►
Description
For agenda and additional meeting information: https://www.leg.state.nv.us/App/Calendar/A/
Videos of archived meetings are made available as a courtesy of the Nevada Legislature.
The videos are part of an ongoing effort to keep the public informed of and involved in the legislative process.
All videos are intended for personal use and are not intended for use in commercial ventures or political campaigns.
Closed Captioning is Auto-Generated and is not an official representation of what is being spoken.
A
A
Here
so
secretary,
could
you
please
mark
senator,
dennis
and
senator
ratty
president
as
they
come
on,
so
I'm
I'm
not
gonna
get
into
the
the
the
virtual
aspect
of
the
hearing.
As
you
know,
we
are
virtual.
So
if
you'd
like
to
participate,
you
would
go
to
this
agenda
item
and
then
you
would
click
on
participation.
A
That
would
then
send
you
information
for
you
to
call
in
and
then
you
would
select
whether
or
not
you're,
in
support
opposition
or
neutral.
If
you
have
written
comments,
please
go
to
the
agenda
for
senate
revenue
and
you
can
send
an
email
or
fax
and
those
your
comments
will
be
uploaded
in
the
record
if
they
are
to
the
bill.
So
I'm
going
to
just
go
ahead
and
jump
into
the
bill
hearing.
We
have
one
bill
for
today
we're
going
to
open
up
the
hearing
on
sb
278
and
welcome
senator
settlemyre.
D
D
The
main
issue
at
hand
within
this
bill
is
that
the
laws
that
were
put
forth
in
this
subject
matter
were
done
through
the
initiative
to
petition
process
which,
as
we
know,
sometimes
may
not
always
be
the
best
way
to
legislate,
and
so
in
that
respect,
I
think
it's
time
to
discuss.
Potential
changes,
we're
past
the
time
frame,
and
thus
we
can
have
those
discussion.
It
has
to
be
at
least
three
years
after
an
ip
before
it
can
be
changed.
D
And
what
the
issue
seeks
to
address
is
that
currently,
if
you
have
more
than
one
cultivation,
license,
you're
forced
to
have
actually
separate
fees
on
all
that,
and
so
it's
time
in
my
opinion,
to
have
a
deliberate
discussion
about
scenarios
where
that
policy
should
and
should
not
apply,
and
that's
really
the
gist
of
the
bill.
If
it's
possible,
if
we
could
have
mr
adler
present
and
then,
if
you,
if
that's
okay
with
you,
share.
E
Thank
you.
Thank
you,
senator
settlemyer,
and
thank
you
cheer
all
right,
hello.
Thank
you!
Senator
selimer
and
thank
you
chair
neil
and
members
of
senate
committee
of
revenue
and
economic
development.
I
am
will
adler
with
silver
state
government
relations
representing
this
year,
cannabis
coalition
today.
Hopefully
you
all
can
hear
me
well
and
we'll
jump
right
into
it.
Senate,
bill
278
is
a
simple
bill
on
its
face,
but
it's
trying
to
address
a
simple
oversight.
E
As
I
see
it:
nevada,
legalized
the
cannabis,
as
senator
simon
water,
said
through
a
ballot
initiative
process
and
in
that
process
it
did
cover
a
lot
of
it
and
it
was
quite
detailed,
but
it
does
have
some
oversights
and
some
things
that
that
could
be
addressed
today
that
weren't
addressed
in
it.
In
that
initiative
it
did
set
up
the
the
tax
processes
we
see
today,
where
you
have
a
cultivation,
a
production
and
a
dispensary,
but
before
you
could
leave
that
first
cultivation,
the
initiative
said
you
must
pay
a
15
wholesale
excise
tax.
E
E
So
an
an
oversight
that
is,
you
know,
come
up
today
that
wasn't
sort
of
thought
of
back
in
the
day
was
that
somebody
would
have
more
than
one
cultivation
to
feed
into
their
production
to
feed
into
the
ultimate
retail
storefront,
because
it
was
thought
of
that
people
would
only
tend
to
have
one
of
each
well.
E
That
is
good
and
sort
of
a
thoughtful
way
to
do
it
as
in
the
alcohol
wholesale
licensing,
where
the
first
step
must
pay
for
the
taxes,
but
it
doesn't
account
for
people
who
own
two
cultivations
at
sort
of
a
lateral
level
here
and
that
one
cultivation
could
then
produce
most
of
the
products
or
the
trim
ship
it
over
to
another
cultivation,
and
you
know
they
can
then
roll
the
joints
over
there
or
have
the
finished
processing
at
this
cultivation.
