Governor Signs Tax Cut For Small Business Bill

Governor Signs Tax Cut For Small Business Bill

Senate Bill 1783, legislation that further reduces and streamlines taxes, was signed by Governor Doug Ducey on Friday. Sen. JD Mesnard and Rep. Ben Toma led the fight for the bill in order to protect small businesses from the threat of a 77 percent tax increase.

“This tax cut will keep Arizona competitive for small businesses already operating here and new businesses flocking here every day,” Ducey said in a press release. “After a year as tough as the last, we should not be raising taxes on our small businesses — we should be cutting their taxes. That’s exactly what Senate Bill 1783 does. Arizona has now passed the largest tax cut in state history and will have the lowest flat tax in the country. My thanks go out to Senator J.D. Mesnard and Representative Ben Toma for their leadership on this issue.”

Senate Bill 1783 establishes a new and lower alternative small business income tax structure. Under the plan, “small business income” is defined as interest, dividends, profits and certain capital gains.

“Small businesses are the backbone of our economy and integral to the future success of our state,” Mesnard said. “Small businesses should be able to grow and reinvest in themselves without being forced to pay astronomical taxes. Rather, government should get out of the way so that they can thrive. That’s why I’m so grateful for the support of Governor Ducey and my colleagues in the Legislature.”

This tax relief will ensure small businesses continue to choose Arizona to start, expand or relocate operations. Small businesses are a core component of our state’s economy, making up more than 99 percent of Arizona’s businesses and employing more than one million people. Because of the structure of the 3.5 percent surcharge on individual income tax under Proposition 208, small businesses will not be subject to this crippling tax hike.

“It’s a no-brainer to have a separate tax structure for small businesses,” said Toma. “It should be our goal as public servants to make filing taxes easier for Arizonans. This session has been a massive win for Arizona taxpayers. Thank you to the governor and the many who supported this bill.”

The bill allows taxpayers to exclude small business income from their total individual income. Instead, small business income will be subject to an alternate small business income tax. A flat tax on small business income will phase in over time:

  • 3.5 percent in 2021
  • 3.0 percent in 2022
  • 2.8 percent in 2023 and 2024
  • 2.5 percent in and after 2025

Governor Ducey signed this year’s budget on June 30, which fulfills his commitment to ensuring working families, small businesses, veterans and all Arizona taxpayers get to keep more of their hard-earned money.

The budget implements the largest tax cut in state history. Arizona taxpayers will see a 2.5 percent flat tax phased in over three years and subject to certain revenue thresholds being met beginning on January 1, 2022. The tax plan saves money for every Arizona taxpayer no matter their income, eliminates income taxes on veterans’ military pensions, and increases the optional charitable contribution deduction over time to 100 percent.

The Washington Post and the Wall Street Journal’s editorial board published columns about the tax plan and the positive effects it will have on Arizona. Additionally, Governor Ducey, Senate President Karen Fann and House Speaker Rusty Bowers authored a joint op-ed about the historic tax reform in the Phoenix Business Journal.

Ducey Signs Bill Prohibiting Racist Training Of Government Employees, CRT In Classrooms

Ducey Signs Bill Prohibiting Racist Training Of Government Employees, CRT In Classrooms

By B. Hamilton |

PHOENIX — On Friday, Governor Doug Ducey signed legislation sponsored by Rep. Jake Hoffman, HB2906, which prohibits the state and any local governments from requiring their employees to engage in orientation, training or therapy that suggest an employee is inherently racist, sexist or oppressive, whether consciously or unconsciously.

“Critical Race Theory and it’s divisive, bigoted ideas have become a growing problem within Arizona governments,” said Rep Hoffman. “Often times disguised by innocuous sounding terms like “equity,” this Marxism-based movement has crept up in cities and school districts throughout our state including the cities of Phoenix, Tucson, and Flagstaff, among many others. Arizonans rightfully refuse to support racism and this legislation ensures that remains the commitment of our state.”

