Saturday, February 12, 2011

Attorney Alves helped to draft historic appeal of RI Budget bill

RI Senate rejects House budget proposal

By Eric Tucker
Associated Press Writer / April 14, 2010

PROVIDENCE, R.I.—The Rhode Island state Senate rejected a budget proposal approved earlier Wednesday by the House of Representatives, instead passing its own version that would rely more on the state's rainy-day fund.

The 27-9 Senate vote, coming hours after the House easily passed its own midyear spending plan, throws a wrinkle into the budget-balancing process as the state labors to close an estimated $220 million deficit in the fiscal year ending in June. An identical version of the budget must be passed by the House and Senate before being transmitted to the governor.

The Senate budget strikes a provision calling for refinancing of the state pension system's unfunded liability, said Senate spokesman Greg Pare. It proposes making up for the difference by using $42 million from the rainy-day fund -- or about 2.5 times more than the $16 million recommended by House lawmakers.

"The long-term negative ramifications of enacting (the House proposal), in our opinion, were something we could not support," said Sen. Daniel DaPonte, chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, who introduced the amendment.

House Finance Committee Chairman Steven Costantino stressed to his colleagues the importance of preserving the rainy-day fund during a lengthy floor debate Tuesday night. But DaPonte said the House proposal would add a long-term cost of $2.2 billion to taxpayers.

"The rainy-day fund, while it's something that no one looks forward to going to, it exists for times of financial difficulties like we're in right now," DaPonte said in an interview.

The Senate plan now heads back to the House for consideration. The General Assembly is in recess next week. House spokesman Larry Berman had no immediate comment Wednesday evening and said it was not decided when House lawmakers would take up the Senate version of the budget.

Gov. Don Carcieri, a Republican, said Wednesday he would veto the House budget unless major changes were made, though Democrats hold a veto-proof majority in the General Assembly.

The Providence Journal reported on its Web site that this was the first time since 1976 that the Senate had rejected a budget plan passed by the House.

Pare said the Senate did not make any other substantive changes to the House proposal, which restricts pension benefits for retirees and cuts millions of dollars in aid to cities and towns.----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If you have questions about this posting or are interested in Divorce, Immigration, or Estate Law in RI or MA contact Massachusetts and Rhode Island Divorce Lawyer Rui P. Alves at 401-942-3100 or CONTACT him via email.

Attorney Alves helped to draft state tax statute reducing tax rates

New R.I. tax law will simplify most residents’ returns

01:00 AM EDT on Sunday, June 20, 2010



Journal Staff Report

PROVIDENCE — When Governor Carcieri recently signed into law a bill to implement the biggest overhaul of the state’s personal income tax system in nearly 40 years, the emphasis was mainly on a historic reduction in the top tax rate.

But Rhode Island’s individual income tax system does not have just one rate — there are five of them. And what happened to those other rates will have a far-reaching impact on thousands of taxpayers when the new system takes effect on Jan. 1, 2011.

Changes in those other rates will, for example, result in a tax cut for some middle-income taxpayers — even though they will lose out on a key tax benefit involving their deductions.

Government leaders have stressed the reduction in the top rate for good reason: At 9.9 percent, it is sixth highest in the nation, said former state revenue director Gary S. Sasse. With a new top rate of 5.99 percent, starting in January 2011, Rhode Island will rank about 25th among the states, he said.

The new top rate will help to make Rhode Island more competitive, from a tax standpoint, with other states — which, in turn, should help to attract and retain businesses — and promote job creation, said John C. Simmons, executive director of the Rhode Island Public Expenditure Council (RIPEC), a business-backed group that monitors the state’s finances.

But the top tax rate is only part of the story. To understand the rest, recall how the state tax is calculated: After subtracting various deductions and exemptions, you come to a figure known as Rhode Island taxable income. Then you essentially sort that income into baskets (also known as brackets). Each basket has its own tax rate.

If you are a low-income taxpayer, there is only one basket to bother with, the one with the lowest tax rate, 3.75 percent. But if you are a middle-income or higher-income taxpayer, you face higher tax rates. For example, if you are married and file a joint tax return, only the first $56,800 of your Rhode Island taxable income is taxed at 3.75 percent. The next chunk of your income is taxed at 7 percent, and other portions at 7.75 percent, 9 percent and 9.9 percent.