E
Then,
when
the
the
processes
are
complete
and
then
goes
vertically
up
the
chain
again,
it
would
apply
to
that
last.
You
know
cultivation
facility
that
last
facility
would
still
pay
that
ultimate
15
wholesale
tax.
This
this
bill
just
simply
allows
that
lateral
movement
of
products
between
two
cultivations
owned
by
the
same
group
to
take
place
and
then
allow
you
know
the
final
cultivation
once
it
ships
out
of
that
one
to
go
to
a
production
facility
or
a
dispensary
or
some
other
outlet.
It
will
still
pay
that
you
know
15
wholesale
tax.
E
It
just
clarifies
if
you
wish
to
do
any.
You
know
business
before
that
final
cultivation
transports
it
that
is
not
considered
a
wholesale
or
transference.
Officially,
you
know
under
the
taxable
sense,
because
it's
within
one
group,
that's
what
essentially
senate
bill
278
wishes
to
address
and
you
know
tries
to
do
in
a
nutshell.
E
I
I
do
know
that
it
doesn't
do
that
quite
today,
as
written,
it
may
have
actually
somewhat
of
a
loophole,
but
that
was
unintentionally
done,
and
we
I've
already
met
with
the
department
of
taxation
we've
spoken
about
this
and
that
there
there
is
going
to
need
to
be
an
amendment
and
there
will
be
a
friendly
amendment
produced
by
them.
E
A
Okay,
thank
you
for
that,
are
you?
Is
it
just
you
presenting
or
was
there
someone
else?
I
know
besides
senator
settlemyer.
E
I
believe
somebody
from
the
permanent
taxation
is
is
on
the
line
as
well
to
clarify,
if
need
be,
but
I
am
the
the
presenter
of
this
bill.
A
Before
we
get
into
questions,
because
I
think
there's
some
confusion
on
how
it's
currently
being
done.
F
Yes,
thank
you
senator
nail
and
members
of
the
committee
for
the
record.
My
name
is
melanie
young
executive
director
for
nevada
department
of
taxation.
So
currently
the
way
this
tax
works
is
it's
upon.
The
first
transfer
is
when
the
tax
is
imposed,
so
transfer
or
sell
is
used
in
the
same
context,
and
so
where
this
bill,
the
department
has
a
couple
areas
of
concern
with
that
is
in
the
language
specifically
on
section.
F
8
is
it's
unclear,
and
if,
when
the
wholesale
tax
applies
on
the
subsequent
to
the
transfer
to
the
affiliate,
if
a
transfer
between
the
cultivation
facilities
and
its
affiliated
affiliate
is
exempt
from
tax,
then
the
next
transfer
sell
from
the
affiliate
to
the
next
canvas
establishment
should
be
taxable
and,
and
so
right
now
the
way
the
language
in
the
bill
it
does
not.
That
section
is
not
clear
to
us
and
I'm
available
for
questions.
Thank.
G
Thank
you
manager,
so,
if
we
so
if
we
apply
the
tax
up
at
the
at
the
exit
of
the
product
out
of
the
cultivation
facility,
why
is
it?
G
Why
would
you
want
to
restrict
this
to
cultivators
that
are
commonly
held?
What's
what's
the
value
in
doing
that?
Why
couldn't
there
be
a
trade
or
transfer
of
a
product
between
two
cultivators
and
then
ultimately,
the
cultivator,
that
is,
that
is
transferring
it
out
up
the
vertical
food
chain,
so
to
speak,
the
tax
would
still
be
levied
at
that
point
right.
So
why
do
these
need
to
be
commonly
held
facilities?
For
this,
to
be
a
logical
thing
to
do.
E
I
thank
you
senator
ever.
I
I,
I
hope,
you're
addressing
it
to
me,
and
I
will
gladly
answer
so
will
adler
for
the
record.
The
reason
why
is
basically
because
certain
products
at
a
cultivated
level
can
be
transferred
to
another
cultivation
outside
your
group
for
a
saleable
value.
So
if
I
have
a
cultivation
that
produces
a
lot
of
flour
or
buds,
but
it
has
excess
trim
and
excise,
you
know
unfinished
materials.
E
I
could
sell
that
to
another
cultivation
and
they
could
use
it
in
their
processing
or
they
could
use
it
in
some
beneficial
way.
