Latest news with #HouseFinanceCommittee
Yahoo
6 days ago
- Business
- Yahoo
What's the 'Taylor Swift Tax'? How Rhode Island proposal could impact the star
Taylor Swift soon may be required to pay a hefty amount of taxes on her New England home, which is undergoing renovations, if a proposed tax act in Rhode Island goes through. Earlier this month, Rhode Island's House Finance Committee approved the state's 2026 budget, which includes a tax that targets high-end, vacant properties in the state. The "Non-Owner Occupied Property Tax Act," deemed the "Taylor Swift Tax," proposes a statewide tax rate for non-primary residences valued at more than $1 million. If passed, the act would tax properties, which are not the primary residences of their owners, valued more than $1 million. As Rhode Island's House of Representatives continues to work through the budget bill, here's what to know about the proposal and how it may impact the superstar's wallet. The proposed act would mean that "non-owner occupied" homes, or secondary residences, valued more than $1 million, would be taxed at $2.50 for each $500 of assessed value. For example, a property assessed at $1.2 million would see an annual tax of $1,000 and a property at $2 million would have a $5,000 annual tax, New England law firm Pierce Atwood explained in a blog post. The total value of the property is not taxed, just the value that exceeds $1 million. So how much would Swift potentially be taxed? When she purchased the house in 2013, it was worth about $17 million, but the property value has increased over the last decade. Zillow lists the property at $28.1 million, meaning it would be taxed at about $135,500 annually. The budget bill passed through the state's House Finance Committee days before authorities identified the remains of 31-year-old Eric Wein on Swift's property, shared by the South Kingstown Police Department on June 13. Wein's remains had washed ashore in an enclave on Swift's property on May 14. Taylor Swift's home: Human remains found near Taylor Swift's Rhode Island home have been identified The "Non-Owner Occupied Property Tax Act" has not been passed yet. As of June 11, the state's 2026 budget bill, which includes the act, was passed in the House Finance Committee. As of June 26, it is under review of the House of Representatives as a whole. If passed, the tax would affect properties on and after July 1, 2026, the state's budget bill reads. If passed, the tax would affect owners of residential properties who own a property that does not serve as their primary residence, valued at $1 million or more as of Dec. 31 of the tax year. The owner would not live at the property the majority of days out of the year. While the tax may be imagined for wealthy folks like Swift, Rhode Island natives could also be impacted by the tax, Stephen MacGillivray, a Pierce Atwood partner, told USA TODAY. "Rhode Island's a strange state where people in the northern part of the state have a summer house 40 minutes away ... often handed down from generation to generation. Those sometimes modest homes are now quite often worth more than $1 million, so there's concern that this is going to hit Rhode Islanders." The tax would not affect owners of rental properties that have been rented within the past 183 days, the budget bill states. MacGillivray said this exception may lend itself to an "interesting loophole." "You can imagine people coming up with all sorts of arrangements from legitimate to not so legitimate, where by they rent their house while they're not there," he said. High-end properties that are not an owner's primary residence can have an affect on their neighborhoods, city and state at large, the budget bill states. These property owners may not have a "vested" interest in the community their property is within and often, these properties remain "deliberately" vacant. MacGillivray said some believe these vacant properties are an eyesore in a vibrant community at the budget bill states that vacant properties often are in greater demand of police and fire protection. This story was updated to clarify where Taylor Swift's Rhode Island home is located. and correct typos. Contributing: Jay Stahl, USA TODAY Greta Cross is a national trending reporter at USA TODAY. Story idea? Email her at gcross@ This article originally appeared on USA TODAY: 'Taylor Swift Tax': Rhode Island housing policy could impact singer Error in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data
USA Today
6 days ago
- Business
- USA Today
What's the 'Taylor Swift Tax'? How Rhode Island proposal could impact the star
