE) COMPLICATED David Weiner December 2, 2020 A taxpayer’s decision to itemize deductions or to claim the standard deduction on their income tax return is often framed as a simple calculation: Claim the greater of the two so as to minimize tax liability. But in states that require taxpayers to use the same status on their state income tax return as on their federal return, this general rule can produce conflicting results if taxpayers examine liability separately on their federal and state returns. Itemized deductions might be greater than the standard deduction on a state income tax return, but the reverse could be true on a federal return. Recent federal law changes have further complicated the choice. When the federal standard deduction was nearly doubled beginning in 2018, many more taxpayers found a conflict between the best itemization scenario on federal and state income tax returns. Those taxpayers must now calculate their federal and state income taxes under both scenarios if they want to minimize their combined state and federal income tax liability. Many taxpayers in states that link federal and state itemization choices are affected. In Maryland, for example, more than 200,000 taxpayers could benefit by itemizing on their federal returns when that may not be the obvious choice. In this brief, I examine the links between federal and state itemization decisions and explore the implications of relaxing state rules requiring that state itemization choices match federal ones. elatively few federal taxpayers itemize deductions on their income tax returns under current law, and those who do tend to have very high incomes.
    [Show full text]
  • Chapter 2: What's Fair About Taxes?
    Hoover Classics : Flat Tax hcflat ch2 Mp_35 rev0 page 35 2. What’s Fair about Taxes? economists and politicians of all persuasions agree on three points. One, the federal income tax is not sim- ple. Two, the federal income tax is too costly. Three, the federal income tax is not fair. However, economists and politicians do not agree on a fourth point: What does fair mean when it comes to taxes? This disagree- ment explains, in large measure, why it so difficult to find a replacement for the federal income tax that meets the other goals of simplicity and low cost. In recent years, the issue of fairness has come to overwhelm the other two standards used to evaluate tax systems: cost (efficiency) and simplicity. Recall the 1992 presidential campaign. Candidate Bill Clinton preached that those who “benefited unfairly” in the 1980s [the Tax Reform Act of 1986 reduced the top tax rate on upper-income taxpayers from 50 percent to 28 percent] should pay their “fair share” in the 1990s. What did he mean by such terms as “benefited unfairly” and should pay their “fair share?” Were the 1985 tax rates fair before they were reduced in 1986? Were the Carter 1980 tax rates even fairer before they were reduced by President Reagan in 1981? Were the Eisenhower tax rates fairer still before President Kennedy initiated their reduction? Were the original rates in the first 1913 federal income tax unfair? Were the high rates that prevailed during World Wars I and II fair? Were Andrew Mellon’s tax Hoover Classics : Flat Tax hcflat ch2 Mp_36 rev0 page 36 36 The Flat Tax rate cuts unfair? Are the higher tax rates President Clin- ton signed into law in 1993 the hallmark of a fair tax system, or do rates have to rise to the Carter or Eisen- hower levels to be fair? No aspect of federal income tax policy has been more controversial, or caused more misery, than alle- gations that some individuals and income groups don’t pay their fair share.
    [Show full text]
  • Your Federal Tax Burden Under Current Law and the Fairtax by Ross Korves
    A FairTaxSM White Paper Your federal tax burden under current law and the FairTax by Ross Korves As farmers and ranchers prepare 2006 federal income tax returns or provide income and expense information to accountants and other tax professionals, a logical question is how would the tax burden change under the FairTax? The FairTax would eliminate all individual and corporate income taxes, all payroll taxes and self-employment taxes for Social Security and Medicare, and the estate tax and replace them with a national retail sales tax on final consumption of goods and services. Payroll and self-employment taxes The starting point in calculating the current tax burden is payroll taxes and self-employment taxes. Most people pay more money in payroll and self-employment taxes than they do in income taxes because there are no standard deductions or personal exemptions that apply to payroll and self-employment taxes. You pay tax on the first dollar earned. While employees see only 7.65 percent taken out of their paychecks, the reality is that the entire 15.3 percent payroll tax is part of the cost of having an employee and is a factor in determining how much an employer can afford to pay in wages. Self-employed taxpayers pay both the employer and employee portions of the payroll tax on their earnings, and the entire 15.3 percent on 92.35 percent of their self-employed income (they do not pay on the 7.65 percent of wages that employees do not receive as income); however, they are allowed to deduct the employer share of payroll taxes against the income tax.