Additionally,
I
could
grow
clones
as
a
cultivation
and
sell
those
incomplete.
You
know
unfinished
plants
by
definition,
a
clone
to
another
cultivation,
and
currently
that
is
taxed
already
so.
Department
of
taxation
does
have
an
assessed
wholesale
value
sort
of
sheet
for
all
of
these
transferences
online,
and
basically
we
wanted
to
make
sure
those
could
still
be
charged
when
properly
done.
But
you
know
not
do
it
excessively
in
inside
an
interior
group.
E
G
E
So
it
is
the
assessed
wholesale
value
or
the
the
sheet
that
is
produced
will
adler
for
the
record
department
of
taxation
issues
every
six
months,
a
sheet
that
sort
of
sets
a
set
value
for
the
what
is
15
value
based
on
the
market
average
for
everyone.
E
So
this
this
keeps
companies
from
internally
saying:
hey,
I'm
valuing
this
at
one
dollar
right
for
my
pound
of
marijuana
to
transfer
to
myself
right,
then
they
would
get
out
of
the
15
wholesale
tax,
so
we
actually
pay
a
set
amount
per
pound
of
marijuana
per
joint
per
thing.
You
know
issue
per
widget
on
that
you
know
cannabis.
F
Yes,
thank
you
senator
keith
keffer
for
the
question
for
the
record
mill
and
a
young
executive
director
for
the
nevada
department
of
taxation
and
I'd
like
to
clarify
some
of
the
information
here
today.
The
department
does
every
six
months
determine
a
fair
market
value
of
the
transfer
of
cannabis.
It's
on
the
first
transfer.
Only
any
subsequent
transfer
is
not
taxed,
so
I
wanted
to
make
sure
that
that
was
clear.
G
That
is
clear,
thank
you,
so
this
would
exempt
that
first
transfer
from
transit
from
from
taxation,
but
then,
upon
that
second
transfer,
it
would
still
be
taxed
to
15.
F
Again,
melanie
young
executive
director,
thank
you
senator
ki
keffer
for
the
question.
Yes,
so
what
it
it's.
My
understanding
what's
being
proposed
here,
would
transfer
to
a
like
ownership
on
that
first
transfer
and
the
way
the
bill's
written
to
us
it
appears
unclear
and
when
that
next
transfer
would
would
occur
in
the
sale
or
the
sale
where
the
tax
would
be
imposed.
So
we
would
be
in
our
meeting
with
mr
adler.
F
A
I
have
a
question
senator
seaver's
cancer.
Thank
you.
H
So
I'm
kind
of
wondering
if
this
goes
back
to
the
definition
of
what's
what
wholesale
means,
because
you
you're
kind
of
counting
transfers
versus
saying
what's
the
definition
of
a
wholesale
sale,
because
that
I
would
have
thought
would
have
triggered
the
tax.
So
then
it
wouldn't
matter
how
many
times
you
transferred
it.
As
long
as
you
could
define
what
was
the
the
wholesale.
H
E
So
will
adler
for
the
record,
I
I
I,
I
hope,
you're
dragging
me
senator
sieber's
gangster,
but
the
the
intent
of
this
bill
is
to
clarify
that
issue.
E
So
everything
that
left
a
cultivation
or
any
kind
of
transference
out
of
a
cultivation
was
considered
the
sale
at
the
time
and
and
to
be
clear,
I
I
was
theoretically
thinking
about
you
know
if
you
have
a
clone
that
I'm
selling
to
another
facility
that
clone
does
have
to
be
raised
and
grown
up
and
then
harvested,
and
it
will
then
become
their
cultivated
product.
E
The
clone
does
still
have
an
assessed
tax
fee
and
as
in
this
scenario,
that
should
be
charged
and
then
again
the
final
tax
wholesale
should
again
still
be
able
to
be
charged
in
this
case.
So,
yes,
the
the
idea
of
sale
was
just
triggered
at
the
cultivation
level
whenever
it
leaves
this
building.
The
tax
must
have
be
credited
to
this
cultivation
right
and
hence
the
sale
is
proposed
to
be
done
in
the
near
future.
E
So
it
is
sort
of
that
crux
of
what
is
a
whole
sale
and
when's
the
sale
happen,
so
we're
trying
to
get
it
you're.
Very
much
correct
that
moment
is
not
in
in
a
lateral
sense
between
a
company
internally,
but
whenever
it
leaves
it,
you
know
its
final
cultivation
should
be
the
the
moment
of
wholesale
yeah.