Taylor Swift's Cape Cod home is reportedly worth about $28.1 million. If the proposal passes, she would be required to pay about $135,500 in taxes annually. Taylor Swift soon may be required to pay a hefty amount of taxes on her Cape Code home, which is undergoing renovations if a proposed tax act in Rhode Island goes through. Earlier this month, Rhode Island's House Finance Committee approved the state's 2026 budget, which includes a tax that targets high-end, vacant properties in the state. The "Non-Owner Occupied Property Tax Act," deemed the "Taylor Swift Tax," proposes a statewide tax rate for non-primary residences valued at more than $1 million. If passed, the act would tax properties, which are not the primary residences of their owners, valued more than $1 million. As Rhode Island's House of Representatives continues to work through the budget bill, here's what to know about the proposal and how it may impact the superstar's wallet. What is the so-called 'Taylor Swift Tax'? The proposed act would mean that "non-owner occupied" homes, or secondary residences, valued more than $1 million, would be taxed at $2.50 for each $500 of assessed value. For example, a property assessed at $1.2 million would see an annual tax of $1,000 and a property at $2 million would have a $5,000 annual tax, New England law firm Pierce Atwood explained in a blog post. The total value of the property is not taxed, just the value that exceeds $1 million. So how much would Swift potentially be taxed? When she purchased the house in 2013, it was worth about $17 million, but the property value has increased over the last decade. Zillow lists the property at $28.1 million, meaning it would be taxed at about $135,500 annually. The budget bill passed through the state's House Finance Committee days before authorities identified the remains of 31-year-old Eric Wein on Swift's property, shared by the South Kingstown Police Department on June 13. Wein's remains had washed ashore in an enclave on Swift's property on May 14. Taylor Swift's Cape Cod home: Human remains found near Taylor Swift's Rhode Island home have been identified When would the tax act go into effect? The "Non-Owner Occupied Property Tax Act" has not been passed yet. As of June 11, the state's 2026 budget bill, which includes the act, was passed in the House Finance Committee. As of June 26, it is under review of the House of Representatives as a whole. If passed, the tax would effect properties on and after July 1, 2026, the state's budget bill reads. Who would the tax affect? If passed, the tax would effect owners of residential properties who own a property that does not serve as their primary residence, valued at $1 million or more as of Dec. 31 of the tax year. The owner would not live at the property the majority of days out of the year. While the tax may be imagined for wealthy folks like Swift, Rhode Island natives could also be impacted by the tax, Stephen MacGillivray, a Pierce Atwood partner, told USA TODAY. "Rhode Island's a strange state where people in the northern part of the state have a summer house 40 minutes away ... often handed down from generation to generation. Those sometimes modest homes are now quite often worth more than $1 million, so there's concern that this is going to hit Rhode Islanders." A potential renting loophole The tax would not affect owners of rental properties that have been rented within the past 183 days, the budget bill states. MacGillivray said this exception may lend itself to an "interesting loophole." "You can imagine people coming up with all sorts of arrangements from legitimate to not so legitimate, where by they rent their house while they're not there," he said. Why did Rhode Island propose the tax act? High-end properties that are not an owner's primary residence can have an affect on their neighborhoods, city and state at large, the budget bill states. These property owners may not have a "vested" interest in the community their property is within and often, these properties remain "deliberately" vacant. MacGillivray said some believe these vacant properties are an eyesore in a vibrant community at the budget bill states that vacant properties often are in greater demand of police and fire protection. Contributing: Jay Stahl, USA TODAY Greta Cross is a national trending reporter at USA TODAY. Story idea? Email her at gcross@
Boston Globe
18-06-2025
- Business
- Boston Globe
R.I. House approves $14b tax-and-spending plan