The new system still has multiple rates, but fewer of them, with a far different impact. For example, under the new system, whether you are married or single:

• The first $55,000 of your Rhode Island taxable income will be taxed at 3.75 percent.

• The next chunk of your income will be taxed at 4.75 percent, instead of 7 percent. (The 4.75 percent rate will apply to income between $55,000 and $125,000.)

• The rest of your income will be taxed at a maximum rate of 5.99 percent (instead of progressively higher rates of 7.75 percent, 9 percent and 9.9 percent).

Because of this radical change in the tax structure, some middle-income taxpayers will pay less, starting next year, said Patricia A. Thompson, vice chair of the American Institute of Certified Public Accountants’ national tax executive committee.

That is true even though the new law will no longer allow taxpayers to make a separate list of their deductions, a process known as itemizing. Instead, all taxpayers will have to claim the lump-sum deduction, known as the standard deduction, said Thompson, who is also tax partner at Piccerelli Gilstein & Co. LLP, a CPA firm in Providence.

For some people, the combination of lower tax rates overall and the higher standard deduction amounts next year will more than make up for the tax benefit they would have received had they still been able to itemize deductions, said Grafton H. “Cap” Willey IV, co-chair of the Rhode Island chapter of the Smaller Business Association of New England, a trade group for small businesses.

A key factor is that, for many middle-income taxpayers, the highest tax rate will be 4.75 percent, instead of 7 percent, on a portion of their income, said Paul L. Dion, chief of the state Office of Revenue Analysis. “There’s no question that going down to 4.75, from 7 or 7.75 percent, is huge,” and will favorably impact some taxpayers, Dion said.

Not everyone will see a tax savings. According to new calculations issued last week by the state Office of Revenue Analysis, and based on 497,283 resident tax returns:

• About 60 percent — or 297,763 returns — will see a tax decrease, averaging about $242 apiece.

• About 21 percent — or 103,434 returns — will see no change.

• About 19 percent — or 96,086 returns — will see a tax increase, averaging about $528 apiece.

Who might pay more and who might pay less under the new system?

If you normally claim the standard deduction, you will probably pay less, because the standard deduction amounts will be higher under the new system. Overall, about 55 percent of taxpayers claim the standard deduction, according to state Division of Taxation figures.

Those who have “big houses with large mortgages and high property taxes” will probably pay more in tax, said Willey, the managing director in charge of the Newport office of CBIZ Tofias, an accounting firm. For them, the lower tax rates and new standard deduction amount will not be able to make up for the tax benefit of itemizing.

If you are a high-income taxpayer and planned to use the optional flat-tax method next year to take advantage of its 5.5-percent rate, you may wind up paying more in tax. That is partly because there will be no more flat tax option after Dec. 31, and the regular system’s top rate will be a bit higher than next year’s flat-tax rate would have been.

No matter who winds up paying more or less in tax, everyone will benefit from having a less complicated state income tax system, one that is easier to understand and to administer, with fewer rates and tax brackets, Thompson said. “Overall, it’s an improvement over what it was,” she said.----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If you have questions about this posting or are interested in Divorce, Immigration, or Estate Law in RI or MA contact Massachusetts and Rhode Island Divorce Lawyer Rui P. Alves at 401-942-3100 or CONTACT him via email.

Attorney Alves helped to draft funding formula statute

Gist Returns to Bristol to Address School Funding Formula

State Education Commissioner Deborah Gist returns to Bristol to explain the new statewide funding formula and its impact on the Bristol Warren Regional School District.

Some six weeks after her December of 2010 visit, Education Commissioner Deborah Gist returned to Bristol Monday evening, Jan. 31, to discuss the statewide funding formula with the regional School Committee, local legislators, concerned community members and parents.

The funding formula became the central, and contentious subject of that Dec. 14, meeting which was intended to be an informational forum on the future of education in Rhode Island. At that time, Commissioner Gist agreed to return for a forum to exclusively discuss the structure of the funding formula.