H
Right
and
I
guess,
when
I'm
reading
the
bill,
you're
trying
to
define
affiliate
and
you're
defining
transfers
here
and
there
versus
if
you
had
a
clean
definition
of
what
a
wholesale
sale
was
it
wouldn't
matter
if
it
was
transferred
between
cultivation
facilities
and
it
wouldn't
matter
whose
it
was.
Whoever
was
the
ultimate
wholesale
entity
would
be
the
one
where
the
tax
was
charged
and
then
it
was
sent
to
taxation,
and
so
it's
just
a
different
approach.
H
But
because
you
you
seem
like
you're,
there
were
questions
first
about
well,
you've
got
the
definition
of
affiliate,
but
what?
If
it's
not
an
affiliate?
It's
a
as
senator
key
kafka
pointed
out
it's
a
facility,
that's
owned
by
a
non-affiliated
cultivation
center,
but
it's
still
not
being
wholesale,
because
it's
going
to
another
cultivation
center,
so
just
a
thought
that
looking
at
what
the
definitions
of
wholesale
may
help
with
what
you're
trying
to
accomplish
thanks.
A
Hey
I
I
have
a
question
because
what
I'm
trying
to
understand
and
what's
not
super
clear,
is.
A
Who
is
not
a
cultivator,
because
let
me
rephrase
this,
I
thought
pretty
much.
Everyone
owned
the
whole
thing
right,
so
you
have
one
owner
and
they
help
they
own
pretty
much
all
parts
of
the
production.
So
how
many
people
fall
out
of
the
current
categories
that
you're
talking
about,
because
I
don't
see
how
it
can
go
to
another
cultivator
to
not
be
doubly
taxed,
because
I
thought
they
were
just
a
limited
amount
of
owners
and
they
kind
of
allowed
themselves
to
pretty
much
own
all
parts,
so
they
can
maximize
their
profit.
E
Cinder
neal
will
adler
for
the
record.
I
I
think
you
know.
Ideally,
most
businesses
did
try
to
become
fully
vertically
integrated,
where
you
would
own
the
cultivation
of
production
and
and
the
retail
store
piece
of
it.
But
there
are
several
groups.
Many
groups
are
just
standalone,
cultivations
that
simply
cultivate
to
sell
to
retail
stores
externally,
so
they're
thought
of
as
the
third
party
cultivators,
but,
like
I
said,
groups
have
become
larger
and
have
acquired.
Other
groups
is
where
we
now
see
this.
E
You
know
phenomenon
of
having
multiple
cultivations
within
a
single
ownership
group
so
that
that
just
became
sort
of
a
business
and
usability
aspect
where
they
think
hey
can,
I
you
know
not
have
to
roll
joints
at
every
one
of
these
three
cultivations
this
facility.
Does
that
best
of
the
three
we
have?
Can
we
just
send
our
trim
from
these
other
two
to
that
one
and
have
the
joints
rolled
there?
The
question
was
just
the
the
comfort
of
being
able
to
do
that
transference
under
the
the
definitions
as
strictly
as
they
were
written.
E
You
know
raised
some
flags
and
some
questions
about
if
that
was
even
allowable,
without
having
to
pay
that
wholesale
before
it
goes
to
essentially
your
own
facility
and
then
do
you
owe
it
on
that
joint,
because
it's
a
new
product
under
the
wholesale
categories
as
a
new
wholesale.
So
this
just
looks
to
clarify
that
particular
issue.
And
then
you
know,
you
know
cults
lateral
movement
of
products
within
a
cultivated
group.
A
E
Will
adler
for
the
record?
I
do
not
know
how
many
off
top
my
head.
I
I
work
with
three
groups
in
particular
today
on
that
that
front,
but
they
I
I
don't
know
the
the
total
of
groups
that
have
combined
multiple
cultivation
licenses
today,
but
I'm
not
sure
this
tax
has
ever
really
been.
You
know
applied
or
charged
anywhere
today,
so
this
this
may
be
a
theoretical
issue
today
that
we're
looking
to
clarify
before
multiple
people
do
this
for
that
matter.
Thank
you.
Okay,.
A
Because
that's
what
I'm
trying
to
understand
like
is,
it
is
a
small
amount
and
if
you're
saying
it's,
it's
a
theoretical
problem
now
that
you
want
to
solve,
I
guess
you
know
I
you
know
in
section
9c
it
just
I
mean
if
you're
working
with
department
of
taxation,
I
had
a
problem
with
that.