State Representative Marvin Abney, the chairman of the House Finance Committee, said on the floor Tuesday it's been a year of 'change and uncertainty,' and urged the importance of compromise. 'That concept is so simple, but bears mentioning in a week that saw the Get Rhode Map A weekday briefing from veteran Rhode Island reporters, focused on the things that matter most in the Ocean State. Enter Email Sign Up The budget bill passed 66 to 9 on a nearly party-line vote. One Republican, Marie Hopkins of Warwick, joined the Democrats in approving the plan. Advertisement House Speaker Joseph Shekarchi said there remains 'uncertainty' in Washington as the US Senate considers the He said he was most concerned about potential cuts to food stamps and Medicaid. 'Drastic changes' in federal aid could prompt a special fall legislative session, Shekarchi said. (The General Assembly does not typically meet in the summer or fall, reconvening in January.) The House Finance Committee last week revealed the Advertisement The extra tax does not apply if the homes are rented at least half of the days out of the year. State leaders have not yet calculated how much revenue the new tax, which would take effect next summer, would bring in. The tax was previously nicknamed the 'Taylor Swift' tax when it was proposed in years past, after the pop star's $28 million home in Westerly. Representative Charlene Lima, a Cranston Democrat, argued on the floor that the tax would punish Rhode Islanders who are not wealthy but whose family beach homes have dramatically increased in value over the decades. 'This is not the Taylor Swift tax, this is the mom-and-pop tax,' Lima said. 'They're hardworking men and women who we're treating as millionaires.' Lima proposed an amendment to increase the threshold for the tax to $2 million homes. The amendment failed, with 17 representatives in favor and 56 opposed. 'Taylor Swift can afford it, sure,' Lima said. 'That's not who you're hurting. You're hurting real people.' Representative Katherine Kazarian, an East Providence Democrat, disagreed. 'A million dollars is a lot to spend on a primary home, much less a second home,' Kazarian said. 'If you own a second home that is valued at a million dollars, you can pay a little more in taxes.' Other changes from McKee's original proposal included a 2 cent increase in the gas tax, an additional $45 million in Medicaid spending on primary care (including a federal match), higher registration fees for electric vehicles, an increase in the tax on home sales, more money for school districts, and $22 million more to Advertisement A number of Republican amendments were rejected on the floor, including a proposal by Representative Brian C. Newberry, a North Smithfield Republican, who sought to 'claw back' $11 million that Attorney General Peter F. Neronha secured in a Newberry said state law mandates that the proceeds of any monetary settlements entered into by the attorney general be paid into the general fund and controlled by the General Assembly. He argued Neronha ignored that mandate when he settled a case with Barletta Heavy Division over contaminated soil at the 6/10 connector, a highway interchange in Providence. 'This should be the decision of the people in this chamber and the Senate,' Newberry said. 'The attorney general needs to be taught a lesson. This is one way to teach him a lesson. Take the $11 million from his budget and they can go back crawling to the Rhode Foundation.' In a statement, Neronha said, 'Directing funds from the resolution of a criminal case brought by this office and authorized by a court to solve severe and unmet oral health challenges for Providence children is well within the authority of my office. We are prepared to defend attempts to argue otherwise.' The House ended up rejecting Newberry's amendment by a vote of 13 to 60. Advertisement Afterward, Shekarchi told reporters that he did not think Neronha violated the law, since the settlement was approved by a court. 'In this country that we live in, if you don't like a ruling of a judge, (US Supreme Court Chief) Justice Roberts said the best way to handle that is to file an appeal,' Shekarchi said. 'It's not to go to the legislative body and try to limit the court's discretion. If this particular settlement was improper, the solution is to appeal that.' In a separate settlement announced Monday, Neronha secured $30 million for Rhode Island in a nationwide opioid settlement with Purdue Pharma and its owners, the Sackler family. While most of that money will be appropriated at a later time, the House did use some of it Tuesday to put $1.3 million into . The budget debate, which began just after 4 p.m., was over before sundown, a rarity in a chamber that has been known to legislate until the wee hours. Shekarchi attributed the speedier debate to the 'many, many' budget caucuses and meetings held during the session, where lawmakers made their priorities clear. 'I think it's a good budget,' Shekarchi said. 'We really went out of our of way to help the residents of nursing homes, the patients in the hospital, the people who take RIPTA to work. I'm really proud of the budget.' The bill now goes to the Senate for consideration. Advertisement Steph Machado can be reached at
Boston Globe
13-06-2025
- Politics
- Boston Globe
