[{"_1":2,"_124":-5,"_125":-5},"loaderData",{"_3":4,"_26":27},"root",{"_5":6,"_17":10,"_18":19,"_20":21,"_22":10,"_23":-5,"_24":-5,"_25":10},"user",{"_7":8,"_9":10,"_11":10,"_12":-5,"_13":-5,"_14":15,"_16":-5},"roles",[],"isAuthenticated",false,"isPremium","planName","subscriptionStatus","featureFlags",{},"insightsBudget","isDevelopmentHost","userPreferences",{},"recaptchaSiteKey","6LcvOJcUAAAAAHsB-gPGfGktcRlKpH7OTIU_dMTD","isImpersonating","impersonation","affiliateStatus","isFreedomPortal","routes/v2/article/layout",{"_28":29,"_30":31},"notFound",true,"relatedArticles",[32,76,88,100,112],{"_33":34,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":40,"_41":42,"_43":44,"_45":46,"_47":48,"_49":50,"_51":52,"_53":54,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":60,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":66,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},"mediaId",6287757,"mediaKeyId","2546939-983c76d46135e1835205028e723e5480","parentId",2546939,"title","Committee hears divided testimony on proposal to raise cigarette tax and extend tax to vaping products","audioSeconds",3598,"startMs",7278000,"endMs",10876000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=2546939-983c76d46135e1835205028e723e5480&start=7278&end=10876","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2546939-983c76d46135e1835205028e723e5480/thumbnail_7278000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6287757/North-Dakota/Committee-hears-divided-testimony-on-proposal-to-raise-cigarette-tax-and-extend-tax-to-vaping-products","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6287757-80d80d6379bc53ca47fe87116dc3089c/orig.mp4?Expires=1771197892&Signature=KD8YOOIBt5-RapR7A2Ct-8y0NV4HImWzidlTuXJfgdAgn8a-Kv0rOgzZW-rJj75gCtCp0-DfqR3amSqOSlLf384Jrpjk~snO5sVnqvGn36Uqd646DYvjWry6HqBaoNgeWrLk13cE3NC~3X1TabVAU~Mf2QEP8N~YdOFD~U4eg4U7l4YoD3t1c9nRyn691Mau~IACK9hqYK~kLqAmYH8O9f-BZInZWBwShjHsXjkEtedOXkWdgj422gQx6AjUAxHis3dlpeUOSiSZYaDZVPGhEb5V9q0t3m7RbDSWPLrH~5jPk1RW1fU74szqX8BUGFmSenkdJSNxEzDLPvcFHh6CCA__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","North Dakota State Legislature","date","2025-03-11T00:00:00Z","article","Senate Bill 22‑81 would raise the cigarette excise tax by 25¢ per pack, add a comparable tax on cigars, and apply an ad‑valorem wholesale tax to electronic nicotine products and oral nicotine pouches. Sponsor Kathy Hogan told the committee the proposal aims to reduce youth vaping and provide funding to local public‑health units and 988 crisis‑intervention services.

\"Taxation is an effective method to improve health outcomes by reducing use,\" Senator Kathy Hogan said, citing the Youth Risk Behavior Survey showing elevated vaping rates among North Dakota students. She described the proposed approach as conservative compared with CDC best practices but said a modest increase would still make a difference for youth affordability.

Heather Austin of Tobacco Free North Dakota said the bill brings parity to products the tobacco industry has used to avoid existing excise taxes and recommended broader tax increases for public‑health purposes, but expressed support for the bill as a step forward. The American Cancer Society’s government relations director praised the bill’s approach to bringing new products into the tax code but cautioned that incremental tax increases often prompt industry price‑discounting and coupons that blunt public‑health effects.