The
wording
of
that
language
in
section
9c,
because
it
just
seemed
to
I
just
I
I
just
didn't-
understand
how
that
was
going
to
work.
A
So
I'll
just
leave
that
there
so
department
of
tax.
I
need
to
understand
something
in
regards
to
the
clarifying
changes
that
you're
trying
to
make
do
you?
Do
you
have
a
conceptual
idea
of
what
that
what
sections
are
being
changed
and
is
it
something
that
can
at
least
be
put
on
the
record?
So
we
can
understand
like
what
you're
seeking
to
change.
F
Yes,
senator
neil
melanie
young
executive
director
for
the
nevada
department
of
taxation.
If
I
could
have
shelly
hughes
who's,
been
I'm
working
on
that
language
to
be
able
to
explain
what
that
proposed
language
would
look
like
at
this
time.
B
Good
afternoon
shelly
hughes,
chief
deputy
for
the
department
of
taxation,
we
were
looking
at
changing
both
section,
8
and
section
9c.
B
We
feel
9c
is
very
broad,
a
very
broad
definition
of
affiliate,
and
this
could
potentially
capture
a
lot
of
cultivation
facilities,
and
I
believe
that
that's
not
mr
adler's
intent
and
section
eight,
as
director
young
has
mentioned,
we
feel
doesn't
clarify
the
subsequent
transfer
from
the
affiliate
cannabis
cultivation
facility
to
any
other
cannabis
establishment,
and
so
we
would
be
working
on
the
language
to
make
sure
that
it
is
clear
that
the
wholesale
tax
would
still
apply
in
that
situation.
A
So
miss
hughes,
based
on
that
that
you
guys
are
suggesting,
are
we
going
to
see
the
15
wholesale,
diminish
and
in
terms
of
the
revenue
that's
being
gained
from
it?
Because
that's
what
I'm
trying
to
understand.
B
Shelly
hughes,
for
the
record,
I,
that
is
not
our
intention.
We
wouldn't
really
hope
that
this
would
be
a
revenue,
neutral
change,
and
that
would
be
our
intent
with
any
amendment
that
we
would
propose.
A
Okay,
thank
you
for
that,
and
I
know
our
fiscal
staff
would
like
to
clarify
get
some
clarifying
points
on
the
record.
Mr
guindon.
C
Thank
you,
madam
chair,
for
the
record
russell
goodman
principal
deputy
fiscal,
analyst,
fiscal
analysis,
division
and
I
know
we
normally
wouldn't
do
this
at
your
staff,
but
in
this
sort
of
non-normal
environment
and
your
staff
can
continue
to
work
offline
with
senator
settlemeyer,
mr
adler
and
the
department
taxation.
C
But
I
just
I
thought
I
sort
of
understood
what
the
bill
was
about,
but
after
listening
to
the
testimony
and
the
answers,
so
if
I,
what
I
wouldn't
mind
going
through,
is
because
what
I
it's
my
understanding
of
department,
taxation
and
interprets
the
word
sale
to
also
include
transfer.
So
that
includes,
when
you've
got
an
entity.
That's
vertically
integrated
or
laterally
integrated
that
they're
transferring
it
the
15
wholesale
excise
tax
is
still
due.
C
Then
I
believe
by
the
department
of
taxation
said:
is
that
they're
administering
the
the
nrs
and
then
they
have
nac
regulations
that
the
15
wholesale
marijuana
tax
is
due
on
the
first
transfer.
C
C
C
What
this
bill
is
then
trying
to
do
if
it
is
indeed
true
that
taxation
will
only
require
the
15
wholesale
marijuana
tax
to
be
due
on
the
first
transfer,
so
whether
that's
a
wet
plant
or
the
bud
or
the
flower,
and
then
it
goes
laterally
into
another
cultivation
facility.
And
again
I
guess
my
read
of
the
nrs
and
the
nac
is
it's
irrespective
of
whether
they're
laterally
integrated
or
their
independent
cultivation
facility.
C
So
if
mr
adler
and
or
the
department
of
taxation
could
attempt
to
provide
information
for
the
committee,
members
and
staff
and
or
if
not,
we
could
work
that
offline,
but
that's
that's
my
read
of
the
bill
and,
in
my
understanding,
the
current
law
in
the
nec
and
then
what
was
justified
to
here
today.
Madam
chair.
E
I
will
do
my
best.
Hello
will
adler
for
the
record
so
to
to
mr
guindon's
point.
