Amendment 10 - Tangible personal property tax exemption

Published On: Oct 06 2012 09:59:43 PM EDT   Updated On: Oct 06 2012 10:38:28 PM EDT

This amendment applies to businesses and would allow for an enhancement of the tangible personal property tax exemption. The exemption would apply to property, such as equipment or furniture, with an assessed value that runs up to $50,000. Currently, the first $25,000 of assessed value of tangible personal property is exempt from ad valorem taxes levied by counties, cities, school districts and other local governments.

Ballot Summary
Proposing an amendment to the State Constitution to:
(1) Provide an exemption from ad valorem taxes levied by counties, municipalities, school districts, and other local governments on tangible personal property if the assessed value of an owner's tangible personal property is greater than $25,000 but less than $50,000. This new exemption, if approved by the voters, will take effect on January 1, 2013, and apply to the 2013 tax roll and subsequent tax rolls.
(2) Authorize a county or municipality for the purpose of its respective levy, and as provided by general law, to provide tangible personal property tax exemptions by ordinance. This is in addition to other statewide tangible personal property tax exemptions provided by the Constitution and this amendment.

Explanation
If enacted this amendment would provide an exemption from ad valorem taxes levied by local governments on tangible personal property that's value is greater than $25,000 but less than $50,000.  It doubles the current exemption on tangible personal property taxes to $50,000. This could impact your business if you have tangible personal property like machinery of between $25,000 and $50,000. Expected revenue loss to local governments is $20.1 million beginning in 13-14.

Supporters argue that the amendment will give tax relief to small businesses and help grow the economy. They add that it provides a way for local governments to offer further reductions in the business tax.

Opponents allege that the measure is a manifestation of an ineffective trickle-down economic theory. They argue that it will drastically reduce the tax base local governments depend on to provide provide basic services.