    [Show full text]
  • 2021 Instructions for Form 6251
    Note: The draft you are looking for begins on the next page. Caution: DRAFT—NOT FOR FILING This is an early release draft of an IRS tax form, instructions, or publication, which the IRS is providing for your information. Do not file draft forms and do not rely on draft forms, instructions, and publications for filing. We do not release draft forms until we believe we have incorporated all changes (except when explicitly stated on this coversheet). However, unexpected issues occasionally arise, or legislation is passed—in this case, we will post a new draft of the form to alert users that changes were made to the previously posted draft. Thus, there are never any changes to the last posted draft of a form and the final revision of the form. Forms and instructions generally are subject to OMB approval before they can be officially released, so we post only drafts of them until they are approved. Drafts of instructions and publications usually have some changes before their final release. Early release drafts are at IRS.gov/DraftForms and remain there after the final release is posted at IRS.gov/LatestForms. All information about all forms, instructions, and pubs is at IRS.gov/Forms. Almost every form and publication has a page on IRS.gov with a friendly shortcut. For example, the Form 1040 page is at IRS.gov/Form1040; the Pub. 501 page is at IRS.gov/Pub501; the Form W-4 page is at IRS.gov/W4; and the Schedule A (Form 1040/SR) page is at IRS.gov/ScheduleA.
    [Show full text]
  • The Viability of the Fair Tax
    The Fair Tax 1 Running head: THE FAIR TAX The Viability of The Fair Tax Jonathan Clark A Senior Thesis submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for graduation in the Honors Program Liberty University Fall 2008 The Fair Tax 2 Acceptance of Senior Honors Thesis This Senior Honors Thesis is accepted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for graduation from the Honors Program of Liberty University. ______________________________ Gene Sullivan, Ph.D. Thesis Chair ______________________________ Donald Fowler, Th.D. Committee Member ______________________________ JoAnn Gilmore, M.B.A. Committee Member ______________________________ James Nutter, D.A. Honors Director ______________________________ Date The Fair Tax 3 Abstract This thesis begins by investigating the current system of federal taxation in the United States and examining the flaws within the system. It will then deal with a proposal put forth to reform the current tax system, namely the Fair Tax. The Fair Tax will be examined in great depth and all aspects of it will be explained. The objective of this paper is to determine if the Fair Tax is a viable solution for fundamental tax reform in America. Both advantages and disadvantages of the Fair Tax will objectively be pointed out and an educated opinion will be given regarding its feasibility. The Fair Tax 4 The Viability of the Fair Tax In 1986 the United States federal tax code was changed dramatically in hopes of simplifying the previous tax code. Since that time the code has undergone various changes that now leave Americans with over 60,000 pages of tax code, rules, and rulings that even the most adept tax professionals do not understand.
    [Show full text]
  • Tax Reform Options: Marginal Rates on High-Income Taxpayers, Capital Gains, and Dividends
    Embargoed Until 10am September 14, 2011 Statement of Leonard E. Burman Daniel Patrick Moynihan Professor of Public Affairs Maxwell School Syracuse University Before the Senate Committee on Finance Tax Reform Options: Marginal Rates on High-Income Taxpayers, Capital Gains, and Dividends September 14, 2011 Chairman Baucus, Ranking Member Hatch, Members of the Committee. Thank you for inviting me to testify on tax reform options affecting high-income taxpayers. I applaud the committee for devoting much of the past year to examining ways to make the tax code simpler, fairer, and more conducive to economic growth, and I’m honored to be asked to contribute to those deliberations. In summary, here are my main points: Economic theory suggests that the degree of progressivity should balance the gains from mitigating economic inequality and risk-sharing against the costs in terms of disincentives created by higher tax rates. The optimal top tax rate depends on social norms and the government’s revenue needs. Experience and a range of empirical evidence suggests that the rates in effect in the 1990s would not unduly diminish economic growth. However, a more efficient option would be to broaden the base (reform or eliminate tax expenditures and eliminate loopholes) to achieve distributional goals while keeping top rates relatively low. The biggest loophole is the lower tax rate on capital gains. Several bipartisan tax reform plans, including the Bipartisan Policy Center plan that I contributed to, would tax capital gains at the same rate as other income. Combined with a substantial reduction in tax expenditures, this allows for a cut in top income rates while maintaining the progressivity of the tax system.
    [Show full text]
  • Notice 21-02 Changes to Deductions for Individuals
    Policy and Research 109 SW 9th Street Phone: 785-368-8222 PO Box 3506 Fax: 785-296-1279 Topeka KS 66601-3506 www.ksrevenue.org Mark A. Burghart, Secretary Laura Kelly, Governor NOTICE 21-02 CHANGES TO DEDUCTIONS FOR INDIVIDUALS (JULY 29, 2021) Standard Deduction During the 2021 Legislative Session Senate Bill 50 was passed and signed into law. This Bill amended K.S.A. 79-32,119 to change the standard deduction for individuals filing Kansas income tax returns. Specifically, Section 9 of the Bill includes new statutory language, found in subsection (c)(2), which provides: (2) For tax year 2021, and all tax years thereafter, the standard deduction amount of an individual, including husband and wife who are either both residents or who file a joint return as if both were residents, shall be as follows: Single individual filing status, $3,500; married filing status, $8,000; and head of household filing status, $6,000. In accordance with the new law, for tax years 2021, and all subsequent tax years, the base standard deduction will be: $3,500 for single filing status; $8,000 for married filing joint status; $4,000 for married filing separate status; and $6,000 for head of household filing status. Itemized Deductions Senate Bill 50 also amended K.S.A. 79-32,120 to expand the ability to claim itemized deductions for individuals filing Kansas income tax returns. Specifically, Section 10 of the Bill includes new statutory language, found in subsection (a)(1)(B), which provides: (B) For tax year 2021, and all tax years thereafter, an individual may elect to deduct the Kansas itemized deduction in lieu of the Kansas standard deduction, regardless of whether or not such individual’s federal taxable income is determined by itemizing deductions from such individual’s federal adjusted gross income.
