[{"_1":2,"_87":-5,"_88":-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",[32,75],{"_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":72,"_74":72},"mediaId",6531348,"mediaKeyId","3550676-8e3a39b4f0068b652989cf633f51e0a4","parentId",3550676,"title","Guam Legislature advances BPT Transparency Act after debate over consumer impact and agency capacity","audioSeconds",7665,"startMs",147000,"endMs",7812000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=3550676-8e3a39b4f0068b652989cf633f51e0a4&start=147&end=7812","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3550676-8e3a39b4f0068b652989cf633f51e0a4/thumbnail_147000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6531348/Guam-Legislature-advances-BPT-Transparency-Act-after-debate-over-consumer-impact-and-agency-capacity","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6531348-7af4b3c5a2eb2cf94aafcfb8a21cbaaf/orig.mp4?Expires=1771155628&Signature=Ompck5~yoyR0xPGO9FXoRjBChYEi2vOkVTVxxYDVJCRbNuo31-Spmy9HmY7Q1BPidjGIMBiznHoPuhiRGlwVCi6Nnq7EJpferBTZ5uB1YAA4owC6S8yDSpM-~ReLtOO3DHKi-vTjTCRn9B4ULG5f4xCKbcW7qwmU6E9JHu1RysZoIO1jiNYugeBf-MPkNAqZzYI-gwobiY5gIT7AAsFklAk502EaXsh5rhKbkb9XZHeYL9LAhUOjB5xQ89HUgGukWNlCjiLZp~zsdMfI9n1mtMkbUhLky9DF1duVebjmQo-g~ovKXgsRO44WBb8Xt8hUQbeVKwDnOuWLi4LmK6w~fg__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","Guam Legislature","date","2025-05-28T01:50:20Z","article","The Legislature on the floor moved Bill 59‑38, the Business Privilege Tax (BPT) Transparency Act of 2025, to the third‑reading file after more than an hour of debate over whether requiring businesses to itemize the BPT on receipts would help consumers or effectively create a de facto sales tax.

Sponsor Senator Christopher Edwin Duenas introduced the bill as a transparency measure that would add a new 26‑11.2 to Title 2, Chapter 26 of the Guam Code Annotated to require businesses to show BPT as an itemized line on receipts, invoices and other customer documentation. Duenas said the measure is intended to give residents “the ability to see, understand and question how taxes factor into their daily expenses” and said jurisdictions such as Hawaii and New Mexico permit similar itemization by businesses.

Supporters said itemization would make the tax burden visible and improve public fiscal literacy, while opponents warned it would shift taxable visibility to consumers and could be regressive. A senator who identified themselves as representing “MTM” spoke in opposition, calling the bill a “Trojan horse” that will push BPT costs to shoppers and impose heavy compliance costs on small retailers. Other senators who spoke urged compromises to avoid unintended consequences and to allow adequate time and resources for the Department of Revenue and Taxation (DRT) to implement the change.

Key points of the bill and floor action

- What the bill would do: Require businesses to itemize the business privilege tax on sales receipts, invoices and related documents; keep BPT as a business tax but require disclosure to customers. The bill authorizes the Department of Revenue and Taxation to adopt rules to implement the measure.

- Timeline and enforcement changes: The body amended the bill on the floor to extend time for agency action. The bill as introduced required DRT to promulgate rules within 90 days and allowed a six‑month period before enforcement; senators approved an amendment replacing 90 days with a six‑month period for promulgation and explicitly incorporating the Administrative Adjudication Act (AAA) process for agency rules. The implemented schedule now contemplates roughly one year between enactment and full implementation (rules promulgation plus transition), as amended on the floor.

- Penalties and compliance: Floor remarks referenced proposed penalties described in the bill — $500 per non‑complying receipt up to $10,000 per year — and stressed DRT had responsibility to provide guidance and staggered compliance timelines for small or home‑based businesses.