“I applaud Jake Hoffman and our legislature for taking strong action to stop the insidious, racist ideology packaged under CRT from infecting our government any more than it already has,” said Phoenix City Councilman Sal DiCiccio.

“Phoenix currently has multiple CRT-based programs employees are being subjected to – they won’t call them CRT, they’re smart enough to use generic “equity” language – but that’s exactly what they are,” explained DiCiccio. “Worse, it’s not just employees being indoctrinated with this garbage, multiple programs like our recently passed Climate Action Plan and the Office of Arts and Culture’s Racial Equity Learning Cohort are actively pushing CRT on the public.”

“As educators and citizens concerned with the future of our state, our goal should be to achieve unity and diversity,” said Kathleen Winn Maricopa Community College Governing Board member. “Unity as people with shared dignity, but diversity of thought and beliefs. When you create conflict and try to transform society through bias and hatred you only perpetuate hatred. I am grateful for this legislation crafted and passed in response to the public outcry to end Critical Race Theory.”

Governor Ducey’s signing of HB 2906 follows the signing of HB 2898 last week. That law ensures that students cannot be taught that one race, ethnic group or sex is in any way superior to another, or that anyone should be discriminated against on the basis of these characteristics. The law allows a fine of up to $5,000 for schools that violate the law.

“As a school board member,” said EVIT School Board Member Shelli Boggs. “I have seen firsthand taxpayer funds being spent to train hundreds of board members and staff from across the state on the disgusting racist ideology called Critical Race Theory. I’m glad the legislature put an end to this pervasive abuse of taxpayer money.”

Maricopa County Officials Remain Mum About Cyberattack On Voter Data Files 8 Months Ago

Maricopa County Officials Remain Mum About Cyberattack On Voter Data Files 8 Months Ago

By Terri Jo Neff |

Articles published by some media outlets this week that top Arizona officials knew of a cyberattack of Maricopa County’s voter registration files last fall but have kept it hidden are incorrect, as shown by the level of news coverage the hack received in December and January.

Part of the problem, however, is Maricopa County officials did not respond to the cyberattack in a proactive manner when it was discovered during the 2020 General Election. There was no press conference nor even a press release advising the community that voter registration data had been hacked.

The dearth of updates has not helped instill voter confidence in the months since then if social media comments are representative of community mood. And a letter Maricopa County Recorder Stephen Richer has sent to some voters is not helping, as it contains an inaccurate claim about how county officials responded to the cyberattack.

News of the cyberattack was first announced in early December in a Forbes article which revealed FBI agents armed with a federal search warrant raided a Fountain Hills condominium on Nov. 5, 2020, two days after the General Election. The agents went to the residence of Ellen and Elliot Kerwin looking for evidence of the cyberattack, according to court records.

The search resulted in the seizure of several computers from the Kerwin home, along with eight hard drives, and a bunch of electronic accessories.

Megan Gilbertson, a Maricopa County spokeswoman, confirmed the cyberattack to Forbes for its Dec. 4 article and she has insisted that the only voter data the hacker or hackers accessed from Oct. 21 to Nov. 4 was information about voters which is already public by law.

“Analysis by the Maricopa County Recorder’s Office IT Security indicates an unauthorized individual gathered publicly accessible voter information from our website,” Gilbertson said. “Additional security controls were put in place to mitigate against this activity occurring in the future.”

But what Gilbertson failed to say is how someone was able to access the county’s voter registration files and whether the hacker tried to get into other county databases. Other Maricopa County officials have appeared to try to divert attention away from the cyber incursion or to minimize the impact, often stating there were “no problems” with the election.

Steve Chucri of the Maricopa County Board of Supervisors announced just hours before the Forbes article was published that he was considering asking for a third-party audit of the county’s Dominion Voting System machines, even as the canvas was still pending in the nation’s fourth populous county.