    [Show full text]
  • How Marriage Penalties Change Under the 2001 Tax Bill
    How Marriage Penalties Change under the 2001 Tax Bill Adam Carasso and C. Eugene Steuerle* *Adam Carasso is a research associate and C. Eugene Steuerle is a senior fellow at the Urban Institute. This paper could not have been written without support from the Annie E. Casey Foundation, the Ford Foundation, and the George Gund Foundation. Views expressed are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect those of The Urban Institute, its board, or its funders. 1 Abstract This paper examines how the various provisions of the Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2001 (EGTRRA) change marriage penalties and subsidies for different, hypothetical pairings of heads of household with single workers filing a joint return. Heads of household are assumed to have two children—both eligible for the earned income tax credit (EITC) and Child Tax Credit—and the analysis is conducted for families with total adjusted gross incomes (AGI) of up to $80,000, with special attention to those families with combined AGI of $35,000 or less who often face marriage penalties from expenditure programs. Additionally, our simulations take place in 2010 when all provisions of EGTRRA will be fully implemented, although we present our results in real 2001 dollars. Our research focus was to examine the additional marriage penalties that heads of household face in the way of loss of valuable tax benefits for which two single, childless taxpayers who marry would not be eligible. We modeled the impact of six pertinent provisions from the tax bill: the refundable, doubled child credit, the new 10 percent tax bracket, the newly expanded EITC for married couples, the new standard deduction for married couples, the new 15 percent tax bracket for married couples, and the new 25 percent tax bracket.
    [Show full text]
  • Income Tax Booklet
    2020 Individual Income Tax For a fast refund, file electronically! Balance due? Pay electronically and choose your payment date. See back cover for details. ksrevenue.org in Kansas. For individuals, it is usually the home. For businesses, In This Booklet it is where the items are used (office, shop, etc). General Information .................................. 3 Do I owe this tax? Kansans that buy goods in other states or K-40 Instructions....................................... 6 through catalogs, internet, mail-order companies, or from TV, Form K-40................................................. 11 magazine and newspaper ads must pay Kansas use tax on the Schedule S ............................................... 13 purchases if the goods are used, stored or consumed in Kansas Schedule K-210 ........................................ 15 and the seller does not charge a sales tax rate equal to or greater Schedule S Instructions ........................... 17 than the Kansas retailers’ sales tax rate in effect where the item is Tax Table.................................................. 20 delivered or first used. EXAMPLE: An Anytown, KS resident goes Tax Computation Worksheet .................... 27 to Missouri to purchase a laptop computer during a Missouri sales Taxpayer Assistance .................. Back cover tax “Holiday.” The cost of the computer is $2,000. The Anytown Electronic Options ...................... Back cover resident will owe Kansas use tax of 8.95% (current Anytown rate) on the total charge of $2,000 when that resident brings the laptop Important Information computer back to Anytown, KS. ($2,000 X 0.0895 = $179.00). How do I pay the Compensating Use Tax? To pay Kansas use CHILD AND DEPENDENT CARE CREDIT. tax on your untaxed out-of-state purchases made during calendar This credit is for child and dependent care year 2020, refer to the instructions for line 20 of Form K-40.
    [Show full text]
  • Alabama Return
    Alabama Return Lesson Objectives After completing this lesson, the volunteer will be able to: • Assess whether a person qualifies as a dependent on the Alabama tax return • Choose the most advantageous (and allowable) filing status for a taxpayer on the Alabama tax return • Differentiate and explain key differences between the taxability of various income types on the federal tax return and Alabama tax return Filing the Alabama Tax Return Tax softwares generally take the information you input for the federal return and transfer it to the appropriate state return. There are certain manual entries you need to be familiar with in order to ensure the return is filled out completely. Who Must File FULL/PART Married Head of Married Filing YEAR Single Filing Family Jointly RESIDENTS Separately Gross Income $4,000 $5,250 $7,700 $10,500 (while an AL resident) Who Must File ➢ Nonresidents •Received taxable income from Alabama sources or for performing services in Alabama •Gross income exceeds the (prorated) personal exemption amount for the appropriate filing status Personal Exemptions ➢ Taxpayer receives a personal exemption in Alabama even if they CAN be claimed as a dependent by someone else ➢ Just like with the federal return, the software calculates exemption amounts! Dependency Exemption ➢ Alabama law defines a dependent as: •an individual other than the taxpayer and his/her spouse WHO •received over 50% of his/her support from the taxpayer during the year AND •is related to the taxpayer in a certain way Dependency Exemption ➢ Alabama law defines
    [Show full text]