Hundreds of former R.I. special needs students could be compensated for state cutting their education short
Advertisement It took another seven years for the damages for the affected students to be negotiated. Get Rhode Map A weekday briefing from veteran Rhode Island reporters, focused on the things that matter most in the Ocean State. Enter Email Sign Up The tentative settlement was publicly disclosed for the first time by House Speaker Joseph Shekarchi on Tuesday night. While briefing reporters on the late-night agreement on a $14 billion state budget, he said the process had been delayed by a last-minute request by the Rhode Island Department of Education to include a nearly $2 million appropriation for the legal settlement. 'We literally worked until 15 minutes ago' to fill the unforeseen budget hole, Shekarchi said around 9:15 p.m. The House Finance Committee approved the budget proposal before midnight. The settlement, which still requires a judge's approval, has not yet been made public. RIDE Spokesperson Victor Morente said the students who will be eligible for compensation from the $1.86 million settlement are those who were 21 between Feb. 10, 2012 and July 1, 2019, did not get a regular high school diploma, and lost access to public school when they turned 21. Advertisement The number of former students in that group number roughly 300, according to Sonja Deyoe, the lawyer for the plaintiffs. Two plaintiffs, identified by their initials K.L. and K.S, represented the wider class in the suit. K.S., who was a 20-year-old student at Toll Gate High School in Warwick at the time the lawsuit was filed, was about to be cut off from high school despite having Asperger syndrome and ADHD. She was working toward a traditional high school diploma when she was told she would have to leave school on her 21st birthday, the lawsuit said. K.L. had been a student at Chariho High School and suffered from a genetic disorder and developmental delays that left her at the 'cognitive level of a toddler,' the lawsuit said. She was cut off from school when she turned 21. The suit noted a similar case in Hawaii resulted in courts ruling Hawaii had to provide education up to age 22. Deyoe said it was 'very difficult' to come to an agreement on damages, as the two sides debated whether all the individuals affected in the class were eligible for compensatory services. She said the $1.86 million could be used to reimburse students for GED classes, tutoring, assistive devices, or other services like speech therapy they may have sought to assist them in getting education in lieu of the extra year of public school. Advertisement She said she has spoken to one former student who is paraplegic and plans to use the funds to pay for a device that helps them communicate. Deyoe said cutting students off from high school at 21 had a serious impact. 'There are numerous people who we initially talked to who were very close to graduation, who, if they were given that additional period of time, would have been able to graduate,' Deyoe said. 'It's very sad.' Deyoe said the issue at hand in the case was the word 'inclusive' in the federal requirement that free public education be provided for those ages 3 to 21. The plaintiffs interpreted that to mean inclusive of the 21-year-olds, not ending on their 21st birthday. In its 2018 decision, the appeals court noted that some students without disabilities — such as those who went to prison in high school — had access to education up to age 22, but the special needs students were cut off at 21. Rhode Island now provides education to students with disabilities until age 22, Morente confirmed. Morna Murray, the executive director of Disability Rights Rhode Island, said while it's not ideal that students will be compensated a decade later, 'it's never too late' to right a wrong. She said for students who need it, staying in school an extra year can make a big difference in their futures. 'Having those extra years is golden, before they have to face the world,' Murray said. 'It's really significant.' Disability Rights Rhode Island was involved in the negotiations for damages. It is not yet clear when a judge will consider approving the settlement. After that, there will be an opportunity for affected students to seek reimbursement from the $1.86 million fund. Advertisement The pool of money will also be used to pay an administrator to manage the fund, Morente said, along with legal fees. Unspent funds would be returned to the state after 20 months. The Rhode Island House is slated to vote on the state budget on Tuesday. Steph Machado can be reached at
Yahoo
13-06-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
'It is essential': Riders and advocates plea for a lifeline for RIPTA