Then after Stephen Richer was sworn in as the county’s new recorder in January he sent a notice to some voters addressing the hack. The notice tells “Dear Voter” that the county’s IT Security Department “immediately identified the attack and successfully took steps to stop the activity.”

However, it is apparent from FBI documents that the IT department did not “immediately” stop the breach, as the attack occurred over 15 days.

A spokeswoman for the U.S. Department of Justice told AZ Free News in May the agency cannot comment about the cyberattack as it is part of an ongoing investigation. But voters seem to be growing impatient with the lack of accurate and timely information more than eight months after the hack.

Among the questions left unanswered is whether the cyberattack was undertaken simply to see if it could be done, or was it intended to cast doubt about the election? Also, was the hack possible due to lax county protocols or possibly even by the unintentional actions of a county employee?

More importantly, is Maricopa County’s reticence connected in any way to the board of supervisors’ refusal to comply with a Senate subpoena for access to the election department’s internet routers?

The most critical question, however, is when will county officials come clean with a complete explanation of how someone hacked the voter records of a major government body.

RELATED ARTICLES:

Who Hacked Into Maricopa County’s Voter Files And What Data Did They Get?

Chucri Offers Support For 3rd Party Audit Of Dominion Machines Day Before Voter Info Theft News Broke

Arizona Files Final Brief To Halt Biden Tax Mandate

Arizona Files Final Brief To Halt Biden Tax Mandate

The Arizona Attorney General’s Office has filed the final brief in Arizona’s lawsuit against the U.S. Department of Treasury and federal officials challenging the Tax Mandate of the American Rescue Plan Act (Act) because it threatens to penalize states by withholding federal COVID-19 relief funding if they lower taxes in any fashion.

Arizona is asking that the Court declare the condition unenforceable and enjoin enforcement of the Tax Mandate. It does not seek to prevent Arizona from receiving the COVID-19 funds.

The Attorney General’s brief argues that the Tax Mandate is unconstitutionally ambiguous in that Congress failed to give Arizona and other states fair notice of the conditions upon which federal funds were being offered. Binding U.S. Supreme Court precedent has held that such ambiguity is fatal. In addition, Arizona’s brief argues that prohibiting any and all tax cuts is not properly related to federal spending.

After hearing oral argument on June 22, U.S. District Judge Diane Humetewa agreed to consolidate trial on the merits and issue a final judgment in this case. She also permitted both sides to file a final brief, which Arizona filed late Wednesday night.

The Court is expected to rule on the case and issue a final judgment in due course.

Hackett King Appointed To Arizona Supreme Court, Fills Vacancy Left By Gould

Hackett King Appointed To Arizona Supreme Court, Fills Vacancy Left By Gould

By B. Hamilton |

On Friday, Kathryn Hackett King, a member of the Arizona Board of Regents and University of Arizona College of Law graduate, was appointed to the Arizona Supreme Court.

Kin’s appointment by Governor Doug Ducey fills the vacancy created by the resignation of Justice Andrew Gould.

Gould is currently running in the Arizona Attorney General’s race.

King’s appointment to the court now leaves a vacancy on the Arizona Board of Regents

King is the fifth woman in Arizona history to serve on the Supreme Court.

King is currently a partner at Burns Barton PLC. The focus of her practice is the representation of private and public employers in employment litigation and related civil matters.  King is a member of the Arizona Women Lawyers Association and a mentor for the Latina Mentoring Project.

King began her private practice career at Snell & Wilmer LLP, where she practiced in the areas of employment law and commercial and business litigation.

From 2015 to 2017, King served as Deputy General Counsel to Ducey, according to the Governor’s Office. King clerked for Arizona Supreme Court Justice Michael D. Ryan from 2007 to 2008.

King graduated from Duke University with a Bachelor of Arts, majoring in Political Science and minoring in History. She obtained her law degree from the University of Arizona James E. Rogers College of Law.

