Representative Jenkins Arno introduced House Bill 48-16, saying the bill ‘‘is another opportunity for Michiganders to invest in Michigan businesses and allow us to take care of our own.’’ The sponsor said the proposal would create a tax credit intended to incentivize small-dollar, local investments in qualified Michigan businesses.

Under the terms described in committee testimony, the credit would equal 50% of an investor’s qualified contribution and could be carried forward for up to 10 years. Witnesses described the statutory structure as permitting investments in any ‘‘qualified Michigan business’’ that has the majority of its property, employees and sales in the state. Presenters said the credit was aimed at retail (non‑accredited) investors and said a $100 minimum investment threshold was being considered to broaden participation.

Outside witnesses, including Chris Miller, a special projects consultant with Plain Wave in Lenawee County, told the committee the bill builds on Michigan’s 2013 Michigan Invest Locally Exemption (MILE Act) and is designed to keep capital circulating inside local communities. ‘‘We want to activate regular folks, known as retail investors,’’ Miller said, describing efforts in Adrian and Lansing to form community investment funds and to pair investments with local training and governance structures.

Janan Jaundy of Michigan State University’s Center for Regional Economic Innovation said the approach targets low‑income communities by creating household and community wealth when residents can both invest and receive returns. Developer Brent Forsberg described a Southwest Lansing project he said would use community investment to support predevelopment and career-pathway training for local residents.

Committee members asked technical questions. Representative Postumas sought clarification on the phrase ‘‘majority of sales’’ and whether out‑of‑state revenues would disqualify a business; witnesses said the bill applies an ‘‘IRS 80% rule’’ style test (the witnesses identified the IRS framework as the model) and agreed to provide precise statutory language to the committee. Representative Young asked about fiscal impacts for school funding and whether the bill’s intent language required annual appropriations; witnesses said the likely fiscal effect is unknown and cited a 2019 Nova Scotia example presented as a model, where tax credits supported investment and job creation in a provincial pilot.

No final committee vote on HB 48-16 is recorded in the transcript. Committee staff read three written cards in support from trade and regional groups before the committee moved on to other agenda items.

Clarifying details from testimony: the sponsor and witnesses repeatedly described the credit as 50% of an investment with investments ‘‘up to $6,000 per year’’ and a resulting maximum credit of $3,000 per investor per year (50% of $6,000). The transcript includes an earlier, inconsistent phrasing that referenced a $6,000 annual maximum benefit; the bill text and witnesses’ fuller descriptions indicate the structure intended in testimony was a 50% credit capped at $3,000 (on $6,000 invested) with a 10‑year carryforward. The committee did not adopt or vote on the bill during the session recorded.

Next steps: witnesses offered to provide additional drafting clarifications about the statutory definition of a ‘‘Michigan business’’ and to supply more detailed fiscal modeling to the committee.