- Discussion highlights and concerns: Multiple senators and several business testifiers raised implementation concerns. Opponents argued that many Guam point‑of‑sale (POS) systems used by small retailers are not configured for itemization and would require costly upgrades or training; supporters countered many retailers already have POS capability and that itemization would align Guam with practices in Hawaii (general excise tax itemization) and New Mexico (gross receipts tax itemization). Several senators noted DRT staffing constraints raised in committee testimony and urged that the agency receive the resources it needs to implement rule‑making and enforcement.

- Bonds and fiscal constraints: The sponsor and several colleagues noted the island’s bond covenants — a portion of BPT revenue is pledged to debt service — and said any future conversion from BPT to a sales tax would require multi‑year revenue data and careful coordination with bondholders. The sponsor argued itemization is a step toward transparent data collection, not an automatic conversion to a sales tax.

Floor votes and formal actions

- Amendment to change DRT rule‑making deadline from 90 days to 6 months (and to allow a 6‑month implementation period): Adopted on the floor without objection.

- Amendment to require that agency rules be processed under the Administrative Adjudication Act (AAA) prior to implementation: Adopted on the floor.

- Addition of Senator Cabell as a cosponsor: Adopted on the floor.

- Motion to place Bill 59‑38, as amended, on the third‑reading voting file: After discussion and an objection, the motion carried by voice/hand raise. The transcript records the motion passing; no roll‑call tally with individual member names was recorded in the floor exchange included in the transcript.

Why this matters

The measure addresses how a major recurring revenue source is communicated to consumers but intersects with several constraints: DRT capacity, the island’s bond covenants and the operational reality of Guam’s many small retailers. Supporters say itemization would improve public understanding of tax incidence; opponents say it risks increasing visible prices for consumers and imposing compliance costs on small businesses without clear consumer benefit.

What remains unresolved

The bill was placed on the third‑reading file, meaning final passage will depend on subsequent floor action. If enacted, DRT will issue rules and guidance during the amended rule‑making window and administer any penalties. Several senators pressed for a DRT staffing and budget assessment before the agency begins implementation.

Ending note

Senator Duenas said the measure is intended to increase transparency rather than to raise taxes and urged colleagues to treat it as a constructive reform. Opponents said they fear it will accelerate pressure to convert Guam’s business privilege tax into a retail sales tax.

","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","38th Guam Legislature Regular Session - May 28, 2025 PM PT.1","oneSentenceSummary","The Guam Legislature on the floor advanced Bill 59‑38 — the Business Privilege Tax Transparency Act of 2025 — to the third‑reading file after debate over whether requiring businesses to itemize the business privilege tax on receipts will aid consumer understanding or simply shift costs to shoppers.","taxTitle","General Government Operations and Appropriations\t, Legislative, Guam","taxId",18139,"location","","headline","shortSummary",{"_33":76,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":77,"_41":78,"_43":79,"_45":80,"_47":81,"_49":82,"_51":83,"_53":84,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":85,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":86,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":72,"_74":72},6531344,"Legislature debates bill to expand GIAA leasing authority; procurement amendment fails",5141,7384000,12525000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=3550676-8e3a39b4f0068b652989cf633f51e0a4&start=7384&end=12525","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3550676-8e3a39b4f0068b652989cf633f51e0a4/thumbnail_7384000.jpg","/articles/6531344/Legislature-debates-bill-to-expand-GIAA-leasing-authority-procurement-amendment-fails","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6531344-ca9e47707d1fc44654cf24b271e40a8a/orig.mp4?Expires=1771155628&Signature=Fh5qpKBNqI4RYdt8uW2MjOEGKm1nzGURj3IAjD0pPMU1OG1VmgFzrahQgKQXjop2e785KPGnhYJ-Ft7L4CxRYONe7MWCsfNDUi4WU0MwemnKmoqOClTM4bsQqhKskwn-JVKgC0oIN7mmTZwQRZ0ZSQegs6UJh-gl4HNNSqhNG8vxATVidyopTy1UkVZJKiItLdkIk2s9cpgVaNvItCdqvsePMXJwahK14AkWyDCLcGRfp~T-Yc7SbhLMQtUzvsDJylhnhcw60M4PGOEosxUYCaDL2wik~Mcca-W0juAksy3UpCEfaSmfTMRYtEpzlVEerSZwyLBn3Np2Qp5uZgbw7A__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Lawmakers engaged in extended debate over Bill 67‑38, a measure to amend section 1203.1 of Title 12, Article 2 of the Guam Code Annotated to grant the Guam International Airport Authority (GIAA) expanded authority to set policies and procedures for solicitation, selection and awards of agreements for airport facilities and visitor‑related activities.