“Kate’s strong belief in the separation of powers and experience serving in all three branches of government will serve the people of Arizona well,” Ducey said in a released statement. “I have witnessed her intelligence and wisdom firsthand, and I know she is well-respected in the legal field.”

Court Of Appeals Rules Jury Must Decide If Business Is Liable After Employee Killed A Woman

Court Of Appeals Rules Jury Must Decide If Business Is Liable After Employee Killed A Woman

By Terri Jo Neff |

A jury can decide whether a Tucson business is vicariously liable for the 2018 death of a woman killed by one of the company’s employees, according to a recent decision by the Arizona Court of Appeals.

In May, the court unanimously overturned a 2020 decision by a Pima County judge who had ruled Casas Custom Floor Care was not responsible for the actions of its employee, Martin Montano, who caused the death of Samantha Jo Cravens after running a red light on his way to the company’s office.

According to court records, Montano left a job site at the end of his shift and headed to the Casas Custom office to fill out and correct his timesheet. During the drive Montano collided with a car driven by Cravens, 29, who suffered fatal injuries.

Michael Corey Cravens, Samantha’s husband, filed a wrongful death lawsuit against Montano and his employer in April 2019. Court records show Montano settled with Cravens in late 2019 but Casas Custom contended the company was not liable for its employee’s conduct.

In January 2020, the Humphrey & Petersen Law Firm filed a motion for summary judgment on behalf of Casas Custom to have the employer dismissed from Cravens’ lawsuit. The company argued Montano “was not acting within the course and scope of employment” and that there was an absence of an employer’s “right of control” over the employee.

The motion for summary judgment was granted in May 2020 by Judge Brenden Griffin of the Pima County Superior Court and Casas Custom was dismissed from the lawsuit.

Cravens, who is represented by the law office of Mesch, Clark, and Rothschild, appealed the grant of summary judgment. On May 25, Vice Chief Judge Christopher Staring of the Arizona Court of Appeals authored a unanimous decision reversing Griffin’s dismissal order.

Staring wrote that an employer can be found vicariously liable for an employee’s work-related conduct if the employee was “acting within the scope of their employment.” Scope of employment is defined by the court as an employee performing work “assigned by the employer or engaging in a course of conduct subject to the employer’s control.”

The Court of Appeals found there is a material factual dispute in Cravens’ lawsuit about whether Montano’s conduct was outside the scope of his employment. That makes Casas Custom’s liability a question for a jury, not a judge, Staring wrote.

Casas Custom Floor Care did not petition the Arizona Supreme Court for review of the appellate decision. The Pima County Superior Court will be mandated in a few weeks to conduct further proceedings in accordance to the decision.

Public records show Cravens’ case has been now reassigned to Judge D. Douglas Metcalf. In April, Metcalf was asked by Cincinnati Indemnity Company to grant a motion of summary judgment for dismissal of another part of Cravens’ lawsuit. One of the issues is whether a “Morris Agreement” entered into by Montano to settle the portion of the case against him is enforceable.

According to the Arizona Supreme Court, an insurer like Cincinnati Indemnity can accept defense of a claim while still reserving its right to contest coverage. The insured also has the option to independently enter into a settlement, provided the insured continues to cooperate with the insurer during the litigation.

The settlement, known as a Morris Agreement, “must be made fairly, with notice to the insurer, and without fraud or collusion on the insurer” in order to be valid. An insurer is not bound to a Morris Agreement unless it is reasonable and prudent, something Metcalf is expected to rule on this summer.

In the meantime, the judge will hear arguments on July 23 concerning other pending motions involving Cincinnati Indemnity and Cravens.

Montano, 32, was criminally charged in November 2018 with failure to stop for a red light and causing an accident which resulted in death or serious injury. The case was prosecuted as a misdemeanor and ended in a plea by Montano in 2019 of guilty or responsible.

Details as to what sentence was imposed on Montano were not available from the Pima Justice Court as of press time but the longest jail sentence allowed for a misdemeanor is one year.