Opponents included the North Dakota Petroleum Marketers Association, the Greater North Dakota Chamber, retailers and several vaping‑industry witnesses. Mike Rood of the Petroleum Marketers Association called the proposal “egregious” and argued the tax would be regressive; he also noted robust existing funding for tobacco‑control programs drawn from settlement proceeds and other state funds. Retail and vape‑shop witnesses warned an increased tax on vapor products would drive consumers to untaxed online sellers and create a black market, reducing state revenue and raising safety concerns.

Philip Morris International’s regional director, James Curry, and other industry witnesses highlighted the FDA’s January authorization of certain ZYN oral nicotine pouches and urged that tax policy reflect a continuum of risk: higher taxes on combustible cigarettes and lower taxes, if any, on noncombustible alternatives. Curry said imposing a 28% wholesale tax on nicotine pouches would make them proportionally more expensive than cigarettes and could discourage adult smokers from switching to less harmful alternatives.

Committee members asked about enforcement, definitions (including whether nicotine‑free devices would be covered), youth access, and whether the change would reduce use. Testimony included conflicting views on public‑health effectiveness and the risk of shifting sales to online or illicit markets. No committee vote was recorded in the transcript; the hearing closed after extended public testimony and online witnesses.

The bill would also update statutory definitions to capture nicotine pouches, gels and dissolvables as commercial tobacco products while protecting FDA‑approved nicotine‑replacement therapies from excise taxation.","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","House Finance and Taxation Tuesday, Mar 11, 2025 8:57 AM - 12:00 PM","oneSentenceSummary","Senate Bill 22‑81 would raise the cigarette tax by 25¢ per pack and impose an ad‑valorem tax on e‑cigarettes and oral nicotine pouches; public‑health advocates and tobacco‑control groups supported parity while retailers, industry groups and some business owners warned of regressivity and a black market.","taxTitle","Finance and Taxation, House of Representatives, Legislative, North Dakota","taxId",28891,"location","North Dakota","headline","","shortSummary",{"_33":77,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":78,"_41":79,"_43":80,"_45":81,"_47":82,"_49":83,"_51":84,"_53":85,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":86,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":87,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},6287762,"Sponsor seeks to narrow 'oil‑producing county' definition to channel funds to impacted rural roads",1043,5548000,6591000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2546939-983c76d46135e1835205028e723e5480&start=5548&end=6591","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2546939-983c76d46135e1835205028e723e5480/thumbnail_5548000.jpg","/articles/6287762/North-Dakota/Sponsor-seeks-to-narrow-oilproducing-county-definition-to-channel-funds-to-impacted-rural-roads","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6287762-8b851b54b0fe3fafb764363adf4c745e/orig.mp4?Expires=1771197892&Signature=Ek9A7a7zISJ1Fqxh1NvIlKM1DO5qD54mlkHy~8I7DIpWOSzi~ZiOHMDMnJ~eJ83gJhHVJQIazN~aqW3eNqhG5~V6y~pFo9LXMYCw1b~OziReUpytVxYicMcwloRWM6x3LxcB0Jp4DX7us3tiGZGnLOL5m1tnfHBIjVbNbzfQOv87uRjPw2hNRYS-JBhbQCGJ~1EoVJ7fSNX1zxhA0X2eymF~Z5LJzo5qwatecuvVQ9EuKaOmcQoRYU8~PgPKslo096DVEYrZqjk13a4RZS09LU7aGuMF27oGXVEJi4PhdwiLMKPgSv8LaNELO5BZG7XkQgTgYsE7iX5A187y~ygOwQ__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Senate Bill 23‑97 would redefine the term \"oil‑producing county\" for purposes of several state infrastructure funds so that only the state’s largest oil producers qualify under the label. Sponsor Mark Ingham said the current definition groups smaller producing counties with the largest producers, excluding some counties from targeted infrastructure funding despite experiencing heavy oil‑field traffic.

\"There is a significant inequity in the current definition of oil producing county in our Century Code,\" Ingham told the Finance and Taxation Committee. He said Dunn, McKenzie, Mountrail and Williams counties account for more than 90% of statewide oil production and that other counties designated as \"oil‑producing\" do not generate comparable volumes but still suffer heavy truck traffic and road damage.

