Committee advances House Bill 165 to clarify unclaimed property and securities rules
February 17, 2025 | Revenue and Taxation, HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, Committees, Legislative, Idaho
This article was created by AI summarizing key points discussed. AI makes mistakes, so for full details and context, please refer to the video of the full meeting. Please report any errors so we can fix them. Report an error »
The House Revenue and Taxation Committee on Feb. 17, 2025, voted to send House Bill 165 to the floor with a due-pass recommendation after sponsor Representative Joe Alfieri (District 4) and Treasurer Ellsworth described technical cleanups to the state's unclaimed property and securities code.
Alfieri told the committee the bill follows recent, broader revisions to the unclaimed property provisions and makes three targeted fixes: it clarifies when a holder must notify a property owner, aligns state securities rules with national practice, and clarifies transitional language related to remittance timing. Alfieri said the holder must notify the apparent owner no later than two years after the last activity in the account.
"You may remember that we recently revised the unclaimed property provisions ... this is, in addition to that, we're cleaning up what happens in unclaimed property code and regarding renewal and a sheet notice on property," Representative Joe Alfieri said. On the specific timing he added that holders must notify the apparent owner “no later than 2 years after the last interest in the property was put forth.”
Treasurer Ellsworth, who the sponsor identified as available for technical questions, told the committee that the term "property" in the code is a broad term and that securities are treated in a separate section because the securities industry has different expiration and reporting timelines tied to national regulation. He described three principal changes in the bill: clarifying the renewal (notice) process, aligning the securities section with national practice, and tightening a transitional phrase previously interpreted by some as allowing very long remittance delays.
"The term property in the unclaimed property code is a very generic term," Treasurer Ellsworth said. "There are three separate changes in this. One is ... the renewal process on a bi yearly basis. ... The second the securities code that we aligned it with what is happening nationally. And the third thing we did is we took transitional periods ... we found nationally that many interpreted it promptly as 30 years." (Ellsworth's remarks appear close to verbatim from committee testimony.)
Representative Birch asked whether replacing the words "security" with "property" or "account" in specific lines could create confusion. Ellsworth said industry stakeholders worked with staff and that terms of art in the securities industry inform the drafting and, in his view, the changes do not create unintended confusion.
Representative Schurz moved to send the bill to the floor with a due-pass recommendation; the committee approved the motion by voice vote. Representative Alfieri was identified as the floor sponsor for House Bill 165.
Alfieri told the committee the bill follows recent, broader revisions to the unclaimed property provisions and makes three targeted fixes: it clarifies when a holder must notify a property owner, aligns state securities rules with national practice, and clarifies transitional language related to remittance timing. Alfieri said the holder must notify the apparent owner no later than two years after the last activity in the account.
"You may remember that we recently revised the unclaimed property provisions ... this is, in addition to that, we're cleaning up what happens in unclaimed property code and regarding renewal and a sheet notice on property," Representative Joe Alfieri said. On the specific timing he added that holders must notify the apparent owner “no later than 2 years after the last interest in the property was put forth.”
Treasurer Ellsworth, who the sponsor identified as available for technical questions, told the committee that the term "property" in the code is a broad term and that securities are treated in a separate section because the securities industry has different expiration and reporting timelines tied to national regulation. He described three principal changes in the bill: clarifying the renewal (notice) process, aligning the securities section with national practice, and tightening a transitional phrase previously interpreted by some as allowing very long remittance delays.
"The term property in the unclaimed property code is a very generic term," Treasurer Ellsworth said. "There are three separate changes in this. One is ... the renewal process on a bi yearly basis. ... The second the securities code that we aligned it with what is happening nationally. And the third thing we did is we took transitional periods ... we found nationally that many interpreted it promptly as 30 years." (Ellsworth's remarks appear close to verbatim from committee testimony.)
Representative Birch asked whether replacing the words "security" with "property" or "account" in specific lines could create confusion. Ellsworth said industry stakeholders worked with staff and that terms of art in the securities industry inform the drafting and, in his view, the changes do not create unintended confusion.
Representative Schurz moved to send the bill to the floor with a due-pass recommendation; the committee approved the motion by voice vote. Representative Alfieri was identified as the floor sponsor for House Bill 165.
View full meeting
This article is based on a recent meeting—watch the full video and explore the complete transcript for deeper insights into the discussion.
View full meeting