Yes
at
that
first
cultivation,
you
can
assess
all
the
taxes
so
in
in
the
same
theoretical
setting
or
cultivation
a
shipping
trim,
or
you
know,
unprocessed
material
going
to
cultivation
b
to
make
them
into
joints
well.
Cultivation
b
will
already
have
their
own
supply
of
trim
that
has
yet
to
be
taxed
sitting
in
there.
So
the
idea
is,
if
I'm
rolling,
all
the
joints
out
of
this
facility.
I
would
like
some
ability
to
say
hey.
E
It
felt
like
it
would
be
a
very
uncomfortable
setting
to
be
in
as
this
cultivation
be,
the
the
thought
was,
the
easiest
processing
would
be
having
the
final
cultivation
be
the
one
responsible
for
the
tax
burden
at
the
very
end
of
the
processing.
So
I
don't
know
you
know
what
it
is
in
general,
just
in
general,
we
don't
want
the
in-process,
you
know
hassle
or
the
thought
of
needing
to
track
individual
pieces
of
the
process.
E
A
So
I
I
appreciate
that
clarification,
because
I
guess
what
I
I
thought
the
taxable
status
matters,
because
of
how
it,
if
it
transforms
into
another
product
that
matters
right,
which
then
creates
the
taxable
status,
and
so,
regardless
of
whether
or
not
at
the
end
it
you
know
it.
It
ultimately
is
this
final
thing
I
thought
the
moment:
the
transforming
moments
are
the
things
that,
as
a
state,
we
cared
about
in
terms
of
trying
to
figure
out
what
this
taxing
scheme
or
structure
was
going
to
look
like
as
we've
gone
through
these
reiterations
over
the
years.
E
I'll
take
a
stab
at
this
will
adler
for
the
record,
so
originally
the
medical
marijuana
law
did
have
that
increasing.
You
know
taxation,
so
it
started
at
the
cultivation
with
a
two
percent
medical
marijuana
cultivated
tax
production
also
added
two
percent
to
that,
and
then
at
the
dispensary
level
we
then
added
again
tax.
You
know
on
the
sale
there.
Well,
when,
when
recreational
happened,
the
ballot
initiative
said
15
wholesale
tax
at
the
cultivation.
It
had
nothing
in
the
production
in
the
middle
there.
E
It
you
know,
assessed
the
taxes
heavily
at
the
cultivation
front
end
so
to
comply
with
that.
To
make
it
easier
on
the
the
recording
of
taxes,
medical
marijuana,
2,
we
erased
all
that
stacking
tax
and
made
it
just
the
15
wholesale
tax
for
medical
marijuana
as
well.
To
add
to
retail
and
to
add
to
the
recreational
aspect
of
recreational
needs
to
be
taxed
more
than
medical.
E
We
then
add
an
additional
10
excise
tax
at
the
retail
storefront
for
the
retail
of
it
versus
the
medical
retail
of
cannabis,
so
that
that
that
sort
of
was
the
original
intent.
Was
this
ever
increasing
stack,
but
that
sort
of
went
away
with
with
the
recreational
ballot
initiative?
And
then
this
too
wants
to
pay
that
15
tax
and
make
sure
it's
assessed
before
it
ever
leaves
the
cultivation
to
go
to
a
production
or
go
to
a
dispensary.
E
A
Okay,
so
we
will
go
ahead
and
open
up
for
support
on
sb
278.
I
F
Yes,
thank
you
senator
neil
melanie
young
executive
director
for
the
nevada
department
of
taxation,
and
we
just
wanted
to
clarify
that
the
department
is
in
neutral
on
this
bill
and
are
working
with
mr
adler
and
proposing
some
language
to
have
the
bill.
Work
for
the
department
of
taxation.
A
E
Will
adler
for
the
record?
Thank
you
senator
neil,
for
hearing
this
bill
today,
simple
278
is
looking
to
just
clarify
the
current
tax
language
that
we
have
today
and
hopefully,
we'll
will
have
a
mutual
impact
on
the
state
and
we're
committed
to
working
with
the
department
of
taxation
in
any
way
possible
to
make
sure
we
have
some
positive
amendments
next
time
we're
before
you.
Thank
you.
A
Okay,
thank
you
for
that.
So
we
will
go
ahead
and
close
the
hearing
on
sb
278
and
we
will
open
up
for
public
comment
as
anyone
on
the
line
for
public
comment
or
senate
revenue.