Witnesses from regional energy associations and industry groups — including Jeff Simon, executive director of the Western Dakota Energy Association, and Ron Ness, president of the North Dakota Petroleum Council — supported the change. They said the current statutory test (a $5 million gross production tax revenue threshold was cited in testimony) can exclude counties that face oil‑field impacts but do not meet the revenue threshold, and that production‑based measures or a rolling average would better reflect local impacts.

Simon and others described freight volumes and oversized‑permit activity in affected counties and noted that much early production in those counties relies on trucks rather than pipelines, increasing wear on rural roads and creating a maintenance burden for counties and townships.

No committee vote was recorded in the transcript. The hearing closed after supportive testimony; sponsors and witnesses said they would continue to provide data and discuss threshold options such as a production‑based test or a three‑year rolling average.","Senator Mark Ingham said Senate Bill 23‑97 would restrict the statutory definition of \"oil‑producing county\" to the major producing counties so towns and townships in smaller producing counties can access flexible transportation and infrastructure funds.",{"_33":89,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":90,"_41":91,"_43":92,"_45":93,"_47":94,"_49":95,"_51":96,"_53":97,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":98,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":99,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},6287767,"Committee advances bill to raise garnishment disclosure fee from $25 to $40",1564,3701000,5265000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2546939-983c76d46135e1835205028e723e5480&start=3701&end=5265","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2546939-983c76d46135e1835205028e723e5480/thumbnail_3701000.jpg","/articles/6287767/North-Dakota/Committee-advances-bill-to-raise-garnishment-disclosure-fee-from-25-to-40","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6287767-93433cf970365ba1949087fee33c937b/orig.mp4?Expires=1771197892&Signature=kQWNi7OBR33YB3H~-SoEvof9M7M0kZbEKqTkoKXO-csI6G7JmaJoOPy4WoA3ffdeeoexQl~Sw38WZ1AuES-amM-2efw4vGAXxsihRJptJ9mW9xCt2XUERzsNIPJjsAV1OfGcwSMPCylz~wG5aAKlbfjgANKffXzvJ7XCysJQGRaabIiqnH39WjvQCY4eJ3XBO5IKI56qeSbDwYoDH6UX4ZsJ6tF6uEL-b~HAwISp1LOqR7RHFXcXCWQisjm3hj48bmE3ZaUGef8-IA7r4DkjmEjG272YXEuezI7JRgprf8FPHiUq0G5GGUyL89Th~uS4eqIxaS7153-FOSS~wB2RrA__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Senate Bill 23‑10, which would raise the statutory disclosure fee in garnishment proceedings from $25 to $40, received a favorable recommendation from the House Finance and Taxation Committee after supporters said the fee has not been adjusted since 2005.

Senator Jeff Barta, sponsor of the bill, said the banking industry brought the request forward to reflect inflation and the time involved in complying with garnishment summons. Rick Klayberg, president and CEO of the North Dakota Bankers Association, told the committee that complying with garnishment orders often requires repeated payroll withholdings, legal review and additional record keeping that exceed the current fee.

\"Complying with the garnishment summons, in adherence with state and federal law and regulations requires considerable effort and resources far exceeding the compensation provided by the $25 fee,\" Klayberg testified, explaining the association’s support for an increase to $40.

Committee members debated whether state employers (Office of Management and Budget) should receive the increased fee and whether raising the fee would result in significant revenue for the state. Representative Steiner pressed the committee on whether it was appropriate for the state to collect additional revenue from the change. Supporters said the proposed increase reflects an inflationary adjustment and parity for private and public employers.

Representative Lisonbee moved a due‑pass recommendation; the motion was seconded and the committee recorded a roll call. The chair announced the motion carried with a recorded tally reported as 10 yes, 1 no, 3 not voting in the transcript. The sponsor later asked for a carrier to carry the bill to the floor.