PROVIDENCE - Public transportation advocates are making a final push for state lawmakers to rescue the Rhode Island Public Transit Authority from a looming budget crisis that, if unaddressed, could slash bus service across the state. They came to the House Finance Committee in support of a slate of bills that would close or partly close a projected $33 million RIPTA budget deficit for the year starting July 1, protecting bus routes and transportation for the disabled. Jean Ann Giuliano of East Greenwich said RIPTA service had been a "game changer" for her 28-year-old autistic son, allowing him to live independently and ride it to his job at CVS. "RIPTA for him is a lifeline. It is not a convenience for James, it is a necessity. It is essential," Giuliano said at a May 21 House Finance Committee meeting. "Last year, the bus he takes was on the chopping block ... fortunately it was saved. This year it is probably going to be on the chopping block again and for us it is panic time." Amy Jo Glidden, co-chair of Rhode Island Transit Riders, said the cuts to bus service that would be required without money budgeted for transit would result in layoffs at RIPTA, routes cut or made less frequent, and lost jobs across the state by people who are no longer able to get to work. "This issue is personal for me. I do not own a car and rely on the bus to get around," Glidden said. "If RIPTA does not get the $32 million, catastrophe awaits." RIPTA's budget woes have reached this crisis point over the course of many years, but like most transit agencies in the United States, accelerated during the COVID pandemic. The pandemic cratered ridership and sent costs spiraling, but for four years federal aid plugged the revenue gap. Gov. Dan McKee has not suggested any new funding ideas for RIPTA. The "Save RIPTA" alliance has backed seven different public transit funding bills and it is not clear which have the best chance of passing. They include: Appropriating $32 million in the state budget Borrowing $100 million for transit Shifting more gas tax collections to RIPTA Dedicating taxes collected from ride-hailing companies such as Uber to transit Using every year of inflation to calculate the every-two-year gas tax increase (currently only the most recent year is counted.) Last year, the General Assembly provided $15 million − the other half of the deficit was plugged with the last remaining COVID funds − but made no move toward funding the agency long term. The one string attached to the $15 million was a requirement that RIPTA conduct an "efficiency study" by March that would search for ways to run the bus system at lower cost or in a way that generates more revenue. But last year was also a time of turmoil at RIPTA and, after the ouster of former CEO Scott Avedisian, the bus system's board of directors opted to give new CEO Chris Durand's team and consultants more time to search for efficiencies. On Thursday, May 22, Durand told the RIPTA board that the study was still being finished and he expected more documents from it to be available next week. RIPTA did send a "best practices review" of other similar-sized transit agencies from study consultant WSP to lawmakers May 16. It recommended, among other things, eliminating underperforming routes, increasing eligibility verification for paratransit service and shifting some service to "microtransit." On the revenue side, the report said agencies could look for more advertising opportunities. House Speaker K. Joseph Shekarchi said May 22 he has more requests for spending than the state has revenue and he expects RIPTA to find efficiencies. "They have to right the ship," he said about RIPTA. "The reality is they have to change. Public transit is important, for the economy and environment ... We gave them an extra $15 million and all I asked for is an efficiency study that's behind schedule." The only bill in the Save RIPTA package that McKee's administration has weighed in on is a proposal to shift some gas tax proceeds from highway projects to transit. Transportation Secretary Peter Alviti Jr., who is also the RIPTA board chairman, wrote to lawmakers that the Department of Transportation opposes the bill because it would "result in an annual loss of approximately $7 million, significantly impacting our capital program." Liza Burkin, board president of the Providence Streets Coalition, argued at the Finance Committee meeting that it is past time state leaders start making long-term decisions about RIPTA. "It is very sad we are still in the same place. We have studied this over and over and over and over," Burkin said. "The Save RIPTA campaign has chosen seven different ways of funding RIPTA. They are diverse, different ways. It is up to you all to decide. Just choose one or two." This article originally appeared on The Providence Journal: RIPTA is heading toward a crisis. Riders are begging for a lifeline.