Though lengthy introductions and statements by administration and members of the School Committee consumed much of the forum’s allotted 90 minutes, Gist was able to reschedule a 9 p.m. meeting and stay indefinitely to field questions and comments from legislators and community members.

Commissioner Gist and her staff presented the funding formula, and its application to the Bristol Warren Regional School District, broken down into its three components.

The first component is the core instructional amount, which is the per-student dollar amount that the district receives from the state to cover the “basic instructional needs” of each student. That category includes line items such as teachers and support staff, administrators, supplies, textbooks and equipment. Statewide, that number is $8,333 for fiscal year 2012.

Second, the Department of Education considers something it calls the “Student Success Factor,” to account for the additional funding required, above and beyond the core instructional amount, to support the increased cost of educating children whose family income makes them eligible to receive free and reduced lunch. That number is 40% of the core instructional amount, or $3,333 for fiscal year 2012.

The third component calculates a community’s ability to shoulder the burden of its school budget. It’s called the State Share Ratio and it attempts to measure a community’s ability to generate revenue based on local assessed property values adjusted for the median family income and the number of students enrolled in free and reduced lunch.

So, all that put together means that Bristol and Warren’s 3,453 students, of which 1,149 are enrolled in free and reduced lunch, carry a core instructional cost of $32,603,696. With a state share ratio of 33.1%, Bristol Warren will receive a reduction of $808,561 from the state for fiscal year 2012. The budget will be reduced by the same amount annually over a 10 year period. After the 10 year amortization period has ended, Bristol Warren will receive approximately $10,775,534 from the state annually.

There are ways to ameliorate some of the pain of that shortfall. There’s what’s called categorical aid – currently unfunded – that would include a set-to-expire regional bonus, transportation costs, and special education allowances. Regardless of which of these get fully funded in the next state budget, tough choices will need to be made.

School Committee member Susan Rancourt of Warren asked if there might be bonuses or allowances for effective management and high performance – both of which have been feathers in the district’s cap in recent years. The success of the district of late was an issue that was mentioned repeatedly as a reason why Bristol and Warren should not be subjected to a funding formula that would be detrimental to its bottom line. Each time it was raised, Commissioner Gist agreed that performance-based bonuses are very much in line with her vision, and indicated that she would be open to further discussion of the issue.

Bristol Committee member Diana Campbell asked if there was any flexibility in the final number to be cut, to which Commissioner Gist reiterated that the funding formula is a “living” calculation, adjusted yearly according to changing demographics.

Committee member Denise Arsenault questioned a state plan to spend $1 million on subsidized pre-k in 15 of the poorest districts in the state, a distinction which Bristol Warren does not hold. Arsenault objected to money being diverted from our local school budget to the benefit of the state’s poorest communities. It was another theme that would be repeated throughout the evening, with Committee member Marjorie McBride asking “Why is this based on poverty? Just because our houses cost $500,000 it doesn’t mean that five families aren’t living behind that door and it’s not a nightmare.”

Paul Silva, the Committee Vice Chairman, objected to poverty being used as a measurement in the formula, to which Commissioner Gist replied, “Respectfully, it does cost more to educate a child in poverty,” and reiterated that every community, across the state, was receiving an additional 40% in funding for each child that was enrolled in free and reduced lunch.

The forum became notably more heated with comments from Bristol Warren’s delegation to the State House, with Representative Gallison’s remarks provoking Commissioner Gist to ask “are you suggesting that I came to Rhode Island to become Education Commissioner so I could target Bristol Warren and take money away from your district?” For his part, Representative Morrison asserted that Gist and her team came to Bristol, pulling figures from the air “like amoebas” and “splitting atoms,” while suggesting that money was being diverted from Bristol Warren to pay for students in Central Falls.

If there was one thing that was crystal clear at the end of the three hour forum, it was that the new statewide funding formula stands, and no matter how much the administration, leadership, residents and parents object to drawing a shorter straw than the one to which they have become accustomed, there is only one thing left to do: pull together and work towards a solution to the new reality.----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If you have questions about this posting or are interested in Divorce, Immigration, or Estate Law in RI or MA contact Massachusetts and Rhode Island Divorce Lawyer Rui P. Alves at 401-942-3100 or CONTACT him via email.