The bill amends statutory sections cited in testimony (3209.105 and 3209.110 in the transcript) and carries a fiscal note because the state, when served as the employer, would also receive the increased fee. The committee closed the hearing after members debated the state’s share and logistical details.","Senator Jeff Barta and the North Dakota Bankers Association urged increasing the disclosure fee charged to garnishees, citing inflation and compliance costs; the committee recommended a due pass with recorded votes.",{"_33":101,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":102,"_41":103,"_43":104,"_45":105,"_47":106,"_49":107,"_51":108,"_53":109,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":110,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":111,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},6287772,"Bill would equalize sales‑tax treatment for nonprofit fundraisers in public and private venues",1330,1901000,3231000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2546939-983c76d46135e1835205028e723e5480&start=1901&end=3231","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2546939-983c76d46135e1835205028e723e5480/thumbnail_1901000.jpg","/articles/6287772/North-Dakota/Bill-would-equalize-salestax-treatment-for-nonprofit-fundraisers-in-public-and-private-venues","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6287772-3669e8b3856fc52da018c12519079eeb/orig.mp4?Expires=1771197892&Signature=UM2MNsY86w114tjX5MHiQPAwK~Gj2eQPjLwM8oLV4pn9VT91UI52JHyWyhjEeZ7LjHG9nHBFmARCzXIZX6visHe72ePCTCxK9jhEo3j1cZMcje8OHOOi1rDDKta46eOHIkML9ZVIqR8ShglwSVTMW1vrPRvmZrX2TlvkhVmPp~BsWrYteEdPXOkxaM2c22Bj4fW5ZtNZo8lihB0UGHDbtufT~uTlznvChy3YeKcI1e6jNHIiFNGNeGOCrjDqe3FCPyqvG8Y3LdU0xJV1yEl0igfpXD0arYMeHGBDtRz43UuV6AcsstX1lMXyRUgH3VofaJqd~tdTfpsYQCJolcu0Kg__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Senate Bill 23‑69 would treat fundraising sales the same whether a nonprofit rents a private or a public venue so long as the nonprofit pays fair‑market rent. Sponsor Sean Cleary, R‑District 35, told the House Finance and Taxation Committee the current rule creates a perverse incentive against using public facilities that charge market rates.

\"Public venues such as event centers and educational institutions often charge rental rates comparable to private venues,\" Cleary said. \"Our current law creates a financial distinction between otherwise similar choices for no clear policy reason.\" He asked the committee to consider standardizing sales‑tax treatment so charitable funds raised at public venues are not taxed solely because of ownership.

Amanda Godfried, regional director for Make‑A‑Wish North Dakota, described using Bismarck State College for recent galas and paying market fees for space, catering and staffing. She said the group discovered tax liability when hosting events at the public venue and that the tax diverted donor dollars away from mission work.

\"Because we chose a publicly owned space, we were suddenly subject to tax that is not imposed at private facilities,\" Godfried testified. \"Dollars that should have gone directly toward granting wishes were instead redirected to state sales tax.\"

Sean McKenna of the North Dakota Association of Nonprofit Organizations said the disparity could push nonprofits to choose private venues over public ones and urged the committee to level the playing field. Shannon Fleisher of the Tax Department provided a brief legislative history: charitable activity in public facilities was fully taxable before 2001; a $5,000 exception appeared in 2001 and that cap was raised to $10,000 in 2011. Fleisher said she could not find a clear legislative record explaining the original policy rationale.

Committee members discussed whether the bill should alter the dollar threshold or clarify the fair‑market rent standard; sponsors said the bill aims to preserve the exemption only when nonprofits pay market rates for facility use. No formal committee vote was recorded during the hearing; the committee closed the hearing after support testimony.