Sponsor remarks and objectives

The bill’s sponsor described the measure as a tool to make the airport competitive with regional peers, to attract airlines, aviation maintenance work and private investment, and to allow development of non‑aeronautical revenue streams on airport property. Speakers who supported the bill said longer concession and lease terms are commonly used elsewhere to give investors time to recover capital and that the airport’s expanded runway and facilities make Guam attractive for hangar construction, aircraft maintenance and final assembly operations that could create jobs.

Opposition and concerns raised

Opponents and some fellow senators urged caution. Objections included: the length of some proposed lease terms (up to 50 years), the bill’s proposed carve‑outs from standard procurement oversight, the need to protect the public trust over airport land and the potential conflict with bond covenants and FAA requirements. Several senators asked for stronger transparency provisions, public posting of policy drafts and an assurance that federal obligations (FAA fair‑market‑value requirements and bond covenant restrictions) would be met.

Floor amendments and votes

- Committee amendments: The bill as considered on the floor incorporated committee‑level changes, including requirements that concession policies be competitively solicited and that certain policies be subject to public posting and hearings.

- Proposed amendment to make airport agreements subject to Guam procurement law (5 GCA Chapter 5): A floor amendment that would have restored explicit procurement‑law compliance for airport leases and procurement was moved and debated. That amendment failed on the floor; the transcript records a hand‑raise count in favor of the amendment of four senators and an announced result that the amendment failed (floor language: \"Amendment fails. Ladies and gentlemen, it's quad 20 to 6\").

- Other changes: The bill contains provisions that require GIAA to follow FAA requirements, fair‑market‑value rules for certain non‑aeronautical leases, and to include prohibitions consistent with Guam law on activities that are not permitted (the sponsor said gaming had been explicitly addressed in prior committee markup).

Why this matters

Supporters argue Bill 67‑38 could catalyze economic diversification by enabling the airport to offer incentives and terms that attract maintenance, repair and overhaul (MRO) businesses, cargo assembly operations, and other aviation‑adjacent industries. Opponents say the bill grants too broad an administrative authority without sufficient public procurement safeguards and risks locking the public into long‑term agreements without adequate legislative oversight.

Votes and next steps

The transcript records the failed procurement amendment and multiple senators’ recorded support for the bill, but the full final disposition of Bill 67‑38 (final third‑reading vote) is not captured in the provided excerpt. Sponsors said the measure is being closely watched by potential investors and by the governor’s office overseas, and supporters urged timely action to attract interest.

Ending note

Lawmakers split between enabling airport competitiveness and preserving procurement safeguards. The failed procurement amendment signals a majority of the floor accepted broader airport authority in this session; however, senators pressed GIAA leadership for accountability and public transparency as the bill proceeds.","The Legislature debated Bill 67‑38 to expand the Guam International Airport Authority's authority to solicit and award long‑term leases and concession agreements, with supporters arguing it will attract maintenance and investment and opponents warning of procurement and oversight risks.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Guam Legislature advances BPT Transparency Act after debate over consumer impact and agency capacity

Legislature debates bill to expand GIAA leasing authority; procurement amendment fails