The bill remains in committee for potential amendment and further consideration.","Senator Sean Cleary presented Senate Bill 23‑69 to remove a disparity that taxes some nonprofit fundraising revenue when events are held in publicly owned facilities. Make‑A‑Wish North Dakota and nonprofit advocates urged support; the tax department provided historical context about prior caps of $5,000 and $10,000.",{"_33":113,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":114,"_41":115,"_43":116,"_45":117,"_47":118,"_49":119,"_51":120,"_53":121,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":122,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":123,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},6287777,"Committee advances bill to stop routine withholding from exempt military pay",128,232000,360000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2546939-983c76d46135e1835205028e723e5480&start=232&end=360","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2546939-983c76d46135e1835205028e723e5480/thumbnail_232000.jpg","/articles/6287777/North-Dakota/Committee-advances-bill-to-stop-routine-withholding-from-exempt-military-pay","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6287777-aef3402b2902a6ae2ecc9ff903a10294/orig.mp4?Expires=1771197892&Signature=NYGdSJh1mI~AZWAa-Nw1wBQyOvrWd8n25yvNmcxYNYRcTgw7uy7-TCgX~liB52hS3chKfmdFCXKi57IpFH~M5pShqeAWsuFsstv8BLNnpB~bZCo8CMdOsNvlvpt1-Pcs6BAbP~V1Rb6MmV6VDWwfgyClm-9rUUJyu54SzM5yt1pvV3o3SHqwSH8ZMzl0sqhPsTl7SOtqhcwj3Y1wic7IehsHxImoMeTuWHIwaLsmS4Fj3Vo8WGZz5h54l-2zvsV-Q2P-vjdObL-6JdlTtTNdaoM6BE2pPQEt7THmAFO5r3DrrY3CJ~F6LEAtv9i2o7~hco6cowGwV8WsidCpovoeJg__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The House Finance and Taxation Committee on Thursday recommended a due pass for Senate Bill 20‑47, a measure that would prevent employers from routinely withholding North Dakota income tax from military pay that the 2023 Legislature exempted from state income tax.

Matthew Danielson, legal counsel to the North Dakota Office of the State Tax Commissioner, testified the bill simply aligns withholding rules with the exemption adopted in 2023 (Senate Bill 22‑93). He said current law still requires withholding from military wages even though the wages are no longer taxable, producing unnecessary refunds and delaying service members’ receipt of pay.

\"Senate Bill 20‑47 creates an exception to the income withholding requirements, providing that tax cannot be withheld from military pay unless the service member specifically requests that tax be withheld,\" Danielson told the committee. He said the change would let service members get exempt pay as they earn it and avoid unnecessary refunds. The bill’s stated effective date is for taxable years beginning after Dec. 31, 2025.

Representative Olson moved that the committee recommend a due pass; Representative Anderson seconded. The committee recorded an affirmative vote and the panel later voted to move the bill to the consent calendar for floor consideration.

The hearing included no testimony in opposition and no amendments were adopted in committee. Committee members asked no sustained substantive questions after Danielson’s remarks and no additional witnesses appeared in opposition.

The committee’s action sends the bill to the full House with a recommendation; the bill remains subject to further floor action and any amendments there.

Votes at a glance: Committee recommendation — Due pass; procedural move — placed on consent calendar; recorded tally reported in committee as 12 yes, 0 no, 2 not voting.","The House Finance and Taxation Committee recommended a due-pass and placed Senate Bill 2047 on the consent calendar after testimony that the bill would prevent automatic withholding from military pay that is exempt under 2023 law.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Committee hears divided testimony on proposal to raise cigarette tax and extend tax to vaping products

Sponsor seeks to narrow 'oil‑producing county' definition to channel funds to impacted rural roads

Committee advances bill to raise garnishment disclosure fee from $25 to $40

Bill would equalize sales‑tax treatment for nonprofit fundraisers in public and private venues

Committee advances bill to stop routine withholding from exempt military pay